International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in

B2C e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust
Ilyoo B. Hong ∗ , Hwihyung Cho
College of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 156-756, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The online merchant of an e-marketplace consists of an intermediary, providing the market infrastructure,
Available online 5 March 2011 and the community of sellers conducting business within that infrastructure. Typically, consumers will-
ingly buy from unknown sellers within an e-marketplace, despite the apparent risk, since they trust the
Keywords: institutional mechanisms furnished by the relatively well-known intermediary. Consumers’ trust in one
B2C e-marketplace component of the e-marketplace merchant may not only affect their trust in the other, but also influence
Consumer trust
the way consumers make online purchases. This paper explores the impact of trust on consumer behavior
Intermediary
in e-marketplaces. An empirical study has been conducted to accomplish our research objectives, using
Purchase intentions
Attitudinal loyalty
a questionnaire survey of 222 active e-marketplace shoppers in Korea. The results reveal that consumer
trust in an intermediary has a strong influence upon both attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions,
although consumer trust in the community of sellers has no significant effect on the two constructs rep-
resenting consumer behavior. In addition, it was found that trust is transferred from an intermediary to
the community of sellers, implying that the trustworthiness of the intermediary plays a critical role in
determining the extent to which consumers trust and accept the sellers in the e-marketplace. This paper
offers some implications from the findings of the research.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today, online marketplaces are growing at an unprecedented
rate, and the volume of transactions in e-marketplaces is expand-
ing. One obvious reason for this new trend is that online consumers
find it more beneficial to shop at e-marketplaces than at digital
storefronts, due to the reduced purchasing costs resulting from
the ability to shop comparatively among multiple sellers. Unfortu-
nately, the number of incidents of fraud and other victimization in
e-marketplaces has been on the rise too. For example, Internet auc-
tion fraud has been, by far, the most reported offense, comprising
42.8% of 49,711 total referred cases in 2001, 61.0% of 63,316 cases in
2003, and 35.7% of 219,553 cases in 2007 (Internet Crime Complaint
Center, 2007). E-marketplaces are especially vulnerable to threats
originating from transactions conducted over the Internet. This
is chiefly because the e-marketplace business model involves an
intermediary who connects sellers with buyers, and intermediaries
are not responsible for controlling the sales transactions conducted
by the sellers.
Online marketplaces have a range of IT-enabled institutional
mechanisms (e.g., feedback mechanisms, third-party escrow ser-
vices, and credit card guarantees) in place to ensure that buyer trust
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 820 5549.
E-mail address: ihong@cau.ac.kr (I.B. Hong).
in the community of online sellers comes into existence (Pavlou &
Gefen, 2004). Besides, electronic intermediaries minimize transac-
tion risks by establishing policies and rules to build trust in the
sellers (Clark & Lee, 1999). Nevertheless, consumers’ discontent
with the fundamental lack of trust on the part of e-marketplaces as
a whole remains a barrier to the growth of intermediary-based e-
commerce. Trust in e-marketplaces often becomes a major issue
for two reasons. First, e-marketplaces typically consist of SOHO
(small office home office) sellers who process a limited volume of
transactions daily and handle returns or exchanges with limited
manpower resources. Second, the e-marketplace business model
involves two parties who act to serve customers for transactions:
namely, an intermediary and sellers. For that reason, it may often
become obscure who is responsible for problems that may occur in
the course of order fulfillment. As competition among the service
providers becomes more intense, most companies focus on short-
term goals, like increasing sales and transaction volumes, rather
than long-term goals, like improving consumer trust and sustain-
ing loyal customers. It is imperative that e-marketplaces take steps
to establish trust so that consumers can engage in transactions with
good faith in the service providers of the marketplace.
The trust literature suggests that trust importantly affects
consumer behavior in electronic commerce. Since in online mar-
ketplaces, trust is viewed as consisting of two categories including
intermediary trust and seller trust, it will be essential to under-
stand how these two types of consumer trust influence purchase

0268-4012/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.02.001
470 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
behavior. However, related studies (for example, Pavlou & Gefen,
2004; Verhagen, Meents, & Tan, 2006) have focused on examining
the effects of only seller trust on consumers’ purchase behavior.
Little attention has been paid to a comparative examination of the
direct influence of intermediary trust and seller trust on purchas-
ing. In addition, it will be worthwhile to study possible transfer
of trust between an intermediary and the community of sellers.
Provided that the transfer occurs, it is arguable that consumers
put reliance on unknown sellers associated with the trustworthy
intermediary. Meanwhile, while trustworthiness and trust are two
related, but distinct, concepts, researchers tend to use the terms
interchangeably. Perceived trustworthiness of a merchant is often
a determinant of overall trust in that merchant, and therefore there
exists a need to investigate the influence of merchant trustworthi-
ness on the subsequent trust in the e-marketplace setting.
This paper explores the impact of buyer’s trust in online mar-
ketplaces on consumer behavior. It focuses on the following three
Research Questions (RQ) that will be answered through an empir-
ical study. RQ 1: “How does each factor of trustworthiness affect
consumer trust in an intermediary?” RQ 2: “Is trust in an inter-
mediary transferable to trust in the community of sellers in online
marketplaces?” RQ 3: “How does trust in an intermediary and trust
in the community of sellers respectively influence customer’s atti-
tudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in online marketplaces?”
2. Literature review
In this section, we present a theoretical background of the
present research. First, we discuss the trust concept in the con-
text of electronic commerce. Second, three attributes of merchant
trustworthiness, including ability, benevolence, and integrity, are
introduced as antecedents of consumer trust in a merchant. Thirdly,
we review literature related to two categories of trust in e-
marketplaces, namely trust in an intermediary and trust in a
community of sellers. Finally, we will take a look at the impact trust
has on consumer behavior, more specifically customer loyalty and
purchase intentions.
2.1. What trust means in e-commerce
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2010) defines trust as
“assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of
someone or something.” Despite this seemingly simple nature of
the definition, trust is perhaps one of the most highly challeng-
ing terms whose concepts are hardly agreed upon by researchers
within diverse academic disciplines. Such disagreements are rooted
in the differences in viewpoints about the concept. Trust in mar-
keting involves a consumer’s perceived reliability on the brand,
products, or services of a merchant (Flavian, Guinaliu, & Gurrea,
2006), whereas trust in the context of politics or international rela-
tions reflects a situation where one party does not betray another
party in pursuit of financial or other imminent interest. In general
terms, trust is defined as the willingness of a 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, irre-
spective of the ability to monitor or control that other party (Chai &
Kim, 2010; Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). For that reason, the
trustor may engage in activities where there may exist risks (Gefen,
2000). Therefore, accepting trust involves taking a certain degree
of risk.
In electronic commerce, trust remains a critical issue because
consumers face the challenge of buying online from an unfamil-
iar merchant a product or service that they cannot actually see
or touch. Trust plays a central role in helping consumers over-
come perceptions of risk and insecurity (McKnight, Choudhury, &
Kacmar, 2002). Since privacy and security concerns are major bar-
riers to the Internet channel, without trust customers will not give
vendors personal information, including credit card information
(Hoffman, Novak, & Peralta, 1999).
Trust is a governance mechanism in exchange relation-
ships characterized by uncertainty, vulnerability, and dependence
(Bradach & Eccles, 1989; Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, & Vitale, 2000).
Because trust has been found to affect the buying behavior of con-
sumers (Shurr & Ozanne, 1985) and to serve as a key determinant
of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships (Ganesan,
1994), it has become crucial for online merchants to build con-
sumers’ trust.
2.2. Trustworthiness attributes as antecedents of trust
Mayer et al. (1995) argue that there are three characteristics of
a trustee that cause them to be more or less trusted. These factors
of trustworthiness include ability (or competence), benevolence,
and integrity. Ability enables a party to have influence within some
specific domain. Ability in the context of electronic commerce may
include good product knowledge, fast delivery, and quality cus-
tomer service, among others. Benevolence, according to Mayer et al.
(1995), refers to the extent to which a trustee is believed to want
to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive. A
trustee may want to help a trustor merely from warm-heartedness,
neither because the trustee is required to nor because there is any
extrinsic reward for the trustee. Finally, integrity has to do with the
trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles
that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995). An electronic
commerce merchant may try to maintain integrity by abiding by
shopping rules and policies specified on their Website.
Lee and Turban (2001) suggest that the three attributes of trust-
worthiness introduced above are conducive to the building of trust.
In a similar context, McKnight and Chervany (2002) argue that trust
in a Web vendor consists of trusting beliefs and trusting intentions,
and that these beliefs serve as a good predictor of trusting inten-
tions. According to their theory, a consumer who believes that a
Web vendor meets his or her expectations in terms of integrity,
competence, and benevolence is likely to have a strong intention to
trust that vendor, eventually ending up purchasing from that ven-
dor. The intention to trust a vendor refers to the inclination to rely
on the other party and to be vulnerable to the behavior of that party
(McKnight et al., 2002). In this regard, the present paper regards
trustworthiness attributes as important antecedents of consumer
trust.
2.3. Trust in e-marketplaces: intermediary trust vs. seller trust
Online transactions in digital storefronts involve trust in dyadic
relationships (i.e., one-to-one relationship between a buyer and a
seller). Dyadic trust is formed when the buyer has a belief that the
transaction partner will behave with goodwill and in a favorable
way, although the acceptance of trust involves taking certain risks
(Doney & Cannon, 1997). On the other hand, trust in online mar-
ketplaces is more intricate, since the online marketplace business
model involves two categories of service providers: an interme-
diary and the community of sellers. Consumers have to deal with
trust in the community of sellers (i.e., one-to-many relationship
between a buyer and many sellers) as well as trust in an intermedi-
ary (Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). Whereas intermediary trust concerns
the intermediary as mediating ‘care-taker’, seller trust reflects per-
ceptions of trust in the counterpart of a transaction (Verhagen et al.,
2006).
‘Intermediary trust’ refers to the security one feels regarding
the efforts of the intermediary to apply guarantees, regulations,
safety nets or other structures effectively (Shapiro, 1987). Typically,
 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
one of the key roles of the intermediary in an e-marketplace is to
convince consumers that buying from an unknown seller is risk-
free. This ‘assurance’ role can be achieved in two ways. Above all,
e-marketplaces can develop their trustworthiness through institu-
tional mechanisms; for example, a warranty guaranteed by a third
party (e.g. VeriSign or Web Trust) will assure consumers that they
are protected. Alternately, the intermediary can focus on estab-
lishing a trusted brand-name (Barnes & Hinton, 2007) through
aggressive marketing programs; for example, consumers find the
well-known eBay and Amazon marketplaces more trustworthy
than unfamiliar ones. Thus, the more secure the online marketplace
appears, the more trustworthy the intermediary is to consumers.
On the other hand, ‘seller trust’ is associated with “the belief that
the population of sellers at an e-marketplace is honest, depend-
able and reliable” (Verhagen et al., 2006). According to Pavlou and
Gefen (2004), institutional mechanisms perceived to be effective by
consumers directly impact buyers’ trust in a community of sellers.
Seller trust is also influenced by intermediary trust, as Verhagen
et al. (2006) has found. Therefore, our study takes into considera-
tion both intermediary trust and seller trust as they are central to
consumers’ purchase behavior in online marketplaces.
2.4. Influence of trust on consumer behavior
A great number of studies have been conducted to investigate
the effects of online trust on purchase intentions. Results of these
studies suggest that trust is a powerful predictor of intentions to
purchase online. In their early study on consumer trust, Jarvenpaa
et al. (2000) found that consumers’ trust in an Internet store affects
their attitude and perceived risk, which, in turn, influences their
willingness to buy. Gefen (2000) reported that both familiarity
with an Internet vendor and its processes and trust in the vendor
influenced the respondents’ intentions to inquire about books and
their intentions to purchase them. And Gefen’s (2002) subsequent
study found that the vendor’s ability affected window-shopping
intentions, while overall trust in the vendor and its integrity influ-
enced purchase intentions. From a controlled simulation study,
Yoon (2002) concluded that Website trust, Website satisfaction,
and Website awareness have a significant causal impact on online
purchase intention. Van der Heijden, Verhagen, and Creems (2003)
conducted an empirical study to find factors influencing online
purchase intention based on the Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM). Their findings indicate that there are negative relation-
ships between trust and perceived risk and between perceived risk
and attitude towards online purchasing, while there is a positive
relationship between attitude towards purchasing and purchase
intention. Zhu, O’Neal, and Lee (2009), who also used the TAM the-
ory to develop a consumer trust model, concluded that trust, as well
as perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and perceived risk
significantly impact consumers’ purchase intention.
The related literature suggests that trust affects customer loy-
alty as well as purchase intentions. Traditionally customer loyalty
has been studied as a key construct in consumer behavior research.
Uncles and Laurent (1997) suggests that customer loyalty is viewed
sometimes as a behavior measure (e.g., repeat purchases) and
sometimes as an attitude (e.g., positive word-of-mouth). Chaudhuri
and Holbrook (2001) claims that the related literature in general
has focused on behavioral elements of loyalty, ignoring attitudi-
nal dimensions of loyalty as well as its relationship with other
constructs. Our paper focuses on attitudinal loyalty that repre-
sents a higher-order, or long-term, commitment of a customer to
the organization that cannot be inferred by merely observing cus-
tomer repeat purchase behavior (Shankar, Smith, & Rangaswamy,
2000). Attitudinal loyalty is important because it indicates propen-
sity to display certain behaviors, such as the likelihood of future
purchases (Liddy, 2000). In this paper, we define attitudinal loy-
471
alty as the extent of the customer’s psychological attachments
and attitudinal advocacy towards the e-marketplace (Rauyruen &
Miller, 2007). Accordingly, attitudinal loyalty encompasses pos-
itive word of mouth intentions, willingness to recommend to
others and encouraging others to use the products and services
of a company (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). The present
research treats attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions as key
constructs directly affected by intermediary trust and seller trust
in e-marketplaces.
3. Conceptual model and hypotheses
Our review of the related literature in the previous section
reveals that trustworthiness attributes are important antecedents
to overall trust and consumer trust is a key determinant of con-
sumers’ purchase behavior. In this section, we present a conceptual
model that shows the effects of trust on consumer behavior in
online marketplaces from a comparative perspective of an interme-
diary and sellers. The conceptual model is important in that it would
enable us to have insights into the differences in the effects of inter-
mediary trust and seller trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase
intentions.
3.1. The conceptual model
The majority of trust-related studies have been done with no
clear conceptual distinction between trustworthiness and trust,
and these two terms are at times used interchangeably. However,
it is important to note that, due to the risk of a transaction, a buyer
must evaluate the trustworthiness of a seller by envisioning the
seller’s likely opportunistic behavior and then choose to trust the
seller and participate in the transaction if and only if the seller is
trustworthy enough (Good, 1988; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992). There-
fore, the aggregate perception of the three dimensions influences
overall trust by the consumer (Chen & Dhillon, 2003), and trust can
by no means be conceptually equated with trustworthiness (Blois,
1999; Corritore, Kracher, & Wiedenbeck, 2003). We need clarifica-
tion on the association between trustworthiness and overall trust.
Meanwhile, existing research examining the consequents of
e-commerce trust have concentrated on the effects of trust on atti-
tude towards purchasing (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Van der Heijden
et al., 2003; Verhagen et al., 2006), on loyalty (Flavian et al., 2006;
Horppu, Kuivalainen, Tarkiainen, & Ellonen, 2008), or on purchase
intentions (Kim & Kim, 2004; Stewart, 2003; Yoon, 2002). Never-
theless, there has been little effort to rigorously investigate the
nomological structure among trust, loyalty, and purchase inten-
tions especially in the context of online marketplaces. In particular,
the effects of trust on customer loyalty and purchase intentions in
e-marketplaces should be examined by dividing the trust construct
into two subconstructs – i.e., trust in an intermediary and trust in
the community of sellers. This approach would provide us with
insights into the possible transfer of trust from an intermediary to
sellers. It would make it possible to determine whether it is valid
to claim that consumers in e-marketplaces are highly likely to trust
the sellers, provided that they have institutional trust in the inter-
mediary. Thus, we plan to examine not only the causal relationship
between intermediary trust and consumer behavior variables (i.e.,
attitudinal loyalty and purchasing intentions) but also that between
seller trust and the consequents.
Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model and hypotheses developed
in accordance with the above reasoning. First, the three factors of
intermediary trustworthiness are shown as antecedents to trust in
an intermediary, resulting in three hypotheses (H1–H3). We are
focusing on the causal effect of trustworthiness dimensions upon
trust in an intermediary, but not on the effect upon trust in the
472 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
Intermediary
Trustworthiness
Competence H1
H2
Benevolence
H3
Integrity
Fig. 1. The conceptual model.
community of sellers. Our research model rules out the direct rela-
tionship between factors of intermediary trustworthiness and trust
in the community of sellers because the only way that the factors
of intermediary trustworthiness can affect seller trust is indi-
rectly through intermediary trust. Second, the model includes the
hypothesis H4 to determine whether trust is transferred between
components of an online merchant in online marketplaces. For
example, do consumers trust the community of sellers because
they trust the intermediary in the first place? Finally, our concep-
tual model deals with the effects of trust upon consumer behavior,
namely attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions. Two hypothe-
ses H5 and H7 are to examine the influence of intermediary trust,
whereas other two hypotheses H4 and H6 are to study the influence
of seller trust.
As shown in the figure, there exist a total of nine hypotheses
formulated to answer the research questions stated earlier. The
research hypotheses are structured around five research topics and
will be presented in the subsection that follows.
3.2. Research hypotheses
3.2.1. Factors of trustworthiness and trust in an intermediary
A review of the trust literature indicates that trust and trustwor-
thiness are at times used loosely and interchangeably. For example,
some researchers (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Pavlou & Gefen, 2004)
measure the “trust” construct using questionnaire items created for
the “trustworthiness” dimensions. However, Lee and Turban (2001)
argue that the perceived trustworthiness of a participating party is
often thought to be an important antecedent of trust. It implies that
the overall trust a given party has for another party is largely influ-
enced by the trustworthiness of the other party. McKnight et al.
(2002) suggest that trustworthiness is a strong predictor of trust.
If consumers perceive an online merchant to be trustworthy based
on the perceived Website quality, past purchasing experience, or
word-of-mouth, then they put trust in the merchant and become
willing to take risks that may result from trusting that merchant.
We formulate the following three hypotheses based on the prior
research findings presented above:
H1. Competence, an attribute of intermediary trustworthiness, is
positively related to trust in an intermediary.
Overall Trust Consequences
H5
Trust in Purchase
intermediary intention
H7
H4 H9
H6
Trust in Customer
sellers H8 loyalty
H2. Benevolence, an attribute of intermediary trustworthiness, is
positively related to trust in an intermediary.
H3. Integrity, an attribute of intermediary trustworthiness, is pos-
itively related to trust in an intermediary.
3.2.2. Trust transfer from an intermediary to sellers
Existing research suggest that trust may transfer from different
kinds of sources, such as an individual, a place, or an organization
(Stewart, 2003). For example, consumer trust can often be trans-
ferred from a traditional sales channel to a Web-based channel;
trust in a salesperson can turn into trust in the salesperson’s firm.
In her cognitive model of the trust transfer process, Stewart (2003)
argues that trust is transferred across hypertext links based on the
perceived interaction and similarity of the linked organizations.
Her results confirm that people tend to believe that organizations
resembling an organization they trust are as trustworthy as the
trusted organization. As stated earlier, the merchant in an online
marketplace is composed of an intermediary and the community
of sellers. Trustworthiness of an intermediary with institutional
mechanisms helps build buyer’s trust in the community of sellers,
which acts to facilitate online transactions by reducing perceived
risk (Pavlou & Gefen, 2004). As such, trust transfer can occur from an
intermediary to sellers in e-marketplaces (Verhagen et al., 2006).
Based on the above theoretical observations, we present the fol-
lowing hypothesis:
H4. Trust in an intermediary is positively related to trust in the
community of sellers in online marketplaces.
3.2.3. Trust and purchase intentions
According to Wiedenfels (2009), a positive effect of trust in
an online merchant on a buyer’s intention to purchase from that
merchant can be hypothesized under three preconditions. First,
making a purchase can be considered to be a form of risk tak-
ing. Second, making a purchase can be considered to constitute a
form of a relationship. Third, purchase intention is a strong proxy
of making an actual purchase. Studies related to institution-based
trust in online marketplaces support these preconditions. In gen-
eral, buyers’ trust reduces perceived risk and somewhat increases
transaction intentions (Pavlou & Gefen, 2004), while perceived risk
decreases intentions to transact (Chong, Yang, & Wong, 2003). In
another related study, Verhagen et al. (2006) concluded that there
 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479 473

is a positive relationship between seller trust and attitude towards H9. Attitudinal loyalty is positively related to purchase intentions
purchasing. As the theory of reasoned action (TRA) suggests, the in online marketplaces.
attitude about behavior strongly influences the behavioral inten-
tion (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), and thus, attitude towards purchasing
4. Research methodology
is positively associated with purchasing intention. Based on these
findings, we propose the following hypotheses:
To test our research model, we employed an empirical study
H5. Trust in an intermediary will positively influence purchase using data from email survey responses from G-market’s e-
intentions in online marketplaces. marketplace shoppers in Korea. G-market is Korea’s largest B2C
e-marketplace that was founded in 2000. G-market has been
H6. Trust in the community of sellers will positively influence
acquired by eBay to merge in 2009 with the eBay-owned Auction,
purchase intentions in online marketplaces.
another influential Korean e-marketplace, and is now a dominant
player in Korea that, together with Auction, has over a 75% share in
3.2.4. Trust and attitudinal loyalty
online marketplaces (Computertimes, May 25, 2009). For that rea-
In the field of relationship marketing, researchers emphasize the
son, the questions in the questionnaire were intended to refer to
role of trust in building loyalty. For example, trust is recognized as
this online marketplace, thereby making it possible to accurately
the cornerstone of long-term relationships (Spekman, 1988), as a
assess the perceptions of our respondents, based on their shopping
key determinant of relational commitment (Nooteboom, Berger,
experience at a typical online marketplace.
& Noorderhaven, 1997), and as the single most powerful relation-
ship marketing tool available to a company (Berry, 1995). Trust
makes possible advanced exchange relationships between buyers 4.1. Measures
and sellers and, therefore, promotes attitudinal loyalty (Morgan
& Hunt, 1994). Meanwhile, Sirdesmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) Table 1 illustrates the measures that have been devised to test
found that the effect of trust on loyalty is mediated by the per- the research hypotheses. There are seven measures associated with
ceived value of an online transaction, such that the influence of the research model. Measurement items were either adopted or
trust on loyalty is largely dependent upon value. However, most adapted from the related studies. Then a survey instrument was
researchers agree that the influence of trust on loyalty is direct and composed based on these measurement items plus items designed
strong. What is more, this relationship is reported to hold true in to collect the demographics of respondents.
online, as well as offline, transactions. Horppu et al. (2008) and
Deng, Lu, Wei, and Zhang (2010) found that trust and satisfaction
4.2. Survey procedure and response rate
both are positively related to customer loyalty. In his empirical
investigation of the role of trust in e-commerce, Palvia (2009) con-
In order to make sure that the questionnaire items were properly
cluded that trust positively influences purchase intentions that in
developed to meet the research objectives, we conducted a pilot
turn have a positive impact on loyalty. As mentioned earlier, our
test using 25 college students. We examined the responses to the
research focuses on attitudinal loyalty that refers to the extent of
preliminary instrument for consistency and revised the items in the
a customer’s psychological attachments and attitudinal advocacy
questionnaire, such that there are no redundant items, and all the
towards the e-marketplace. Thus, we have the following hypothe-
items are phrased clearly and concisely.
ses for the two types of trust in e-marketplaces:
A random list of users’ email addresses was acquired from the
H7. Trust in an intermediary is positively related to attitudinal comparison shopping section of Korea’s largest portal site that pro-
loyalty in online marketplaces. vides a wide range of online information services, including email,
community, news, and shopping. We conducted a quick check for
H8. Trust in the community of sellers is positively related to atti-
the chosen users by contacting each person by email to check to see
tudinal loyalty in online marketplaces.
if the person who was contacted shopped at G-market on a regular
basis. Using the responses from this initial survey, we recomposed
3.2.5. Attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions
the list of users’ email addresses such that only those who answered
Attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions are related, yet dis-
“yes” to our question were included in the list.
tinguishable concepts. Attitudinal loyalty has much to do with a
Our main survey was conducted between November 16 and
consumer’s positive disposition or inclination to the e-marketplace,
November 30, 2009. In the main survey, an email was sent with the
whereas purchase intention denotes behavioral intention to pur-
attachment of the questionnaire form to 290 potential respondents
chase products or services online. Therefore, the aspects of
in order to collect related data. A week was given for respondents
‘behavioral intention to make repeat purchases’ should not be mea-
to complete and submit the form online. To increase the response
sured by attitudinal loyalty, but by purchase intentions.
rate, those who did not respond were identified and contacted by
According to the related literature, there is a close relationship
email to encourage participation in the survey. By the due date, a
between loyalty for an e-commerce Website and purchase inten-
total of 227 responses were received, with a 78.3% response rate.
tions. Kamariah and Salwani (2005) concluded that Website quality
Of those email responses received, 222 responses have been used
and loyalty were both found to influence significantly consumer
for statistical analysis after excluding the five invalid responses.
intention towards online shopping. Wang, Pallister, and Foxall
(2006) reported similar results, concluding that loyalty was a chief
predictor of online purchase behavior. Thus, it does make sense 5. Findings
that a customer who has a positive attitudinal advocacy towards
the e-marketplace is also highly likely to have a strong behav- To perform a statistical analysis on the gathered data, we used
ioral intention to make purchases on that e-marketplace. Firms SPSS 15.0 for Windows and Amos 7.0. The SPSS package was used
that have built robust customer loyalty may have greater online to test the reliability of the measurement model and examine the
sales because of the potential to attract online shoppers with strong data on demographics and shopping patterns of the respondents.
purchase intentions than those who do not. Based on these find- Meanwhile, Amos was used to perform a confirmatory factor anal-
ings, we formulate the following hypothesis establishing a positive ysis (CFA) of the research model, test the hypotheses, and analyze
relationship between the two constructs: the path coefficients.
474 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479

Table 1
Measures for the research model.

Measure Definition Measurement items References

The belief that a company is
Competence –
able to fulfill its promises
trustworthiness
communicated to consumers
The belief that a company
Benevolence –
holds consumers’ interests
trustworthiness
ahead of its own self-interest
I think that this Website has the necessary abilities to carry out its
work Flavian et al. (2006)
I think that this Website has sufficient experience in the marketing of and Mayer et al. (1995)
the products and services that it offers
I think that this Website has the necessary resources to carry out its
activities successfully
I think that this Website knows its users well enough to offer them
products and services adapted to their needs
I think that the advice and recommendations given on this Website are
made in search of mutual benefit
Flavian et al. (2006)
I think that this Website is concerned with the present and future
and Mayer et al. (1995)
interests of its users
I think that this Website would not do anything intentional that would
prejudice the user
I think that the design and commercial offer of this Website take into
account the desires and needs of its users
I think that this Website is receptive to the needs of its users

I think that this Website usually fulfills the commitments it assumes Mayer et al. (1995),
The belief that a company acts
I think that the information offered by this site is sincere and honest McKnight and
Integrity – in a consistent, reliable, and
I think I can have confidence in the promises that this Website makes Chervany (2002)
trustworthiness honest manner when fulfilling
This Website does not make false statements and Flavian et al.
its promises
This Website is characterized by the frankness and clarity of the (2006)
services that it offers to the consumer
Overall consumer trust in an Even if not monitored, I’d trust the intermediary to do the job right
Trust in an Mayer et al. (1995)
intermediary of the I trust the intermediary
intermediary and Gefen (2000)
e-marketplace I believe that the intermediary is trustworthy

Trust in sellers
Overall consumer trust in the
community of sellers in the
e-marketplace
Even if not monitored, I’d trust the community of sellers to do the job
Mayer et al. (1995)
right
and Gefen (2000)
I trust the community of sellers
I believe that the community of sellers is trustworthy

I tend to use this Website habitually

The extent of the customer’s
psychological attachments and
Attitudinal loyalty
attitudinal advocacy towards
the e-marketplace
Oliver (1997),
This Website is good for making purchases
Bettencourt (1997) and
I do not buy from other Websites
Garbarino and Johnson
I will recommend this Website to other people
(1999)
I will continue to visit this Website

I would return to this e-marketplace’s Website

Purchase intentions
The behavioral intention to Jarvenpaa et al. (2000),
I would consider purchasing from this e-marketplace in the next three
purchase products or services Yoon (2002) and Hoyer
months
online and MacInnis (2008)
I would consider purchasing from this e-marketplace in the next year
For this purchase I will buy from this e-marketplace

The demographic profile of the survey respondents is given in which was measured by reliability coefficients called Cronbach’s
Table 2. The largest age group in the sample was the 30s, which alphas (or ˛). As shown in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alphas for
accounted for 47.5% of the total respondents. The next-largest age most constructs were computed to exceed well the 0.70 thresh-
group was the 20s, whose proportion was 37.5%. In addition, it was old suggested by Nunnally (1978). In addition, composite reliability
shown that a large number of respondents representing 42.3% fell coefficients shown in the right-most column of Table 3 are found to
under the administrative and office job category. be all higher than the Nunnally’s threshold. Therefore, our measures
are deemed reliable.
5.1. Reliability and validity A measurement model should have construct validity as well as
reliability, if it is to be validated. Construct validity can be thought
Reliability refers to the degree to which an instrument mea- of as the degree of correspondence between a construct and its
sures the same way each time it is used under the same condition operationalizations. Construct validity can be evaluated by assess-
with the same subjects. The reliability of the individual items in the ing (1) unidimensionality, (2) convergent validity, (3) discriminant
questionnaire has been tested by checking the internal consistency validity, and (4) nomological validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
First, unidimensionality of the measurement model was tested
Table 2 using the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) technique. Unidimen-
Respondents profile. sionality means the degree to which the assessment measures the
Attribute Value Frequency Percentage (%) same construct and only that construct, and CFA is often used
to test whether measures of a construct are consistent with a
Gender Female 118 53.2
Male 104 46.8
researcher’s understanding of the nature of that construct (or fac-
Age 20s 83 37.4 tor). We assessed unidimensionality for the measurement scales,
30s 105 47.5 in order to screen and refine questionnaire items. As shown in
40s 33 14.9 Table 3, applying the CFA technique led to the elimination of 2
Profession Administrative/office 93 42.3
items (trb1, trb3) from the ‘benevolence’ variable, 2 items (tri4,
Sales/service 41 18.6
Technicians/factory 39 17.7 tri5) from the ‘integrity’ variable, 1 item (pui1) from the ‘purchase
Professionals 24 10.9 intentions’ variable, and 1 item (loy5) from the ‘attitudinal loyalty’
 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479 475

Table 3
Reliability and unidimensionality.

Construct No. of Cronbach’s Variable Standardized C.R. SMC AVE Composite

items ˛ factor (t-value) reliability
(before) loadings

trc1 0.789 – 0.623

Competence – trc2 0.819 12.926 0.670
4 0.881 0.688 0.978
trustworthiness trc3 0.907 14.588 0.822
trc4 0.800 12.599 0.641
trb2 0.739 11.694 0.546
Benevolence –
5 0.830 trb4 0.839 – 0.704 0.625 0.803
trustworthiness
trb5 0.791 12.811 0.626
tri1 0.785 14.904 0.616
Integrity –
5 0.857 tri2 0.920 0.847 0.752 0.906
trustworthiness
tri3 0.892 19.030 0.796
tro1 0.941 – 0.886
Trust in the
3 0.933 tro2 0.952 28.072 0.906 0.865 0.939
intermediary
tro3 0.897 22.810 0.805
stro1 0.914 23.815 0.835
Trust in sellers 3 0.952 stro2 0.970 29.241 0.940 0.882 0.942
stro3 0.933 – 0.870
pui2 0.817 16.481 0.667
Purchase intentions 4 0.896 pui3 0.910 20.905 0.827 0.780 0.891
pui4 0.920 – 0.847
loy1 0.834 – 0.696
loy2 0.772 13.157 0.595
Attitudinal loyalty 5 0.857 0.742 0.838
loy3 0.906 16.997 0.820
loy4 0.926 17.639 0.858

variable respectively. This elimination process is based on the low
standardized regression coefficients of the individual measurement
items of the observed variables; the coefficients were computed
to be 0.601(trb1), 0.654(trb3), 0.671(tri4), 0.608(tri5), 0.424(loy5),
0.518(pui1) respectively.
Next, convergent validity refers to the degree of convergence
seen when two attempts are made to measure the same con-
struct through maximally different methods. In general, convergent
validity can be claimed when critical ratios (CR) are 2 or above, stan-
dardized factor loadings are 0.5 or above, and averaged variances
expected (AVE’s) are 0.5 or above (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair
et al., 2006). As we can see in Table 3, the minimum CR (=12.529)
was much higher than the ‘2’ threshold; the minimum standardized
factor loading (=0.739) exceeded the ‘0.5’ threshold; and the lowest
AVE calculated (=0.625) was well above the 0.50 threshold. Thus,
convergent validity for the measurement model is acceptable.
Then we assessed discriminant validity by examining the cor-
relation coefficients among the constructs under investigation, as
shown in Table 4. Hair, Rolph, Ronald, and William (1995) suggests
that a model has discriminant validity, provided that the minimum
of average variance extracted (AVE’s) is larger than the squares
of between-construct correlation coefficients. Table 4 shows that
the largest coefficient is 0.756, a coefficient of correlation between
intermediary trust and seller trust, and that the square of this
number, 0.571, is not as large as 0.625, the minimum AVE for benev-
olence. Therefore, our measurement model is presumed to have
discriminant validity.
Finally, nomological validity refers to the degree to which the
measured construct is supported by previous theories and research
work. Nomological validity too was examined by checking the cor-
relation coefficients in Table 4. The coefficient1 between purchase
intention and attitudinal loyalty, 0.725, was rather high, and thus
we performed a multicollinearity test. If variance inflation factors
(VIF) calculated are 10 or less, then there exists no threat of multi-
1
The high correlation between the two constructs represents a very close rela-
tionship, but does not necessarily mean that there exists overlap in the items
between the constructs. It implies that attitudinal loyalty is a good predictor of
purchase intention.
collinearity. Results showed that VIF’s ranged from 1.696 to 3.943,
suggesting that multicollinearity is not an issue in this study. Hence,
we can claim nomological validity.
Meanwhile, the goodness of fit of the measurement model was
assessed as shown in Table 5. First, the absolute fit indices were
examined. Standardized 2 that was obtained by dividing 2 by
degrees of freedom was found to be 1.962, which is in general
regarded as a modest fit. SRMR (standardized root mean square
residual) is well within the threshold, while GFI (goodness-of-fit-
index) is slightly outside the threshold. Next, an examination of the
incremental fit indices indicates that NFI (normed fit index), RFI
(relative fit index), IFI (incremental fit index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis
index), and CFI (comparative fit index) were all within or near
the respective thresholds. Finally, the remaining fit indices includ-
ing PNFI (parsimonious normed fit index) and RMSEA (root mean
square error of approximation) were found to be within the accept-
able range. Therefore, we can infer that the measurement model
was reasonably fitted to the data set.
5.2. Path analysis
The chief aim of this study is to understand what effects trust-
worthiness factors have upon overall trust in the intermediary,
whether trust in the intermediary transfers to trust in the com-
munity of sellers, and finally how trust in the intermediary affects
purchase intentions and attitudinal loyalty. To this end, we con-
ducted a path analysis for the relationships using the Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) technique. Fig. 2 shows the result of this
analysis. In addition, the individual hypotheses have been tested
using the statistics resulting from the path analysis, as shown in
Table 6.
5.3. Discussions
Results show that six of the nine hypotheses were supported.
First, of the three attributes of trustworthiness, benevolence and
integrity which yielded path coefficients of 0.444 and 0.279 respec-
tively were found to affect trust in an intermediary, supporting
H2 and H3. This finding is attributed to the fact that online shop-
pers in B2C e-marketplaces are most interested in ensuring that
476 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479

Table 4
Correlation matrix of the constructs.

Construct AVE COMP BEN INT TII TIS PI AL

Competence – trustworthiness (COMP) 0.688 1

Benevolence – trustworthiness (BEN) 0.625 0.612** 1
Integrity – trustworthiness (INT) 0.752 0.485** 0.686** 1
Trust in the intermediary (TII) 0.865 0.505** 0.632** 0.617** 1
Trust in sellers (TIS) 0.882 0.360** 0.559** 0.518** 0.756** 1
Purchase intentions (PI) 0.780 0.569** 0.617** 0.624** 0.700** 0.578** 1
Attitudinal loyalty (AL) 0.742 0.445** 0.567** 0.514** 0.752** 0.599** 0.725** 1
Mean 4.53 4.25 4.26 4.37 3.98 4.49 4.29
S.D. 1.03 0.95 0.88 1.06 1.12 1.07 1.33

*p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.

Table 5
Goodness of fit test.

Category Measure Acceptable values Value

Absolute fit indices 2 (Chi-square) 410.079

d.f. 209
2 /d.f. 1–3 1.962
GFI 0.90 or above 0.857
SRMR 0.080 or below 0.0459
Incremental fit indices NFI 0.90 or above 0.917
RFI 0.90 or above 0.899
IFI 0.90 or above 0.957
TLI 0.90 or above 0.948
CFI 0.90 or above 0.957
Other fit indices PNFI 0.60–0.90 0.757
RMSEA 0.050–0.080 0.068

Intermediary
Trustworthiness Overall Trust Consequences

Competence
0.287*
Trust in Purchase
0.444*** intermediary intention

0.800***
Benevolence

0.796*** 0.519***
0.279**
Integrity
Trust in Customer
sellers loyalty

* p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01

Fig. 2. Path coefficients resulting from Structural Equation Modeling.

Table 6
Results of Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis Path Standardized coefficient Standard error C.R. (t-value) Result

H1 Competence → Trust in intermediary 0.085 0.099 0.32 Rejected

H2 Benevolence → Trust in intermediary 0.444*** 0.149 3.237 Accepted
H3 Integrity → Trust in intermediary 0.279** 0.118 2.720 Accepted
H4 Trust in intermediary → Trust in the community of sellers 0.796*** 0.055 14.862 Accepted
H5 Trust in intermediary → Purchase intentions 0.287* 0.115 2.527 Accepted
H6 Trust in the community of sellers → Purchase intentions 0.060 0.082 0.724 Rejected
H7 Trust in intermediary → Attitudinal loyalty 0.800*** 0.177 9.033 Accepted
H8 Trust in the community of sellers → Attitudinal loyalty 0.003 0.108 0.041 Rejected
H9 Attitudinal loyalty → Purchase intentions 0.519*** 0.069 5.772 Accepted
*
p < 0.1.
**
p < 0.05.
***
p < 0.01.
 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
the vendor cares about customers and does their best to han-
dle issues in ways to satisfy customers when disputes occur or
when products or services rendered do not meet customer’s expec-
tations. In addition, customers in online marketplaces want to
make sure that the vendor is honest enough to fulfill its promises
and carry out duties. This is particularly true in that customers
have such limited information about the sellers in the marketplace
that they believe the sellers may possibly exhibit an opportunis-
tic behavior causing potential harm to them. Meanwhile, unlike
benevolence or integrity, competence showed little influence on
trust in an intermediary with the coefficient of 0.085, which caused
H1 to be rejected. It is worthwhile to explain why this hypothe-
sis was not supported. When online marketplaces first emerged,
consumers considering purchases often perceived uncertainty and
risk because there was a lack of security measures that could
assure buyers that their transactions would be free of frauds or
errors. However, as most marketplaces today are equipped with
institutional safeguards that help them handle transactions in a
more professional and competent manner, consumers are relieved
from the potential danger of being victimized in either malicious
or unintended incidents. Furthermore, the e-marketplace under
investigation in the present research focuses on relatively lower-
price and lower-involvement products. Therefore consumers don’t
really care about advanced technologies or business expertise of
the intermediary, but are more interested in the e-marketplace’s
willingness to accept returns and process refunds.
Second, trust in an intermediary revealed a significant associ-
ation with trust in the community of sellers with the coefficient
of 0.796, supporting H4. That is, it was confirmed that there was
transfer of trust from an intermediary to the community of sellers.
It is inferred that online shoppers tend to trust sellers as a whole
because they trust the intermediary in the first place, not because
they are assured by a seller’s strengths. This finding is consistent
with the result of the Verhagen et al. (2006) study, which concluded
that intermediary trust was a strong determinant of seller trust.
Third, the impact of trust in an intermediary upon consumer’s
purchase behavior was statistically significant enough to support
both H5 and H7. Trust in an intermediary affected attitudinal loyalty
and purchase intentions with the coefficients of 0.800 and 0.287
respectively. While the relationship between intermediary trust
and purchase intentions proved to be significant, it is considered
relatively weak, implying that the relationship may be indirect. A
similar observation was made in Pavlou (2003)’s research where
the relationship between trust and intention to transact was found
to be as low as 0.18 (significant where p < 0.05). From the perspec-
tive of the theory of reasoned action (TRA), favorable trust does
not directly lead to positive behavioral intention, but instead first
affects the attitude, which then brings about changes in inten-
tions and behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). On the other hand, the
influence of trust in the community of sellers was not significant;
therefore, H6 and H8 were not supported. The analysis revealed
that the path coefficients for its influence on attitudinal loyalty and
purchase intentions were 0.003 and 0.060 respectively. The find-
ing indicates that consumer behavior in an online marketplace is
largely determined by their trust in the well-established, trustwor-
thy intermediary, not by their trust in the individual sellers doing
business in the marketplace. A similar observation was made in the
Pavlou and Gefen’s (2004) study which found that the influence
of trust in the community of sellers on transaction intentions was
minimal (path coefficient = 0.10*). We can infer from the present
finding that, although trust plays a key role in shaping the purchase
intentions and transfer of trust occurs from an intermediary to sell-
ers, there appear to be more important factors than seller trust
that affect transaction intentions, such as perceived effectiveness
of institutional mechanisms, perceived risk from the community
of sellers, and positive past experience, as pointed out by Pavlou
477
and Gefen (2004). For example, consumers would be reluctant to
buy from sellers for whom they have had favorable trust if insti-
tutional mechanisms such as feedback mechanism are believed
to be not working properly or if they perceive high risk from the
e-marketplace sellers. Therefore, an effective strategy to build con-
sumer trust in online marketplaces will be one that focuses on trust
in an intermediary rather than trust in sellers and strengthens the
merchant trustworthiness through effective safeguard measures,
thereby enhancing the likelihood of inducing consumers’ behav-
ioral changes.
Finally, the influence of attitudinal loyalty on purchase inten-
tions was confirmed. H9 was supported as the relationship ended
up with the coefficient of 0.519. As mentioned above, efforts to build
attitudinal loyalty by increasing intermediary trust and improving
customer satisfaction are likely to have more consumers intending
to buy in the online marketplace. From this result, we can see that
it is imperative for a firm to first focus on strengthening attitudi-
nal loyalty via powerful marketing programs if it is to ultimately
increase sales.
5.4. Implications
The findings of the present research point to a set of impli-
cations for academics. First, it was shown that it is important to
understand the conceptual differences between factors of trust-
worthiness and trust in an intermediary in B2C e-marketplaces, and
thus, to discern them accordingly, especially in measuring research
constructs. While the two constructs are occasionally used inter-
changeably, researchers should keep in mind that the former is the
antecedent to the latter. Second, the extent to which the factors of
trustworthiness, namely competence, benevolence, and integrity,
influence the overall trust in an intermediary is shown to be dif-
ferent from one another. Benevolence and integrity proved to have
a statistically significant influence, while competence did not. This
pattern of influence suggests a need to further investigate the the-
oretical relationship under varying types of e-commerce Website.
For example, with online banking Websites, competence is most
likely to turn out to be a significant factor influencing trust in the
bank because bank customers care much about Internet banking
security. Third, our analysis of the cause-and-effect relationship
between trust and its consequences was conducted by separating
trust into two components: trust in an intermediary and trust in the
community of sellers. Existing research often considers trust as a
unidimensional construct, and thus focuses on demonstrating that
trust as a whole tends to increase consumer attitude and transac-
tion intentions. On the contrary, our results show that the impact of
trust on its consequences may differ depending on the type of trust
we are examining. Future research on consumer trust needs to take
into consideration that trust in an online marketplace consists of
intermediary trust and seller trust and that consumer trust issues
should be examined based on this dichotomy of trust. Finally, we
have shown that trust may transfer from an intermediary to the
community of sellers in online marketplaces. Future research will
need to identify factors that facilitate trust transfer process for the
e-marketplaces, which will help develop strategies to build trust in
the community of sellers.
We can draw implications for practitioners from the results of
the research. First, this research has shown that trust does trans-
fer from an intermediary to sellers. This finding offers implications
for both intermediaries and sellers. It is critical that intermedi-
aries focus on building institution-based trust by providing robust
safety mechanisms and services that alleviate potential risks on the
part of consumers or by investing in building reputation and brand
power which can assure the consumers that the e-marketplace is
dependable and reliable. On the other hand, online marketplace
sellers will find it beneficial to choose and sell at the e-marketplaces
478 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
who are trustworthier. Second, our findings indicate that purchase
intention increases through attitudinal loyalty augmented by inter-
mediary trust, rather than directly through intermediary trust. It
means that online marketplaces can effectively increase poten-
tial customers’ purchase intentions by focusing on strengthening
customers’ psychological attachments and attitudinal advocacy
towards the e-marketplace – i.e., attitudinal loyalty. So how do
we enhance customers’ attitudinal loyalty? The ultimate business
strategy of online marketplaces should be to continuously build
consumer trust in the intermediary by concentrating on improv-
ing benevolence and integrity, thereby making the intermediary
more trustworthy. That is, as an e-marketplace focuses on caring
about customers’ interests and fulfilling promises with customers,
consumer trust in the intermediary will escalate, and the improved
trust will increase customers’ attitudinal loyalty, thereby motivat-
ing customers to buy more online from the e-marketplace.
6. Conclusions and limitations
Much attention has been given to the antecedents and con-
sequences of consumer trust in the context of online shopping.
However, past research conducted to address this research issue
has focused on trust in generic online shops such as Toysrus.com,
and few researchers have examined how trust affects consumer
behavior in e-marketplaces that are regarded as riskier than ordi-
nary online merchants. The present study aimed at closing this
gap by posing three fundamental research questions: first, how
the trustworthiness factors affect trust in an intermediary; second,
whether there is trust transfer from an intermediary to the commu-
nity of sellers; and finally, how the overall trust in an intermediary
influences customers’ purchase behavior.
The findings of the study can be summarized as follows. First,
of the three factors of trustworthiness, benevolence and integrity
were found to have a statistically significant influence on consumer
trust in an intermediary. Second, it was found that trust in an inter-
mediary can readily turn into trust in the community of sellers in
an e-marketplace. Third, results suggest that trust in an interme-
diary influences both attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions
in a B2C e-marketplace, whereas trust in the community of sell-
ers affects neither. Finally, attitudinal loyalty turned out to be an
important determinant of purchase intentions.
It is worthwhile to mention key contributions of our research.
First, our study focuses on the impact of trust particularly in e-
marketplaces. While there exist a host of studies on consumer trust,
they mostly center on issues related to e-commerce trust building
in general, such as trust antecedents. Our research is unique in that
it divides the e-marketplace supplier up into two separate entities
(i.e., intermediary and sellers), and uses this dichotomy to analyze
the impact of e-marketplace trust. Second, our research helped
unveil the nature of transferability of trust from an intermediary
to sellers in online marketplaces. It will set forth related studies
designed to explore practical strategies to make transfer of trust
more effectively. Third, this research represents the first study to
investigate the influence of intermediary trust as well as seller trust
on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in e-marketplaces. It
helps practitioners develop strategies to generate desired changes
in consumer behavior.
The present research is subject to limitations. First, G-market,
the e-marketplace on which our questionnaire survey is based,
may not be representative of all the e-marketplaces in Korea. As of
May 2009, the top three e-marketplaces in Korea were G-market,
Auction, and 11th Street with market shares of 37.6%, 37.5%, and
23.7% respectively (Computertimes, May 25, 2009). Presently both
G-market and Auction are owned by the global C2C auction leader,
eBay. For this reason, it is presumed that G-market and Auction both
are run under a similar transactional infrastructure, and that survey
results are not likely to be different from each other, whether the
study is based on G-market or Auction. However, since the study
is based on only one e-marketplace, cautions may be needed in
generalizing the results. Second, a portion of data was discarded to
improve CFA results, when we dropped the six items in the survey
questionnaire that were found to have low standardized regres-
sion coefficients. The elimination process may have helped improve
the validity of the measurement model, but resulted in ruling out
a small part of the voices of the respondents. Third, there exists
minor overlap in the items to measure the two conceptually dis-
tinct constructs – attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions. For
example, the item “I will continue to visit this Website” for attitu-
dinal loyalty is not much different from the item “I would return
to this e-marketplace’s Website” for purchase intentions. Even if
there is a very slim chance that this item similarity has contributed
to the high correlation between the two constructs, it is impor-
tant to make sure that a questionnaire includes only the items that
uniquely characterizes each research construct, so that there is no
conceptual redundancy in the items.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Chung-Ang University
Research Grant in 2009.
References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:
A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411–423.
Barnes, D., & Hinton, M. (2007). Developing a framework to analyse the roles and
relationships of online intermediaries. International Journal of Information Man-
agement, 27, 63–74.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services: Growing interest, emerging
perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236–245.
Bettencourt, L. A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners
in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383–406.
Blois, K. J. (1999). Trust in business to business relationships: An evaluation of its
status. Journal of Management Studies, 36(2), 197–215.
Bradach, J. L., & Eccles, R. G. (1989). Price, authority and trust: From ideal types to
plural forms. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 97–118.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and
brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Market-
ing, 65(2), 81–93.
Chai, S., & Kim, M. (2010). What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation
on the role of trust. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 408–415.
Chen, S. C., & Dhillon, G. S. (2003). Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in
e-commerce. Information Technology and Management, 4, 303–318.
Chong, B., Yang, Z., & Wong, M. (2003). Asymmetrical impact of trustworthiness
attributes on trust, perceived value and purchase intention: A conceptual frame-
work for cross-cultural study on consumer perception of online auction. In
Proceedings of the 5th international conference on electronic commerce Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, (pp. 213–219).
Clark, T. H., & Lee, H. G. (1999). Electronics intermediaries: Trust building and market
differentiation. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual Hawaii international conference
on system sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). Online trust: Concepts, evolving
themes, a model. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 737–758.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). Understanding customer satisfaction
and loyalty: An empirical study of mobile instant messages in China. Interna-
tional Journal of Information Management, 30, 289–300.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in
buyer–seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
the theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability,
satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information & Management,
43, 1–14.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable vari-
ables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relation-
ships. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87.
 I.B. Hong, H. Cho / International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011) 469–479
Gefen, D. (2000). E-commerce: The role of familiarity and trust. Omega, 28, 725–737.
Good, D. (1988). Individuals, interpersonal relations, and trust. In D. G. Gambetta
(Ed.), Trust (pp. 131–185). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Hair, J. F., Rolph, E. A., Ronald, L. T., & William, C. B. (1995). Multivariate data analysis
with readings (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Peralta, M. (1999). Building consumer trust online.
Communications of the ACM, 42(2), 80–85.
Horppu, M., Kuivalainen, O., Tarkiainen, A., & Ellonen, H. K. (2008). Online satis-
faction, trust and loyalty, and the impact of the offline parent brand. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 17(6), 403–413.
Hoyer, D., & MacInnis, J. (2008). Consumer behavior. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an Internet
store. Information Technology and Management, 1(1), 45–71.
Kamariah, N., & Salwani, S. (2005). Determinants of online shopping intention. In
Proceedings of international conference on e-commerce.
Kim, E. Y., & Kim, Y. K. (2004). Predicting online purchase intentions for clothing
products. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 883–897.
Lee, M. K. O., & Turban, E. (2001). A trust model for consumer Internet shopping.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 75–91.
Liddy, A. (2000). Relationship marketing, loyalty programmes and the measurement
of loyalty. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 8(4),
351–362.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organi-
zational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McKnight, D. H., & Chervany, N. L. (2002). What trust means in e-commerce customer
relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 6(2), 35–59.
McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating
trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems
Research, 13(September (3)), 334–359.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. E. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and gover-
nance on relational risk. The Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308–338.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Palvia, P. (2009). The role of trust in e-commerce relational exchange: A unified
model. Information and Management, 46(4), 213–220.
Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust
and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 7(Spring (3)), 69–103.
Pavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2004). Building effective online marketplaces with
institution-based trust. Information Systems Research, 15(1), 37–59.
Rauyruen, P., & Miller, K. (2007). Relationship quality as a predictor of B2B customer
loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 21–31.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between
organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 483–498.
Shankar, V., Smith, A. K., & Rangaswamy, A. (2000). Customer satisfaction and loyalty
in online and offline environments. In eBusiness Research Center Working Paper
02-2000. Penn State University. October.
Shapiro, S. P. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of Social
Psychology, 93(3), 623–658.
479
Shurr, P. H., & Ozanne, J. L. (1985). Influences on exchange process: Buyers’ pre-
conceptions of a seller’s trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal of
Consumer Research, 11, 939–957.
Sirdesmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value and loyalty in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 56(January), 15–37.
Spekman, R. E. (1988). Strategic supplier selection: Understanding long-term buyer
relationships. Business Horizons, 31(4), 75–81.
Stewart, K. J. (2003). Transfer of trust on the World Wide Web. Organizational Science,
14(1), 5–13.
Uncles, M., & Laurent, G. (1997). Editorial. International Journal of Research in Mar-
keting, 14, 399–404.
Van der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T., & Creems, M. (2003). Understanding online pur-
chase intention: Contribution from technology and trust perspectives. European
Journal of Information Systems, 12, 41–48.
Verhagen, T., Meents, S., & Tan, Y. (2006). Perceived risk and trust associated with
purchasing at electronic marketplaces. European Journal of Information Systems,
15, 542–555.
Wang, H. C., Pallister, J. G., & Foxall, G. R. (2006). Innovativeness and involvement
as determinants of Website loyalty. II. Determinants of consumer loyalty in B2C
e-commerce. Technovation, 26(December (12)), 1366–1373.
Wiedenfels, G. (2009). Trust of potential buyers in new entrepreneurial ventures.
Gabler, Wiesbaden: GWV Faceverlage GmbH.
Yoon, S. J. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of trust in online-purchase
decision. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 47–63.
Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60, 31–46.
Zhu, D. S., O’Neal, G. S., & Lee, Z. C. (2009). The effect of trust and perceived risk
on consumers’ online purchase intention. In Proceedings of the 9th international
conference on computational science and engineering.
http://www.computertimes.co.kr (Computertimes), accessed on November 25,
2010.
http://www.ic3.gov (Internet Crime Complaint Center), accessed on July 20, 2010.
http://www.merriam-webster.com (Merriam Webster Dictionary), accessed on
May 12, 2010.
Ilyoo B. Hong is presently professor of management information systems at Chung-
Ang University, Seoul, Korea. He earned his PhD degree in MIS from the University of
Arizona, his MS in Business from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and
his BS in Management from Indiana University. He was a visiting scholar at the UCLA
Anderson School of Management. Ilyoo Hong has published in such journals as Deci-
sion Sciences, Information & Management, and Internet Research, among others. He
also presented academic papers at numerous international conferences, including
HICSS. His research interests include building online consumer trust, measuring the
quality and impact of web-based information systems, and information disclosure
in social networking sites.
Hwihyung Cho is now a lecturer of management information systems at Chung-Ang
University, Seoul, Korea. He received his PhD with a major in MIS from Chung-
Ang University. His prior job experience includes IT manager at Korean Airlines and
Tesco Homeplus. His research interests focus on developing a Web site strategy and
measuring consumer trust in online firms. His research works have appeared in such
journals as Information Systems Review and Asian Pacific Journal of Information
Systems.