Final Paper Group 3 PDF

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS STUDIES

BACOLOR PAMPANGA
THE PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE SHOPPING SITES ON CONSUMERS'

PURCHASED INTENTION
A Completed Research Submitted to

the College of Business Studies
Don Honorio Ventura State University
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for
Business Research 2
by
Basilio, Jhoanna Nicole C.
Calma, Ronalyn S.
Manabat, Johann Abel E.
Manalastas, Jazmir M.
Manapul, Danica G.
Miranda, Analyn N.
Pangilinan, Blaise Kenna D.
Singian, Renato JR. C.
Vergara, Emmanuel Angelo G.
to
Mark Anthony Canlas, MBA.
January 2023
TABLE OF CONTENT
Chapter 1: Problem and Its Background
Introduction..................................................................................................1-3
Literature Review.........................................................................................4-10
Conceptual Framework.................................................................................11
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................12-13
Hypothesis.....................................................................................................13
Significance of the Study...............................................................................14
Scope and Limitation.....................................................................................15
Definition of Terms ......................................................................................15-17
Chapter 2: Method
Research Design............................................................................................18-19
Respondents...................................................................................................19
Sampling Design............................................................................................19
Instrument......................................................................................................19-20
Data Gathering Procedure..............................................................................20
Ethical Consideration.....................................................................................20-21
Statistical Treatment/Data Analysis...............................................................21-22
Chapter 3: Result and Discussions
Demographic Profile of the Respondents.....................................................23-25
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Risk.........................................26-36
Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online................36-37
i
Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Risk on their Purchased Intention
..........................................................................................................................38-46
Chapter 4: Summary of Findings
Findings............................................................................................................47-48
Conclusions......................................................................................................49
Recommendations............................................................................................49-50
Referrences......................................................................................................52-61
Appendices.......................................................................................................62-81
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Pages
Likert Scale ………………………………………................................................22
Profile of the Respondents according to Age.........................................................23
Profile of the Respondents according to Sex..........................................................24
Profile of the Respondents according to their Income...........................................25
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Product Risk.....................................26
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Financial Risk...................................27
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Social Risk........................................29
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Time Risk..........................................30
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Delivery Risk.....................................32
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Security Risk.....................................33
Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Convenience Risk..............................35
Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online............................36
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Product Risk on their Purchased Intention
......................................................................................................................................38
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Financial Risk on their Purchased Intention
.....................................................................................................................................39
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Social Risk on their Purchased Intention
....................................................................................................................................40
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Time Risk on their Purchased Intention
....................................................................................................................................41
iii
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Delivery Risk on their Purchased Intention
...............................................................................................................................42
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Security Risk on their Purchased Intention
................................................................................................................................44
Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Convenience Risk on their Purchased

Intention.................................................................................................................45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Pages
Schematic Diagram of the Study …………………………………….........................11
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Pages
A. Plagiarism Scan...................................................................................62
B. Grammarian’s Certificate ……………………………………………63
C. Letter Request to Conduct the Study…………………........................64
D. Letter to Respondents …………………………………………...........65
E. Survey Questionnaire ………………………………………………....66-72
F. Curriculum Vitae....................................................................................73-81
iv
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Commission on Higher Education

Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga
APPROVAL SHEET FOR COMPLETED RESEARCH
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course of Bachelor of Science in Accountancy,
in this study entitled:
THE PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE SHOPPING SITES TO CONSUMERS'

PURCHASED INTENTION
has been prepared and submitted by:
Basilio, Jhoanna Nicole C.

Calma, Ronalyn S.
Manabat, Johann Abel E.
Manalastas, Jazmir M.
Manapul, Danica G.
Miranda, Analyn N.
Pangilinan, Blaise Kenna D.
Singian, Renato JR. C.
Vergara, Emmanuel Angelo G.
Mark Anthony A. Canlas, LPT, MBA Jelvin P. Velasco, MBA

Researh Adviser Research Consultant
Panel of Examiners
Ma. Antonette M. Guintu, DBM Cristal Rio U. Manuel, MBA
Member Member
Accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in
Business Administration major in Marketing.
v
Maria Liberty F. Isip, MBA LUISITO B. REYES, MBA, CBA
Chairman, Marketing Dean, College of Business Studies
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this study was made possible through some people who have
given their time, support and assistance for this study:
First, we are deeply grateful to the good health, guidance and blessings that He had given us to
complete this study.
We would like to express our heartfelt gratitude to our advisor, Mr. Mark Anthony Canlas for his
unwavering support and guidance throughout our feasibility study, as well as his patience,
motivation, enthusiasm, and vast knowledge. His guidance has been extremely beneficial
throughout the research study. He never got tired of editing our manuscript and for all the pieces
of advices that he has given. We could not have asked for a better advisor and mentor for this
study.
Aside from our advisor, we would like to thank Mr. Jelvin Velasco, our consultant, for reviewing
our paper and providing us with insightful comments and tips on how to improve it.
We thank all the members for the stimulating discussions, for the sleepless nights while working
together before deadlines, and for all the fun and struggles we had in the past few months.
We also want to acknowledge our respondents who spent their time and efforts answering our
survey questionnaire.
We would also like to thank our friends and classmates who helped us even in small ways
contributing to the success of the study and for staying on our side in this journey of achieving our
dreams.
Lastly, our sense of gratitude to our family, our parents, for supporting us spiritually, mentally and
physically throughout this research paper and for staying on our side in this journey of achieving
our dreams.
vii
ABSTRACT
Online shoppers have their own risk perception, which is referred to as perceived risk. If
shoppers discover a number of risks associated with online purchases, their intent to buy online
will be reduced. The study examines the perceived risk in online shopping and the purchase
intention of the shoppers towards online shopping. The research adopted a survey questionnaire to
collect data from 380 respondents from Guagua, Pampanga who have experienced in online
purchasing. The snowball sampling method was used in this study. The result revealed that the
perceived product risk, financial, time risk, delivery risk, and convenience risk have significantly
influenced the online purchase intention of online shoppers. While the perceived social risk and
security risk negatively or (has no effects on online shopping) influence the purchase intention of
online shoppers.
viii
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Technological advancement has significantly influenced the increasing popularity of
online shopping in recent years. As defined by Masoud (2013), online shopping pertains to the act
by which a product or services is bought by the consumers through an internet website.
Such improvements resulted to the emergence of a new consumer profile known as online
consumers. These consumers have access to electronic commerce 24/7 with no downtime due to
holidays, closing times, poor weather, or other factors. Moreover, they are also notified regarding
an exclusive offer, a promotional program, even a launch of a new product and the one-click
purchasing option which propelled e-commerce to a new height. Now more conveniently than
ever, consumers are no longer restricted by time and place as shopping freedom can already be
attain through the use of their smart phones (Zhang, et. al, 2020). Similarly, dealings and
transactions do not necessarily need to be done physically as it could be successfully completed
over the internet.
According to Kemp (2019), among the total population of 7.676 billion, internet users in
general is said to composed 4.388 billion of it. Meanwhile, an estimate number of 3.484 billion
are identified to be an avid user of social media. Lastly, those who uses internet more frequently
than mobile phones has accounted to the 3.256 billion of the total population. Clement (2019) also
mentioned that among various platforms, online retail stores including flipkart.com, Amazon,
Walmart, and Daraz .pk, are the most commonly used online shopping sites by 1.8 billion people
in 2018. In line with these, the digital report of a creative agency We Are Social (2022), said that
1
an average time of six hours and fifty eight minutes is being spent by an internet user whose age
range is sixteen to sixty four year old. While in the Philippines, people of the said age range
consumed an average of ten hours and twenty seven minutes (10hrs & 27min) in the internet for
the last twelve months (Baclig, 2020).
For the past decade, online retailers are trying to persuade these new consumer profile to
drop by their websites for the hope of encouraging them to buy their needs and be a loyal customer
of their shop. However, despite of the widespread internet usage and trends on online shopping,
said consumers are still wary to shop online due to distrust, perceive uncertainty, and perceived
quality (Sthouthuysen et al, (2018); Regner & Riener, (2017); Pelaez et al., (2019); Sahoo et al.,
(2018). Specifically, issues regarding the shipping cost, poor customer service, difficulty in
returning a damaged or incorrect product, threats in information security, inability to evaluate the
actual product, and late delivery are all contributed to the unwillingness of consumers to shop
online (Kim, 2012). Hence, greater risk and less trust are expected in an online environment. As
reported by Baumann & Bachman (2017), online trust is viewed as crucial strategy in this field
since it has the capacity to reduce the uncertainty perceived by consumer, which generate a positive
image in return. Muhammad (2015) infer that if consumers trusted the website, they were prone to
buy more from it.
On the other hand, since its first introduction in 1960 by Bauer, the perceived risk has
already been considered as a pressing concern in electronic shopping because of its notable
influence to the attitude and purchase intention of consumers (Ariff, et. al, 2014) . This idea of
perceived risk is regarded by Bauer as the uncertainty and the negative consequences associated
with purchasing a product or service. Dai, Forsythe, & Kwon (2014), affirmed that the uncertainty
or perceived risk is considered to be a major inhibitor of online shopping. It is also asserted by
2
Almousa (2014) that consumer intention to shop over the web depends upon the risk perceived by
them. In a similar note, the study conducted by Zhang, Tan, Xu & Tan (2012); Masoud (2013),
found that consumer willingness to engage in e-business, their buying behavior, and attitude are
all negatively influence by risk perceived by them.
Tham (2019) suggest that research regarding the perceived risk should be continuously
conducted to mitigate its impact and help increase engagement in online shopping. Ashoer (2016)
emphasize that previous studies are only focused on five aspect of perceive risk, namely: product,
financial, psychological, social, and time risk. However, risk perceived by consumer in online
shopping is diverse, and therefore important to explore different variations of it to design proper
mitigating strategies (Panwar, 2018). Similarly speaking, Abrar, Naveed & Ramay (2017) also
amplify the same idea, stating that researchers should also consider exploring other aspect of
perceived risk to know if they are capable of influencing the behavior and attitude of consumers
online. Accordingly, Sims & Xu (2012) reiterate that although perceived risk has been examined
by many researchers in the past decades, further study into cultural differences is needed as risk
perception may vary from one culture to another.
Thus, to fill the gap of the existing literature, this research study will be conducted. The
study will be viewed on the Philippine context and will focused primarily on determining the
consumer perceived risk in online shopping sites and its effect on their purchase intention. Along
with the aforementioned dimension of perceived risk, this study will also provide inclusion of other
risk dimension including delivery risk, convenience risk, and security risk, as a way to grasps an
in-depth understanding of the extent to which perceived risk influence purchase intention.
3
Literature Review
People's lifestyles and living habits have changed and are now more diverse than ever
before. People nowadays don't feel particularly happy about going into crowded marketplaces
and stores, largely because they think it takes too much time. Because of this, online shopping is
a time-saving option that can literally save someone's life. Customers can access the supplier's
online store from the comfort of their homes, free from inconveniences, by simply sitting down
in front of their browsing gadget. The biggest benefit is that customers may access the suppliers'
online stores whenever they want from anyplace these days because practically everyone has
access to the internet almost everywhere, whether at home or at work (Gnanadhas & Sunitha,
2014).
Perceived risk is a measurement of unanticipated disaffection and disappointment with
purchase decisions based on the purchase target, and hence it is a strong pointer of consumer
behavior because consumers are more likely to lessen possible failures rather than seek the
purchase accomplishment (Donni, Dastane, Haba, and Selvaraj, 2018).Zhang et al. (2015) claim
that Bauer first introduced the idea of perceived risk in 1960. The uncertainty or perceived risk
associated with internet shopping has been identified to be a key deterrent by previous study (Dai,
Forsythe & Kwon, 2014). Consumer propensity to make online purchases is directly related to
how risky they perceive the situation to be (Barnes et al., 2007; Almousa, 2014). Perceived risk
can have a detrimental impact on consumers' desire and intention to make purchases online in
addition to having a negative impact on their attitudes regarding online buying (Hsieh & Tsao,
2014). The likelihood that customers won't make an online purchase increases with perceived
danger (Tandon, Kiran, & Sah, 2017).
Online shopping companies are finding methods and ways to make their customers feel
comfortable when shopping with a few clicks of mouse. In this situation in which technology is
4
present, risk is also inevitable. Risk is crucial to the buying process because the consumer may
make a choice that contains risk, the outcome of which is uncertain and may present challenges
for the buyer (Maziriri and Chuchu, 2017). Chiu et al. (2014) defined perceived risk as the trade-
off between cost and benefits, or the overall consumer evaluation of the value of the good or
service based on what is got in comparison to what is paid. Also, perceived risk is defined as
consumer’s uncertainty while deciding whether to buy a product or not buy it (Demir et al., 2019).
According to Ariff et al. (2014), the desire to make an online purchase is significantly influenced
by perceived risk. Farivar et al. (2018) defined perceived risk as users’ beliefs about potential
negative consequences or the uncertainty of outcome or consequences (Buehler & Maas, 2018)
of an online transaction with a specific website.
Intention to purchase is the desire to purchase a particular product or service within a
given term of time. The consumer's willingness to buy from an e-commerce company has also
consequences in online purchasing intention. But this can change the purpose of consumers
because of unforeseen circumstances. Many E-commerce studies have shown that consumer
intentions to engage in online transactions are a significant predictor of consumers’ actual
participation in E-commerce transactions, the relationship between intention and behavior is
based on the assumption that human beings attempt to make rational decisions based on the
information available to them (Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006; Masoud, 2013).When compared to
more conventional sales channels, such brick-and-mortar establishments, purchase intentions in
an online environment can vary dramatically (Rodrguez and Fernández, 2017). The intention to
purchase means that consumers choose to buy a product or service because they consider
purchasing it or even because they have an attitude towards the product and appreciation of the
product. In other words, after the product has been tested, the buyer decides that the product is
worth buying, hence the buyer can repurchase the product (Jaafar et al. 2015).
5
In the electronic context, purchase intention is the degree to which consumers are willing
to make a purchase online. Suo, Lu & Di Lin (2020) further defined this as e-consumer’s
subjective willingness to buy in an online shopping website, where factors including the
consumer's resources, views, and lifestyle are taken into account. As for other researchers like
Chen et. al (2021) & Irfan et. al (2022), factors related to information systems including the
quality of the website, web page design, and details of the product display are emphasized to be
capable of influencing one’s purchase intention online. In reference to Moslehpour et. al (2018);
Vergara et. al (2019); Ullah et. al (2021), they claimed that when people shop online, they seek
for merchants who offer convenient shopping tools including service catalogs, search features,
pricing comparison sheets, shopping carts, and online payment systems.It is asserted by Peña-
Garcia (2018), that for this type of consumers, it is crucial for online stores to fulfill their promises
to customers, be entirely truthful in all business dealings, deliver services on schedule and to a
high standard, and guarantee the protection of any personal or financial information.
Based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), individual’s intentions to pursue a
certain action is linked with his/her belief, attitudes, behaviors and subjective norms. That is, the
greater the positive attitude towards a behavior, the greater the chance it will be carried out or
pursued (Amaro & Duarte, 2015). Therefore, if consumers perception of shopping online is
positive, then the willingness of consumers to buy online will also increase. A consumer is said
to be motivated to shop online when his/her colleagues, family, and friends think that he/she
should do so.
People are increasingly making purchases online thanks to advancements in internet
technology. To draw in and keep customers, various organizations and businesses are looking for
cutting-edge solutions. There is a major issue with online buying anywhere in the world. Due to
several risks, consumers are uneasy and hesitant to make purchases online. These risks affect
6
consumers' purchasing intentions and include product risk, financial risk, social risk, time risk,
delivery risk, security risk, and convenience risk.
Product risk is another barrier for customers to shop online (Raman et.al, 2020). This risk
factor can easily decrease the consumer’s confidence and intention during online shopping.
Kamalul et. al (2018) affirmed that when the order and delivered product do not match consumer
expectations, the consumer will consider the product incapable of satisfying their needs. The same
goes when the purchased product did not perform well as anticipated. Studies have shown that
product risk varies upon the chosen product category, age and family life cycle. As stated by
Amirtha et.al (2018), consumer needs and product choices changed as they transcend from one
stage of life to another. Thus, it is expected that product risk will be perceived different by people
depending on the stage they are currently in. Researchers, Dabrynin & Zhang (2019) investigate
the consumer experience online and the effect of perceived risk on purchase intention. In online
shopping, consumers have limited information about products and do not have tangible products
before buying, so risk of buying the products is high in consumers’ mind and the products may
fail to meet the expected standards (Hong & Cha, 2013; Popli & Mishra, 2015). The description
and the display of the product quality led to the cause of product risk, which remarkably affects
the consumer's capability to comprehend the product. Inability to examine the product, inadequate
product information display might raise consumer anxiety (Dastane, Jalal, & Selvaraj, 2018;
Wong, Dastane, Safie, & Ma’arif, 2019).
A significant factor in consumers' decisions to make purchases online is financial risk
(Haider & Nasir, 2016). Financial risk, which is frequently referred to as "economic risk," is
described as the "probability of experiencing a financial loss owing to hidden or replacement
expenses as a result of a defective product or a lack of warranty" (Kiang et al., 2011). The price
of a product has been shown to have a substantial impact on a consumer's choice to buy it, and as
a product's monetary worth rises, so does the perceived financial risk associated with the purchase
7
(Pappas, 2016). The primary financial risk that consumers feel while making purchases online is
frequently attributed to worries about security and privacy (Pantano, 2014).In the study of, Tham
(2019) defined financial risk as the fear of consumer to use credit cards and disclose financial
information online due to perceived threats in online safety and security. According to him, such
fear causes more customers to pay via cash on delivery rather than using credit cards or other
modes of payment. Another researcher, Ashoer, defined financial risk as the possible loss of
monetary amount as a consequence of high sale price, online fraud and additional charges.
Previous studies such as the like of Adnan (2014); Abrar, Naveed, & Ramay (2017); Saprikis,
Chouliara, & Vlachopoulou (2010), pointed out that one of the main concerns of customer when
purchasing online is the fear of credit card deception as there were increasing reports of financial
loss during transaction. Thus, Haider & Nasir (2016) regarded financial risk as an important
indicator of online customers in deciding whether to go with the purchase or not. With regards to
its impact on different demographics, Michota (2013), reported that older shoppers (Generation
X) are more risk averse as compared to their younger counterparts. Despite being less aware of
the financial risk associated on online shopping, they are more likely to avoid risk than the latter.
He further elaborated that these consumers are not generally inclined on discounts and other
promotion which minimize their likelihood to purchase and to encounter financial risk online.
Based on the study conducted in Nigeria, Mamman et. al, (2015) found that financial risk has no
significant influence on shopping behavior of online consumers. This is said to be the contrary of
the findings made by previous researchers like Almousa, 2011: Masoud, 2013; Zhang et. al, 2012;
Javadi et. al, 2012; Ko et. al, 2010. Concluded that this could be due to the nature of the
respondents and improvement in credit card security of the country, which increased consumers’
confidence in purchasing online.
Social risk is seen as a crucial component of perceived risk since it considers how society
affects a consumer's choice (Beneke et al., 2012).According to Asawa and Kumar (2016), a social
risk is when friends hold someone accountable for the subpar quality of their goods or services.
8
People typically adhere to the subjective norms that they worry about their family's, friends', and
coworkers' reactions to their own acts and whether those reactions will support or oppose them
(Nasir et al., 2015). These subject standards introduce us to the idea of perceived social risk,
which is based on how friends and family regard a customer's poor or unwise decision (Bazgosha
et al., 2012). Furthermore, perceived social risk, according to Weib (2015), is the subjectively felt
risk of being misunderstood or losing one's standing in one's social surroundings. Perceived social
risk, according to Zhang et al. (2012), is the possibility of losing one's social group position as a
result of utilizing a good or service, looking silly, or being unpopular. Consumers are allegedly
afraid of making fake purchases since friends and family serve as references, according to Ariff
et al. (2014). Therefore, the chance of a consumer losing status within the social group owing to
subpar goods or services obtained through online purchasing is the definition of social risk in the
current study (Zheng et al., 2012).
Time Risk, according to Kumar and Bajaj (2016), is the length of time buyers spend
considering a purchase. Time risk has been defined in the context of online shopping as the
possible loss of time and effort, which includes problems with website navigation, waiting periods
before receiving products, waiting periods before returning defective things, as well as processing
and shipping delays (Aghekyan-Simonian et al., 2012). Remote transactions are a feature of
internet purchasing; customers who buy something online must wait until it is delivered before
using or consuming it (Liao & Keng, 2013). As a result of a delay between the time of purchase
and the time of actual reception and consumption, consumers may feel dissatisfied, have low
repurchase intentions, or have complaints in mind (Liao & Keng, 2013). Due to the intangibility
of online buying, customers experience more uncertainty. As a result, they view time risk as
increasing when little information is offered about a product, which lowers their confidence in
their ability to make an informed purchase decision (Pappas, 2016). Customers desire an efficient
information transfer, social connection, and a ton of real-time, tailored information when they
9
shop online (Hsieh & Tsao, 2014). A more knowledgeable customer will probably perceive less
of a time risk while making an online purchase (Nepomuceno et al., 2014).
Delivery Risk is the term used by Ariff et al. (2014) and Zheng et al. (2012) to describe
customers who do not receive the things they ordered when expected. When customers experience
a lengthy delivery process or products that are damaged during the delivery process, there is a
delivery risk (Ariff et al., 2014; Zheng et al., 2012). As a result, the definition of delivery risk
used in this study is the potential for customers to experience frustration as a result of the delivery
process if the product is lost, damaged, or delivered to the incorrect location (Zhang et al., 2012).
Security risk is the potential for online merchants to abuse customers' personal
information without their knowledge or consent, which could leave customers feeling angry
(Thakur and Srivastava, 2015). Due to security and privacy concerns that online businesses fail
to address, consumers are hesitant to use e-commerce for their purchases. Consumers' lack of
trust in privacy and security protection is a real factor in why they don't finish their online
purchases (Zendehdel et al., 2016).
Convenience risk, consumers fear that delivery will be delayed due to various
circumstances the delivery company won’t deliver within the time frame agreed with customers,
or consumers fear that the goods may be damaged when handled and transported, or no proper
packaging and handling during transportation (Claudia, 2012)
10
Conceptual Framework
IV DV
Perceived Risk on Online

Shopping sites:
Product risk
Financial risk
Consumers' Purchased Intention
Social risk
Time risk
Delivery risk
Security risk
Convenience risk
Figure 1. Schematics Diagram of the Study
The Figure above shows the schematic diagram of the study adopted the Independent Variable and
Dependent Variable framework. As part of the process the researcher gathered information through
the use of survey questionnaire as the research instrument of the study. The collected data will be
analyzed and interpreted the used of Pearson correlation which will be used to analyze the study.
This study established the correlation between the perceived risks on online shopping sites
(independent variables) to the consumer purchased intention (dependent variable).
11
Statement of the Problem
Generally, the study aims to determine the relationship of perceived risk on online shopping sites
to consumer purchase intention
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. How may the profile of the respondents be described in terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 sex;
1.3 income?
2. How may the perceived risk of the respondent’s be described in terms of:
2.1 Product risk;
2.2 Financial risk
2.3 Social Risk
2.4 Time Risk
2.5 Delivery Risk
2.6 Security risk
2.7 Convenience risk?
3. How may the respondent’s intention to purchase online be described?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the perceived risk on online shopping sites and
consumer purchase intention?
12
5. Based on the findings, what recommendation/s may be proposed to mitigate the risk faced by
consumers on online shopping sites?
Hypothesis
H1: There is a significant relationship between product risk and consumer purchased
intention towards online shopping.
H2: There is a significant relationship between financial risk and consumers’ purchase
H3: There is a significant relationship between social risk and consumers’ purchase
H4: There is a significant relationship between time risk and consumers’ purchase intention
towards online shopping.
H5: There is a significant relationship between delivery risk and consumers’ purchase
H6: There is a significant relationship between security risk and consumers’ purchase
H7: There is a significant relationship between convenience risk and consumers’ purchase
13
Significance of the Study
This study provides relevant data regarding the relationship of purchase intention and risk
dimension in an e-commerce context. It aims to investigates how certain factors affect consumer
willingness to continuously engage or otherwise abandoned an online shopping activity. Therefore,
the result of the study will be beneficial to the following sectors:
Consumers. This study may be beneficial to them as it may serve as a basis for addressing their
pain points associated with shopping online. Through this research, customers can also assess
whether they are satisfied with the current shopping application or website they are using based
on their assessment of security, authenticity, and convenience.
Web Developers. The result of this study may be used as a tool in developing appropriate risk-
reduction strategies to improve the experience of its users while using their applications or
websites.
Entrepreneurs. This undertaking may be useful for future entrepreneurs particularly in analyzing
the worthiness of engaging in an online business. Through the feedback and concerns pointed out
by the respondents, entrepreneurs may also evaluate the preference of the consumers in choosing
an online website that they can use to their advantage.
Future Researcher. It can be a help as a reference for more studies in the future, particularly with
the risk perception of consumers in an online shopping context.
14
Scope and Limitation
The respondents of the study were the residents of Guagua, Pampanga those age ranges
from 18 to 34 years old. The study was limited to the 380 respondents from the Guagua, Pampanga
who were mixed in aged of 18 up to 34 years old.
The study will be conducted using quantitative research. The main focused of the study is
to determine the perceived risk of online shopping sites on customers purchased intention.
In addition, 18 up to 34 years old was selected as criteria of the study, because nowadays
online shopper are member of the Gen Z and millennial age group, also it is the country most
dominant internet users.
Definition of Terms
Delivery risk. This pertains to the fear of customers that their parcel will not be delivered
on time or that it will be damaged due to mishandling upon its delivery (Claudia, 2012). In this
study, delivery risk pertains to the risk of customers that the parcel will be delivered in the wrong
address or lost during its delivery. Further, it also pertains to customers evaluation of the reliability
of the delivery riders and the fear that a hidden delivery cost will be charged from them.
Financial risk. It is the perceived uncertainty of customers where they fear that the product
might not live up to its monetary price or that it might be available from somewhere at a relatively
low prices. In this study, financial risk is referred to as the customers perception that a certain
amount of money will be lost as a result of fraudulent online transaction. Thus, it is also described
as the fear of customers to use credit card transactions due to privacy concerns.
15
Product risk. Hang & Cha (2013); Popli & Mishra (2015) defined this risk as the possible
failure of the goods to meet customer expectations, as well as the possibility that it will fail to
perform its intended function. In this study, product risk deals with the difficulty of assessing the
product online due to the absence of physical cues. Thus, it also pertains to the fear of customers
that the product may be different from what is advertise or what is seen from the screen.
Time risk. In an online shopping context, this dimension of risk is associated with the
challenges in exploring the website due to its complexity, the difficulty in returning a faulty
product or a delayed in delivery that consumes the time of customers as a result (Aghekyan-
Simonian et al, 2012). In this study, time risk is regarded as the fear of customer to waste too much
of their time in browsing, ordering, receiving, and returning the product they ordered online.
Security risk. This refers to the threats of security breach of private information that people
submit online (Joonkyum and Bumsoo, 2014). In this study, security risk is refers to the fear of
customers that other entities will abused or disclosed their personal information without their full
consent to other firms or third parties.
Social risk. In their respective studies, Farzianpour et al (2014) & Zheng et al (2012)
emphasized social risk as the customer's perception that an online purchases may be disliked by
their reference group. In this study, social risk pertains to the risk of customers that online shopping
will affect their peers and family's relationship that may change their perception towards them.
Perceived risk. This is the level of uncertainty or doubt that a customer feel when deciding
to buy goods in the internet, such as those high-priced product in particular (Lake, 2019). In this
study, pereived risk refers to customers' identification and perception of threats in an online
shopping context.
16
Purchase intention. It is described as the consumers' decision to obtain goods but in a
certain condition (Mansouri et al., 2012). In this study, purchase intention relates to the willingness
expressed by customers to continuously engage in e-commerce transaction.
17
Chapter 2
METHOD
This chapter includes information on the demographic, sample size, sampling method,
description of the respondents, research instrument, data collection process, and statistical analysis
for the study.
Research Design
The descriptive correlational research design was used for this investigation. Research
investigations that seek to present static images of circumstances and determine the link between
various factors employ descriptive correlational design (McBurney & White, 2009). Descriptive
statistics refers to data that has been examined to highlight the key characteristics of data gathered
or used in a study (Fowler, 2013). The main objective of descriptive study is to create a snapshot
of the current state of affairs whereas correlational research helps in comparing two or more
entities or variables. On the other hand, correlational study is a type of research design that looks
at the relationships between two or more variables. Correlational studies are non-experimental,
which means that the experimenter does not manipulate or control any of the variables.
The definition and objectives of the descriptive correlation design were the main subjects
of this study. This quantitative research technique seeks to explain the links between two or more
variables. Descriptive Correlational is the best research design for this study. Its target is figuring
out how many people have a certain thought, behavior, or emotion in a specific way. The
quantitative data required to complete the study were collected using this research method. This
will help assessing the consumers’ perceived risk in online shopping sites and its effect on their
purchase intention. By using a quantitative research method, survey questionnaire is used by the
researchers in order to identify the demographic profile of the respondents with regards to their
age, sex, and income. Similarly, it is also intended to gather relevant data with regards to
consumers' assessment of risk dimension that are being encountered upon engaging on a virtual
transaction.
Snowball sampling was used in this study since it is difficult to obtain or reach members
of the target group, which is why we are recruiting samples. Snowball sampling, as defined by
Creswell (2012:209), is a type of deliberate sampling that frequently happens after a study has
18
started and takes place when the researcher asks a participant to suggest another individual to be
sampled.
Respondents
The respondents for this research were from Guagua, Pampanga. Three hundred eighty
(380) respondents comprised the total population of the respondents. From this population, 31,275
were selected as an age group of 18 to 34 years old.
According to the 2015 Census of PSA in Guagua, Pampanga, those age 18 up to 34 years
old constitute a total of 31,275 population. A raosoft online software program is used by the
researchers to calculate the sample size of the participant in this study. An online shopping site has
a restriction that every customer who ordered online must be at the age of 18 years old.
Sampling Design
This research employed referral sampling technique (also called snowball sampling) which
works by earning an individual's participation in the study, and then asking them to refer another
respondents that also fits in the criteria (Heckatorn, 2002).According to Bhat (2020), this sampling
technique is often use when a population is unknown or there is no easily available data with
regards to their demographic information. Consequently, one of the said advantage of this method
is convenience and quicker identification of a subject that meet the inclusion criteria. Thus in order
to generate a sample, the researchers will start from recruiting an individual subject who will ask
to refer another qualified subject to continue the chain until the desired sample is met. By using
this, researchers can reach those respondents that are relevant to the area being studied.
Instrument
A survey questionnaire was adopted from the study of Hassan et. al (2006) titled,
“Conceptualization and measurement of perceived risk in online shopping; Al- Rawad et. al (2015)
titled, “An Exploratory Investigation of Consumers’ Perceptions of the Risks of Online Shopping
in Jordan”; Lim & Ting (2012) titled, “E-shopping: An analysis of the technology acceptance
model” in conducting the proposed undertaking. Moreover, no further revisions were made by the
researchers from the said research instruments, as it is already validated and contains questions
related to the variables presented on this research study. In line with this, said survey questionnaire
19
contains several statements regarding risk dimension and purchase intention in an online context.
It has three parts which compose of the following:
The first part is intended to obtain the demographic profile of the respondents which
includes their age, gender, and income.
The second part is focused primarily on consumers’ assessment of risk dimensions on

online shopping sites such the product risk, financial risk, social risk, time risk, delivery risk,
security risk, and convenience risk.
Meanwhile, part three of the research instrument is designed to evaluate the consumers’
intention to purchase online.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers asked permission from the Dean of the College of Business Studies (CBS)
to pursue the study as well as to administer the distribution of survey questionnaires. A request
letter to conduct the study was sent to the department of the said authority. Once the requests has
been approved, the researchers begun to reach out to selected participants. Said participants will
be contacted through phone calls, social media, and all other means of reaching them out.
However, a letter to the respondents will be sent by the researchers to the participants, to get their
consent before the distribution of the survey questionnaire. Upon their approval, the researchers
will commence the administration of the survey questionnaire. Due to the limitation brought by
the Covid-19 pandemic, researchers humbly asked for 10 minutes of their time to answer the
questionnaire via a google form. Afterwards, all the gathered data will be collected, tallied,
tabulated, and will be subjected to statistical computation and interpretation.
Ethical Consideration
The researchers assured a strict compliance to the ethical standards in writing a research
paper. The approval of all concerned officials from DHVSU will be sought prior to the
administering of questionnaire. In gathering information, it will be assured by the researchers that
all of the sources, authors and literature work included in this study will be cited properly. Along
with this, a consent will be secured from the participants and they will be informed about the
mechanics of the study. To prevent disruptions among respondents’ activities, the distribution of
20
survey questionnaires will take place during the respondents’ most convenient time. However,
respondents will not be forced to answer and participate in the study as it is a pure voluntary
participation. Meanwhile, all the data and information that will be gathered by the researcher from
the respondents will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be interpreted with all honesty.
Statistical Treatment/Data Analysis
The collected data from the respondents, were tallied, tabulated and undergone interpretation and
analysis. In analyzing and interpreting statistical data, the Statistical Package for Social Science
from the Research Laboratory of the University was employed.
Frequency Percentage
This will be utilized to find out the total percentage of the respondents in accordance to
their demographic profile. By using the above-mentioned statistical technique, respondents age,
sex, and income which are stated on the first part of the instrument, will be much easier to describe
and interpret through the use of frequency table as they are already accompanied by their
corresponding percentage. Its formula can be noted as:
Formula: %= F x 100
% is the percentage; F is the frequency; N is the total number of respondents, while 100 is a
constant value.
Weighted mean
To analyze the respondent’s assessment of risk dimension, namely; product risk, financial,
risk, social risk, time risk, delivery risk, security risk, and convenience risk, as well as the
respondent’s evaluation of purchase intention, a 4-point Likert scale will be utilized.
21
Weighted mean Point Scale Descriptive Rating
3.26-4.00 4 Very High Risk
2.51-3.25 3 High Risk
1.76-2.50 2 Moderate Risk
1.00-1.75 1 Low Risk
Very High-Risk descriptive rating means that the respondents’ perceptions of product risk,
financial risk, social risk, time risk, delivery risk, security risk, convenience risk, and purchase
intention reach 75 percent to 100 percent.
High-Risk descriptive rating means that the respondents’ perceptions on product risk,
intention reach 50 percent to 74 percent.
Moderate Risk descriptive rating means that the respondents’ perceptions on product risk,
intention reach 25 to 49 percent.
Low Risk Disagree descriptive rating means that the respondents’ perceptions on product
risk, financial risk, social risk, time risk, delivery risk, security risk, convenience risk, and purchase
intention reach one percent to 24 percent.
Pearson correlation
In particular, this technique describes the strength and direction of the linear relationship
between two quantitative variables. Thus, to determine the significant relationship of the
independent variables (dimensions of perceived risk) to the purchase intention of consumers, the
researchers will employ Pearson Correlation Coefficient in analyzing and interpreting the data
received from the respondents.
22
Chapter 3
Result and Discussions
I. Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Demographic factors involving age, sex, and income are important to achieve a deeper
understanding of how different groups response to and perceived different risk dimension on
online shopping sites.
1.1 Age
Age is included as part of the demographic variable of the study since risk perception may
vary accordingly to different age groups. People who are born around a similar time usually share
the same characteristics as compared to others who comes from different generations or age
bracket.
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents according to age.
AGE (in years) Frequency Percent
18-22 305 80.3 %
23-26 40 10.5 %
27-30 17 4.5 %
31-34 18 4.7 %
Total 380 100.0
23
Table 1 shows that three hundred five (305) out of 380 or 80.3 % of the respondents are
aged 18 to 22 years old. Most of them are included in this age interval. Meanwhile, respondents
whose age is ranging from 27-30 got the least percentage which accumulates to a total response of
17 out of 380 or 4.5%.
1.2 SEX
Differences between male and female can provide a different input and may viewed risk
dimension differently by both sexes. Thus, sex is also an important variable in this undertaking.
Table 2 presents the profile of the respondents according to sex.
Frequency Percent
MALE 157 41.32 %
FEMALE 223 58.68 %
Total 380 100.0
Table 2 reveals that two hundred twenty-three (223) out of 380 or 58.68% of the respondents are
females while 41. 32% or 157 out of 380 are males. This result shows that the majority of the
respondents are implied to be females.
24
1.3 Income Range
At times, the tendency of customers to seek or avoid risk and whether to have a low or high
involvement on online shopping sites depends on their differing capacities (income range).
Table 3 presents the profile of the respondents according to their income range.
Frequency Percent
3000-10000 247 65.0 %
10001-15000 43 11.3 %
15001-20000 45 11.8 %
20001-25000 12 3.2 %
25001-30000 20 5.3 %
30001 and above 13 3.4 %
Total 380 100.0
Table 3 shows the data of the respondents with regards to their income range. Most of the
respondents , 247 out of 380 or 65 % have income ranging from Php 3,000 to Php 10, 000.
Meanwhile, respondents with an income range of Php 20,000 to Php 25,000 obtained a 3.2% or
12 out of 380 responses. This concludes that most of the respondents belong to a social class of
low income earner.
25
II. Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Risk
2.1 Product Risk
Table 4 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Product risk
Product Risk Mean SD Risk Level
It is difficult to ascertain the characteristics of the products 3.30 0.57 High

such as quality, size, color and style by just looking at
pictures on the web.
It is difficult to feel, try and/or experience the product prior 3.36 0.58 High
to purchase during online shopping
I am concern that the product delivered may not be exactly 3.42 0.63 High
as it appeared when displayed on the computer screen.
The product may not work as intended. 3.29 0.63 High
Overall High
3.34 0.60
Data from the above table reveals the assessment of 380 respondents when it comes to the
risk associated in buying product online (product risk). Based on the result, all four indicators were
described by the respondents as “high risk”. However, the indicators that got the highest weighted
mean belongs to the customer's concern about the authenticity of the product displayed on the web
which garnered a weighted mean of 3.42. Meanwhile, the customers’ concern about the product
possibility to fail its intended function got the lowest weighted mean which only accumulated to
3.29.
The general mean response of 3.34 with standard deviation of 0.60 in terms of product risk
was described as “High Risk” by the respondents. Based on the findings, it can be denoted that
there are still factors that customers are afraid to deal with, which refrain them to buy frequently
26
or try online shopping. Like for instance, it seems that experiencing an expectation versus reality
scenario is one of the pressing issue that primarily concerns the customers especially due to the
absence of physical touch. The same is true for the accuracy of the product information which is
viewed as questionable as can be seen on the result. This implies that there are still need for online
shopping sites to assure the authenticity of their product offering to meet the expectation,
satisfaction, trust and confidence of the doubting consumers online.
This is congruent to the study of Hong & Cha (2013) and Popli & Mishra (2015), wherein
they reiterate that consumers are at a significant risk upon purchasing online since they have
limited information about the product and cannot touch them physically before making a purchase.
Thus, product may not live up to their expectation once it arrives.
2.2 Financial Risk
Table 5 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Financial risk
Financial Risk Mean SD Risk Level
I am concerned that my financial records might not be 2.47 0.70 Moderate

adequately protected if I shop online.
I am concern about the ultimate price of the product 2.44 0.73 Moderate
online because there might be hidden costs.
It is not safe to give my credit card number when I 2.47 0.73 Moderate
order online
I may find that I can buy the same product at a lower 2.27 0.79 Moderate
price from somewhere.
Moderate
Overall
2.41 0.74
27
Shown in table 5 are the assessment of the respondents with regards to the financial risk
they perceived as barriers to online shopping. The result has recorded a consistent verbal
interpretation of “moderate risk level" across four indicators assessed by the respondents. The
concern about the possible exploitation of financial records has recorded a weighted mean of 2.47
which is the highest among all indicators. On the other hand, the possibility of finding the same
product at a lower price from somewhere, got a weighted mean of 2.27 which is considered to be
the lowest.
The overall mean response of 2.41 with standard deviation of 0.74 in terms of financial
risk was described as “Moderate Risk” by the respondents. This means that their standards of a
safe online shopping sites were not yet fully met. Results implies that online consumers are still
wary of transacting online due to the privacy concerns involving the security of their financial
records and using of credit card number when they order online. Such rating also implies that a
certain improvement on the above mentioned factors may even lower the perceived uncertainty of
consumers regarding the safeness of conducting financial transaction online.
This supports the study of Sinha and Singh (2017), who stated that financial risk is one of
the major inhibitor and one of the strongest predictor of consumers online shopping behavior. It is
said to play a critical role in consumer decision making process, particularly the decision in buying
online. Researchers further elaborated that the consumer tend to avoid this risk as they are afraid
to disclose financial information and also concerned with the possibility of encountering credit
card fraud when they engage in an online shopping activity.
28
2.3 Social Risk
Table 6 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Social risk
Social Risk Mean SD Risk Level
If I bought a product online, some friends would think 2.23 0.77 Moderate
that I am trying to show off.
My friends and family would think that I am unwise if I 2.29 0.78 Moderate
shop online
Online products may not be recognized by relatives or 2.46 0.78 Moderate

friends.
My purchase decision may not be like by my circle. 2.40 0.78 Moderate
Online shopping may affect the image of people around 2.16 0.77 Moderate
me.
Overall Moderate
2.33 0.78
Table 6 reveals how the respondents evaluate the social risk as a hindrance to the adoption
of online shopping. As reflected on the said table, majority of the respondents evaluate social risk
as “Moderate risk" on five of the given indicators. Based on the results, customers' concern that
online products may not be recognize by friends or relatives obtained the highest mean among all
the indicators which has a corresponding mean of 2.46. Conversely, the least weighted mean is
2.16 which is belong to the negative effect of online shopping to the images of the people
surrounding a customer.
29
The overall mean response of 2.33 with standard deviation of 0.78 in terms of social risk
was described as “ Moderate Risk” by the respondents. Result indicates that the perception of their
reference groups still have some relevance to consumer’s decision to engage in an online shopping
activity. They might be afraid that a poorly made purchase decision will cost them friendship and
self-esteem, especially where a certain product is purchase is also found to matter to their reference
group.
This supports the findings of Kumar (2016) who claimed that online consumers worries
about their purchase decision since they fear that it might result to dissatisfaction or mental stress
which includes the loss of self-image and self concept.
2.4 Time Risk
Table 7 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Time risk
Time Risk Mean SD Risk Level
I would have to spend much time if I want to return 3.0 0.72 High
online merchandise.
I am afraid that products purchased from online High

3.09 0.63
vendors will not be delivered on time.
I am concern for the time lost between ordering and High

3.0 0.67
receiving products bought over the web
Searching for the product online consumes a lot of time. High

2.86 0.77
Overall 2.99 0.70 High
30
Table 7 shows that the four indicators are subject to “High Risk”. In particular, the
consumers’ concern that the product delivery will be delayed has considered to be the main factor
that affects consumers with regards to time risk. It garnered a weighted mean of 3.0 which is
relatively higher as compared to the lowest weighted mean of 2.86 which represents the consumers
perception that searching product online consumes a lot of time.
With the general mean of 2.99 with a standard deviation of 0.70, time risk was described
as “High Risk”. This indicates that online shoppers find it risky and time consumable when it
comes to online shopping, especially when it comes to return of online purchases, delivery time,
and the loss of product purchased. This signifies that online shopping sites need to implement a
strict rule of return policy to reassure the buyers. Second, the importance of “speed”, the need to
deliver the package “on time” or before, there is a need in the improvement of logistic
management. Third, address the problems and challenges with the loss of product. Lastly, the
shopping online site should improve the data-based product suggestion so that the customer will
see relevant products in their searches, and also the improvement in category suggestion, photos,
and prices.
This finding is supporting to that of UPS PULSE (2013), wherein they stated that online
shoppers tends to abandoned their carts when they see that the shipping time takes a lot of waiting
before it finally delivered. It is also found that consumer satisfaction decreases as the waiting time
increases. Similarly, the finding also supported the study of Liao & Keng (2013) who said that
customers has a tendency to be dissatisfied and complain about the delay of purchase in an online
shop due to the negative factors concerning time.
31
2.5 Delivery Risk
Table 8 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Delivery risk
Delivery Risk Mean SD Risk Level
I doubt the reliability of delivery riders. 2.69 0.70 High
I am concern that my parcel will be delivered on 2.73 0.74 High

the wrong address.
I am concern that one of my product will be lost 2.93 0.72 High

during the delivery.
An additional cost for express delivery might be 2.93 0.70 High

charged from me.
Based on the results, the four indicators are subject to “High Risk”. However, the
respondents’ worries that their goods will be loss during delivery and that they will need to pay an
extra charge are found to be the highest concern of the respondents since the weighted mean of
2.93 was generated by both indicators. The least concern of consumer is the reliability of delivery
riders which only generates a weighted mean of 2.69.
Delivery risk is described as “High Risk” with the general mean of 2.82 and with a standard
deviation of 0.72. This shows that online shoppers regarded it as unsafe and risky in terms of
product loss, additional expenses, inaccurate address, and delivery driver reliability while
purchasing online. This also implies that the online consumers has yet fully acknowledge the
benefit of having the product delivered on their doorstep as they are still concerned and somehow
there’s still a lack of trust in terms of delivery as can be seen on the result. Therefore, not until
they see an improvement in the delivery process or not until there is a much better tracking system,
32
consumers will show less trust towards online shopping sites. This will opt most of them to
purchase more in a physical store and less frequently on the internet.
The finding is in conformance with the study of Cao, Ajjan & Hong (2018) who found that
delivery risk may prompts many online businesses to take action as organizations and online
consumers view such risk as the most pressing risk in online shopping. Ariff et al (2014) said that
consumers’ worries are a result of the problems arising in the delivery process which includes
issues concerning incorrect, damaged, and delayed product shipment.
2.6 Security Risk
Table 9 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Security risk
Security Risk Mean SD Risk Level
My personal information may not be kept safe. 3.04 0.68 High
My email address may be abused by others. 2.94 0.68 High
My personal information may be disclosed to other High

2.96 0.68
companies.
I am worry that I will received unnecessary emails or High

3.10 0.68
text from unknown entities.
Table 9 show the assessment of the respondents with regards to the security risk wherein
the four indicators are subjected to "High Risk". Specifically, data reveals that the concern in
receiving unnecessary emails and text messages from the unknown entities is the top issue which
concerns the consumers in an online shopping context. This indicator garnered the highest
weighted mean of 3.10. As for the indicator with lowest mean, it has found to be belong to the fear
33
of consumer that their email address will be abused by others which accumulated a weighted mean
of 2.94.
With the general weighted mean of 3.01 with a standard deviation of 0.6, in terms of
security risk was described as "High risk". This indicates that online shoppers find it risky when it
comes in security of their personal information. This implies that the online shopping sites should
follow the Data Privacy Act that the Personal Information of the online shopper must be privately
kept. The online shopping sites should improve their Policy when it comes in the privacy of the
online shoppers.
This is congruent to the study of Thaw et al (2012) who stated that consumers' lack of
acceptance in e-commerce adoption today is not merely due to the concern on security and privacy
of their personal data, but also lack of trust and reliability of web vendors.
In conformity with the results of the study, security risk is one of the reason why consumers
are not purchasing over the online shopping sites. This affect users' perceptions of the personal
information security of online shoppers.
34
2.7 Convenience Risk
Table 10 present the Assessment of the Respondents Perceived Convenience risk
Convenience Risk Mean SD Risk Level
Cancellation of product purchase in the internet is a High

3.08 0.65
very complex activity.
Returning a defective or wrong product takes a lot of 3.34 0.62 High

time
Contacting the seller for the High

damaged/missing/incorrect product is very difficult. 3.30 0.66
Overall High
3.24 0.64
Data from the above table 10 show the assessments of 380 respondents when it comes to
the risk associated with the difficulty of returning and canceling orders online (convenience risk).
Based on the result all three indicators was described by the respondents as "high risk". Among
all the said indicators, the difficulty in returning defective products which has a weighted mean of
3.34 has emerged to be the highest, while the customers concern about the complexity of canceling
orders online has recorded a weighted mean of 3.08 which is considered to be the lowest.
The overall mean response of 3.24 with standard deviation of 0.64 in terms of convenience
risk was described as “ High Risk” by the respondents. This indicates that online shoppers find it
difficult when it comes to contacting the seller,especially when they received wrong product and
incorrect product it takes long time for them to return their product that they ordered. This signifies
that online shopping sites need to reevaluate their procedure when it comes to packaging and they
need to take better steps to protect their product. They should inspect their inventory and make
sure that they meet the right description.
This finding is in agreement with the study of Bhatti et al (2018) who stated that consumers’
mind is heavily influence by convenience when deciding to buy something on the internet. Like
35
for instance, is it easy for them to cancel products once they unintentionally place a wrong order.
When they feel greater difficulty, it is perceived as a bad experience which is said to affect their
behaviour negatively.
III. Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online
Table 11 present the Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online
Mean SD Level of
Intention to shop online
Intention
I will continue to purchase product from online 3.16 0.54 High

sellers.
I will continue to visit an online shopping site to 3.17 0.55 High

buy for my needs.
3.04 0.63 High

I plan to do more of my shopping on the internet.
I will recommend good online stores to others. 3.30 0.55 High
3.17 0.57
Overall High
When it comes to purchase intention, respondents described their intention to purchase

online as “High” on four of the given indicators included in the assessment of purchase intention.
Based on the given set of findings, it can be seen that the indicator pertaining to the willingness of
the respondents to recommend good online stores to others got the highest weighted mean which
accelerated to 3.30. Meanwhile, the lowest recorded weighted mean belongs to the plan of
consumers to do more of their shopping online which garnered a weighted mean of 3.04.
36
In line with the aforementioned results, the overall mean response of 3.17 with standard
deviation of 0.57 in terms of intention to purchase was also described as “High” by the respondents.
This signifies that the respondents are satisfied with their experiences in using online shopping
sites which lead to their strong intention to purchase more of their wants and needs via the internet.
Such satisfaction also motivates them to share some online stores which they perceived as “good”
with other people they know.
This is consistent to the study of Shah et.al (2012), that purchasing intention is a decision-
making process that provides the reasoning behind the decision. A buyer orders a specific product.
Younger customers purchase online more frequently than older consumers due to their prior
internet expertise.
37
IV. Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Risk on their Purchased Intention
4.1 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Product Risk on their Purchased

Intention
Table 12 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Product Risk on their Purchased
Intention
RISK INTENTION HYPOTHESIS

DECISION
PRODUCT Pearson Correlation 0.17 .154(**) ACCEPTED

RISK
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.00
N 380 380
INTENTION Pearson Correlation .154(**) 1
N 380 380
Product risk as one of the dimensions of perceived risk, reveals to have a significant
relationship with consumer purchase intention, since the p-value of 0.00 was less than the 0.05
level of significance. A weak positive correlation exists between the variable with Pearson r value
of 0.17. With that, the alternative hypothesis 1 (H1) regarding the significant relationship between
product risk and purchase intention is therefore accepted.
This findings support the study of Dig et al. (2017), wherein the product risk is identified
to be the most influential factor affecting the purchase intention of the customers. It is further
specified that such strong influence is caused by customers perception that the product they bought
online may fail its intended function, which consequently influences their intention to shop online.
38
Result indicates that the product risk is capable of influencing the purchase intention of
consumers both directly and inversely. Depending on what customers feel, like how difficult or
easy it is for customer to gather accurate information regarding the product displayed on the web
(such as authenticity), the consumer’s willingness to shop online can be either high or low.
Therefore, when online consumers’ perceived greater difficulties in trusting and assessing the
actual product displayed on the web, they might purchase less frequently. However, it might be
the other way around when perceived product risk is low.
4.2 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Financial Risk on their Purchased Intention
Table 13 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Financial Risk on their
Purchased Intention

DECISION
FINANCIAL Pearson Correlation -0.09 .154(**) REJECTED

RISK
N 380 380
N 380 380
Based on the 0.07 p-value , table 4.2 shows that the perceived financial risk has no
significant relationship with consumer purchase intention since the said value was greater than the
significance level of 0.05. In accordance with the result, a weak negative correlation is established
between the variable with a Pearson value of -0.09. Said findings also led to the rejection of the
alternative hypothesis 2 (H2) of this study which is concern with the relationship between financial
risk and purchase intention.
39
This is consistent to the study of Courage et al. (2019) that in a market where e-commerce
is still less pervasive, financial risk is considered to be a significant factor that hinders customers
to adopt the said technology. The reason for this lies on consumers’ fear of whether the items will
be worth the price or whether the products would be delivered after making payments.
In conformity with the results of the study, financial risk specifically financial fraud can
also be an indicative of the consumers’ acceptance of online shopping. As the results infer,
credibility, buyer’s integrity, and safe financial transaction can play a critical role in their purchase
intention.
4.3 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Social Risk on their Purchased Intention
Table 14 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Social Risk on their Purchased
Intention

DECISION
SOCIAL RISK Pearson Correlation -0.06 .154(**) REJECTED
N 380 380
N 380 380
Data in the table 4.3 states that there is no significant relationship between the social risk
and consumer intention to purchase online as the p-value of 0.22 is greater than the level of
significance of 0.05. Meanwhile, the Pearson r value of -0.06 indicates that there is a weak negative
correlation exist between the variable. This resulted to the rejection of the alternative hypothesis 3
(H3), which tries to determine the relationship between the social risk and intention of consumer
to shop online.
40
This findings is opposed to that of Javadi (2012) and Vernuccio (2015) which claimed that
when customers’ engage in an online shopping, they are influenced by individual values such as
the risk of losing friendships, respect, and self-esteem.
In agreement with the research result, it appears that regardless of the perceived social risk
by consumers, their intention to purchase online will not be affected and will remains the same; or
that it cannot lead to an increase nor a decrease. Generated results also implies that, regardless of
people’s perception of their buying choices online, such factors are irrelevant to customers in this
case.
4.4 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Time Risk on their Purchased Intention
Table 15 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Time Risk on their Purchased
Intention

DECISION
TIME RISK Pearson Correlation 0.29 .154(**) ACCEPTED
N 380 380
N 380 380
It can be derived from the given outcome that the perceived time risk is significant to the
purchase intention of consumer in an online context, considering the obtained p-value of 0.00 is
less than the 0.05 level of significance. In relation to this, the alternative hypothesis 4 (H4) is
accepted accordingly. Finally, a weak positive correlation is found to exist between the perceived
risk on online shopping sites and consumer purchase intention with Pearson r value of 0.29.
41
The result support the findings of Pappas, 2016, in which the perceived performance risk
of online shopping is further influenced by website factors such as usability, the time spent on
searching for information, the uncertainty regarding after-sales service and the difficulty of website
navigation. This also supported by Haider and Nasir, 2016, and Nepomuceno et al., 2014. To
Haider and Nasir, the return process might take longer time to process or involve minor costs on
return items. To Nepomuceno, a consumer who is more informed about a product, is likely to
perceive less time risk when purchasing online.
This shows that the perceived time risk might have some relevance to their purchase
intention; wherein if a certain improvement is made on the website, such as ease of returning and
ordering a product or an easy navigation of the site or application, it could motivate them to shop
online. Whereas, a significantly high time risk could raise concern and may minimize their
willingness to engage.
4.5 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Delivery Risk on their Purchased Intention
Table 16 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Delivery Risk on their Purchased
Intention

DECISION
DELIVERY Pearson Correlation 0.17 .154(**) ACCEPTED

RISK
N 380 380
N 380 380
42
In reference to the findings of the study, a significant relationship is established between
the perceived delivery risk on online shopping sites and purchase intention of consumers since the
p-value of 0.00 is less than the 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the hypothesis of significant
relationship between delivery risk and purchase intention (H5) is accepted respectively. As for the
correlation, a Pearson r value of 0.17 is acquired which denotes a very weak positive correlation
between the two variables.
This supports the study of Claudia, I. (2012), who stated that consumers also feared the
possibility of the delay in delivery due to various circumstances, such as the delivery company
won’t deliver the purchased products within the time frame agreed upon. It indicates that the
perceived delivery risk is a significant factor affecting attitude and hence behavior towards
shopping online (Zhang et al., 2012; Alkailani and Kumar, 2011). People do not tend to shop online
because they are not sure whether the ordered merchandise will be delivered or not.
Taking into account the generated results of the study, it implies that consumer purchase
intention may be influence positively or negatively by some factors including how reliable delivery
riders are and how the delivery process turns out. Once satisfied, online shopping could create a
positive image on consumers mind and could also lead to repurchase intention. However, if left
unchecked, customer may opt to choose a physical shop to secure the purchase products
themselves.
43
4.6 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Security Risk on their Purchased Intention
Table 17 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Security Risk on their Purchased
Intention

DECISION
SECURITY Pearson Correlation 0.01 .154(**) REJECTED

RISK
N 380 380
N 380 380
Congruent to the results that the researchers arrived at, security risk on online shopping
sites is found to be insignificant to consumer purchase intention, since the p value of 0.053 was
greater than 0.05 level of significance. With this, the alternative hypothesis 6 (H6) which meant to
know the significant relationship between security risk and purchase intention is rejected as a
result. Meanwhile, a very weak positive correlation exists between the variable with Pearson r
value of 0.01.
This is averse to the findings of researchers such as Kamalul Ariffin et al., (2018) which
says that security risk is having negative impact in online purchasing of apparels. People are less
likely to offer their personal information when they aren't confident in using the website.
In agreement with the research result, it appears that the security risk is not really of great
importance to customers when deciding whether to engage in an online transaction or not. A threat
on their personal information may not be significant and so does the overall lack of security
44
measures. Further, it implies that security risk is not one of the major consideration that influence
consumers’ purchase intention
4.7 Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Convenience Risk on their Purchased

Intention
Table 18 present the Relationship of the Respondents Perceived Convenience Risk on their
Purchased Intention

DECISION
CONVENIENCE Pearson 0.26 .154(**) ACCEPTED

RISK Correlation
N 380 380
INTENTION Pearson .154(**) 1

Correlation
N 380 380
Based on the given p-value of 0.00, convenience risk on online shopping sites is identified to have
a significant relationship with consumer purchase intention since the derived value is less than the
0.05 level of significance. Pursuant to the said result, alternative hypothesis 7 (H7) of this study is
thereby accepted. Correspondingly, a weak positive correlation also exists between the variable
with Pearson r value of 0.26.
This finding is consistent to the study of Copeland (2018) where convenience is said to be
one of the most significant predictor concerning purchase intention. At times, customers faced
difficulty in placing orders, or are unable to cancel the placed order. In addition, they also faced
delays in receiving or returning products which affects their willingness in return .
45
With the result, it shows that in general, a hassle-free transaction might serve as one of the
motivation of consumers to settle on online shopping as a mode of buying their needs. However,
with the risk surrounding the online shopping community such as the difficulty in returning and
canceling the product, or receiving damaged items in return may also be an indicator of customers
decision to quit or not to try at all.
46
Chapter 4
Summary of Findings
Findings
The following were the findings of the study:
Based on the result of the study, it is found that the majority of the respondents are belonged
to the age of 18-22 years old while the lowest frequency is composed of the age ranging from 27-
30 years old. Meanwhile, out of 380 respondents, females have dominated the survey which
garnered a relatively higher frequency than males. In terms of income range, most of the
respondents has an income of Php 3,000 to Php 10,000 while respondents whose income range is
Php 20,000- Php 25,000 obtained the least percentage which only accumulates to 3.2% or 12 out
of 380 responses.
On the consumers’ assessment of the risk dimension, product risk is described by the
respondents as “high risk” on all of its four indicators including the product may not be exactly
what it appears on the screen, difficulty in experiencing the product before buying, difficulty in
assessing the product features, and product may not work as expected. On the contrary, financial
risk as a barrier to online shopping is described by the respondents as "moderate risk” in terms of
possible lack of protection to financial records, the perception that it is not safe to give credit card
number, the possible hidden cost, and the possibility of acquiring the product somewhere with a
relatively low price. With regards to perceived social risk, respondents assessed it with a “moderate
risk” rating on all of its indicators involving unrecognized online products by the relatives,
disapproved purchase decision by their circles, being perceived as unwise by friends and family,
thoughts of being perceived as boastful, and the possibility of affecting other people’s image. On
the other hand, all of the respondents agreed on the following indicators concerning the perceived
time risk in an online context including possibility of late delivery, spending much time in
returning a merchandise, possible time loss between ordering and receiving of products, and time
consuming product search. Moreover, respondents also labeled delivery risk as “high risk” on the
given indicators which comprise of possible product loss during delivery process, unanticipated
additional charge for the delivery, product will be delivered on the wrong address, and reliability
of the online riders. In terms of their assessment on perceived security risk, respondents also
47
described this dimension as “high risk” based on the following indicators consisting of: receiving
unsolicited emails or messages, security of personal information, possible disclosure of personal
data, and the likelihood of email abuse. Lastly, for the perceived convenience risk, it is also
considered by the respondents as “high risk” based on the assessment of the three indicators. These
includes hassle product returning, complex product cancellation, and difficulty in reaching out to
the online seller.
In light of the obtained results, majority of the respondents states that they have high
purchase intention towards online shopping sites based on their assessment on four of its
indicators. This indicators consist of the willingness to recommend good online stores to others,
visiting an online needs to buy for their needs, the willingness to continuously purchase from
online sellers, and the desire to do more of their shopping in the internet. No other verbal rating
were derived from the consumer assessment of purchase intention.
In addition to the aforementioned findings, of the perceived risk dimension is found to have
a significant relationship with the purchase intention of consumers in an online shopping context.
These risk dimensions are product risk, time risk, delivery risk, and convenience risk. Meanwhile,
three of the said dimensions namely, financial, social risk and security risk is found to be
insignificant with consumers’ intention to purchase. Therefore, the authenticity of the product
display, a credible and safe financial transaction, on time delivery, reliable delivery partners, and
ease of cancellation and product return can all contribute to lessening the uncertainty being faced
by consumers in an online shopping platform
The recommended risk-mitigating strategies are designed to help online shopping

platforms to improve the quality of the website and or application for better experience of the
online consumers. They are focused on building trust and a good brand reputation by minimizing
the perceived uncertainty that an online website can present.
48
Conclusions
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn;
1. Most of the respondent’ ages ranging from18 to 22 years old. Meanwhile, the majority of
the respondentsts were implied to be female, the total of two hundred twenty-three (223)
out of 380 respondents. With regards to their income range most of the respondents, 247
out of 380 have income ranging from Php 3,000 to Php 10, 000. This signifies that most of
the respondents are low-income earners.
2. The respondents perceived risk on the select risk dimension was assessed as High risk,
particularly when it comes to the product risk, time risk, delivery risk, security risk and
convenience risk. In terms of financial risk and social risk, the risk dimension were rated
as moderate risk.
3. According to the findings, the respondents are happy with their experiences utilizing online
shopping websites, which influences their well-formed desire to make a purchase.
4. Perceived product risk, perceived time risk, perceived delivery risk, and perceived delivery
risk significantly influenced the online purchase intention of the online shoppers. On the
other hand, perceived risk that have no significant relationship with purchase intention are
perceived financial risk, perceived social risk, and perceived security risk.
5. The researchers develop tactics that centers on fostering consumer confidence and trust,
which are crucial in persuading individuals to engage in online buying and outweigh the
risk they perceive.
Recommendations
1. Online shopping sites should implement a policy in which only the actual product should
be displayed on their site. Provide both actual photos and video of the product as well
accurate description of its size, color, and material used will give online consumers a
reassurance which might reduce their perceived uncertainty in an online shopping platform.
Similarly, a video demonstration and a 3D version of the product will help customer to
view the product in a much more precise detail.
2. Ensure the quality of the products. Make sure all the products undergo a quality control
process, especially products like electronic devices, medicines, and beauty products should
49
be checked in quality control to avoid malfunction, defective, and counterfeit products,
making sure the products are safe.
3. Some customers abandoned or canceled an online purchase due to the fear of complex and
time-consuming return processes. For this reason, it is hereby recommended to create a
more lenient return policy for incorrect and defective product to enhance experience and
retain customers. Such policy should be easily accessible on the site (such as on product
page and FAQ page) and its content shall be concise as much as possible since most
customers are not inclined in reading lengthy information. A relevant details about the
criteria in returning a product, the time frame for accepting returns, the person responsible
for return payment, and how refund will be issued (like in-store credit or other mode of
transfer) shall be stipulated explicitly in the terms and condition of the policy to be
implemented. Having a time frame is essential as it lets customer know how long will it
take for them to receive the refund and how long they are entitled to such policy. Moreover,
stating under what particular condition they are entitled for return will let consumer know
ahead of time what certain requirements they need to meet for a product return to process.
By stating such, consumer can avoid any action that would hinder their chance in receiving
the said benefits. In doing these steps, it is important that online vendors are responsive to
the queries of consumer and the latter should have a means to reach them out when a need
arises. This will not only lessen the perceived time and convenience risk of consumer, but
it will also increase consumer trust towards the site and brand reputation of the online
vendors.
4. Employ a strong security and privacy measure in order to ensure the online shopping sites
and shopper’s sensitive information from unauthorized attack. To assure that the privacy
of individual will secure by the online shopping sites. Should make a form that costumers
will fill up it before ordering online, they must write their personal information like Name,
Address, Age and Contact Number. The sensitive information to protect the personal
information it will privately secure by the Online Store.
5. Counter measure against the mishandling and damages of the product during delivery.
Forming strategy by improving the packaging of the products. First, choose the correct box
size, making sure that it is only slightly larger than the item that is being shipped. Second,
wrap the items especially products that are fragile to ensure nothing will be destroyed.
50
Third, fill the empty/remaining space between the product and the box by using air filled
buffer bags, air cushion film roll, inflatable bubble wrap, and air column roll. Lastly, proper
label fragile packages. Another preventive measure is to use GPS monitors, trackers to
detect impact and shock, and collect and review data on shipping damages.
6. The transparency of terms and conditions agreement of the site without hidden conditions
being added that is unknown to online shoppers. When generating the terms and conditions
template, it should include the minimum T&Cs requirements, have a clear understanding
of the technical requirements needed to implement the policy, and make sure the text is
carefully crafted while still easy for shoppers to understand. Terms and conditions should
include general and specific terms of service including: Shipping time frames and terms,
Return processing, Conditions of use Privacy disclaimers, Payment terms and special fees,
Liabilities, Product descriptions, Intellectual property, Cancelation policies, Terms of use
for your website, External links to specific policies.
7. This research is only limited to seven dimensions of perceived risk, namely: product,
financial, social, time, delivery, security, and convenience risk. There are still some risk
dimensions that left unexplored by the researchers such as physical risk, psychological risk,
and after-sale risk. Thus, future researchers may explore the said risks and may relate it to
other constructs such as consumer attitude in online shopping. Lastly, they may also
consider conducting their research on cities in the Philippines as this study is focused
primarily on Guagua, Pampanga which is one of the province of the said country.
51
References
Abrar, Kashif & Naveed, Muhammad & Ramay, Ifra. (2017). Impact of Perceived Risk on Online
Impulse Buying Tendency: An Empirical Study in The Consumer Market of
Pakistan. Journal of Accounting & Marketing. 06. 10.4172/2168-9601.1000246.
Adnan, H. (2014). An analysis of the factors affecting online purchasing behavior of Pakistani
consumers. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(5), 133- 148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v6n5p133
Aghekyan-Simonian, M., Forsythe, S., Kwon, W. S., & Chattaraman, V. (2012). The role of
product brand image and online store image on perceived risks and online purchase
intentions for apparel. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(3), 325–331.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012. 03.006
Al-Rawad, M., et. al. (2015). An Exploratory Investigation of Consumers’ Perceptions of the
Risks of Online Shopping in Jordan. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 7.
Alalwan, A.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.P.P.; Williams, M.D. (2016). Consumer adoption of
mobile banking in Jordan: Examining the role of usefulness, ease of use, perceived risk
and self-efficacy. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2016, 29, 118– 139.
Almousa, M. (2011). Perceive d Risk in Apparel Online Shopping: A Multi-Dimensional

Perspective. Canadian Social Science, 7 (2).
Almousa, M. (2014). The Influence of Risk Perception in Online Purchasing Behavior:

Examination of an Early Stage Online Market. International Review of Management and
Business Research, 3(2).
Amirtha, R., Sivakumar, V. J., & Hwang, Y. (2020). Influence of Perceived Risk Dimensions on
e-Shopping Behavioural Intention among Women—A Family Life Cycle Stage
Perspective. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 16(3),
320–355. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jtaer16030022
Ariff, M. S. M., Sylvester, M., Zakuan, N., Ismail, K., & Ali, K. M. (2014). Consumer perceived
risk, attitude and online shopping behaviour; empirical evidence from Malaysia [Paper
52
presentation] IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Ariff, M.S.M., Sylvester, M., Zakuan, N., Ismail, K. and Ali, K.M. (2014) ‘Consumer perceived
risk, attitude and online shopping behaviour: empirical evidence from Malaysia’, Paper
presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
Asawa, A. and Kumar, V. (2016) ‘A study on perceived risk & trust in online shopping: a
comparative study among various demographic groups of Pune shoppers’, Paper presented
at the International Conference Strategies for Business Intelligence.
Baclig, C. E. (2022, April 29). Social media, internet craze keep PH on top 2 of world
list.INQUIRER.net.https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1589845/social-media internet craze-
keep-ph-on-top-2-of-world-list
Barnes, S., Bauer, H., Neumann, M. and Huber, F. (2007). Segmenting cyberspace: a customer
typology for the internet. European Journal of Marketing, 41(1/2).
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Cox, D. (Ed.), Risk taking and
information handling in consumer behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bauman, A., & Bachmann, R. (2017). Online consumer trust: Trends in research. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation, 12(2), 68–79. https://doi. org/10.4067/S0718-
27242017000200008
Bazgosha, G., Eizi, N., Nawaser, K., Parhizgar, M.M. (2012), Technology of e-banking:
Perspective of costumers’ perceived risk and uncertainty. Indian Journal of Science and
Technology, 5(2), 2200-2208.
Beneke, J., Greene, A., Lok, I., Mallett, K. (2012), The influence of perceived risk on purchase
intent-the case of premium grocery private label brands in South Africa. Journal of Product
and Brand Management, 21(1), 4-14.
Buehler, P., & Maas, P. (2018). Consumer empowerment in insurance. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 36(6), 1073–1097. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-12-2016-0182
53
C.K. SUNITHA, & Gnanadhas, Edwin. (2014). Online Shopping - An Overview. B-DIGEST. 6.
16-22.
Chiu, C.-M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y.-H., & Huang, H.-Y. (2014). Understanding customers ‘repeat
purchase intentions in B2C e-commerce: The roles of utilitarian value, hedonic value and
perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2575.2012. 00407.x
Claudia, I. (2012), “Perceived Risk when Buying online”, Economics Series, 22(2), 63-73.
Clement, J.(2019). E-commerce worldwide – statistics & facts.

https://www.statista.com/topics/871/onlineshopping/
Dabrynin, H., & Zhang, J. (2019). The Investigation of the Online Customer Experience
and Perceived Risk on Purchase Intention in China. Journal of Marketing
Development and Competitiveness, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.33423/jmdc.v13i2.2005
Dai B., Forsythe S. and Kwon W. (2014). The Impact of Online Shopping Experience on Risk
Perceptions and Online Purchase Intentions: Does Product Category Matter? Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, 15(1).
Dastane, O., Jalal, B. M., Ifwan, M., & Selvaraj, K. (2018). Assessment of extended ES-Qual
Model in an E-commerce setting. International Journal of Management, Accounting and
Economics, 5(12), 923-954.
Demir, A. (2019). THE IMPACT OF STRATEGIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

DECISIONS ON SHOPPERS WELLBEING. Asian Academy of Management Journal,
24(1).
Donni, R., Dastane, O., Haba, H. F., & Selvaraj, K. (2018). Consumer perception factors for
fashion M-commerce and its impact on loyalty among working adults. Business and
Economic Research, 8(2), 168-192.
Farivar, S., Turel, O., & Yuan, Y. (2018). Skewing users’ rational risk considerations in social
commerce: An empirical examination of the role of social identification. Information and
Management, 55(8), 1038-1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.05.008
54
Gupta, S.; Yun, H.; Xu, H.; Kim, H.-W. (2017). An exploratory study on mobile banking adoption
in Indian metropolitan and urban areas: A scenario-based experiment. Inf. Technol. Dev.
2017, 23, 127–152.
Haider, A., & Nasir, N. (2016). Factors Affecting Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers in
Lahore, Pakistan. Journal of Management Engineering and Information Technology,
3(6), 9-14.
Hassan, A., et. al. (2006). Conceptualization and measurement of perceived risk in online
shopping. Mark. Manag. J. 16, 138–147.
Hong, I. B., & Cha, H. S. (2013). The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in
predicting purchase intention. International Journal of Information Management, 33(6),
927-939.
Hong, I.B. (2015), Understanding the consumer’s online merchant selection process: The roles of
product involvement, perceived risk, and trust expectation. International Journal of
Information Management, 35(3), 322-336.
Hsieh, M., & Tsao, W. (2014). Reducing perceived online shopping risk to enhance loyalty:
Website quality perspective. Journal of Risk Research, 17(2), 241–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.794152
Hsieh, M., & Tsao, W. (2014). Reducing perceived online shopping risk to enhance loyalty:
Website quality perspective. Journal of Risk Research, 17(2), 241–261.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.794152
Hubert, M.; Blut, M.; Brock, C.; Backhaus, C.; Eberhardt, T. (2017). Acceptance of Smartphone-
Based Mobile Shopping: Mobile Benefits, Customer Characteristics, Perceived
Risks, and the Impact of Application Context. Psychol. Mark. 2017, 34, 175–194.
Jaafar, M., Ismail, S. & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2015). Perceived social effects of tourism
development: A case study of Kinabalu National Park. Theoretical and Empirical
Researches in Urban Management, 10(2), 5-20
55
Javadi, M., Dolatabadi, H. Nourbakhsh, M. Poursaeedi, A., & Asadollahi, A. (2012). “An
Analysis of Factors Affecting Online Shopping Behaviour of consumers”, International
Journal of Marketing Studies; 4(5), 81-98.
Kamalul Affirin, S., Mohan, T., & Goh, Y. (2018). Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on
consumers’ online purchase intention. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,
12(3), 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-11-2017- 0100
Kemp, S. (2019). Digital 2019: Global internet use accelerates.

https://wearesocial.com/blog/2019/01/digital2019-global-internet-use- accelerates
Kiang, M. Y., Ye, Q., Hao, Y., Chem, M., & Li, Y. (2011). A service-orientated analysis of online
product classification methods. Journal of Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 28–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss. 2011.05.001
Ko, H., J. Jung, J. Kim, and S.W. Shim, (2010). “Cross-cultural differences in perceived risk of
online shopping,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, Vol. 4, No. 2: 20-29.
Kumar, P. and Bajaj, R. (2016) ‘Dimensions of perceived risk among students of high educational
institutes towards online shopping in Punjab’, Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce,
Vol. 21, No. S5, pp.1–21.
Liang, L.J.; Choi, H.C.; Joppe, M. (2017). Understanding repurchase intention of Airbnb
consumers: Perceived authenticity, electronic word-of-mouth, and price sensitivity. J.
Travel Tour. Mark. 2017, 35, 73–
89.list.INQUIRER.net.https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1589845/social-media internet craze-
keep-ph-on-top-2-of-world-list
Liao, T., & Keng, C. (2013). Online shopping delivery delay: Finding a psychological recovery
strategy by online consumer experiences. Journal of Computers in Human Behaviour,
29(4), 1849–1861. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.004
56
Lim, W. M., & Ting, D. H. (2012). E-shopping: An analysis of the technology acceptance
model. Modern Applied Science, 6, 49-62. doi:10.5539/masv6n4p49
Liu, C.-W.; Hsieh, A.-Y.; Lo, S.-K.; Hwang, Y. What consumers see when time is running out:
Consumers’ browsing behaviors on online shopping websites when under time pressure.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 391–397.
Mamman, Hussaini & Maidawa, Mustapha & Saleh, Mohammed. (2015). EFFECTS OF
PERCEIVED RISK ON ONLINE SHOPPING.
Masoud, E.Y (2013). The Effect of Perceived Risk on Online Shopping in Jordan. European
Journal of Business and Management, Vol.5, No. 6, 76-87.
Maziriri, E. T., & Chuchu, T. (2017). The conception of consumer perceived risk towards online
purchases of apparel and an idiosyncratic scrutiny of perceived social risk: a review of
literature. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3), 257-265. ISSN:
2146-4405.
Michota, A. (2013). Digital security concerns and threats facing women entrepreneurs. J Innov
Entrep 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-2-7
Mohd Shoki Md Ariff et al 2014 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 58 012007
Mohseni, S.; Jayashree, S.; Rezaei, S.; Kasim, A.; Okumus, F. (2016). Attracting tourists to travel
companies’ websites: The structural relationship between website brand, personal value,
shopping experience, perceived risk and purchase intention. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 21,
616–645.
Mou, J.; Shin, D.-H.; Cohen, J.F. Trust and risk in consumer acceptance of e-services. Electron.
Commer. Res. 2015, 17, 255–288.
Muda, M.; Mohd, R.; Hassan, S. Online Purchase Behavior of Generation Y in Malaysia.
Procedia Econ. Finance 2016, 37, 292–298.
Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost, D. M. (2015). Online shopping trends and its effects on consumer
buying behavior: a case study of a young generation of Pakistan. Journal of Social
Development.
57
Nasir, M.A., Wu, J., Yago, M., Li, H. (2015), Influence of psychographics and risk perception on
internet banking adoption: Current state of affairs in Britain. International Journal of
Economics and Financial Issues, 5(2), 461-468.
Nepomuceno, M. V., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. (2014). How to reduce perceived risk when
buying online: The interactions between intangibility, product knowledge, brand
familiarity, privacy and security concerns. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
21(4),619–629.
https://www.researchgate.net/deref/http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.jretco
nser.2013.11.006
Panda, R.; Swar, B.N. (2016). Electronic Retailing: A Review of Determinants of ‘Online
Shopping Intentions’ in India. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016, 9, 1–6.
Pantano, E. (2014). Innovation drivers in the retail industry. International Journal of Information
Management, 34 (3), 344–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt. 2014.03.002
Panwar, Charu. (2018). Consumer perceived risk in online shopping environment via Facebook as
a medium. International Journal of Engineering & Technology. 7. 2485-2490.
10.14419/ijet. v7i2.18.11017.
Pappas, N. (2016). Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying
behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29(1), 92–103.
nser. 2015.11.007
Pappas, N. (2016). Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying
behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29(1), 92–103.
nser. 2015.11.007
Parment, A. Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and
implications for retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2013, 20, 189–199.
Pavlou, P. and Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce

Adoption: An Extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1).
58
Pelaez, A., Chen, C.-W., & Chen, Y. X. (2019). Effects of perceived risk on intention to purchase:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 59(1), 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08874417.2017.1300514
Popli, A., & Mishra, S. (2015). Factors of Perceived Risk Affecting Online Purchase Decisions of
Consumers. Pacific Business Review International, 8 (2), 49, 58.
Rahulan, M.; Troynikov, O.; Watson, C.; Janta, M.; Senner, V. Consumer behavior of generational
cohorts for compression sportswear. J. Fashion Mark. Manag. 2015, 19, 87–104.
Regner, T., & Riener, G. (2017). Privacy is precious: On the attempt to lift anonymity on the
internet to increase revenue. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
26(2), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12192
Rodríguez, E. T. & Fernández, B. R. (2017). Analysing online purchase intention Spain: Fashion
e-commerce. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 15(3), 599-622.
Rogerwilco. (2019). The R34bn opportunity cost of online cx. (Online). Retrieved September 30,
2019, from https://www.rogerwilco.co.za/blog/ 2019-south-african-digital-customer-
experience-report
Sahoo, N., Dellarocas, C., & Srinivasan, S. (2018). The impact of online product reviews on
product returns. Information Systems Research, 29(3), 723–738.
https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2017.0736
Saprikis, V., Chouliara, A., & Vlachopoulou, M. (2010). Perceptions towards online shopping:
Analyzing the Greek university students' attitude. Communications of the IBIMA,
2010 (2010), Article ID 854516 [Online Journal]. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.
Sims, Julian and Xu, L. (2012) Perceived risk of online shopping: differences between he UK and
China. In: 17th UK Academy of Information Systems Conference (UKAIS 2012), 27-28
Mar 2012, Oxford, UK.
Sinha, P., & Singh, S. (2017). Comparing risks and benefits for the value enhancement of online
purchases. Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 19(3), 307.
59
Stouthuysen, K., Teunis, I., Reusen, E., & Slabbinck, H. (2018). Initial trust and intentions to buy
the effect of vendor-specific guarantees, customer reviews and the role of the online
shopping experience. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 27, 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2017.11.002
Tandon, U., Kiran, R., & Sah, A. N. (2017). The influence of website functionality, drivers and
perceived risk on customer satisfaction in online shopping: an emerging economy case.
Information Systems and e-Business Management, 16(1), 57-91.
Thakur, R. and Srivastava, M. (2015) ‘A study on the impact of consumer risk perception and
innovativeness on online shopping in India’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.148–166.
Tham, K., et. al. (2019). Perceived Risk Factors Affecting Consumers’ Online Shopping
Behaviour. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business Vol.6 No.4
pp.246-260, 2019, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3498766 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.34 98766
Weib, S. (2015), Determinants of Private Label Attitude: Predicting Consumers’ Brand

Preferences Using Psychographics. Austria: Springer.
Wong, S. W., Dastane, O., Safie, N., & Maarif, Y. (2019). What WeChat can learn from
WhatsApp? Customer value proposition development for mobile social networking Apps:
A case study approach. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 97(4),
1091-1117.
Zendehdel, M., Paim, L.H. and Delafrooz, N. (2016) ‘The moderating effect of culture on the
construct factor of perceived risk towards online shopping behaviour’, Cogent Business &
Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.1–13.
Zhang, L., Tan, W., Xu, Y. & Tan, G. (2012). Dimensions of Consumers’ Perceived Risk
and Their Influences on Online Consumers’ Purchasing Behaviour.
Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering, 2(7).
60
Zhang, Y., Wan, G., Huang, L., Yao, Q. (2015), Study on the impact of perceived network
externalities on consumers’ new product purchase intention. Journal of Service Science
and Management, 8(1), 99-106.
Zheng, L., Favier, M., Huang, P. and Coat, F. (2012) ‘Chinese consumer perceived risk and risk
relievers in e-shopping for clothing’, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13,
No. 3, p.255.
61
Appendix A
Plagiarism Scan
62
Appendix B
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Commission on Higher Education
GRAMMARIAN’S CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the research study entitled “THE PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE
SHOPPING SITES ON CONSUMERS’ PURCHASE INTENTION” by Basilio, Jhoanna
Nicole C., Calma. Ronalyn S., Manabat, Johann Abel E., Manalastas, Jazmir M.,
Manapul,Danica G., Miranda, Analyn N.,Pangilinn, Blaise Kenna D., Singian, Renato Jr.
C., and Vergara, Emmanuel Angelo G. was grammatically checked by the undersigned. It was
assured that this research was checked in the areas of grammar, coherence, unity, style and
mechanics of research writing.
RAVEN M. DE JESUS., MAED, LPT
63
Appendix C
LETTER REQUEST TO CONDUCT THE STUDY
LUISITO B. REYES, MBA, CBA

Dean, College of Business Studies
SIR:
The undersigned is currently collecting data necessary to complete their research work titled "THE
PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE SHOPPING SITES ON CUSTOMERS PURCHASED
INTENTIONS" This is in relation to the requirement for the completion of the degree of Bachelor
of Science in Business Administration Major in Marketing
In this connection, the researchers would like to seek permission from your good presence to
conduct this study in Guagua, Pampanga with its some population as respondents.
Rest assured that the data will be treated with utmost confidentiality to maintain the integrity of
your office as a whole.
Very truly yours,
ANALYN N. MIRANDA
Group Representative
Noted by:
MARK ANTHONY A. CANLAS

Research Adviser
64
Appendix D
LETTER TO THE RESPONDENTS
Dear Respondent,
Please complete the survey questionnaires as objectively as possible by choosing the
appropriate rating in each question. Your answers will be used for research purposes in order to
assess the perceived risk of online shopping sites on customer purchased intentions .
Please be assured that your responses to this survey will be treated with strictest
confidentiality.
Sincerely yours,
BASILIO, JHOANNA NICOLE

CALMA, RONALYN
MANABAT, JOHANN ABEL
MANALASTAS, JAZMIR
MANAPUL, DANICA
MIRANDA, ANALYN
PANGILINAN, BLAISE KENNA
SINGIAN, RENATO JR.
VERGARA, EMMANUEL ANGELO
The Researchers
Noted by:
MARK ANTHONY A. CANLAS

Research Adviser
65
Appendix E
Survey Questionnaire
Part I: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
INSTRUCTION: Kindly evaluate the given statements below and check the box that corresponds
to your answer.
Name: (Optional)
Age:
____18 - 22 years old
____23 - 26 years old
____27 - 30 years old
____31 - 34 years old
Sex: ____Male ____Female
Income Bracket
____P 3,000- P 10,000
____P 10,001- P 15,000
____P 15,001- P 20,000
____P 20,001- P 25,000
____P 25,001- P 30,000
____P 30,000 and above
66
Part II: Risk Dimension
INSTRUCTION: Please check the box according to how you perceived risk in online shopping
sites and if it has a significant effect on your purchase intention. A 4-point likert scale will serve
as your guide upon answering.
Likert Scale
4-Strongly Agree
3-Agree
2-Disagree
1-Strongly Disagree
Product Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree
Disagree
It is difficult to ascertain the characteristics of

the products such as quality, size, color and
style by just looking at pictures on the web.
It is difficult to feel, try and/or experience the

product prior to purchase during online
shopping
I am concern that the product delivered may

not be exactly as it appeared when displayed
on the computer screen.
The product may not work as intended.
67
Financial Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
I am concerned that my financial records might

not be adequately protected if I shop online.
I am concern about the ultimate price of the

product online because there might be hidden
costs.
It is not safe to give my credit card number

when I order online
I may find that I can buy the same product at a

lower price from somewhere.
Social Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
If I bought a product online, some friends

would think that I am trying to show off.
68
My friends and family would think that I am
unwise if I shop online
Online products may not be recognized by

relatives or friends.
My purchase decision may not be like by my

circle.
Online shopping may affect the image of

people around me.
Time Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
I would have to spend much time if I want to

return online merchandise.
I am afraid that products purchased from

online vendors will not be delivered on time.
I am concern for the time lost between ordering

and receiving products bought over the web
69
Searching for the product online consumes a
lot of time.
Delivery Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
I doubt the reliability of delivery riders.
I am concern that my parcel will be delivered

on the wrong address.
I am concern that one of my products will be

lost during the delivery.
An additional cost for express delivery might

be charged from me.
Security Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
70
My personal information may not be kept safe.
My email address may be abused by others.
My personal information may be disclosed to

other companies.
I worry that I will receive unnecessary emails

or text from unknown entities.
Convenience Risk Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
Cancellation of product purchase in the

internet is a very complex activity.
Returning a defective or wrong product takes a

lot of time
Contacting the seller for the

damaged/missing/incorrect product is very
difficult.
71
Part III. Intention to Purchase
Intention to shop online Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree
I will continue to purchase product

from online sellers.
I will continue to visit an online

shopping site to buy for my needs.
I plan to do more of my shopping on

the internet.
I will recommend good online stores

to others.
72
Appendix F
CURRICULUM VITAE
JHOANNA NICOLE C. BASILIO
Home Address: #152 Purok 5 Brgy. San Isidro City of San
Fernando, Pampanga
Email Address: basiliojhoanna8@gmail.com
Mobile Number: 09613308194
Personal Information
Eligibility : Fast learner , Active Listening, Hardworking and Trustworthy
Date of Birth : June 21,2001
Place of Birth : San Fernando, Pampanga
Sex : Female
Height : 5’3
Weight : 60 kg.
Religion : Roman Catholic
Citizenship : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Language Spoken : Tagalog, Kapampangan and English
Educational Background
Tertiary Education Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
S.Y. 2019 - present Major in Marketing
Bacolor, Pampanga
Secondary Education Pampanga High School

S.Y. 2013 - 2017 Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga
S.Y. 2017 – 2019 St. Nicolas College of Business and Technology
MEL-VI Bldg. Olongapo Gapan Road, City of San Fernando
Pampanga
Primary Education San Isidro Integrated School

S.Y. 2007 - 2013 San Isidro San Fernando, Pampanga
73
CURRICULUM VITAE
RONALYN S. CALMA
Home Address: 597 Boulevard Street, San Agustin City of
San Fernando, Pampanga
Email Address: calmaronalyn847@gmail.com
Eligibility : Good Communication Skills, Active Listening, Time Management
Date of Birth : October 25, 2000
Place of Birth : San Fernando Pampanga
Sex : Female
Height : 5’4
Weight : 55kg
Language Spoken : Tagalog, Kapampangan, English
S.Y. 2019-present Major in Marketing
Bacolor Pampanga

S.Y. 2013-2019 Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga
Primary Education San Fernando Elementary School

S.Y. 2007-2013. 129 B. Mendoza, San Fernando, Pampanga
74
CURRICULUM VITAE
JOHANN ABEL E. MANABAT

#255 Baidbid Porac, Pampanga
mjohannabel@gmail.com
09186899500
Eligibility : goal oriented, hardworking, willing to learn
Date of Birth : October 23, 2000
Place of Birth : Porac District Hospital
Sex : Male
Height : 5' 10"
Weight : 78kg
Language Spoken : Tagalog, English, and Kapampangan
S.Y. 2019-2023 Major in Marketing
Bacolor Pampanga
Secondary Education Pulung Santol National High school

S.Y. 2013-2019. Porac, Pampanga
Primary Education Pulung Santol Elementary school

S.Y. 2007-2013 Porac, Pampanga
75
CURRICULUM VITAE
JAZMIR M. MANALASTAS
#1297 Purok 6 San Juan, San Luis, Pampanga
manalastasjazmir @gmail.com
09461969800
Eligibility :
Date of Birth : December 05, 2000
Place of Birth : San Luis
Sex : Male
Height : 155 cm
Weight : 47 kg
Language Spoken : Filipino, English, Kapampangan
S.Y. 2019-present Major in Marketing Management
Villa De Bacolor, Pampanga
Secondary Education Our Lady Of Fatima University

S.Y. 2013-2019 Dela Paz, City of San Fernando, Pampanga
Primary Education San Juan, Elementary School

S.Y. 2006-2013 San Juan, San Luis, Pampanga
76
CURRICULUM VITAE
MANAPUL, DANICA G.
Home Address: 1st Ave. Unisite Subd. Brgy. Del Pilar, City of San
Fernando, Pampanga
Email Address: danicamanapul@gmail.com
Eligibility : Good Communication skills, Active listening skills, Computer skills,
Management skills, Time management skills, Teamwork and Critical thinking skills
Date of Birth : January 1, 2001
Place of Birth : Pampanga
Sex : Female
Height : 5’3
Weight : 53 kg.
Language Spoken : Tagalog, Kapampangan and English
S.Y. 2019 - present Major in Marketing
Bacolor, Pampanga

S.Y. 2013 - 2019 Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga

S.Y. 2007 - 2013 129 B. Mendoza, San Fernando, Pampanga
77
CURRICULUM VITAE
ANALYN N. MIRANDA
Home Address: #276 Sitio Tramo, Sta Maria, Mexico,
Pampanga
Email Address: analynmiranda48@gmail.com
Eligibility : Adaptive skill, Computer literate, and Excellent communication skills
Date of Birth : April 17, 2001
Place of Birth : San Luis, Pampanga
Sex : Female
Height : 5’2
Weight : 49 kg.
Religion : Catholic
Language Spoken : Kapampangan, Tagalog, and English
S.Y. 2019 - Present Major in Marketing
Secondary Education San Luis National High School

S.Y. 2013 - 2019 Sto. Tomas San Luis, Pampanga
Primary Education Sta. Maria Elementary School

S.Y. 2007 - 2013 Sta. Maria Mexico, Pampanga
78
CURRICULUM VITAE
BLAISE KENNA D. PANGILINAN

Home Address: #058 Paroba St., Sto. Rosario, Mexico,
Pampanga
Email Address: blaisepangilinan01@gmail.com
Eligibility : Adaptive skill, Computer literate, and Excellent communication skills
Date of Birth : November 1, 2000
Place of Birth : San Fernando, Pampanga
Sex : Female
Height : 5’3
Weight : 54 kg.
Religion : Methodist
Language Spoken : Kapampangan, Tagalog, and English
S.Y. 2019 - Present Major in Marketing

S.Y. 2013 - 2019 Barangay Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga
Primary Education Mexico Ecumenical Development Center for Children Inc.

S.Y. 2007 - 2013 Mexico, Pampanga
79
CURRICULUM VITAE
EMMANUEL ANGELO G. VERGARA

#512 Peralta st. Lourdes Sur East Angeles City Pampanga
angelovrgra@gmail.com
09499618575
Eligibility : hardworker, willingness to learn, communication skills,
Date of Birth : July 10, 2000
Place of Birth : San fernando City Pampanga
Sex : Male
Height : 5' 11"
Weight : 100kg
Language Spoken : Tagalog, English, and Kapampangan
S.Y. 2019-2023 Major in Marketing
Bacolor Pampanga
Secondary Education Assumpta Technical High School

S.Y. 2013-2017 Sta. Monica San Simon Pampanga
S.Y. 2017-2019 Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City Pampanga
Primary Education Mother Mary Eugenie Center of Studies and Schools Inc.
S.Y. 2007-2013 Sto. Domingo Pampanga
80
CURRICULUM VITAE
Renato C. Singian Jr.
Address: Sapa 1 Barangay Del Pilar, City of San Fernando Pampanga
Cellphone Number: 09774072447
Email Address: renzsingian02gmail.com
Eligibility :
Date of Birth : August 23 . 1994
Place of Birth : JBL San Fernando Pampanga
Sex : Male
Height : 5'6
Weight : 145lb
Religion : Christian Bornagain
Language Spoken : Tagalog , English
Work Experience
o Head Barista / Trainor
Nomi Philippines Olongapo road Brgy. San Agustin City of San Fernando Pampanga
October 4, 2020 – Up to Present
All Around Staff / Trainor

Chicken Star Philippines, Sta Lucia Magalang, / Quebiauan , San Agustin , Del Rosario
,Bacolor , Pampanga
S.Y. 2019-2022 Major in Marketing Management
Don Honorio Ventura State Universtiy
Villa Bacolor, Pampanga

S.Y. 2007-2013 High School Boulevard, San Fernando, 2000 Pampanga

S.Y. 2001-2007 29 B. Mendoza, San Fernando, 2000 Pampanga
81

Final Paper Group 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Paper Group 3 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DON HONORIO VENTURA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS STUDIES

THE PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE SHOPPING SITES ON CONSUMERS'

A Completed Research Submitted to

Chapter 1: Problem and Its Background

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................12-13

Significance of the Study...............................................................................14

Scope and Limitation.....................................................................................15

Definition of Terms ......................................................................................15-17

Data Gathering Procedure..............................................................................20

Statistical Treatment/Data Analysis...............................................................21-22

Chapter 3: Result and Discussions

Demographic Profile of the Respondents.....................................................23-25

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Risk.........................................26-36

Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online................36-37

Chapter 4: Summary of Findings

Likert Scale ………………………………………................................................22

Profile of the Respondents according to Age.........................................................23

Profile of the Respondents according to Sex..........................................................24

Profile of the Respondents according to their Income...........................................25

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Product Risk.....................................26

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Financial Risk...................................27

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Social Risk........................................29

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Time Risk..........................................30

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Delivery Risk.....................................32

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Security Risk.....................................33

Assessment of the Respondents' Perceived Convenience Risk..............................35

Assessment of the Respondents' Intention to Purchased Online............................36

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Product Risk on their Purchased Intention

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Financial Risk on their Purchased Intention

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Social Risk on their Purchased Intention

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Time Risk on their Purchased Intention

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Security Risk on their Purchased Intention

Relationship of the Respondents’ Perceived Convenience Risk on their Purchased

Schematic Diagram of the Study …………………………………….........................11

Commission on Higher Education

Villa de Bacolor, Pampanga

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS STUDIES

APPROVAL SHEET FOR COMPLETED RESEARCH

THE PERCEIVED RISK OF ONLINE SHOPPING SITES TO CONSUMERS'

has been prepared and submitted by:

Basilio, Jhoanna Nicole C.

Mark Anthony A. Canlas, LPT, MBA Jelvin P. Velasco, MBA

Ma. Antonette M. Guintu, DBM Cristal Rio U. Manuel, MBA

Chairman, Marketing Dean, College of Business Studies

given their time, support and assistance for this study:

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Technological advancement has significantly influenced the increasing popularity of

by which a product or services is bought by the consumers through an internet website.

transactions do not necessarily need to be done physically as it could be successfully completed

over the internet.

the last twelve months (Baclig, 2020).

buy more from it.

or perceived risk is considered to be a major inhibitor of online shopping. It is also asserted by

all negatively influence by risk perceived by them.

perception may vary from one culture to another.

Perceived risk is a measurement of unanticipated disaffection and disappointment with

danger (Tandon, Kiran, & Sah, 2017).

of an online transaction with a specific website.

Intention to purchase is the desire to purchase a particular product or service within a

intentions to engage in online transactions are a significant predictor of consumers’ actual

participation in E-commerce transactions, the relationship between intention and behavior is