The Demand For Online Grocery Shopping COVID-induc

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The demand for online grocery shopping:

COVID-induced changes in grocery shopping
behavior of Canadian consumers
Viktoriya Galushko ID1*, Alla Riabchyk ID2
1 Economics Department, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2 Department of Marketing

and International Trade, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine
* Viktoriya.galushko@uregina.ca
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
a1111111111
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a lasting impact on many economies around the globe.
One area where significant changes have been documented is consumer behavior. A ques-
tionnaire survey was carried out to understand the impact of COVID-19 on grocery purchase
behavior of Canadian consumers and evaluate the permanence of these effects. With a
OPEN ACCESS
focus on online grocery shopping, this work integrates multiple existing theories of con-
Citation: Galushko V, Riabchyk A (2024) The
sumer behavior to explore the influence of different factors on consumers’ adoption of online
demand for online grocery shopping: COVID-
induced changes in grocery shopping behavior of mode of grocery shopping during the pandemic and their intentions to continue the use of
Canadian consumers. PLoS ONE 19(2): e0295538. this mode in the post-pandemic world. A total of more than 600 usable survey responses
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 were analyzed using statistical analysis and a Logit econometrics technique. The results
Editor: Vincenzo Basile, University of Naples reveal that 72% of the survey participants had to alter their grocery shopping habits as a
Federico II: Universita degli Studi di Napoli Federico result of the COVID-19 pandemic; 63% of these consumers claim that the changes that
II, ITALY
occurred would prevail in the future, with no return to the “pre-COVID normal”. The results
Received: April 18, 2023 also show that the pandemic resulted in significant proliferation of online grocery shopping
Accepted: November 23, 2023 among Canadian consumers. Further, the findings show that the important factors that
Published: February 8, 2024 explain adoption of online grocery shopping and the shift towards higher reliance on online
grocery purchases in the future include the perceived threat of COVID, pre-COVID shopping
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
benefits of transparency in the peer review habits, socio-demographic characteristics, and the variables that capture technological
process; therefore, we enable the publication of opportunities and abilities.
all of the content of peer review and author
responses alongside final, published articles. The
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538
Copyright: © 2024 Galushko, riabchyk. This is an

open access article distributed under the terms of 1. Introduction
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
The impact of the pandemic on the economic, social, and psychological aspects of people’s
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
lives and the widespread adaptation of consumers to various constraints during the pandemic
author and source are credited. has spurred considerable interest among academic and market researchers. In the past two
years, a body of literature emerged exploring pandemic induced changes in consumer behav-
Data Availability Statement: An Excel file called
"S1 File Data" that accompanies this resubmission
ior including how and where money should be spent [1]; stockpiling, impulsive and compul-
contains the dataset used for the analysis. S1 File sive buying behaviors [2–4]; new demand for wellness products [5]; and proliferation of e-
Appendix provides a detailed variable description, commerce [6]. However, the impact of the pandemic on grocery purchase behavior seems
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 1 / 39

PLOS ONE COVID-induced changes in grocery shopping behaviour
using the same variable names as in the data file so under-researched especially in relation to lasting changes in consumer’s grocery purchase
that the readers can easily replicate the results. behavior. This study investigates the changes in grocery buying behavior of Canadian consum-
Funding: This research was supported by the ers during the pandemic as well as the potential longevity of these changes.
Deans Research Award, provided by the Faculty of Food purchasing behavior underwent significant changes during the pandemic. While on-
Arts at the University of Regina to Viktoriya line purchases of non-food items were relatively common before COVID, food purchases were
Galushko. The funders had no role in study design,
for the most part limited to in-store purchases with only a small proportion of grocery shop-
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript. ping taking place on-line. However, the coronavirus pandemic altered consumer preferences
towards online grocery shopping–a promising but formerly niche industry. For example, one
Competing interests: The authors have declared
Canadian survey conducted in March 2020 at the onset of the pandemic indicated that 9% of
that no competing interests exist.
Canadian consumers shopped for groceries on-line for the first time, which is a 6-fold increase
from pre-pandemic levels (1.5%) [7]. Another survey administered by the Solutions Research
Group indicated that the share of consumers in Canada who shopped online for groceries dra-
matically increased in 2020, with 17% of the sample respondents indicating on-line purchase
of groceries in the week preceding the survey compared to just 5% reported in 2016 [8].
In many jurisdictions, including Canada, pandemic restrictions stayed in place for a rela-
tively long period of time. Some psychologists claim that it only takes about 21 days for people
to develop a new habit. [9] found that the average time it takes for a new behavior to become a
habit is around 66 days, with individual times varying from 18 to 254 days. In their study they
determined that it is the first days that are especially important in setting a foundation for suc-
cess. Supermarkets responded rapidly to the COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions by
increasing their on-line order capacity and expanding order pickup options. If consumers who
switched to on-line purchases had rather positive experiences, they could have discovered an
alternative that is more convenient, affordable, and accessible. This increases the likelihood
that on-line purchases would be utilized on a regular basis in the future, thus becoming a
habit. It should also be mentioned that in some instances the stores were not ready for a surge
in online grocery shopping. To meet the soaring demand, some supermarkets tried automat-
ing the picking of items for consumer orders but given the complexity of it reverted to manu-
ally picking customers’ orders in stores. This impacted the capacity of supermarkets to fill
orders in a timely manner [10].
The pandemic-induced changes in grocery shopping behavior, including adoption of
online grocery shopping, highlights a number of important considerations that this study
seeks to address:
• What is the nature of the changes in grocery shopping behavior of Canadian consumers that
emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic?
• Has the pandemic induced a shift towards online grocery shopping that was a niche market
before the crisis? What are the drivers of online grocery purchasing behavior?
• Will the observed changes in grocery shopping behavior, more specifically a trend towards
increased grocery purchases through online platforms, persist into the future?
A careful look into the changes in grocery shopping behavior and the nature of the shift
towards on-line grocery shopping is important to assess and possibly re-define the role of
smaller retailers and family farms that may lack adequate resources to compete with large
supermarkets in the on-line space. Documenting changes in grocery shopping behavior,
understanding the factors that contributed to adoption of online grocery shopping platforms,
and gaining knowledge of the changes brought about by the pandemic will provide important
information for the retail food industry. More specifically, knowledge of whether the trend to
buy groceries on-line will continue into the future should help supermarkets and grocery
stores more effectively allocate their resources for marketing strategies. Better understanding

of the “new” consumer should help the retail industry make better informed investment deci-
sions such as investments in infrastructure for fulfilment of on-line orders including in-store
automation and innovation in marketing and e-commerce.
This paper integrates the findings from a number of theories of consumer behavior includ-
ing the theory of planned behavior, technology acceptance model, technology continuance
theory, health belief model, and motivation-opportunity-ability model to build an econometric
model that explores the drivers behind adoption of online grocery shopping during the pan-
demic and consumers’ intentions to continue to use this mode of shopping in the future. This
work contributes to the existing scholarship in three ways. First, we provide an extensive
descriptive analysis to document changes in grocery buying habits of Canadian consumers
during the pandemic and expected future trends. Second, despite a global increase in online
purchases since the start of the pandemic, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the existing litera-
ture around the drivers of online purchasing behavior, particularly online purchases of grocer-
ies [11]. Most of the existing studies that explore adoption of online grocery shopping focus on
consumers’ perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages [12, 13] or attempt to identify
consumer traits of internet shoppers [14, 15]. As such, the existing literature mostly explores
the importance of adoption constructs, where the use of online grocery shopping is the result
of a conscious decision following the analysis of advantages/disadvantages. There is very lim-
ited literature on the role of unexpected situational factors—specific events in the lives of con-
sumers that trigger a change—in adoption of online grocery shopping. The COVID-19
pandemic was a situational factor and this paper is an attempt to bridge the gap in literature
and gain an enhanced understanding of consumers’ response to the unanticipated shock
caused by the pandemic.
Third, by analyzing decisions of Canadian consumers to adopt online grocery shopping in
Canada during the pandemic and continue with online grocery purchases post-pandemic, this
work creates knowledge about the “new” consumer that emerged out of the COVID-19 pan-
demic. This knowledge will benefit retailers, producers, and agri-food sector stakeholders, and
allow them to adjust their operations and sales strategies to reflect the new reality of the post-
pandemic marketplace.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief literature
review, highlighting changes in consumer behaviors during pandemics with special consider-
ation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 3 builds the theoretical model and develops propo-
sitions. The research methodology is described in Section 4. The results and discussion of this
study’s findings are presented in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper with policy implica-
tions, limitations of the study, and suggestions for future research.
2. Background literature
The existing literature identifies a number of factors that motivate consumers to adjust their
buying behavior. These factors include economic recessions or slowdowns, social life changes,
technological breakthroughs, changes in rules and regulations, natural disasters, and pandem-
ics [16]. Since the emergence of COVID-19 in 2020, many studies set goals to investigate the
impact of the pandemic on consumer behavior [17]. The existing literature has applied various
behavioral theories to explore the observed adaptations in people’s buying habits including
panic buying, impulsive buying, digitalization of shopping, and shifts in consumer
preferences.
During times of unexpected crises, people’s ability to make rational decisions and judge-
ments is significantly impaired, and buying patterns change as people anticipate shortages of
essential goods and are faced with uncertainty of the duration of the crises [18]. Such irrational

consumer behaviors as panic buying and hoarding of necessities have been observed as one of
the first changes in consumer behavior in response to many crises, including pandemics and
natural disasters [19, 20]. For example, during the Ebola outbreak in the African countries in
2012, restrictions on people’s movement and the establishment of quarantine zones led to
panic buying and, as a result, food shortages [21, 22]. In 2003, during the severe acute respira-
tory syndrome (SARS) outbreak in China, social anxiety and fear led to panic buying of drugs,
masks, and disinfectants as well as basic food items such as instant noodles and biscuits [23,
24]. Yet, during earlier disease outbreaks, panic buying behavior of consumers was not as
wide-spread and pronounced as during the most recent COVID-19 pandemic, with consum-
ers worldwide flocking to local stores emptying the shelves for long shelf-life food, hand saniti-
zers, masks, and toilet paper.
[25] highlight that it was the uncertain circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pan-
demic that increased fears among consumers and subsequently left them susceptible to herd
mentality behaviors where people tend to follow the crowd rather than consider a more logical,
individualized approach. From a psychological response point of view, panic buying could
have been triggered by an underlying conflict between desire to maintain routines and the
uncertainty of duration of the pandemic, by an inner “self-preservation” mechanism to cope
with a stressful unmet situation that was aggravated by constant news of rising numbers of
infected individuals and deaths, or by consumers’ feelings of loss of control over their situation
[26]. Drawing on the theoretical contributions of the health belief model, perceived scarcity,
and anticipated regret theories, [27] noted that when faced with the threat of a disease out-
break, consumers engage in protection motivation behavior. In the context of the COVID-19
pandemic, such behavior resulted in panic buying as the first response to the disease outbreak
to prevent a shortage of essential products. Buying products in large quantities also served as a
method of protecting consumers from contracting COVID-19 by reducing the frequency of
shopping trips and exposure to external environments, thus reducing their susceptibility to
contracting COVID-19. Similar to previous pandemic events, panic buying during the
COVID-19 pandemic had a temporary nature and purchases stabilized within a couple of
months after the announcement of COVID-19 a global pandemic [25].
The literature on consumption behavior during crises also reveals that individuals generally
suffer negative emotions and use consumption as a strategy to cope with these emotions [28–
30]. However, economic recessions and slowdowns accompanied by a loss of purchasing
power, force consumers to seek stability by reducing consumption levels, buying cheaper
goods, seeking bargains, and prioritizing purchases of essential products while forgoing non-
necessities and not immediately required expenses [31–35]. In other types of crises such as nat-
ural disasters and pandemics that are associated with an increased level of stress and emotional
imbalance rather than changes in affordability, consumers can respond differently and actually
increase their consumption levels and adopt abnormal buying behaviors such as impulsive and
compulsive purchasing [36, 37].
The COVID-19 pandemic caused an unprecedented disruption to peoples’ lives and econo-
mies worldwide. In the early months of the pandemic, millions of people around the world
lost their jobs; in Canada, as lock-down measures and stay-at-home orders were implemented
throughout the country, nearly 2 million jobs were lost in April 2020 and the unemployment
rate soared to 13% compared to the pre-pandemic unemployment rate of 5.6% in February
2020 [38]. In addition to economic hardships that arouse at the onset of the pandemic, people’s
lives were exposed to fears for their own health and wellbeing and that of their family mem-
bers. The pandemic-induced disruptions to normal ways of living also resulted in major life-
style changes and significantly increased levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and psychological
distress [39, 40]. As consumers were faced with multiple waves of COVID-19, the first stage

response that manifested itself in hoarding behavior led to a second stage response of coping
[11].
After adjusting their thinking and decision making to attenuate the pandemic-induced con-
straints, consumers significantly changed their shopping behavior in a variety of ways. These
changes were not limited to consumption levels, but also included changes in the way consum-
ers shop. Recent studies have documented increased tendency of consumers to engage in
impulsive buying behavior [41–43] and shift demand for certain products due to changes in
preferences including hygiene products or healthy foods [5, 44–49]. To adjust to a “new nor-
mal” and sustainable way of life during the pandemic, consumers responded by changing the
ways they shop including who shops, how they shop (in store or on-line), and where they shop
(busier large stores or less busy smaller stores). Drawing upon protection motivation theory
(PMT), temporal construal theory (TCT), and self-determination theory (SDT), [50] presents
the narratives of UK consumers highlighting how self-control with respect to consumer
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors encouraged some consumers to change from shopping at
larger supermarkets to smaller, local convenience stores or shift to shopping online where, in
the safety of their own home, they felt greater control over “a safer shopping environment.”
It is widely accepted that the online sector is crucial in providing vital access for customers
to essential products and the expansion of online shopping that occurred during the recent
COVID pandemic was a notable change [11, 51–54]. The literature demonstrates that expan-
sion of e-commerce was also observed during previous disease outbreaks [55, 56]; for example,
the SARS outbreak in China is believed to have been a key driver behind China’s subsequent
emergence as the world’s largest e-commerce market [57]. During the COVID-19 pandemic
there was an unprecedented surge in online retail demand, with some sources suggesting that
in 2020 the share of e-commerce in retail sales grew at two to five times the rate before
COVID-19 [58]. While on-line purchases of non-food items became common in many coun-
tries and jurisdictions even prior to COVID-19, grocery shopping for the most part remained
limited primarily to in-store visits. In many countries consumers shifted their grocery pur-
chases online despite the fact that buying food is associated with sensory attributes. [51]
explored the change in demand for on-line food shopping in Taiwan using the data from
Ubox and found that the variety of food products purchased on Ubox significantly increased
due to COVID-19. In the UK, while it took two decades for online grocery sales to increase
from 0 to around 7% of total grocery sales, the country experienced an increase from 7% to
13% in just about eight weeks following the onset of the pandemic [10]. In Germany, analyzing
an extensive panel dataset of 17,766 households, [59] found that volume-based share of online
grocery purchases increased from around 0.6% to almost 1.2% at the onset of the pandemic;
[60] reported that, at the time of their survey in October/November 2020, 72% of the survey
participants had experience with online grocery shopping and more than half of them used the
service for the first time during the pandemic. To the best of our knowledge, there is no
research study that explores how grocery purchasing behaviors evolved during the pandemic
in Canada. As such, this study is an initial effort towards bridging this gap in literature by
investigating the shifts to online grocery shopping in Canada during the pandemic and
whether this represents a permanent shift toward online grocery shopping for Canadian
consumers.
3. Consumer adoption of online grocery shopping: theoretical

model and development of hypotheses
Past literature has investigated consumers’ grocery purchase behavior to identify the factors
that predict consumers’ adoption of online grocery shopping [61–64]. Several research

perspectives have been suggested, including the theory of reasoned action and the theory of
planned behavior [65], the technology acceptance model (TAM) [66, 67], the theory of adop-
tion of innovations [68, 69], the perceived risk theory [70], and others. In our analysis below,
the findings from these various theories are used to build a theoretical model to facilitate the
econometric analysis and provide a better understanding of the factors influencing consumers’
decisions to alter their grocery shopping behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In the current context, grocery shopping/buying behavior is a broad concept that would
include but not be limited to such observed variables as frequency of in-store visits, the pre-
ferred mode of shopping (e.g. brick-and-mortar or online), the preferred sources of meals (e.g.
restaurant ready-to-eat items that do not require grocery-store purchases vs home-made meals
from items purchased at grocery stores), and the preferred shopping venue (e.g. large super-
markets vs small convenience stores). Our focus in this study is on the adoption or expansion
of online grocery shopping, as one aspect of adaptations in consumers’ grocery purchase
behavior during the pandemic.
3.1. Perception of risks and demand for on-line grocery purchases during
the pandemic
Consumption behavior during pandemics or periods of crisis is determined by consumers’
perception of risks including social, physical, financial, and psychological and constraints
imposed by governments [46]. During pandemics, staying healthy often becomes one of the
most important basic and psychological needs of consumers. The protection motivation theory
(PMT) [71] and health belief model (HBM) [72] have been commonly applied in the literature
to understand how consumers alter their behavior in response to external factors that are
believed to pose risk to their health [73, 74]. Since the COVID pandemic began, these theories
have been extensively used to study abnormal buying behavior of consumers, more specifically
panic buying [27, 75]. Outside of panic buying, which is considered to be irrational consumer
behavior, these theories can be useful in exploring adaptations in buying behaviors in general.
According to these theories consumers would change their behavior to protect themselves
from a threatening event based on their perception of four considerations: severity of the dan-
gerous situation, likelihood of the incidence of danger, benefits of the suggested preventive
behavior, and personal ability to adopt the behavior [27]. Perceived susceptibility and severity
(i.e., perceived vulnerability to and risk of contracting COVID-19) are directly related to con-
sumers’ level of worry and task, and response orientation [27].
We can, therefore, formulate the following proposition:
Proposition 1: Consumers are motivated to change their buying behavior, more specifically
adopt online mode of shopping, to reduce the possibility of exposure to COVID-19 when they
perceive the susceptibility to and severity of the disease to be high.
According to HBM, perceived susceptibility is defined as an individual’s belief about their
chances of getting a certain condition, which is coming in contact with the coronavirus in the
context of the COVID pandemic. Perceived severity refers to a consumer’s belief about the
seriousness of the disease if they get ill. For a consumer to change their grocery buying habits,
they should believe they are at risk for illness and/or negative health outcomes if they continue
their current behavior. The opposite is also true: when people believe there are no threats to
their own or their family members’ health, they tend not to take protective measures and no
adjustments to their shopping behaviors are made.
Perceived COVID risks can be influenced by a number of factors. One of the important fac-
tors in framing consumers’ beliefs about the situation is knowledge. Knowledge is

accumulation of facts gained from various sources including internet, media, and an individu-
al’s experiences. The narratives from the media and information about the number of COVID
cases and deaths in the community where the individual resides can ease or aggravate
COVID-related fears. While the federal government in Canada had full control of the
COVID-related measures with regards to international travels, it was within the jurisdiction of
the provincial governments to collect and report the COVID-related statistics and implement
the within-province measures to curtail the spread of the virus. In the local news reports, each
province focused on the epidemiologic situation in that particular province and we stipulate
that it is the “local” COVID summary that many consumers were putting more weight on in
deciding if any adaptations in their behavior were warranted. Therefore, the province of resi-
dence could serve as a proxy for consumer information about the COVID situation and can to
some extent capture differences in perceived COVID threat and as a result play a role in influ-
encing grocery purchase behavior. A few studies have shown that people in the neighborhoods
with higher number of positive COVID-19 cases were more likely to replace some of their in-
store purchases with online ones [76, 77]. This result from the existing literature leads us to the
following proposition:
Proposition 1a: Consumers residing in provinces with a higher number of deaths from COVID-
19 were more likely to experience bigger fears and, therefore, more likely to shift part or all of
their grocery purchases online.
While the flow of information is essential to gain knowledge, the ability to understand the
issue from many different perspectives is also important in the formation of beliefs about suscepti-
bility and severity. We hypothesize that educational attainment plays a role in how much informa-
tion is received and how this information is processed and transformed into “knowledge”.
Perceived susceptibility and severity reflect subjective risk. Health psychologists have found
that people often have a tendency to believe that negative events, such as becoming ill or find-
ing oneself in a situation with a negative health outcome, are more likely to happen to other
people than to themselves [78, 79]. While the media throughout the world portrayed COVID
as a very high risk illness, reactions of the public varied significantly, from denial of the severity
of COVID, to panic buying of toilet paper and altogether avoiding any contact with people
outside the household [80, 81]. Personality traits can play a role in shaping a person’s perceived
susceptibility and severity [82]. We postulate that a person who is a “worrier” by nature–some-
one who has a more negative thinking style and higher anxiety levels in risky situations, would
consider COVID-19 a bigger threat and would be more motivated to use the online mode of
grocery shopping as a safety and preventative measure.
Proposition 1b: “Worriers” by nature are more likely to consider COVID-19 a bigger threat
and, as result, more likely to adopt/increase online grocery shopping to avoid exposure to the
virus.
Fears of catching the virus and concerns about an individual’s health if the individual con-
tracts the virus are also expected to vary across individuals depending on personal experiences
with the virus (for example, a severe COVID case or COVID-related death among close con-
tacts or family members) or the individual’s personal risk factors such as gender, age, and/or
the presence of comorbidities. Some studies have shown that the average fear of COVID-19
was higher in women than in men [83, 84]. Research also showed that the risks of developing
health complications from COVID increased with age; in the U.S., about 81% of deaths from
the disease were in people age 65 and older. This information about age differences in patients
with COVID-19 was presented in the media and could therefore be used by consumers in
shaping their COVID risk perceptions.

Household composition, more specifically the presence of children in the household, can
also affect perception of risk during the pandemic. The existing literature has found that peo-
ple living in families with children had higher risk perception as they were concerned about
their children getting infected with COVID-19; as a result, they were willing to put in more
effort to reduce their exposure to the virus [85].
3.2 Consumer’s socio-economic background and demand for online

grocery shopping during the pandemic
The Motivation-Opportunity-Ability (MOA) model, originally proposed by [86] and later applied
to online grocery shopping behavior by [62] links the advantages (e.g. independence of the store
opening hours) and disadvantages (e.g. the inability to ascertain the quality or return the product)
of online grocery shopping to different online shopping opportunities and as a result highlights
the motivations of consumers to adopt it. [62] notes that MOA can be affected by socio-demo-
graphic factors. For example, household composition is likely to affect the opportunity cost of
time. In households with all adults having full-time jobs, designing time-related shopping strate-
gies that fit into the schedule of all working adults may be a challenge, in which case, the flexibility
of online shopping in terms of time and space may offer additional motivation to utilize this
mode. In the same vein, if a household has small children, the time may be more scarce as parents
usually have to allocate a fair amount of time to children related activities; as a result, the opportu-
nity cost of time will be higher and the motivation to save time through online grocery shopping
may be much stronger than for a household with no children or all grownup children. [87] found
that the group of shoppers that was especially positive about and appreciative of opportunities pre-
sented by online grocery shopping was mothers with young children.
COVID-19 brought a dramatic change in the lifestyle of people [5], and it is very likely that
people belonging to different socio-economic backgrounds experienced different effects and
adjusted their grocery buying behavior in different ways. Changes in income influence afford-
ability [5], which in turn can motivate consumers to alter their shopping behavior. Further-
more, online grocery shopping is often associated with additional delivery charges, thus
creating perceptions for lower income groups that online grocery shopping is costlier and
therefore less useful. It has been reported that higher income households do almost three times
as much online shopping as their lower-income counterparts [88].
The pandemic uniquely affected families with minor children by significantly disrupting
their routines, changing relationships and roles, and altering usual child care, school, and extra
curriculum activities [89]. As many parents tried to handle work and child care responsibilities
during the pandemic and lived a life of isolation with no playdates or children activities [90], it
may be the case that the pre-pandemic shopping habits couldn’t be easily sustained and alter-
natives to in-store grocery shopping would have been sought. Also, in Canada, government
officials and store management urged and in some cases made it the policy not to bring chil-
dren to stores, including grocery stores. The above factors may have played a role in triggering
changes in grocery shopping format.
Based on this, we posit the following propositions:
Proposition 2: Change in grocery shopping behavior, and, in particular, new or increased
demand for online grocery purchases, is significantly associated with socio-economic
background.
Proposition 2a: Due to additional delivery charges associated with online orders, perceived cost
of online grocery purchases is higher for individuals who have lower income, thus making
online grocery purchases less attractive.

Proposition 2b: Changes in income due to the pandemic significantly influence shopping behav-
ior, including new or increased demand for online grocery purchases.
Proposition 2c: The presence of small children in a household is significantly associated with
life-style changes of consumers during the pandemic and is therefore an important determi-
nant of changes in grocery shopping behavior, including new or increased demand for online
grocery purchases.
3.3 Personal abilities to alter grocery shopping behavior and demand for
online grocery purchases during the pandemic
Based on the theory of planned behavior [91], consumer behaviors are influenced by behav-
ioral intentions and one of the determinants of the latter is perceived behavioral control. Per-
ceived behavioral control represents an individual’s perception of how easy or difficult it will
be to perform the behavior of interest and is closely related to self-efficacy–one’s belief about
their own ability to perform a certain behavior by employing their own skills [92]. Self-efficacy,
in turn, will influence consumer’s perceived ease of use–a central concept in TAM. In the con-
text of online grocery shopping, we postulate that self-efficacy is affected by technological abili-
ties and opportunities to engage in online shopping and grocery shopping habits prior to the
pandemic.
3.3.1 Technological opportunities/abilities and demand for online grocery shopping.
Since online shopping requires certain skills and resources (Internet, computer, cell phone),
perceived ease or complexity of online grocery shopping can play a pivotal role in determining
perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy. When adaptation in consumer behavior
requires use of information technologies (internet, computers), TAM is the most widely used
model to understand the factors driving consumers’ choices. This model suggests that a per-
son’s behavioral intention to use a technology is determined by perceived usefulness and per-
ceived ease-of-use. Ease-of-use–the extent to which a consumer believes that online grocery
shopping is free of effort–will be determined by technological abilities and opportunities of a
consumer.
Research suggests that behavioral intention, adoption, and acceptance of technology is
moderated by demographic characteristics, including age, gender, income, and education [93–
95]. It has been found that older adults have low computer and internet self-efficacy and often
believe that they are too old to learn a new technology (new ways of shopping in the current
context) [96]. The existing literature has also shown that younger adults generally have lower
level of computer anxiety and are therefore more likely to engage in opportunities where infor-
mation systems skills are required such as online shopping [97]. Some studies have provided
support for the moderating role of gender in TAM context, however, the results in the litera-
ture are mixed [97]. The decision to switch grocery shopping online is likely to require some
knowledge and research studies reveal that more educated individuals tend to have better abili-
ties to grasp new information quickly than their less educated counterparts, and, as a result,
there exists a positive association between education level and perceived ease of use of new
technologies [94, 98]. People of lower socio-economic status (i.e. consumers with lower
incomes) can perceive access to information technologies (computers, cell phones) and inter-
net as more costly [94].
Therefore, we can formulate the following propositions:
Proposition 3: Age is negatively associated with perceived ease of use of the Internet (technologi-
cal ability) and, therefore, older adults are less likely to switch their online grocery purchases
online.

Proposition 4: Perceived ease of use of computer technologies (i.e. technological ability) is higher
for consumers who are more educated; therefore, individuals with higher educational attain-
ment are more likely to switch their grocery purchases online.
Proposition 5: Technological ability to perform online grocery shopping is higher for consumers
with higher incomes due to lower perceived cost of information technologies (access to com-
puter, access to Internet); therefore, higher income consumers are more likely to switch online.
3.3.2 Pre-pandemic grocery shopping habits and ability to adopt new behavior. Con-
sumers generally know their own needs and respond to them by developing certain grocery
shopping habits. The ease of adjusting to a particular situation in life for a consumer and the
ability to adopt new buying behavior will be determined by the current behavior that is
assumed to attend to the consumer needs: the bigger the gap between the current behavior and
the new behavior, the less likely the consumer will choose to make the adjustment to adopt
this new behavior.
Consumers perceive grocery shopping differently. While for some groups of consumers
grocery shopping is just another weekly chore they would be happy to avoid, for other groups
of consumers shopping for food is considered a fun activity enhancing social interaction and
bringing the family together. When grocery stores are visited frequently as part of a fun leisure
activity, then consumers can also find online grocery shopping as a fun activity and enjoy
more shopping for groceries online during the pandemic. Some consumers place high value
on freshness of fruits and vegetables and want them just the right ripeness. Such consumers
are likely to be less inclined to switch their grocery purchases online and will instead prefer
daily grocery store visits where they can inspect fresh produce and pick exactly what they want
to eat [99]. Frequency of grocery store visits prior to the pandemic can serve as a proxy for an
individual’s utility derived from grocery shopping trips and/or value placed on freshness of
produce.
The importance of specific grocery items in overall meals can also be an important feature
of pre-COVID grocery shopping behavior. When a family meal plan involves buying a fair
amount of fresh produce (fruits and vegetables) and fresh meats, consumers may be less likely
to switch to online grocery shopping as this food category has been found to have the lowest
overall satisfaction rate with consumers using online grocery shopping [100]. On the contrary,
consumers who have a large portion of their meals originating from restaurants or fast food
places may not require lots of fresh produce from grocery stores and as a result will be more
satisfied with online purchases.
Consumer preferences for the type of grocery items they need, the quality, and selection of
those items, are likely to be reflected in the chosen shopping venue. For example, large super-
markets offer a much bigger selection of items than local convenience stores. During the
COVID pandemic, large supermarkets and smaller convenience stores responded differently
to the restrictions imposed by the governments to curtail the spread of the virus; also, there
was a substantial difference in online order fulfilment capacity between large supermarkets
and smaller stores. Therefore, we hypothesize that the chosen shopping venue prior to the pan-
demic had an influence on the ability of consumers to adopt new grocery buying behavior,
including shifting more of their purchases online.
Following the discussion above, we formulate the following propositions:
Proposition 6: Consumer grocery shopping habits prior to the pandemic, including frequency of
in-store grocery store visits, importance of groceries in family meals, the choice of shopping
venue, and prior online grocery shopping experience, will significantly influence the ability to

make changes to the current behavior as a result of the pandemic and will therefore affect the
likelihood of switching grocery purchases online.
3.4 Psychological predisposition to adoption of e-commerce

The existing literature has shown that gender and age are two important descriptors of psycho-
logical pre-disposition to shop online. More specifically, prior research has shown that women
shop more online than men, and younger people shop more online than older people [101,
102]. While the age and gender differences in online shopping can be explained from a view-
point of TAM discussed above, some studies note that men and women are evolutionary pre-
disposed to different shopping styles and it is these differences in male and female psychology
that drive the observed differences in adoption of online shopping [103]. Therefore, we can
postulate the following hypothesis:
Proposition 7: Due to psychological differences, gender and age are significantly associated
with new demand for online purchases.
A summary of the above discussion on the determinants of adoption of online grocery
shopping is presented in Table 1.
3.5 Intentions to continue online grocery purchases: Will the changes that
emerged during the pandemic persist in the future?
Most of the existing studies on adoption of online grocery shopping focus on consumers’ per-
ceptions of advantages and disadvantages [12, 13] or attempt to identify consumer traits of
internet shoppers [14, 15]. This literature assumes that the switch to online shopping occurs as
a result of a rational thinking process where consumers carefully evaluate the benefits and
Table 1. The key hypothesized determinants of “new” and increased existing demand for online grocery
shopping.
Determinants Expected impact
Personality type “Worriers” by nature are more likely to adopt online grocery shopping.
Fears of contracting the virus Higher fears are associated with higher likelihood of adopting online
grocery shopping
Fears of developing complications from Higher fears are associated with higher likelihood of adopting online
illness grocery shopping
Age Ambiguous. Older individuals are hypothesized to have higher perceived
COVID risk; yet, older individuals are hypothesized to have lower
technological abilities.
Presence of small children Presence of small children is associated with higher likelihood of
adoption of online grocery shopping both due to higher perceived
COVID risks and due to more substantial life-style changes.
Frequency of in-store grocery store Ambiguous; If higher frequency is an indicative of a high value being
visits prior to COVID placed on freshness of products then it is less likely that in-store visits will
be replaced by online purchases. However, if it is an indicative of “love”
for grocery shopping, then online grocery purchases can increase.
Importance of specific groceries in Higher importance is associated with lower likelihood of switching
meals grocery purchases online.
Education More educated individuals are hypothesized to have higher technological
abilities and opportunities and are therefore more likely to adopt online
grocery shopping.
Income Higher income individuals are hypothesized to have higher technological
abilities and the likelihood of adoption is higher
Sex Ambiguous; the results from the literature are mixed.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538.t001

costs of adoption of online shopping methods and are therefore unlikely to revert back to
brick-and-mortar. When the switch to online is caused by situational factors, such as the
COVID-19 that unexpectedly disturbed people’s lives, this switch may be just a temporary cop-
ing strategy rather than the result of a decision based on the advantages and disadvantages
unrelated to the situational factors. For example, when [13] administered their survey before
the pandemic, avoidance of stress and physical contact with others was mentioned by some
respondents as a factor in doing grocery shopping online, albeit it didn’t bear too much weight
among the 51 identified benefits of e-shopping. The study by [13] revealed that cost savings
associated with on-line shopping, both in terms of money and time, and greater availability of
products online were mentioned most frequently as benefits of on-line grocery shopping. As
long as there was a perception that online shopping saves time, favorable attitudes towards
online shopping were formed. Functional motives such as saving money and time were found
to be highly relevant in other studies as well [104–106]. For many consumers during the pan-
demic–a situational factor—maintaining social distancing was key. As such, one could hypoth-
esize that a switch to online grocery shopping or increased tendency to buy online could have
initially been triggered by the desire to limit contact with others, while cost and time savings
could have come as a realized benefit later on for those who tried online grocery shopping
for the first time during the pandemic. [64] find that situational factors such as health prob-
lems, a change in family circumstances, or promotional flyers usually act as triggers for the
first use of e-grocery services. Over time, this initial exposure to on-line shopping seems to
help consumers realize that they could actually benefit from using it, thus stimulating consum-
ers to continue with e-grocery services. Some literature, however, notes that when the change
is caused by situational factors, the adoption of online grocery shopping is an erratic process,
driven by circumstances rather than by a cognitive elaboration and decision [61, 107]. Based
on this literature, the adoption of online shopping is likely to be discontinued when the initiat-
ing circumstances change. [108] argue that consumers will be motivated to shop online only
during the pandemic crisis and once the pandemic pressures subside online retailing will
decline.
From a viewpoint of the theory of adoption of innovations, the diffusion process will be
determined by the nature of innovation and, in a broad sense, innovations can be classified as
continuous, dynamically continuous, and discontinuous [109]. Shopping for groceries online
is arguably a discontinuous innovation [69, 107] as it requires consumers to significantly alter
their behavior especially when one considers online purchase of items that are rich in sensory
attributes such as fresh vegetables, meat, and fish. Therefore, one can expect this mode of gro-
cery shopping to be discontinued beyond the pandemic.
Given that it is generally unclear whether consumers will perceive online-grocery shopping
as continuous or discontinuous innovation and whether the realized benefits of online grocery
shopping will outweigh the importance of sensory attributes of grocery items, it is worthwhile
examining which factors influence consumers’ intentions to continue increased online pur-
chases of groceries.
A number of the existing theories of consumer behavior can be used to analyze intentions
of consumers who increased or adopted online grocery shopping during the pandemic to
carry on with this behavior into the future. The theory of reasoned action and planned
behavior postulate that consumer behavior is determined by the consumer’s behavioral
intention, which, in turn, is a function of consumer’s attitude, subjective norm, and per-
ceived behavioral control [65, 110, 111]. In the context of online shopping where user accep-
tance of information technology (IT) is required for the action (actual online purchase),
TAM was successfully applied in the literature. Stemming from the theory of reasoned
action, TAM hypothesizes that consumers’ attitudes are formed on the basis of perceived

usefulness and ease of use. Although TAM has been applied to examine continuance and
post-adoption behavior [112, 113], the general feeling in the research community was that it
lacked explanatory power and, as a result, two other models were developed to shift attention
from initial acceptance to continued use—the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) and
the Cognitive model (COG). In ECM, user satisfaction is the driving force behind individu-
al’s intention to continued use. COG states that continuous behavioral intention is deter-
mined both by satisfaction and attitudes and most studies have noted that the two concepts
have to be considered as conceptually distinct with satisfaction being a transient and experi-
ence-specific affect and attitude being relatively more enduring transcending all prior experi-
ences [114]. In the Technology Continuance Theory (TCT), developed by [114], the
constructs from TAM, ECM, and COG have been integrated into one enhanced model of IT
continuance. The two central constructs in TCT include satisfaction and attitude, and the
first level antecedents include confirmation, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use.
Adapting the TCT model to our survey data discussed in the next section, we can formulate
the following propositions:
Proposition 8: Technological abilities are significantly associated with future use of online gro-
cery shopping. Technological abilities will be determined by age and income.
Proposition 9: Pre-COVID habits are significantly associated with the intention to continue
“new” online grocery shopping behavior.
Proposition 10: Positive experience with online grocery shopping will positively affect satisfac-
tion, and therefore, intention to continue “new” online grocery shopping behavior.
Proposition 11: Perceived benefits and perceived disadvantages of online grocery shopping will
affect intention to continue using this mode in the future.
S1 File presents a detailed description of the variables discussed above and used in this
study.
4. Research methodology
4.1 Survey design
While we came across several studies that used questionnaires to estimate the importance of
various factors in triggering adoption of online shopping platforms, we could not find any suit-
able questionnaire in the existing literature that would adequately capture the hypothesized
theoretical model as discussed above. In developing the survey, we took cognizance of various
items in the literature on the impact of COVID on consumers’ buying and shopping behavior,
which were found relevant for our study. In addition, we used various reports in electronic
and social media that documented the changes in consumers’ grocery shopping habits. First,
we framed an open-ended questionnaire to gain a broad insight into the impact of the pan-
demic on grocery purchase behavior; this open-ended questionnaire was used to collect quali-
tative responses from our own networks of friends and colleagues. The received responses
were used in the design of the close-ended questionnaire; the complete questionnaire can be
obtained from the authors upon request.
The first section of the questionnaire gathered information on the socio-demographic and
economic characteristics of the respondents. Part of this section was also intended to elicit
information on perception of COVID-19 risks. The second section contained questions relat-
ing to the grocery shopping behavior prior to the start of the pandemic including frequency of
in-store visits, preferences for grocery shopping venues, the role of online grocery purchases in
total grocery purchases, and others; this section also gathered information on the changes in

grocery shopping behavior that occurred during the pandemic and the factors that triggered
these changes. The third section of the questionnaire focused on online grocery shopping–the
factors that played an important role in switching in-store purchases to online, benefits of and
challenges associated with online grocery shopping, intentions to continue online grocery pur-
chases, and other aspects of online grocery shopping. It is important to note, that although the
survey was administered at one point in time (January 2022), the survey questions explicitly
asked participants to describe their grocery shopping behavior prior to the pandemic, at the
start of the pandemic, and at the time of the survey (i.e. almost 2 years into the pandemic).
Therefore, the survey questions elicited changes in grocery buying behavior that were induced
by the pandemic.
Prior to soft-launch of the questionnaire, a few colleagues with extensive consumer behav-
ior research expertise were consulted to ensure adequate and appropriate coverage of the items
as well as to provide their expert opinion for evaluating the ease of understanding the ques-
tions from the perspective of potential respondents.
4.2 Data collection and representativeness of the study sample

This study was approved on ethical grounds by the University of Regina’s Ethics Board on
October 22, 2021 and the online survey was administered by Qualtrics in January of 2022. To
incentivize participation in this study, the Qualtrics survey team used their own reward strat-
egy that varied across the individuals, with participants receiving various amount of award in
the form of award points. Prior to participants’ being allowed to take the survey, a preamble to
the survey was provided outlining the purpose of this research, the survey procedure, and the
participants’ rights to withdraw at any time by just closing the browser, with the incomplete
responses to be removed from the analysis. The preamble also emphasized the fact that the
responses will be kept confidential, in compliance with the requirements of the Ethics Board.
Moreover, since the survey was run by a third party, Qualtrics, the authors had no access to
the information that could be used to identify individual participants during or after data col-
lection. To obtain the participants’ consent to use their responses in our study, the preamble
concluded with the following statement: “By completing the survey, you are giving your
informed consent to participate in this study”.
Responses that were found to be incomplete and internally inconsistent were removed
from the analysis. We also eliminated those respondents who took less than 5 minutes to com-
plete the survey as this was sufficient evidence to suggest that they were very likely speeding
through the survey, meaning the questions were not read carefully and answered thoughtfully.
Straightlining–when a respondent chooses the same answer choice, e,g, the first answer option,
over and over again,and inconsistent responses in surveys with survey time of less than 5 min-
utes were clear evidence that the respondents were either dishonest or careless. After cleaning
the survey data, this study produced 651 usable survey responses.
Participants for this study were selected based on a number of characteristics. Eligible
respondents had to be over the age of 18 and classified as the household’s primary shopper
responsible for at least 50% of the total household’s grocery purchases. To ensure the represen-
tation from all Canadian provinces, a disproportional quota sampling technique was used. In
addition, proportionate quota sampling was applied based on the income variable to ensure
that the study sample closely resembles the target population, with income distribution mim-
icking the information on total income distribution in Canada in 2019, provided by Statistics
Canada in Table 11-10-0238-01 (formerly CANSIM 206–0051) (Figs 1 and 2).
58% of the participants in our sample are females and 42% are males, which is very similar
to population proportions. Fig 3 shows that our sample is characterized by slightly higher

Fig 1. Number of respondents in the study sample, by province.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538.g001
educational attainment than the target population and as Fig 4 illustrates, the study sample
closely resembles the population with regards to age distribution.
4.3 Survey questions and the study variables

This study attempts to understand the factors that explain the adoption of online grocery shop-
ping during the pandemic (Model 1) as well as the factors explaining future use of online gro-
cery shopping platforms (Model 2). The respondents were asked to classify themselves as (1)
first time online grocery shoppers, (2) on-going online grocery shoppers, and (3) not online
grocery shoppers. The first group includes those who started shopping for groceries online
only as a result of COVID-19 and represents new demand for online grocery shopping; the
second group (ongoing online grocery shoppers) includes those who shopped for groceries
online prior to the pandemic as well as during the pandemic and represents the demand for
online grocery shopping that existed before the pandemic; the third group includes those who,
at the time of the survey, indicated they had never purchased groceries online The ongoing
online grocery shoppers were also asked if the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased pur-
chases of groceries online.

Fig 2. Distribution of the respondents by income, Statistics Canada versus the study sample.
In Model 1, the dependent variable captures adoption or increased use of online grocery
shopping during the pandemic and is defined as:
8
> 1 if first time online grocery shopper
>
>
>
< 1 if an ongoing online shopper&online purchases increased
y1 ¼ ð1Þ
> 0 if not an online grocery shopper
>
>
>
:
0 if an ongoing online shopper&purchases didn0 t increase
In Model 2, the dependent variable captures the intention of first time online grocery shop-
pers to continue using online grocery shopping platforms post-pandemic or an intention of
on-going online shoppers to sustain increased levels of online grocery shopping in the future.
To construct a variable that is relevant only for those consumers who reported purchasing gro-
ceries online at the time of the survey (i.e. first-time online shoppers and ongoing online shop-
pers) a number of questions from the survey were used. We inquired if the first-time online
grocery shoppers thought they would continue buying groceries online in the post-pandemic
times. The ongoing grocery shoppers who increased online purchases of groceries during the
pandemic were asked if these increased purchases would continue into the future even when

Fig 3. Distribution by educational attainment, study sample versus census data.

the pandemic is over. Therefore, for Model 2, the dependent variable is defined as:
8
> 1 if first time online grocery shopper&online purchases will continue
<
y2 ¼ 1 if an ongoing online shopper&increased online purchases will continue ð2Þ
>
:
0 Otherwise
The validation of the conceptual models was performed using statistical testing and econo-
metric analyses, with the results presented in the following sections. Given the dichotomous
nature of the dependent variable, the choice for the econometrics estimation is the logit model
with robust standard errors that was estimated by maximum likelihood estimation in Stata ver-
sion 18. Logistic regression analysis is a standard econometrics estimation procedure that has
widely been used in Economics to study adoption of e-commerce [115].
5. Results
5.1 Has the COVID-19 pandemic altered grocery shopping behavior?
Our results clearly show that the pandemic altered consumers’ grocery buying habits (Figs 5
and 6). 54% of respondents indicated that the pandemic altered the frequency of their in-store

Fig 4. Distribution by age, study sample versus Statistics Canada data.

grocery shopping visits. Only 35 of the 651 consumers surveyed returned to the “pre-COVID
normal” in-store visits as the pandemic progressed, while 108 respondents indicated that,
almost two years into the pandemic, they did not visit grocery stores as frequently as before.
Overall, when respondents were asked if the onset of the pandemic changed their grocery
shopping behavior considering the frequency of store visits, time spent in stores, or frequency
of online grocery purchases, the overwhelming majority (72%) recognized that their behavior
changed a lot (264 out of 651 participants) or somewhat changed (207/651) during the first
wave of the pandemic. Fig 7 illustrates the importance of various factors in triggering the
change in grocery shopping behavior of Canadian consumers. As one can see, health concerns
for self and family members were mentioned as very important by the overwhelming majority
of the respondents.
Of those 471 consumers who reported that they altered their grocery shopping behavior
one way or another during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, only 164 (35%) reported
a return to ‘pre-COVID normal” as of January 2022 –almost 2 years into the pandemic. The
remaining 307 (65%) of consumers said their shopping behavior had not returned to “pre-
COVID normal” as of January 2022. When asked whether they thought their behavior would
return to “pre-COVID normal” in the future, only nine respondents answered “definitely yes”

Fig 5. Frequency of in-store visits prior to the pandemic (top) and the change that occurred as a result of the
pandemic (bottom).
and 204 participants (46% of the full study sample) reported the changes in their behavior that
occurred during COVID will persist in the future.
5.2 Has the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of online grocery

shopping?
In our study sample, 55% of the respondents (387) associated themselves with ‘not online gro-
cery shoppers’, 161 participants (25% of the sample) identified themselves as first-time online
grocery shoppers, and 129 participants (20%) indicated that they had purchased groceries
online prior to the pandemic.

Fig 6. Major changes that occurred in grocery shopping behavior during the first wave of COVID-19.
Fig 8 illustrates the various factors that first-time online grocery buyers identified impor-
tant in shifting some or all of their grocery purchases online. Not surprisingly, the desire to
maintain social distance (minimize human contact) for their and their family members’ health
was one of the most important factors. Despite the fact that the desire to maintain social dis-
tance is likely to disappear when the COVID-19 pandemic is over, only 24 of the 161 first-time
online shoppers indicated that they will not purchase groceries on-line post pandemic. The
top two reasons for discontinuance of online grocery shopping were #1 inability to inspect the
product and as a result concerns about product quality and #2 the [long] time it takes for an
online grocery order to be delivered or be ready for pickup.
With respect to the on-going online grocery shoppers, 57% (74 out of 129 participants)
reported an increase in their online grocery purchases during the pandemic. The various rea-
sons for increased purchases followed a very similar pattern to what we observed for the first-
time online shoppers. The survey results reveal that 82% of the ongoing online shoppers who
increased their online purchases during the pandemic, expect to maintain the same behavior
(i.e. buy more groceries online) post pandemic. Again, this result reinforces our finding for the
first-time online grocery shoppers that most consumers will not revert back to their “pre-
COVID normal”.

Fig 7. The importance of various factors in triggering the change in grocery shopping behavior.
Table 2 below provides an insight into the role of some key consumer characteristics in
explaining demand for online grocery shopping prior to the pandemic and in creating new
demand during the pandemic. As one can see from the table, for certain consumer types, the
new demand—the number of respondents who started online grocery shopping during the
pandemic—was almost twice as high as the demand prior to the pandemic. Consumer type
captures differences in perceived risk and fear of the virus. More specifically, in the survey
questionnaire, we asked respondents to identify themselves with one of the following con-
sumer types, depending on how they felt during the pandemic: (1) Worrier/Concerned–“I am
very fearful of the future and I worry about my health a lot. I’m not willing to take any chances.
News about new COVID cases and deaths caused a fair amount of stress” [28% of the sample];
(2) Individualist–“I and my family will be fine. I am more concerned about people acting irra-
tional and engaging in unreasonable panic buying” [15% of the sample]; (3) Rationalist–“I am
not concerned. All I can do is keep things and myself clean. I hope others do the same. New
doesn’t worry me too much as I have this ‘keep calm and carry on’ mentality” [20% of the sam-
ple]; (4) Activist–“I want to maintain social distance and wear masks not just to protect myself
but to protect others as well. Protecting others is our social responsibility” [28% of the sample];
(5) Indifferent–“This is seriously being blown out of proportion; it’s just a flu. All these

Fig 8. Reasons for starting online grocery purchases.

government rules and restrictions to confine the spread of the virus make no sense and only
create inconveniences” [9% of the sample]. Based on the definitions, one could hypothesize
that “Worriers” and “Activists” would be more likely to take measures to avoid or limit in-per-
son grocery shopping due to elevated fears for their own health (worriers) or concerns about
the health of others in the society (activists). As Table 2 indicates, new demand for online gro-
cery shopping coming from these two consumer types appears much larger than new demand
from the other three types (individualist, rationalist, and indifferent), with over one third of
the respondents who identified themselves as “worriers” or “activists” becoming first-time
online grocery shoppers during the pandemic. In contrast, the pandemic triggered the adop-
tion of online mode of grocery shopping for only about 10% of the “Indifferent”.
In the existing literature, the role of gender in adoption of online grocery shopping is
ambiguous. The data from our sample illustrate that the percent of female consumers who
bought groceries online prior to the pandemic is very close to that of the male consumers
(Table 2). In terms of adoption of online mode of grocery shopping, the responses of the two
groups to the COVID pandemic also seem similar, with about 27% of the female consumers
reporting that they started purchasing groceries online as a result of the pandemic versus 22%
for men.

Table 2. New demand for online grocery shopping and key consumer characteristics.
Key consumer Number of consumers with Existing pre-COVID demand: Bought New demand: Started buying Part of the new demand to be
characteristics the said characteristic groceries online prior to COVID groceries online due to COVID sustained in the future
Consumer type
Worrier 181 38 (21.0%1) 60 (33.1%2) 41 (68% of 60)
Individualist 98 24 (24.5%) 19 (19.4%) 14 (74% of 19)
Rationalist 129 23 (17.8%) 16 (12.4%) 9 (56% of 16)
Activist 186 30 (16.1%) 60 (32.3%) 42 (70% of 60)
Indifferent 57 14 (24.6%) 6 (10.5%) 3 (50% of 6)
Gender
Males 272 49 (18.0%) 59 (21.7%) 37 (63% of 59)
Females 375 77 (20.5%) 101 (26.9%) 71 (70% of 101)
Presence of children
Households without 487 91 (18.7%) 110 (22.6%) 73 (66% of 110)
children
Households with 164 38 (23.2%) 51 (31.1%) 36 (71% of 51)
children
• With children 59 13 (22.0%) 23 (39.0%) 16 (70% of 23)
under 6
• With children 56 14 (25.0%) 19 (33.9%) 14 (74% of 19)
6–11
Age
• Younger than 40 242 68 (28.1%) 77 (31.8%) 57 (74% of 77)
• 40–59 years old 221 41 (18.6%) 55 (24.9%) 34 (62% of 55)
• 60 and older 188 20 (10.6%) 29 (15.4%) 18 (62% of 29)
Educational attainment
• High school and 232 53 (22.8%) 35 (15.1%) 24 (69% of 35)
less
• Certificate/ 254 45 (17.7%) 65 (25.6%) 42 (65% of 65)
diploma
• University degree 165 31 (18.8%) 61 (37.0%) 43 (70% of 61)
Annual household income
• Less than $20,000 171 32 (18.7%) 46 (26.9%) 34 (74% of 46)
• $20,000 - $59,999 294 66 (22.4%) 67 (22.8%) 42 (63% of 67)
• $60, 000 - $99,999 128 26 (20.3%) 30 (23.4%) 21 (70% of 30)
• $100,000 and 57 5 (8.8%) 18 (31.6%) 12 (67% of 18)
above
Province of residence
• NFL (4,3483) 43 4 (9.3%) 15 (34.9%) 11 (73% of 15)
• PEI (1,078) 23 4 (17.4%) 5 (21.7%) 3 (60% of 5)
• NS (8,132) 45 6 (13.3%) 15 (33.3%) 8 (53% of 15)
• NB (6,115) 43 5 (11.6%) 9 (20.9%) 6 (67% of 9)
• QB (61,023) 92 24 (26.1%) 20 (21.7%) 17 (85% of 20)
• ON (94,628) 124 29 (23.4%) 40 (32.3%) 25 (63% of 40)
• MB (9,739) 67 18 (26.9%) 16 (23.9%) 8 (50% of 16)
• SK (8,408) 66 9 (13.6%) 12 (18.2%) 7 (58% of 12)
• AB (24,112) 73 12 (16.4%) 18 (24.7%) 16 (89% of 18)
(Continued )

Table 2. (Continued)
Key consumer Number of consumers with Existing pre-COVID demand: Bought New demand: Started buying Part of the new demand to be
characteristics the said characteristic groceries online prior to COVID groceries online due to COVID sustained in the future
• BC (33,903) 75 18 (24.0%) 11 (14.7%) 8 (72% of 11)
1
–In brackets, we report the percent of consumers in the respective consumer group who bought groceries on-line prior to the pandemic.
2
–In brackets, we report the percent of consumers in the respective consumer group who started buying groceries on-line as a result of the pandemic.
3
–In brackets, we report COVID-related total number of deaths from March 3, 2020 to December 31, 2020. Data retrieved from Statistics Canada, CANSIM, Table 13-
10-0784-01.
The data in Table 2 also illustrate that new demand for online grocery shopping for house-
holds with children was higher than that for households without children. Almost 40% of
households with children under the age of 6 reported that they had started buying groceries
online when the pandemic hit. In contrast, only about one in five households without children
responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by adopting online grocery shopping.
Table 2 shows that younger consumers (under the age of 40) were more likely to buy gro-
ceries online prior to the pandemic. Although the percent of first-time online grocery shoppers
appears higher for younger consumers, the extent of the shift in demand, relative to the exist-
ing pre-COVID demand, seems to be larger for older consumers.
The data provides some evidence that the rate of adoption of online mode of grocery shop-
ping was higher for more educated consumers, although the share of consumers buying gro-
ceries online prior to the pandemic was slightly higher for the least educated consumer group
(high school and less). While the highest income consumer category ($100,000 and above) saw
the smallest share of on-line grocery shoppers prior to the pandemic, this category experienced
the largest increase (shift) in demand for online grocery purchases as a result of the pandemic.
The survey results suggest (Table 2, last column) that many consumers will not discontinue
the online mode of grocery shopping whenever the initial trigger disappears, which provides
some evidence to suggest that the process of diffusion of the online grocery innovation follows
the smooth and continuous path suggested by some traditional definitions of adoption. While
this finding is consistent with the results for online grocery market in Germany [59, 60], it is in
contrast to the findings of [61] who find that many consumers discontinue the online mode of
shopping whenever the initial triggers disappear and contrary to the arguments posed by
[108]. The contrast in the findings can potentially be explained by the duration of the triggers.
When the initial triggers such as illness that disables an individual from visiting a grocery store
in person do not last long, then it is very likely that the shopping behavior will return to the
pre-trigger normal. However, our results suggest that for the triggers of longer duration like
the COVID-19 pandemic that lasted for more than a year, it is very likely that the changes in
consumer behavior will grow into new habits that will prevail in the future. However, the fact
that a small portion of consumers will return to “brick-and-mortar” grocery shopping also
tells us that the adoption decision seems to be re-evaluated frequently. As such, post-adoption
evaluation appears crucial to the decision of whether to continue with the innovation. When
one looks at online grocery shopping adoption, some degree of innovation adoption disconti-
nuity occurs because the adoption of online shopping is complementary to buying in stores,
rather than substitutive. Reverting back to the traditional mode of shopping is easy because
most consumers never completely cease to shop in traditional stores.
An interesting observation is that out of 235 consumers who started or increased their
online grocery shopping activities during the pandemic, only 116 (49%) participants reported
a reduction in the frequency of their in-store grocery shopping visits. This suggests that the

observed increase in online grocery shopping throughout the pandemic was not motivated
solely by the desire to limit contact with others through substitution of some of the in-store
purchases with online; consumers could potentially be motivated to start purchasing groceries
online because the stores expanded options for online orders and order pickups.
While Table 2 reports useful information about the distribution of consumers in our sam-
ple in terms of some key consumer characteristics as well as provides an initial insight into
what factors could be important in explaining differences in consumer response to the
COVID pandemic in terms of adoption of online grocery shopping, it does not allow us to
make inferences if these differences are statistically significant. Table 3 below reports the
results of the pairwise tests analysis, showing Z-scores for differences in proportions. The dif-
ferences are defined in such a way so that the null hypothesis that is being tested is consistent
with the propositions developed in section 3 above.
One important observation from Table 3 is that none of the consumer characteristics
except age seems to be important in explaining differences in pre-COVID demand for on-line
grocery shopping. While some Z-scores are statistically significant when one analyzes the dif-
ferences across households with different income levels, there is no consistency in the results
that would suggest that the proportion of online grocery shoppers prior to COVID was higher
for higher income households. The only income group that stands out in terms of pre-COVID
demand is $100,000+ group. So, the results reveal that before the pandemic the only factor
truly explaining differences in adoption of online grocery shopping was age: younger consum-
ers were more likely to purchase groceries online.
In Proposition 1a we hypothesized that a province of residence can be a proxy for consumer
information about COVID; given the varying number of COVID-related deaths across the
provinces, consumers living in provinces with higher deaths count are hypothesized to have
higher perceived fears. {QB, ON} are the two provinces with the highest deaths count between
March 2020 and December 31, 2020; {AB; BC} rank the second highest. All other provinces
reported much lower COVID-related deaths numbers than {QB; ON} and {AB; BC}. The
results show that the proportion of consumers who started using online grocery shopping due
to COVID in {AB; BC} is not statistically different than the proportion of first-time online
shoppers in the provinces with much lower reported number of deaths (SK, MB, NB, NS). So,
from this pairwise hypothesis testing we do not find evidence to support Proposition 1a.
In Proposition 1b we hypothesized that consumers with more negative style of thinking
(worriers in nature) are more likely to have higher perceived fears and, as a result, more likely
to undertake measures to limit their exposure to the virus, including switching their grocery
purchases to online. By comparing “Worriers” to “Individualists”, “Rationalists”, and “Indif-
ferent” we find that the proportion of “Worriers” who started using online model of grocery
shopping during COVID is significantly higher (at 1% significance level) than the proportions
for these three other types of consumers that by definition had much lower concerns about
their own health or the health of others in the society. Note that for pre-COVID demand, there
were no statistically significant differences in proportions; significant differences in propor-
tions for new demand, however, suggest that differences in perceived risks and fears–a factor
specific to pandemics—is an important trigger of adoption of online grocery shopping.
In proposition 2 we hypothesized that socio-economic characteristics of a household played
an important role in developing response to the COVID pandemic. More specifically, in Prop-
osition 2c we suggested that the presence of small children in a household could contribute to
elevated perceived fears as small children may be more likely to develop complications from
viral infections due to underdeveloped immune systems. As the results in Table 3 indicate we
do find evidence that, compared to households without children, a significantly higher propor-
tion of households with children started purchasing groceries online during the pandemic (the

Table 3. Pairwise tests analysis: Difference in proportions.

Key consumer characteristics Pre-COVID demand for online New demand for online grocery shopping Evidence to support:
grocery shopping (first-time buyers)
Difference in Z-score Difference in proportions Z-score
proportions H1: pdifference (standard error) H1: pdifference
(standard error) 6¼ 0 >0
Province of residence (pdifference = phigher COVID death count−plower COVID death count)
{ON, QB} vs {AB, BC} 0.042 (0.044) 0.938 0.082 (0.045) 1.788** No evidence to support Proposition 1a
{AB, BC} vs {SK, MB, NB, NS} 0.031 (0.042) 0.753 -0.039 (0.043) -0.887
Consumer type (pdifference = pworrier−pj)
Worrier vs Individualist -0.035 (0.053) -0.671 0.138 (0.053) 2.435*** Proposition 1b
Worrier vs Rationalist 0.032 (0.045) 0.697 0.208 (0.045) 4.186***
Worrier vs Activist 0.049 (0.041) 1.206 0.009 (0.049) 0.174
Worrier vs Indifferent -0.036 (0.065) -0.575 0.227 (0.054) 3.331***
Presence of children (pdifference = pwith−pwithout)
Households w/children vs 0.045 (0.037) 1.250 0.085 (0.041) 2.182** Proposition 2c
households w/o children
Households w/ children under 6 vs -0.030 (0.079) -0.380 0.051 (0.090) 0.568
w/children 6–11
Age (pdifference = pyounger−polder)
Less than 40 vs 40–59 0.095 (0.039) 2.406** 0.069 (0.042) 1.643* Proposition 3
Less than 40 vs 60+ 0.175 (0.037) 4.463*** 0.164 (0.039) 3.915***
40–59 vs 60+ 0.080 (0.034) 2.263** 0.095 (0.039) 2.370***
Educational attainment (pdifference = pmore education−pless education)
Certificate/diploma vs high school -0.051 (0.036) -1.400 0.105 (0.036) 2.860*** Proposition 4
or less
University degree vs Certificate 0.011 (0.039) 0.286 0.114 (0.047) 2.486***
diploma
University degree vs high school or -0.040 (0.041) -0.962 0.219 (0.044) 5.021***
less
Annual household income (pdifference = phigher income−plower income)
$20,000-$59,999 vs less than $20,000 0.037 (0.038) 0.944 -0.041 (0.042) -0.994 No evidence to support Proposition 2a
$60,000-$99,999 vs less than $20,000 0.016 (0.046) 0.346 -0.035 (0.051) -0.688 and Proposition 5
$100,000+ vs less than $20,000 -0.099 (0.048) -1.756* 0.047 (0.070) 0.684
$60,000-$99,999 vs $20,000-$59,999 -0.021 (0.043) -0.481 0.006 (0.045) 0.135
$100,000+ vs $20,000-$59,999 -0.136 (0.045) -2.341** 0.088 (0.066) 1.419*
$100,000+ vs $60,000 - $99,999 -0.115 (0.052) -1.934* 0.082 (0.072) 1.175
Gender(pdifference = pfemales−pmales)
Females vs Males 0.025 (0.031) 0.793 0.052 (0.034) 1.514* Proposition 7
Note
*** Significant at 1%
** Significant at 5%
* Significant at 10%
For pre-COVID demand, we are testing a two-tailed hypothesis H0: pdifference = 0 vs H1: pdifference 6¼ 0.
For new demand due to COVID, we are testing a left-tail hypothesis where H0: pdifference � 0 vs H1: pdifference > 0
difference is significant at 5%). Our results, however, do not support a premise that households
with children under the age of 6 were more likely to adopt online grocery shopping than
households with older children—children aged 6 to 11.
There are statistically significant differences in the estimated proportions of younger con-
sumers who started using online grocery shopping during the pandemic versus older

consumers. The difference between the “less than 40” consumer group and “40–59” consumer
group is significant at 10%, while the differences between “less than 40” and “60+” consumers
and between “40–59” and “60+” consumers are both significant at 1%. The hypothesis testing
result therefore provides evidence to support Proposition 3.
The results in Table 3 also reveal that the estimated proportions of online grocery shopping
adopters are significantly higher for consumers with higher education level (Proposition 4; all
differences are significant at 1%), while we find no evidence to support our hypothesis that
household income is a significant predictor of adoption of online grocery shopping.
While hypothesis testing results reported in Table 3 are useful in identifying the factors
explaining why some consumers chose to switch some of their grocery purchases to the online
channel, hypothesis testing does not take into account the association between the study vari-
ables. For example, households with small children are likely to also fall in the “younger” con-
sumer group and when we find that the proportion of households with small children that
adopted online grocery shopping is significantly higher than that for households without
dependent children, the association between the presence of small children and age may lead
to the conclusions that do not reflect the importance of a household having small children in
triggering change in their grocery shopping habits. Multiple regression analysis provides a way
of accounting for potentially confounding variables, thus separating the contribution of each
separate factor to the change in the outcome variable–increased use or adoption of online gro-
cery shopping.
In the following, we present the results of the econometric analysis to better understand the
importance of different factors in stimulating consumers to switch their grocery purchases
online.
5.3 The results of econometric estimation and discussion

Table 4 shows the estimated marginal effects for the Logit models (see S1 File for detailed vari-
able description). The estimated effects for the most part are consistent with the previous
research findings and with our expectations.
The results reveal that personality type played a role in the consumer’s decision to adopt
online grocery shopping. More specifically, the “worriers/concerned” were 19% more likely to
switch to online grocery purchases than the benchmark. The benchmark group included
“indifferent”, “individualist”, and “rationalist” that by definition were not concerned about
COVID itself but were more concerned about irrational behavior of other consumers and
inconveniences caused by the imposed government restrictions. The “activists” are found to
be 21% more likely to switch to online grocery purchases.
5.3.1 Factors that determine the adoption or increased use of online grocery shopping
during the pandemic (Model 1). COVID-related fears. COVID-related fears are found to
have significantly contributed to adoption of online grocery shopping during the pandemic,
which is in support of Proposition 1. Interestingly, it is perceived susceptibility (fears associ-
ated with catching the virus) rather than perceived severity (fears associated with developing
health complications in case of illness) that played a significant role in consumers’ decisions to
switch all or some of their grocery purchases online: those who were very concerned and those
who were somewhat concerned about contracting the virus are found to be 20% and 23%,
respectively, more likely to switch to online grocery purchasing format; both estimates are sta-
tistically significant at 1% significance level. The results also show that the presence of severe
COVID cases among the consumer’s contacts (family members, colleagues, or friends)–a
proxy for knowledge about COVID gained from personal experience—also had a significant
impact on the decision to purchase more groceries online.

Table 4. Factors that explain adoption of online grocery shopping: Logit estimation results.
Explanatory variables Model 1: Adoption /increased use of online grocery Model 2: Intention to use online grocery shopping
shopping during the pandemic channel more in the future
Marginal effect (prob(Y1)) Robust standard error Marginal effect (prob(Y2)) Robust standard error
Worrier 0.189*** 0.060 - -
Activist 0.211*** 0.058 - -
Perceived susceptibility (high) 0.200*** 0.078 - -
Perceived susceptibility (somewhat high) 0.226*** 0.059 - -
Perceived severity (high) 0.053 0.084 - -
Perceived severity (somewhat high) 0.011 0.074 - -
COVID_close_contacts 0.109** 0.053 - -
QB -0.021 0.069 - -
ON 0.044 0.067 - -
MB 0.004 0.079 - -
SK -0.091 0.068 - -
AB -0.077 0.064 - -
BC -0.083 0.065 - -
Children_ages_6–11 -0.009 0.074 0.010 0.098
Children_under 6 0.107 0.015 0.126 0.095
Income -0.027* 0.015 -0.038 0.026
Change in income (reduction) 0.113** 0.045 - -
Change in income (increase) 0.021 0.095 - -
Age -0.004*** 0.001 -0.001 0.002
Education 0.073*** 0.017 0.087*** 0.029
Sex (female) 0.055 0.043 0.064 0.075
Prior frequency of store visits 0.035** 0.016 0.037 0.038
Shopping venue (large supermarkets) -0.013 0.059 -0.033 0.088
Prior online 0.005*** 0.001 - -
Grocery_importance -0.002** 0.001 -0.003* 0.001
Past experience with online grocery shopping
Past experience - - 0.150* 0.078
Perceived advantages
Time savings - - 0.029 0.042
Economical - - 0.006 0.042
Greater product variety - - -0.022 0.034
Ease of use - - 0.026 0.043
Pleasure - - 0.122*** 0.043
Benefits 0.101*** 0.039
Perceived disadvantages
Over-spending - - 0.005 0.031
More costly - - -0.017 0.039
Quality of fresh produce - - 0.028 0.035
Pseudo R-square 0.2120 0.1814
Wald chi2(29) [model significance] 119.75*** 30.13***
Number of observations 650 288
Note
*** Significant at 1%
** Significant at 5%
* Significant at 10%

We don’t find a statistically significant difference in adoption of online grocery shopping

based on the province of residence, which was hypothesized to serve as a proxy for consumer
information about the spread of COVID and COVID-related deaths.
Socio-economic background. Among the variables that capture socio-economic background
of the respondents, only the income and a reduction in income due to the pandemic are found
to be statistically significant at 10% and 5%, respectively. More specifically, consumers with
higher incomes were less likely to switch more of their grocery purchases online, while con-
sumers whose incomes decreased as a result of the pandemic were more likely to do so. This
finding is in contrast to the hypothesized relationship (Propositions 2a, 2b, Proposition 5)
based on the TAM (perceived ease-of-use) framework; however, it can make perfect sense if
one thinks about the effect of income on online purchases in the context of the valuation of
time: higher-income consumers value their time more because of its opportunity cost [116].
[117] notes that “consumers who are “time rich and income poor” find online shopping to be
attractive mainly for the money savings potential, while those who are “income rich and time
poor” may be attracted to it because it saves time”. During the pandemic, a reduction in
income was associated with temporary/permanent layoffs or reduction in working hours,
which would make the affected consumers time rich and free up more time for online shop-
ping in general and for groceries in particular. Also, those consumers whose incomes were
negatively affected by the pandemic might have faced higher emotional stress. Studies have
found that higher levels of stress may impact eating behaviors, especially eating more
unhealthy foods such as sugary, high-fat, and savory foods [118]; this group of foods is very
common in online grocery purchases because unlike fresh produce consumers are usually not
as concerned about quality not meeting expectations. Therefore, our findings suggest that
most likely it is the opportunity cost of time of online shopping that played a role in creating
incentives for consumers to switch to online grocery shopping rather than technological abili-
ties and opportunities postulated to be captured by the income variable. Indeed, when asked
about the reasons not to shop for groceries online, the non-adopters placed “problems with
technology use and/or internet access” at the bottom of the list in terms of importance. This
finding and the Pearson chi-square test for association between income and importance of the
“problems with technology use and internet access” reason for non-adopters (p-value of 0.49),
suggest that for non-adopters technological constraints to perform online shopping are mini-
mal and are independent of the income level.
Proposition 2c that the presence of small children would significantly impact the likelihood
of switching online is not supported by the multiple regression results.
Pre-COVID grocery shopping behavior. The results support our hypothesis (Proposition 6)
that pre-COVID shopping behavior played an important role in explaining why some con-
sumers switched to online and some didn’t. Those consumers who had more frequent grocery
store visits prior to the pandemic are found to be more likely to either have started or increased
their online grocery purchases during the pandemic, which could be the result of some substi-
tution between in-store and online grocery purchases. The results reveal that the share of gro-
cery store purchases in average weekly meals is an important predictor whether a consumer
switched to online grocery shopping during the pandemic. Based on our survey sample,
slightly less than 70% of an average consumer’s weekly meals were meals cooked at home from
scratch from ingredients bought from grocery stores and slightly under 10% of all meals were
ready-to-eat items or heat-and-eat meals from grocery stores. So, an average consumer would
require items from grocery stores for almost 80% of their meals. The results indicate that
someone who requires grocery store items for 90% of their meals (i.e. a 10% increase from an
average consumer) is 2% less likely to have adopted or increased online grocery shopping dur-
ing the pandemic. The estimation results also reveal that those consumers who had a largest

portion of their grocery purchase done online prior to COVID were more likely to increase
their online grocery purchases during the pandemic.
Age and gender. We find that age is a significant predictor of online grocery shopping adop-
tion. The role of age in this model is two-fold. On the one-hand, higher age can be a COVID
risk factor, thus creating more incentives for older consumers to alter their grocery buying
behavior, including a reduction in frequency of in-store visits and a switch to online grocery
shopping to replace some of in-store purchases. Yet, the results of a bi-serial correlation do not
support any significant association between age and a reduced frequency of in-store visits (p-
value 0.1321). On the other hand, age can be related to technological abilities. We find that age
is significantly and negatively associated with the probability of increasing online grocery pur-
chases during the pandemic: for every 10 years increase in age, the probability of adopting or
increasing online grocery purchases is reduced by 4%. This result supports Proposition 3 and
suggests that age variable is more important to capture technological opportunities and abili-
ties than the COVID-related risks and fears.
We do not find any evidence that either gender is more psychologically predisposed to
adoption of online grocery shopping.
Education. The results indicate that education plays a significant role in explaining consum-
ers’ decisions to adopt online grocery shopping: higher level of educational attainment is asso-
ciated with a higher probability of technology adoption, which is consistent with the TAM
(Proposition 4).
5.3.2 Factors that determine the use of online grocery shopping in the post-pandemic
world (Model 2). We find that the significant determinants of sustaining the “new” demand
for online grocery shopping in the future include education, positive past experience, two of
the six perceived advantages of online grocery shopping, and importance of grocery store pur-
chased items in family meals.
Education. Consistent with the TAM and TCT postulating that more educated individuals
are more likely to adopt new technologies and continue using them in the future, our findings
suggest that consumers with higher educational attainment levels are more likely to continue
the behavior that emerged during the pandemic.
Past experience. The results indicate that past experience is a significant predictor of future
behavior. Those consumers who reported that they had positive experience with their previous
online purchases are 15% more likely to use online modes for their future grocery purchases
compared to those who had neutral or negative experiences. Furthermore, those consumers
who reported a higher level of agreement with the following statements “I view online grocery
shopping as a pleasure rather than a chore” and “While I started online grocery shopping as a
social distancing measure during COVID, I can now see lots of other benefits of shopping for
groceries online” are found to be more likely to sustain the trend in online shopping behavior
that arose out of the pandemic.
Perceived advantages. The survey results also indicate, that once the consumers are trig-
gered to utilize online grocery shopping, they seem to realize there are many benefits associ-
ated with it (e.g. time saving–see Fig 9).
Table 5 reports the average scores for the disadvantages of online grocery shopping. The
average scores and the results of the paired t-tests suggest that of the three suggested disadvan-
tages, quality of fresh produce is by far the biggest challenge with online grocery shopping.
Indeed, consumers tend to purchase non-perishable items online. Among those consumers
who switched some of their purchases to online models as a result of the pandemic, 95% said
they purchased non-perishable items such as pasta, flour, and cereal online, while only 84%
and 79% said they purchased fresh produce and fresh meat/fish, respectively. Therefore, fresh
meat/fish seems to be the least popular food category for online grocery purchases.

Fig 9. Assessment of some potential advantages and disadvantages of online grocery shopping.
Table 5. Consumers’ perception of disadvantages of online grocery shopping.

Disadvantages of online grocery shopping Average Paired t-test [t-stat (p-value)]
score1 Disadv1 Disadv2
Buying fresh produce is a challenge, so I will always go to the store for perishable items in between my online 3.54 - -
orders (Disadv1)
Online grocery shopping is much more expensive due to additional costs and delivery fees (Disadv2) 3.38 H0 : x�1 x�2 ¼ 0 -
H1 : x�1 x�2 > 0
2.05** (0.0204)
With online grocery shopping it is much easier to lose control of how much is spent on food (Disadv3) 3.29 H0 : x�1 x�3 ¼ 0 H0 : x�2 x�3 ¼ 0
H1 : x�1 x�3 > 0 H1 : x�2 x�3 > 0
2.82*** (0.0026) 1.23 (0.1092)
1
Note: the responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 strongly disagree– 5 strongly agree; a higher average score indicates a higher level of agreement with the
statement.
*** the difference is significant at 1%
** the difference is significant at 5%

Table 6. Consumers’ perception of advantages of online grocery shopping.

Advantages of online grocery shopping Average Paired t-test [t-stat (p-value)]
score1 Adv1 Adv2 Adv3 Adv4 Adv5
Online grocery shopping saves lots of time (Adv1) 3.98 - - - - -
Online grocery shopping is easier than in store (Adv2) 3.60 H0 : x�1 x�2 ¼ 0 - - - -
H1 : x�1 x�2 > 0
6.05*** (0.000)
While I started online grocery shopping due to 3.59 H0 : x�1 x�3 ¼ 0 H0 : x�2 x�3 ¼ 0 - - -
COVID, I can now see lots of other benefits of online
H1 : x�1 x�3 > 0 H1 : x�2 x�3 > 0
shopping (Adv3)
5.97*** (0.000) 0.22 (0.41)
I view online grocery shopping as a pleasure rather 3.44 H0 : x�1 x�4 ¼ 0 H0 : x�2 x�4 ¼ 0 H0 : x�3 x�4 ¼ 0 - -
than a chore (Adv4)
H1 : x�1 x�4 > 0 H1 : x�2 x�4 > 0 H1 : x�3 x�4 > 0
8.52*** (0.000) 2.89*** (0.000) 2.40*** (0.009)
Online grocery shopping is more economical as it 3.39 H0 : x�1 x�5 ¼ 0 H0 : x�2 x�5 ¼ 0 H0 : x�3 x�5 ¼ 0 H0 : x�4 x�5 ¼ 0 -
helps me stick to my grocery list and get good deals
H1 : x�1 x�5 > 0 H1 : x�2 x�5 > 0 H1 : x�3 x�5 > 0 H1 : x�4 x�5 > 0
(Adv5)
8.28*** (0.000) 3.35*** (0.000) 2.98*** (0.002) 0.84 (0.20)
Online shopping offers a greater product variety than 3.24 H0 : x�1 x�6 ¼ 0 H0 : x�2 x�6 ¼ 0 H0 : x�3 x�6 ¼ 0 H0 : x�4 x�6 ¼ 0 H0 : x�5 x�6 ¼ 0
what’s available in store (Adv6)
H1 : x�1 x�6 > 0 H1 : x�2 x�6 > 0 H1 : x�3 x�6 > 0 H1 : x�4 x�6 > 0 H1 : x�5 x�6 > 0
9.75*** (0.000) 5.28*** (0.000) 4.82*** (0.000) 2.99*** (0.002) 2.25** (0.013)
1
Note: the responses are measured on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 strongly disagree– 5 strongly agree; a higher average score indicates a higher level of agreement with the
statement.
*** the difference is significant at 1%
** the difference is significant at 5%
Table 6 ranks the statements that capture the potential advantages of online grocery shop-
ping. Statement “online grocery shopping saves lots of time” has received the highest average
score among the participants, indicating a higher level of consumers’ agreement with this
statement compared to all other statements (Table 6). Using the paired t-test results, one can
also see that the average score for this statement is significantly higher than for all other state-
ments. The lowest level of consumer agreement is found for the statement that online shop-
ping offers a greater product variety than what is available in store.
6. Conclusions
This article analyzed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on grocery shopping behavior of
Canadian consumers. The results of the study are based off a survey of 651 Canadian consum-
ers across ten Canadian provinces. Our findings suggest that only a small proportion of con-
sumers who altered their shopping habits during the pandemic will revert back to their pre-
COVID behavior: 63% of the consumers whose behavior was altered in one way or another
reported that the changes will be permanent.
While this study attempted to highlight the changes in consumer behavior in general, the
main focus has been on adoption of online mode of grocery shopping. We find that a number
of factors played a significant role in consumers’ decisions to adopt or increase online grocery
shopping during the pandemic. In particular, personality type and perceived susceptibility to
acquiring the illness are found to be important; those consumers who are “worriers” or “activ-
ists” by nature and those who had higher perceived COVID fears were much more likely to
increase their reliance on online grocery purchases. Other significant predictors of online gro-
cery adoption were pre-COVID shopping habits (frequency of grocery store visits prior to the
pandemic and importance of store-bought groceries in overall family meals), certain aspects of

socio-economic background (income and reduction in income due to COVID), and the vari-
ables capturing technological opportunities and abilities (age and education).
With respect to whether the changes induced by the pandemic would continue in a post-
pandemic world, we find that positive experience with online shopping is a significant predic-
tor of continuance with this mode of grocery shopping. The survey results revealed that
although many consumers started purchasing groceries online as a measure of social distanc-
ing, in general there is a very high level of agreement among consumers that post factum they
had realized many other benefits of online grocery shopping.
This study has several important implications for the retail food sector. First, one significant con-
tribution of this study is that it reveals that the changes that we have observed during the COVID-
19 pandemic are very unlikely to be transient. The majority of the consumers who were triggered
by the pandemic to try online grocery shopping for the first time or were triggered to increase their
online purchases from the pre-COVID levels have indicated that they will continue this new behav-
ior. Our findings also suggest that online modes of shopping are complementary to buying in stores
rather than substitutive; for certain types of products, for example fresh produce and fresh meats
and fish, consumers are more likely to revert back to the traditional brick-and-mortar mode of
shopping. The ease of reverting back, the intentions of consumers to continue with online grocery
shopping, and the importance of past experience with online grocery shopping in predicting future
online purchases indicate that grocery providers should make additional investments to accelerate
the expansion of online food delivery services as well as focus on improving consumers’ experience
with online shops. We argue that adoption of online grocery shopping for many will be a continu-
ous innovation, with their new shopping behavior expanding in the future. Therefore, the retail
industry should consider significant investments into improving infrastructure for fulfilment of on-
line orders, including in-store automation technology. However, an extensive cost-benefit analysis
of such investments should be conducted to ensure positive results for consumers and efficiency
without significantly increasing the delivery/order fulfilment cost to consumers. Our results show
that almost 50% of the consumers who use online grocery shopping already find that additional
costs and delivery fees make online grocery shopping much more expensive compared to the tradi-
tional brick-and-mortar shopping method. Investments that will increase order fulfilment efficiency
and at the same time create significant additional costs to consumers may discourage future adop-
tion of online grocery shopping and may, therefore, not be justified.
A number of limitations of this study should be warranted. First, the data for this research
came from an original survey that, given the research budget constraints, was conducted at
one point in time (January 2022). Consumers were asked to document their shopping behavior
prior to, at the onset of, and almost two years into the pandemic. Administering the survey at
different points in time, thus yielding a longitudinal dataset, would have provided much richer
set of information for the analysis. Second, while the existing models of consumer behavior
were utilized to lay out the foundation for the econometrics analysis in this study, this econo-
metrics analysis is rather simple in relation to the complexity of the issue. As such, a structural
equation modelling (SEM) approach would be a more effective method to validate the existing
models of consumer behavior. The survey questions, however, only had a limited number of
scale items, which prevented us from properly measuring latent variables within the HBM,
TAM, and TCT frameworks to integrate the theories and provide a deeper understanding of
the factors that contributed to adoption and continuance of online grocery shopping.
Supporting information
S1 File. Appendix.
(DOCX)

S2 File. Data.
(XLSX)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Viktoriya Galushko.
Data curation: Viktoriya Galushko.
Formal analysis: Viktoriya Galushko, Alla Riabchyk.
Funding acquisition: Viktoriya Galushko.
Methodology: Viktoriya Galushko, Alla Riabchyk.
Writing – original draft: Viktoriya Galushko.
Writing – review & editing: Viktoriya Galushko, Alla Riabchyk.
References
1. Rogers K, Cosgrove A. (2020, April 16). Future Consumer Index: How Covid-19 is Changing Con-
sumer Behaviors. Ernst & Young. 2020 Apr 16 [Cited 2022 October 14]. Available from: https://www.
ey.com/en_gl/consumer-products-retail/how-covid-19-could-change-consumer-behavior
2. Naeem M. 2021. Understanding the consumer psychology of impulse buying during COVID-19 pan-
demic: implications for retailers. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2021; 49(3): 377–393. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IJRDM-08-2020-0317
3. Gupta R, Nair K, Radhakrishnan L. Impact of COVID-19 crisis on stocking and impulse buying behav-
ior of consumers. Int J Soc Econ. 2021; 48(12): 1794–1809. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-03-2021-
0163
4. Keane M, Neal T. Consumer panic in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Econom. 2021; 220(1): 86–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.07.045 PMID: 32863535
5. Das D, Sarkar A, Debroy A. Impact of COVID-19 on changing consumer behavior: lessons from an
emerging economy. Int J Consum Stud. 2022; 46(3): 692–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12786
PMID: 35602666
6. Gu S, Slusarczyk B, Hajizada S, Kovalyova I, Sakhbieva A. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
online consumer purchasing behavior. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res. 2021; 16(6): 2263–2281.
https://doi.org/10.3390/JTAER16060125
7. Charlebois S. Why COVID-19 Will Change Canadian Grocery Industry Forever? Retail Insider E-
News, 2020 Mar 26 [Cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://retail-insider.com/retail-insider/2020/
03/why-covid-19-will-change-the-food-industry-forever/
8. Grocer Canadian. Share of Consumers Who Shopped Online for Groceries in the Past Week in Can-
ada from 2016 to 2020 [Graph]. Canadian Grocer, 2020 Sept 15 [Cited 2022 Sept 18] Available from:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1175029/past-week-online-grocery-service-usage-canada/
9. Lally P, van Jaarsveld CHM, Potts HWW, Wardle J. How are habits formed: modelling habit formation
in the real world? Eur J Soc Psychol. 20010; 40(6): 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/EJSP.674
10. Eley J, McMorrow R. Why Supermarkets are Struggling to Profit from the Online Grocery. Financial
Times, 2020 Jul 22 [Cited 2022 Jun 16]. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/b985249c-1ca1-
41a8-96b5-0adcc889d57d
11. Guthrie C, Fosso-Wamba S, Arnaud JB. Online consumer resilience during a pandemic: an explor-
atory study of e-commerce behavior before, during, and after a COVID-19 lockdown. J Retail Consum
Serv. 2021; 61: 102570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102570
12. Ramus K, Nielsen N. Online grocery retailing: what do consumers think? Internet Res. 2005; 15(3):
335–352. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510602726
13. Blitstein J, Frentz F, Jilcott Pitts S. A mixed method examination of reported benefits of online grocery
shopping in the United States and Germany: is health a factor? J Food Prod Mark.2020; 26(3): 212–
224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2020.1754313
14. Brengman M, Heuens M, Weijters B, Smith S, Swinyard W. Segmenting internet shoppers based on
their web-usage related life-style: a cross cultural validation. J Bus Res. 2005; 58(1): 79–88. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00476-9

15. Brown M, Pope N, Voges K. Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping orientations and online
purchase intention. Eur J Mark. 2003; 37(11/12): 1666–1684. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090560310495401
16. Sheth J. Impact of COVID-19 on consumer behavior: Will the old habits return or die? J Bus Res.
2020; 117: 280–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.059 PMID: 32536735
17. Cai L, Yuen K, Fang M, Wang X. A literature review on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on con-
sumer behavior: implications for consumer-centric logistics. Asia Pacific J Mark Logist. 2023; 35(11):
2682–2703. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2022-0731
18. Chen Y, Rajabifard A, Sabri S, Potts K, Laylavi F, Xie Y, et al. A discussion of irrational stockpiling
behavior during crisis. J Saf Sci Resil. 2020; 1(1): 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnlssr.2020.06.003
19. Hendricks K, Jacobs B, Singhal V. Stock market reaction to supply chain disruptions from the 2011
Great East Japan earthquake. Manuf Serv Oper Manag. 2020; 22(4): 683–699. https://doi.org/10.
1287/msom.2019.0777
20. Hori M, Iwamoto K. The run on daily foods and goods after the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Japan Polit
Econ. 2014; 40: 69–113. https://doi.org/10.2753/JES2329-194X400103
21. ACAPS. Ebola in West Africa: Potential Impact on Food Security. Social Science in Humanitarian
Action Platform. 2014 Nov 10 [Cited 2023 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.socialscienceinaction.
org/resources/ebola-in-west-africa-potential-impact-on-food-security/
22. Thomson Reuters. Ebola Outbreak Threatens Food Security in Hardest-Hit Countries. CBC. 2014
Sept 2014 [Cited 2023 Jul 4]. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ebola-outbreak-
threatens-food-security-in-hardest-hit-countries-1.2752880
23. Cheng C. To be paranoid is the standard? Panic responses to SARS outbreak in the Hong Kong spe-
cial administrative region. Asian Perspect. 2004; 28(1): 67–98. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2004.0034
24. Ma R. Spread of SARS and war-related rumours through new media in China. Commun Q. 2008; 56
(4): 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370802448204
25. Loxton M, Trusket R, Scarf B, Sindone L, Baldry G, Zhao Y. Consumer behavior during crises: prelimi-
nary research on how coronavirus has manifested consumer panic buying, herd mentality, changing
discretionary spending and the role of the media in influencing behavior. J Risk Financ Mang. 2020;
13, 166: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13080166
26. Sim K, Chua HC, Vieta E, Fernandez G. The anatomy of panic buying related to the current COVID-19
pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020; 288: 113015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113015
PMID: 32315887
27. Chua G, Yuen KF., Wang X, Wong YD. The determinants of panic buying during COVID-19. Int J Envi-
ron Res Public Health. 2021; 18(6): 3247–3275. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063247 PMID:
33801077
28. Kemp E, Kennet-Hensel P, Williams K. The calm before the storm: examining emotion regulation con-
sumption in the face of an impending disaster. Psychol Mark. 2014; 31(11): 933–945. https://doi.org/
10.1002/mar.20744
29. Kemp E, Kopp S. Emotion regulation consumption: when feeling better is the aim. J Consum Behav.
2011; 10: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.341
30. Mick D, Demoss M. Self-gifts: phenomenological insights from four contexts. J Consum Res. 1990;
17(3): 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/208560
31. Alonso LE, Rodriguez CJF, Rojo RI. From consumerism to guilt: economic crisis and discourses about
consumption in Spain. J Consum Cult. 2015; 15(1): 66–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1469540513493203
32. Boost M, Maeier L. Resilient practices of consumption in times of crisis–bibliographical interviews with
members of vulnerable households in Germany. Int J Consum Stud. 2017; 41(4): 371–378. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12346
33. Castilhos RB, Fonseca MJ, Bavaresco V. Consumption, crisis, and coping strategies of lower class
families in Brazil: a sociological account. Int J Consum Stud. 2017; 41(4): 379–388. https://doi.org/10.
1111/ijcs.12341
34. Kaytaz M, Cul MC. Consumer response to economic crisis and lessons for marketers: the Turkish
experience. J Bus Res. 2014; 67(1): 2701–2706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.03.019
35. McKenzie D, Schargrodsky E. Buying less, but shopping more: the use of non-market labor during a
crisis. Economia. 2011; 11(2): 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1353/eco.2011.0004
36. Kennett-Hensel PA, Sneath JZ, Lacey R. Liminality and consumption in the aftermath of a natural
disaster. J Consum Mark. 2012; 29(1): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211193046

37. Sneath JZ, Lacey R, Kennett-Hensel PA. Coping with a natural disaster: losses, emotions, and impul-
sive and compulsive buying. Mark Lett. 2009; 20: 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-008-9049-y
38. CBC. Canada Lost Nearly 2 Million Jobs in April Amid COVID-19 Crisis: Statistics Canada. CBC.
2020 May 8 [Cited 2023 Jul 11]. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-jobs-april-
1.5561001
39. CAMH. One Year into Pandemic, About One in Five Canadians Reporting High Levels of Mental Dis-
tress. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. 2021 Apr 13 [Cited 2023 Jul 8]. Available from: https://
www.camh.ca/en/camh-news-and-stories/one-in-five-canadians-reporting-high-levels-of-mental-
distress
40. Vaillancourt T, Szatmari P, Georgiades K, Krygsman A. The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health
of Canadian children and youth. FACETS. 2021; 6(1): 1628–1648. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-
2021-0078
41. Ahmed RR, Streimikiene D, Rolle J.-A, Duc PA. The COVID-19 pandemic and the antecedents for the
impulse buying behavior of US citizens. J Compet. 2020; 12(3): 5–27. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.
2020.03.01
42. Chauhan S, Banerjee R, Mittal M. An analytical study on impulse buying for online shopping during
COVID-19. J Content Community Commun. 2020; 12(6): 198–209. https://doi.org/10.31620/jccc.12.
20/18
43. He J, Liu S, Li T, Mai TH. The positive effects of unneeded consumption behavior on consumers during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(12): 6404. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph18126404 PMID: 34199211
44. Chaudhuri S. Lysol maker seeks to capitalize on COVID hygiene concerns in hotels, on planes. The
Wall Street Journal. 2020 Jul 28 [Cited 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/
lysol-maker-seeks-to-capitalize-on-covid-hygiene-concerns-in-hotels-on-planes-11595939726
45. Del Rio-Chanona RM, Mealy P, Pichler A, Lafond F, Farmer JD. Supply and demand shocks in the
COVID-19 pandemic: an industry and occupation perspective. Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy. 2020; 36
(Supplement 1): S94–S137. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/graa033
46. Hesham F, Riadh H, Sihem NK. What have we learned about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
on consumer behavior? Sustainability. 2021; 13(8): 4304. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084304
47. Hess A. (2020, April 6). Our health is in danger: wellness wants to fill the void. The New York Times.
2020 Apr 6 [Cited 2023 Jun 10]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/arts/virus-
wellness-self-care.html
48. Kirk CP, Rifkin L. S. I’ll trade you diamonds for toilet paper: consumer reacting, coping and adapting
behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic. J Bus Res. 2020; 117: 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.05.028 PMID: 32834208
49. Knowles J, Ettenson R, Lynch P, Dollens J. Growth opportunities for brands during COVID-19 crisis.
MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2020 May 5 [Cited 2023 May 17]. Available from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/
article/growth-opportunities-for-brands-during-the-covid-19-crisis/
50. Gordon-Wilson S. Consumption practices during the COVID-19 crisis. Int J Consum Stud. 2022: 46
(2): 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12701 PMID: 34220342
51. Chang H-H, Meyerhoefer CD. COVID-19 and the demand for online food shopping services: empirical
evidence from Taiwan. Am J Agric Econ. 2021; 103(2): 448–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12170
52. Goddard E. The impact of COVID-19 on food retail and food service in Canada: Preliminary assess-
ment. Can J Agric Econ. 2020; 68(2): 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12243
53. Li J, Hallsworth AG, Coca-Stefaniak JA. Changing grocery shopping behaviors among Chinese con-
sumers at the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak. J Econ Human Geogr. 2020; 111(3): 574–583. https://
doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12420 PMID: 32836486
54. Martin-Neuninger R, Ruby MB. What does food retail research tell us about the implications of corona-
virus (COVID-19) for grocery purchasing habits? Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 1448. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fpsyg.2020.01448 PMID: 32581987
55. Forster PW, Ya T. The role of online shopping and fulfillment in the Hong Kong SARS crisis. In Pro-
ceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences ( Big Island, HI:
IEEE); 2005: 271a. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2005.615
56. Kee HT, Wan D. Intended usage of online supermarkets: The Singapore case. Published Conference
paper, the Fourth International Conference on Electronic Business. 2004. Available from: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/221365994_Intended_Usage_of_Online_Supermarkets_The_
Singapore_Case
57. Advantage Group. Why Adopting a Collaborative Mindset is Critical for Winning at Grocery E-com-
merce. Advantage Group. 2020 Jul 29 [Cited 2023 May 14]. Available from: https://www.

advantagegroup.com/resource/why-adopting-a-collaborative-mindset-is-critical-for-winning-at-
grocery-e-commerce/
58. Szasz L, Balint C, Csiki O, Nagy BZ, Racz B.-G, Csala D, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on the evolu-
tion of online retail: the pandemic as a window of opportunity. J Retail Consum Serv. 2022: 69:
103089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.103089
59. Brüggemann P., Olbrich R. The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on offline and online grocery shop-
ping: New normal or old habits? Electron Commer Res. 2022; 23: 2051–2072. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10660-022-09658-1
60. Gruntkowski L. M., Martinez L. F. Online grocery shopping in Germany: Assessing the impact of
COVID-19. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res. 2022: 17(3): 984–1002. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jtaer17030050
61. Hand C, Riley F, Harris P, Singh J, Rettie R. Online grocery shopping: the influence of situational fac-
tors. Eur J Mark. 2009; 43(9/10): 1205–1219. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560910976447
62. Van Droogenbroeck E, van Hove L. Adoption of online grocery shopping: personal or household char-
acteristics? J Internet Commer. 2017; 16(3): 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2017.
1317149
63. Loketkrawee P, Bhatiasevi V. Elucidating the behavior of consumers toward online grocery shopping:
the role of shopping orientation. J Internet Commer. 2018; 17(4): 418–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15332861.2018.1496390
64. Van Droogenbroeck E, an Hove L. Triggered or evaluated? A qualitative inquiry into the decision to
start using e-grocery services. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res. 2020; 30(2): 103–122. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09593969.2019.1655085
65. Hansen T, Jensen JM, Solgaard HS. Predicting online grocery buying intention: a comparison of the
theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. Int J Inf Manag. 2004; 24(6): 539–550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2004.08.004
66. Keen C, Wetzels M, Ruyter K, Feinberg R. E-tailers versus retailers, which factors determine con-
sumer preferences. J Bus Res. 2004; 57(7): 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00360-
0
67. Shih H.-P. An empirical study on predicting use acceptance of e-shopping on the web. Inf Manag.
2004; 41(3): 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(03)00079-X
68. Verhoef PC, Langerak F. Possible determinants of consumer’s adoption of electronic grocery shop-
ping in the Netherlands. J Retail Consum Serv. 2001; 8(5): 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-
6989(00)00033-3
69. Hansen T. Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis. Int J Retail Distrib
Manag. 2005; 33(2): 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581449
70. Lim N. Consumer’s perceived risk: sources versus consequences. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2003;
2(3): 216–228. https://doi.org/10.106/S1567-4223(03)00025-5
71. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975; 91
(1): 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 PMID: 28136248
72. Becker M.H. The Health Belief Model and personal health behavior. Health Educ. Monogr. 1974; 2:
324–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200407
73. Daragmeh A, Sagi J, Zeman Z. Continuous intention to use e-wallet in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic: integrating the health belief model (HBM) and technology continuous theory (TCT). J Open
Innov: Technol Mark Complex. 2021; 7(2): 132. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7020132
74. Sun X, Guo Y, Wang S, Sun J. Predicting iron-fortified soy sauce consumption intention: application of
the theory of planned behavior and health belief model. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2006; 38(5): 276–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.04.144 PMID: 16966048
75. Hita MLR., Gregoire Y, Lussier B, Boissonneault S, Vandenbergh C, Senecal S. An extended health
belief model for COVID-19: understanding the media-based processes leading to social distancing
and panic buying. J Acad Mark Sci. 2023; 51: 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00865-8
PMID: 35601239
76. Ferreira Rodrigues J, Cunha dos Santos Filho MT, Aparecida de Oliveira LE, Brandemburg Siman I,
Barcelos AF, de Paiva Anciens Ramos GL, et al. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on food habits and
perceptions: A study with Brazilians. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021; 116: 992–1001. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tifs.2021.09.005 PMID: 34539079
77. Grashuis J, Skevas T, Segovia MS. Grocery shopping preferences during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sustainability (Switzerland). 2020; 12(13): 5369. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12135369

78. Klein WM., Weinstein ND. Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about personal risk. In: Buunk
BP, Gibbons FX, editors. Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from social comparison theory.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: London; 1997. pp. 25–61.
79. Sharot T. The optimism bias. Curr Biol. 2011; 21(23): R941–R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.
10.030 PMID: 22153158
80. Ortega F, Orsini M. Governing COVID-19 without government in Brazil: ignorance, neoliberal authori-
tarianism, and the collapse of public health leadership. Glob Public Health. 2020; 15(9): 1257–1277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2020.1795223 PMID: 32663117
81. Prentice C, Chen J, Stantic B. Timed intervention in COVID-19 and panic buying. J Retail Consum
Serv. 2020; 57: 102203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102203
82. Venema T, Pfattheicher S. Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits. Pers
Individ Differ. 2021; 175: 110696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110696 PMID: 33558779
83. Luo FX, Gheshlagh RG, Dalvand S, Saedmoucheshi S, Li QY. Systematic review and meta-analysis
of fear of COVID-19. Front Psychol. 2021; 12: 661078. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661078
PMID: 34177712
84. Parisi R, Lagomarsino F, Rania N, Coppola I. Women face to fear and safety devices during the
COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: Impact of physical distancing on individual responsibility, intimate, and
social Relationship. Front Public Health. 2021; 9: 622155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.622155
PMID: 33777882
85. Zhang R, Wang C. Risk perception of COVID-19 and its related factors among centralized medical iso-
lation groups in China. Front Psychol. 2023; 14: 1131076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.
1131076 PMID: 36818133
86. MacInnis DJ, Jaworski BJ. Information processing from advertisements: towards an integrative frame-
work. J Mark. 1989; 53(4): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251376
87. Morganovsky MA, Cude BJ. Consumer response to online grocery shopping. Int J Retail Distrib
Manag. 2000; 28(1): 17–26.
88. Van Dam A. Has Online Shopping Actually Saved Us Any Money? The Washington Post. 2019 Mar
15 [Cited 2023 Jun 9]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/03/15/has-
online-shopping-actually-saved-us-any-money/
89. Vanderhout S, Birken C, Wong P, Kelleher S, Weir S, Maguire JL. Family perspectives of COVID-19
research. Res Involv Engagem. 2020; 6: 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00242-1 PMID:
33292759
90. Petersen A. Here’s What Parents Dealing with Coronavirus Isolation Want You to Know. BuzzFeed
News. 2020 Mar 20 [Cited 2023 Jul 3]. Available from: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/
annehelenpetersen/coronavirus-covid19-parents-kids-childcare
91. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991; 50(2): 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
92. Bandura A. Self-efficacy conception of anxiety. In: Schwarzer R, Wicklund RA, editors. Anxiety and
self-focused attention. Harwood Academic Publishers: Amsterdam, Netherlands; 1991. Pp. 89–110.
93. Chung JE, Park N, Wang H, Fulk J, McLaughlin M. Age differences in perceptions of online community
participation among non-users: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Comput Hum
Behav. 2010; 26(6): 1674–1684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.06.016
94. Porter CE, Donthu N. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine
Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. J Bus Res. 2006; 59(9):
999–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.003
95. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a
unified view. MIS Q. 2003; 27(3): 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
96. Czaja SJ, Charness N, Fisk AD, Hertzog C, Nair SN, Rogers WA. Factors predicting the use of tech-
nology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement
(CREATE). Psychol Aging. 2006; 21(2): 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.2.333 PMID:
16768579
97. Tarhini A, Hone K, Liu X. Measuring the moderating effect of gender and age on e-learning acceptance
in England: a structural equation modelling approach for an extended technology acceptance model. J
Educ Comput Res. 2014; 51(2): 163–184. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.51.2.b
98. Agarwal R, Prasad J. Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information tech-
nologies. Decis Sci. 1999; 30(2): 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.tb01614.x
99. Sollisch J. You Should Go to the Grocery Store Every Day. Several of Them. Seriously. The Washing-
ton Post. 2020 Jan 3 [Cited 2023 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/

you-should-go-to-the-grocery-store-every-day-several-of-them-seriously/2020/01/02/4632eafa-2c16-
11ea-9b60-817cc18cf173_story.html
100. Struble C. Survey Shows Online Grocery Shopping Isn’t What Younger People Want. The daily meal
magazine. 2023 May 23 [Cited 2023, Jul 14]. Available from: https://www.thedailymeal.com/1286146/
survey-online-grocery-shopping-younger-people/
101. Kircaburun K, Griffiths MD. The dark side of internet: preliminary evidence for the associations of dark
personality traits with specific online activities and problematic internet use. J Behav Addict. 2018; 7
(4): 993–1003. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.109 PMID: 30427212
102. Song S, Sun Q. Online consumption and income efficiency: evidence from China. Chinese Econ.
2020; 53(6): 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10971475.2020.1792068
103. Dennis C, Brakus JJ, Ferrer GG, McIntyre C, Alamanos E, King T. A cross-national study of evolution-
ary origins of gender shopping styles. J Int Mark. 2018; 26(4): 38–53. https://doi.org/10.1509/jim.17.
0096
104. Al-Debei M, Akroush M, Ashouri M. Consumer attitudes towards online shopping: the effects on trust,
perceived benefits, and perceived web quality. Internet Res. 2014; 25(5): 707–733. https://doi.org/10.
1108/IntR-05-2014-0146
105. Jayasankaraprasad C, Kathyayani G. Cross-format shopping motives and shopper typologies for gro-
cery shopping: a multivariate approach. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res. 2014; 24(1): 79–115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2013.801358
106. To P, Liao C, Lin T. Shopping motivation on Internet: a study based on utilitarian and hedonic value.
Technovation. 2007; 27(12): 774–787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.01.001
107. Robinson H, Riley F, Rettie R, Rolls-Willson G. The role of situational variables in online grocery shop-
ping in the UK. Mark Rev. 2007; 7(1): 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934707X180703
108. Dannenberg P, Fuchs M, Riedler T, Wiedemann C. Digital Transition by COVID-19 Pandemic? The
German Food Online Retail. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr. 2020; 111(3): 543–560. https://doi.org/10.
1111/tesg.12453 PMID: 32836487
109. Robertson TS. The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. J Mark. 1967; 31(1): 14–19.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1249295
110. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
Addison Wesley, Reading, MA. 1975.
111. Hansen T. Consumer values, the theory of planned behavior and online grocery shopping. Int J Con-
sum Stud. 2008; 32(2): 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.00655.x
112. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. Inexperience and experience with online stores: the importance of
TAM and trust. IEEE Trans Eng Mang. 2003; 50(3): 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2003.
817277
113. Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL. Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sec-
tional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Q. 1999; 23(2): 183–213. https://
doi.org/10.2307/249751
114. Liao C, Palvia P., Chen J-L. Information technology adoption behavior life cycle: toward a Technology
Continuance Theory (TCT). Int J Inf Manag. 2009; 29(4): 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2009.03.004
115. Farag S., Weltevreden J., van Rietbergen T., Dijst M. E-shopping in the Netherlands: does geography
matter? Environ Plann B Plann Des. 2006; 33: 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1068/b31083
116. Goldman A, Johansson JK. Determinants for search of lower prices: an empirical assessment of the
economics of information theory. J Consum Res. 1978; 5: 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1086/208729
117. Punj G. Income effects on relative importance of two online purchase goals: saving time versus saving
money? J Bus Res. 2012; 65(5): 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.03.003
118. Yau YHC, Potenza MN. Stress and eating behaviors. Minerva Endocrinol. 2013; 38(3): 255–267.
PMID: 24126546

The Demand For Online Grocery Shopping COVID-induc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Demand For Online Grocery Shopping COVID-induc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

The demand for online grocery shopping:

1 Economics Department, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 2 Department of Marketing

Copyright: © 2024 Galushko, riabchyk. This is an

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 1 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 2 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 3 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 4 / 39

3. Consumer adoption of online grocery shopping: theoretical

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 5 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 6 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 7 / 39

3.2 Consumer’s socio-economic background and demand for online

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 8 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 9 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 10 / 39

3.4 Psychological predisposition to adoption of e-commerce

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 11 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 12 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 13 / 39

4.2 Data collection and representativeness of the study sample

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 14 / 39

Fig 1. Number of respondents in the study sample, by province.

4.3 Survey questions and the study variables

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 15 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 16 / 39

Fig 3. Distribution by educational attainment, study sample versus census data.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 17 / 39

Fig 4. Distribution by age, study sample versus Statistics Canada data.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 18 / 39

5.2 Has the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated adoption of online grocery

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 19 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 20 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 21 / 39

Fig 8. Reasons for starting online grocery purchases.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 22 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 23 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 24 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 25 / 39

Table 3. Pairwise tests analysis: Difference in proportions.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 26 / 39

5.3 The results of econometric estimation and discussion

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 27 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 28 / 39

We don’t find a statistically significant difference in adoption of online grocery shopping

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 29 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 30 / 39

Table 5. Consumers’ perception of disadvantages of online grocery shopping.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 31 / 39

Table 6. Consumers’ perception of advantages of online grocery shopping.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 32 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 33 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 34 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 35 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 36 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 37 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 38 / 39

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295538 February 8, 2024 39 / 39

You might also like