Does e-Trust Matter? A Social Cognitive Theory of Online Shopping Behavior INTRODUCTION E-commerce is an economically significant (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2004) and rapidly growing (Forrester Research, 2003) online activity that challenges researchers in the fields of consumer behavior and new media to investigate online shopping behavior (Peterson et al 1997; Cowles and Kiecker 2000). Questions revolving around the intentions and motivations behind e-commerce participation were the primary factors driving this study. For example, e-commerce website managers have an intrinsic need to understand the reasons consumers buy online. This knowledge allows them to develop strategies that are more effective in driving consumers to their websites to engage in transactions (Aldridge et al., 1997; Wysocki 2000). In addition, new media researchers have a need to understand how consumer behavior works in relation to the Internet. This helps them to better understand how to modify and apply existing media theory to instances of online buying, as well as in what areas new theory must be developed (Cowles & Kiecker 2000; Phau & Poon 2000). Considering these driving forces, four major concepts were derived from prior studies. Each concept relates to some variation in the amount of online buying that consumers engage in. Trust has been identified as a key component in e-commerce literature (Ba et al.,., 1999; Czepiel, 1990; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000), where it is commonly styled as e-trust. Trust is a psychological state but its conceptual definition is unclear. It has been variously defined in terms of willingness to be vulnerable (Scanzoni, 1979; Mayer et al., 1995), perceived probabilities of favorable outcomes (Bhattacharya et al., 1998), confidence

in finding what is desired (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Deutsch, 1973; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999) or generalized expectancy on future events (Rempel et al.,., 1985), where trust is usually associated with the risk and the occurrence of some positive outcome from the trusting party, independent of the potential of control over that other party (Mayer et al., 1995). Regarding the variability of the conceptual definition in trust, Koehn (2003) pointed out that trust has been described as cognitive (i.e., a matter of opinion or prediction), affective (i.e., a matter of feeling) or conative (i.e., a matter of choice or will). McAllister (1995) and Jones and George (1998) viewed trust to be completely rational assessment of available facts while Lewis while Weigert (1985) viewed it as a cognitive leap referring to one's instincts, intuitions or feelings concerning other partys trustworthiness. Dasgupta (1988) stated that trust has been assumed as an action, an attitude or orientation, a state of character, a relationship while it is taken as a natural feeling or faith, a belief on which one is willing to act. Several forms of trust such as goal-based, calculative, knowledge-based, and respect-based were also suggested (Koehn, 2003). Mayer et al., (1995) also found that in a dyadic relationship between buyer and seller, there are three critical attributes that the trusted party must possess to engender trust: ability, integrity, and benevolence. Furthermore, the trusted party must conduct itself skillfully and competently in a manner visible to potential trusters, along with the intention to do good to the consumer and to do so in a manner consistent with the desires of the trustor (Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002).

Operationally, numerous methods of measuring e-trust have been utilized in prior research. For example, Hoffman et al., (1999) looked at the privacy of consumer online information with a survey that explored issues of consumer control over personal information in an online exchange relationship. Jarvenpaa et al., (2000) measured consumer trust in an Internet store field experiment that specifically examined intermediary strategies to develop trust in websites. From this, relevant factors in determining consumer trust were found to include customer risk perception (negative impact) and attitude toward company (positive impact). Bhattacherjee et al., (2002) proposed a scale to measure individual trust in online firms which focused on the strategies of e-merchants drawing upon previous experiences as well as those of their peers, self-training opportunities, and relationships with hardware and software vendors (Turban et al., 2003). Other than behavioral, psychological approaches (Dirks and Ferrin, 2001), the issue of consumer trust has been addressed from different perspectives, including technological, multi-agent approaches (Brainov and Sandholm, 1999); social, institutional approaches (Canzaroli et al., 1999); economic, game-theoretic approaches (Snijders, 1996); and managerial, organizational approaches (Olson and Olson, 2000). Berry (1995) described trust as the single most powerful marketing tool. According to Urban et al., (2000), consumers make Internet purchasing decisions on the basis of trust. The antecedents and consequences of trust were also investigated empirically in the context of e-commerce (Mayer et al., 1995; Brainov and Sandholm, 1999; Urban et al., , 2000).

Drawing from these studies, we can conclude that trust plays a vital role in ecommerce. Indeed, some practitioners regard it as the key to success (Grabosky, 2001). But for scholars the question remains, what is trust? How can we theoretically construct trust in a consistent manner that places it in the context of widely accepted theories of human behavior and distinguishes it from other known determinants of online shopping behavior?

E-Trust in Social Cognitive Terms One such paradigm is Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986). It holds that people are not completely at the mercy of external stimuli, nor is their behavior simply the product of inner forces. Instead, human behavior is explained through triadic reciprocity, where individuals' behaviors, personal characteristics, and the environment are determined reciprocally. The many facets of e-trust that have been revealed in prior research can be understood in Social Cognitive terms. For example, if we define trust in terms of the expectation of positive outcomes (cf. Rempel et al., 1985) the concept is conceptually redundant with the construct of outcome expectations. Positive outcome expectations have been the basis for theories of electronic markets (Steinfield and Whitten, 2000) and have been used to separate online shoppers from non-shoppers (Li, Kuo, and Russell, 2000). In Social Cognitive Theory, outcome expectations are beliefs about the consequences or results of behavior (Bandura, 1986). Another, related theoretical perspective that uses this concept is Expectancy Value theory (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) now known at the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which maintains that individuals would engage in an action (in this case,

online shopping) if they could expect the positive benefits associated with the action. Expected outcomes have been previously discovered to predict both overall use of the Internet (LaRose, Mastro, and Eastin 2001) and online shopping activity (LaRose & Eastin, 2002). As such, outcome expectations have been viewed as embodying the actively sought merits of e-commerce, including such factors as low price and convenience. However, in describing e-trust as the process of building an exchange relationship (cf. Hoffman et al., 1999; Luo, 2002), there is the implication that at a certain point in the relationship active thinking about the trustworthiness of the vendor is no longer a vexing issue. At that point, trust may be equated with automatic thinking on the part of consumers. Then, decisions about whether or not to trust an e-commerce site are no longer actively processed on a continuing basis, but are automatically triggered by conditioned stimuli, such as the sight of the Web sites home page or thoughts about desired products. This phenomenon has been previously described as unregulated buying. Working within a social cognitive framework (after Bandura, 1986), LaRose (2001) argued that impulsive (Rook and Fisher, 1995), compulsive (Faber and O'Guinn, 1992), and addictive (Krych, 1989) buying represent different points along a continuum of unregulated buying behavior representing varying deficiencies in the socio-cognitive mechanism of self-regulation. Ample evidence of deficient self-regulation exists. Online shoppers tended toward more impulsive behavior than offline shoppers (Donthu & Garcia, 1999). According to Cyber Dialogue (2001), 28% of e-shoppers report that the internet makes them shop more often and 33% of them tend to exceed their shopping budget online. LaRose and Eastin (2002) found that deficient self-regulation (DSR) was

a more important predictor of online shopping activity among college students than were low price and convenience or the personal or financial characteristics of the shopper.. Confidence is another facet of consumer trust (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999), but what is the controlling nexus of that confidence? Confidence in an online vendor is itself meaningless if we lack confidence in our own ability to discriminate honest ones from dishonest ones and to successfully complete a secure online transaction. In other words, we may have false confidence, or misplaced trust. On the other hand, we may lack confidence in a Web site but have great confidence in our ability to overcome any difficulties that may result from patronizing it -such as by using a credit card that limits our personal financial loss-- and proceed with an online purchase. So, the key determinant is confidence in our own perceived ability to make a successful online transaction. In social cognitive terms, this is the concept of self-efficacy. Particularly, it involves ones judgment of ones capabilities regarding task performance. According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy influences behavior in four ways. First, self-efficacy helps individuals to choose the situations and activities they choose to engage in. Next, selfefficacy determines effort level and persistence when individuals strive to overcome barriers and persist against adverse results. Third, self-efficacy helps predict performance and coping behavior. Finally, self-efficacy reduces anxiety. Self-efficacy has been found to be a significant predictor of computer usage generally (Compeau and Higgins, 1995) and Internet usage specifically (LaRose, Mastro & Eastin, 2001). Self-efficacy becomes a more powerful predictor when it is applicationspecific (Marakas et al., 1988). Following this logic, the pertinent predictor of online

buying behavior would be encapsulated in online shopping self-efficacyor the belief in ones ability to successfully complete and online purchase. However, self-efficacy specific to e-commerce has not been examined in prior research. Finally, e-commerce participation can be defined in terms of a consumers intention to participate in an online purchase or transaction in the future. Behavioral intentions have been found to be reliable and valid predictors of behavior in a wide variety of behavioral domains (Ajzen, 1985)

HYPOTHESES Expected outcomes, self-efficacy, and deficient regulation have recently been combined in a new model of media attendance (LaRose and Eastin, 2004) grounded in social cognitive theory. However, the model has only been applied to overall Internet usage, very broadly defined, so the present research tests the robustness of the model in explaining a specific type of online activity, online buying.

Thus, Social Cognitive Theory presents an alternative to e-trust for explaining participation in electronic commerce. Indeed, we may well ask whether e-trust may be explained away entirely by social cognitive constructs and whether it is a necessary concept. At the very least, it appears that important aspects of the e-trust concept are subsumed by well-known socio-cognitive mechanisms. While revisiting the previously tested variables, the present research incorporates online shopping self-efficacy to predict intentions of e-commerce participation. Along with examining the respective relationships between trust, deficient self-regulation, positive outcome expectations and

online shopping self-efficacy on online buying intention, the comparative power of each relationship will be tested. This suggests the following hypotheses:

H1: E-trust will be positively related to online shopping intentions. H2: Deficient self-regulation will be positively related to online shopping intentions H3: Positive outcome expectations will be positively related to online shopping intentions H4: Online shopping self-efficacy will be positively related to online shopping intentions H5: E-trust will not be a significant predictor of online shopping intentions after controlling for DSR, outcome expectations, and online shopping self-efficacy.

RESEARCH METHODS Sample Participants were a convenience sample of 273 undergraduate students from an introductory telecommunication class at a major Midwestern university. Participants were 67% males and 33% females. The mean age of students in the class was 20.13 years old, with a median age of 19. Most respondents came from families with household incomes of $75,000 or more (42%) while about 28% reported coming from families with household incomes of $50,000 to $74,999. The remainder came from families with household incomes under $50,000. Respondents were offered extra credit for participating in the study and an alternative form of extra credit was provided for those who chose not to participate. A student sample is deemed appropriate for the purposes of exploring the lawful relationships among such variables as shopping self-efficacy, e-trust, positive outcome

expectations, and online buying intentions. This is a population of interest because they are forming consumption habits that may guide a lifetime of purchases.

Operational Measures A two-item measure of trust was developed by adapting web-site trust measures (Jarvenpaa et al., 2000; Doney and Cannon, 1997). A Likert-type agree-disagree scale was used, where 7 corresponded to "strongly agree" and 1 to "strongly disagree." Two items constituted the online trust index.1 A shortened version of the DSR scale (LaRose and Eastin, 2004) was adapted to the present study by asking respondents to frame their answers in light of if they go shopping online to cheer themselves up and if they have tried to unsuccessfully to cut down on the amount of money they spend online. Two items constituted the deficient self-regiulation index.2

Here, LaRose and Eastins (2002) online shopping outcome expectation scale items was used. These included questions about the convenience, timely shipping and good customer service, wider selection, and easiness, as measured on a similar 7-point Likert-type scale as described above. Five items constituted the outcome expectations index.3

Overall, I believe that purchasing online is a secure activity and Most news and information that I find online is reliable. 2 I go shopping online to cheer myself up and I have tried unsuccessfully to cut down on the amount of money I spend online. 3 Online shopping is convenient, Online purchases are usually shipped correctly and in a timely manner, Online stores have good customer service, On-line stores offer a wider selection than real life stores, and Its easy to buy things online

Online shopping self-efficacy measurement scales have been developed in various contexts. Internet self-efficacy, for example, was conceptualized and operationalized by Eastin and LaRose (2000). Their scale items measure an Internet users judgment of his or her ability to apply Internet skills on a broad basis, rather than focusing in on specific Internet skills, such as writing the code for a web page. The shopping self-efficacy measurement scale was developed by adapting the Internet (Eastin and LaRose, 2000) and computer (Compeau and Higgins, 1995) self-efficacy measurement scale. A Likerttype agree-disagree scale was used to assess the participants' confidence that they could use the Internet in each of the ways specified, where 7 corresponded to "strongly agree" and 1 to "strongly disagree." These include statements on comfort level in providing personal information, confidence evaluating online privacy policies, and identifying safe websites. Four items constituted the shopping self-efficacy index.4

A two-item measure of online buying intentions was used. A Likert-type scale was developed to assess the participants' intentions that they are willing to participate in e-commerce, where 7 corresponded to "very likely" and 1 to "very unlikely." Consumer intentions to behave are an important concept as they represent the best estimate of future behavior available to market researchers (KalWani and Silk 1982). Thus, "likelihood of future online buying" appears as the ultimate dependent variable in the model. Two items constituted the shopping self-efficacy index.5

I can tell when it is safe to shop at an online store and when it is not safe, I feel comfortable providing personal information when shopping on-line, I know how to evaluate online privacy policies, and I know how to identify sites with secure servers 5 I will probably buy something online in the next month and In the next month how likely is it that you will buy products online with [your] credit card

Analysis The results were examined using the SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS, Inc., 2002) statistical package. In order to distill the questionnaire items into key groupings of variables, a factor analysis using varimax rotation was conducted. Variables were included in factors where the factor loading was .60 or higher. This analysis is the foundation for the construction of the multi-item indexes that are used for the additional analyses in the following stages of this research. Factors of interest that emerged, along with their respective reliability (Cronbach alpha) coefficients, are listed below in Table 1. Hyotheses 1-4 were tested by examining Pearson product-moment correlations between online shopping intentions and the four respective independent variables.

Hypothesis 5 was tested through a stepwise multiple regression analysis in which e-trust was entered in the second step and the other three independent variables in the first step. An inspection of the zero-order correlations among the independent variables suggested the possibility of multicollinearity between the outcome expectations and etrust variables. However, an inspection of the SPSS multicollinearity diagnostics revealed that the VIF (maximum observed = 1.84) and condition index (mazimum observed = 18.90) were with in acceptable limits (VIF < 2.50, condition index < 30; ) and therefore multicollinearity was deemed not to be a problem.

Table 1: Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Cronbach Alpha Values

Factor Online Buying Intentions Deficient Self-Regulation Positive Outcome Expectations E-Trust Shopping Self-Efficacy Alpha .77 .60 .81 .73 .80 Range 2-14 2-14 6-35 2-14 4-28 Mean 9.49 7.16 26.79 10.15 19.27 Standard Deviation 3.54 3.06 5.04 2.38 5.03

RESULTS Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients are shown in Table 2. The first four hypotheses were all confirmed. Online buying intentions were positively correlated to e-trust (r =.557, p < .01), outcome expectations (r =.622, p < .01), DSR (r =.298, p < .01), and online shopping self-efficacy (r =.494, p < .01).

Table 2: Pearson Product Moment Correlations Among Dependent and Independent Variables
Online buying intentions 1 . 273 .494** .000 273 .301** .000 273 .621** .000 273 .558** .000 273 1 . 273 .097 .054 273 .481** .000 273 .497** .000 273 1 . 273 .182** .001 273 .163** .003 273 1 . 273 .639** .000 273 1 . 273 Shopping SelfEfficacy Deficient SelfRegulation Positive Outcome Expectations

E-trust

Online Buying Intentions Shopping SelfEfficacy

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

Deficient SelfRegulation Positive Outcome Expectations E-trust

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was calculated to predict subjects online buying intentions based on e-commerce attitudes and beliefs, as well as shopping selfefficacy. A significant regression equation was found (F(4,268) = 64.807, p < .001), with an R2 of .49. Each variable is a significant predictor of online purchase intentions, with outcome expectations contributing the most ( F = 170.514, R2 = .39, p <.001), followed by shopping self-efficacy ( F = 23.738, R2 = .05, p <.001) and deficient self-regulation (F = 18.212, R2 = .04, p < .001), with e-trust entered last it contributed the least ( F = 10.597, R2 = .02, p <.001). Hypothesis 5, therefore, while not supported, was bolstered by the fact that the contributing effects of e-trust are quite diminished when compared to the other independent variables studied. Results of this regression analysis are in Table 3

Table 3: Multiple Regression of E-trust and Socio-Cognitive Variables on Online Shopping Intentions
R Square Change .386 .050 .036 .020

Model a b c d

R Square .386 .436 .472 .492

F 170.514 104.280 80.023 64.807

F Change 170.514 23.738 18.212 10.597

Sig. F Change .000 .000 .000 .001

*Significant at p < .001 a b c d Predictors: (Constant), Outcome Expectations Predictors: (Constant), Outcome Expectations, Shopping Self-Efficacy Predictors: (Constant), Outcome Expectations, Shopping Self-Efficacy, Deficient Self-Regulation Predictors: (Constant), Outcome Expectations, Shopping Self-Efficacy, Deficient Self-Regulation, E-trust

DISCUSSION The current research calls into question the importance of the e-trust concept that has be proposed as an important determinant of online buying behavior. On the other

hand, the present results could be viewed as a validation of e-trust as a general concept, but now one that should be understood to be a multidimensional construct. The prevailing views on the motivational variables of e-commerce participation have been based on widely varying theoretical approaches and did not provide a coherent guide to e-commerce research. This study complements previous studies and incorporates four different variables into a psychological theory of online buying behavior. This results in a mechanism for measuring and evaluating the self-regulation of online activities in the context of more general sets of beliefs. For example, if one has higher self-efficacy in protecting oneself from the Internet risk, that individual exhibits a higher level of trust in their Internet safety. The findings of this study also significantly extend prior research on users trust formation by linking key motivational variables from social cognitive theory to the trust model and empirically validating the relationships. These motivational variables are perhaps more important in regulating situational activities, such as using e-commerce on a casual basis. By contrast, this study complements and improves upon a standard trust model by including questions specifically relating to online trust as part of its conceptualization. In particular, our measure and conceptualization of shopping self-efficacy should help guide future efforts to better determine the dynamics of "virtual-world" trust. For example, the way in which people conceive of the Internet and other forms of computer-mediated communication as dangerous may be influenced by their skill at navigating this risky environment, while both of those may influence their trust in such an environment for carrying out risky tasks.

There is also a potentially somber point embedded in these results that should be of concern even to people with high levels of shopping self-efficacy. Potentially addictive behaviors stemming from deficient self-regulation related to online activity may act to undermine otherwise cautious behaviors of online consumers. As was mentioned earlier, prior research shows that a large percentage of e-commerce users are impulse buyers. In such cases, online shopping may become an automated activity, or in extreme cases an uncontrollable activity. It may be that deficient self regulation, which some have called Internet addiction, may lead to engaging in more risky behaviors online regardless of their level of internet self-efficacy. Future studies may be focused on looking exclusively at trust and internet self-efficacy in the context of uncontrolled online buying behavior. The present research also provides support for a new theory of media attendance (LaRose and Eastin, 2004) which adds the socio-cognitive mechanisms of self-efficacy and self-regulation to the conventional uses and gratifications model and also reconceptualizes gratifications as expected outcomes. Here, it proved possible to explain a narrowly delimited domain of Internet behavior, online buying, by refocusing variables that had previously explained overall Internet consumption: online shopping selfefficacy, deficient self-regulation of online buying behavior, and the expected outcomes of online shopping behavior. Limitations There are several important limitations to this study. First, the sample with which this study was conducted consisted solely of college students. Further research should be conducted among a broader and more representative sample of the population. Next, the current model is almost certainly incomplete (see further research, below). This study

only demonstrates the uni-directional influence of self-efficacy on online buying intentions, deficient self-regulation, expected outcomes of shopping online, and e-trust. The possible inclusion of other motivational variables to further extend the proposed model should be actively pursued by future research.

Further Research Social Cognitive Theory suggests further variables that may add to our understanding of online buying behavior. Vicarious reinforcement, in this case deriving from our observations of the e-commerce successes and failures of others, may also play a role. E-commerce proprietors tacitly follow an observational learning strategy when they encourage interactions with online product experts or post product reviews offered by other shoppers (cf. LaRose, 2001). The self-regulatory mechanism may also be explored further as a means of understanding online buying. Viral marketing tactics such as wish lists of desired products may be understood as efforts to manipulate social norms about buying behavior, an attempt to convince online shoppers that people who matter to them want them to make the purchase. By making the requests come from trusted friends and family, they essentially become trusted endorsers of the website. E-mail alerts of new products, sales, and special offers also seem designed to undermine self-regulation and to stimulate impulse buys. And, on-line shopping consultants may also provide lax norms for on-line shopping behavior, replacing the question of should I buy? with what should I buy, building trust through a personal interaction with an expert endorser.

References

@adtech. (1999). Security: The main on-line shopping deterrent. Retrieved March 15, 2001, from http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art-id=905355401&rel=true Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (Eds). Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg: Springer. Aldridge, A., Forcht, K., and Pierson, J. (1997), "Get Linked Or Get Lost: Marketing Strategy For The Internet," Internet Research, 7 (3), 161-169. Angus Reid Group. (2000). Shopping all over the world. Retrieved March 15, 2001, from http://www.nua.ie/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905355830&rel=true Ba, S., Winston, A., and Zhang, H. (1999). Building Trust in the Electronic Market using an Economic Incentive Mechanism, presented at the 1999 International Conference on Information System, Charlotte, NC. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Barney, J. B., and Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 15, pp. 175-190. Bhattacherjee, A. (2002) Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211-241. Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship Marketing of Services Growing Interests, Emerging Perspectives, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, pp. 236-245. Brainov, S., and Sandholm, T. (1999). Contracting with Uncertain Level of Trust, presented at E-COMMERCE, Denver, CO. Canzaroli, A., Tan, Y., and Thoen, W. (1999). The Social and Institutional Context of Trust in Electronic Commerce, presented at Autonomous Agents 99 Workshop Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, Seattle, WA. Compeau, D., and Higgins, C. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly, 19, 189-211.

Cowles, D., and Kiecker, P. (2000), Developing New Theoretical Perspectives for Predicting Consumer Acceptance and Use of the Internet," Proceedings of American Marketing Association Winter Educators Conference, 43-50. Czepiel, J. A. (1990). Service Encounters and Service Relationships: Implications for Research, Journal of Business Research, vol. 20, pp. 13-21. Dasgupta, P.: 1988, Trust as a Commodity, in D. G. Gambetta (ed.), Trust (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 49-72. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes, New Haven CN: Yale University Press. Dirks, K., and Ferrin, T (2001). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and Implications for research and practice, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87 (4), pp. 611-28. Doney, P. M., and Cannon, J. P. (1997), An examination of the Nature of Trust in BuyerSeller Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 35-51. Donthu, N., and Garcia, A. (1999). The Internet shopper. Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 52-58. Eastin, M. S., and LaRose, R. L. (2000). Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital divide. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(1). Retrieved November 29, 2000 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/eastin.html Eastin, M. S. (2002). Diffusion of e-commerce: An analysis of the adoption of four ecommerce activities. Telematics and Informatics, 19(3), 251-267. Faber, R. J., and OGuinn, T. C. (1992). A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 219-225. Fishbein, M, and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Garbarino, E., and Johnson, M. S. (1999). The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63(2), pp. 70-87. Grabosky, P. (2001). The nature of trust online, in IT news, 2001. GVU (Graphic, Visualization and Usability Center) (1999). GVU"s Tenth Annual WWW Users Survey. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology. [Online] http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/ Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., and Peralta, M. (1999) Building consumer trust online.

Communications of the ACM, 42(4), 80-85. Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., and Vitale M. (2000). Consumer Trust in an Internet Store, Information Technology and Management, vol. 1, pp. 45-71. Jones, G. A. and George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust implications for cooperation and teamwork, Academy of Management Rewiew, vol 23, pp. 531-546. Krych, R. (1989). Abnormal consumer behavior: A model of addictive behaviors. Advances in Consumer Research, 16, 745-748. Koehn, D. (2003). The nature of and conditions for online trust, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 43(1), pp. 3-19. LaRose, R. (2001). On the negative effects of e-commerce: A sociocognitive exploration of unregulated on-line buying. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 16. [Online]. Available http://www.ascusc.org/jc mc/vol 6/issue3/larose.html LaRose, R., Mastro, D., and Eastin, M. S. (2001). Understanding Internet usage: A social cognitive approach to uses and gratifications. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 395413. LaRose, R., and Eastin, M. S. (2002). Is Online Buying out of Control? Electronic Commerce and Consumer Self-regulation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 46 (4), pp. 549-564. LaRose, R. and Eastin, M. S. (2004). A Social Cognitive Theory of Internet Uses and Gratifications: Toward a New Model of Media Attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 48(3), pp. 358-377. Lee, M. K. O., and Turban, E. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet Shopping, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 75-91. Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967985. Li, H., Kuo, C., and Russell, M. G. (2000). The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping orientations, and demographics on the consumers on-line buying behavior. journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(2). Retrieved May 23, 2000 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/hairong.html Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the Internet: A framework based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory, Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 111

Marakas, G. M., Yi, M. Y., and Johnson, R. D. (1988). The multilevel construct of computer self-efficacy: an empirical investigation at the general and task-specific levels. Papers presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20(3), pp. 709-734. McAllister, D, J. 1995. "Affect- and Cognition-based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Co-operation in Organizations." Academy of Management Journal 38: 2459. NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration). (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Retrieved May 12, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn00/contents00.html Olson, J. S. and Olson, G. M. (2000). I2i Trust in E-commerce, Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, vol. 43, pp. 41. Peterson, R. A., Balasubramanian, S., and Bronnenberg, B. J. (1997). "Exploring the Implications of the Internet for Consumer Marketing, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 25 (4), 329-346. Pew Research Center. (2001). More online, doing more: 16 million newcomers gain Internet access in the last half of 2000 as women, minorities, and families with modest incomes continue to surge online. Retrieved July 24, 2001 from, http://www.pew internet.org/reports/ toc.asp?Report=30. Phau, I. and Poon, S. M. (2000), "Factors Influencing The Types Of Products And Services Purchases Over The Internet," Internet Research, 10 (2), 102-113. Rempel, J., Holmes, J., and Zanna, M. (1985) Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 1, pp. 95-112. Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., and Arinze, B. (2002) Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295. Rook, D. W., and Fisher, R. J. (1995). Normative influence on impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 305-313. Scanzoni, J. (1979), "Social exchange and behavioral interdependence." in Social exchange in developing relationships. T.L. Huston, ed. New York: Academic Press Inc Snijders, C. (1996). Trust and Commitments, Amsterdam: Thesis SPSS Statistical Analysis Software, Version 11.5; SPSS, Inc., 2002

Steinfield, C., and Whitten, P. (2000). Community level socio-economic impacts of electronic commerce, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 5(2). Retrieved May 23, 2000, from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/steinfield.html Turban, E., King, D., Lee, J. K., and Viehland, D. (2003) Electronic Commerce 2004: A Managerial Perspective, (3rd ed.) Prentice Hall. Turow, J. (2003) `Americans and Online Privacy: The System is Broken. Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. URL (consulted September 19, 2004): http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/jturow/internet-privacy-report/36-page-turowversion-9.pdf. Urban, G. L., Sultan, F., and Qualls, W. J. (2000). Placing trust at the center of your Internet strategy, Sloan Management Review, vol. 42, pp. 39. US Department of Commerces Bureau of the Census (2004). http://www.shop.org/learn/ stats_usshop_general.html Wysocki, B. (2000), "Need For Profits Pares The Dot-Coms' Options," Wall Street Journal, May 1, p. Al.