Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: Francisco Rejón-Guardia & Cuauhtemoc Luna-Nevarez (2017) “Showrooming”
in Consumer Electronics Retailing: An Empirical Study, Journal of Internet Commerce, 16:2,
174-201, DOI: 10.1080/15332861.2017.1305812
Article views: 20
Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 24 May 2017, At: 04:55
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE
2017, VOL. 16, NO. 2, 174–201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2017.1305812
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The present study focuses on multichannel retailing strategies Consumer electronics;
and describes the state of consumer behavior regarding showrooming; structural
“showrooming” (the practice of examining merchandise or model
products in a retail store and then buying it online). Founded on
the theory of planned behavior (TPB), the authors examine the
antecedents of showrooming using data collected from a
sample of 176 retail consumers. Based on their results, they
define perceived control, website compatibility, and subjective
norms as the main antecedents of consumer attitudes toward
online purchases. Additionally, they state that previous
experience and reasons against purchasing online are directly
associated with consumers’ intention to purchase on the
retailer’s website. Finally, some theoretical conclusions and
practical implications for retailers are discussed.
Introduction
The Internet offers several advantages over the traditional in-store retail
environment and represents the main source of information for consumers,
who visit retailers’ websites before and after an actual purchase (Cetelem
2013). Moreover, the Internet has become the most popular retail channel
for many consumers, especially in the leisure, fashion, tourism, and electro-
nics industries (Webloyalty 2013). Some recent studies draw attention to
two trends that are impacting both the online and offline retail channels,
namely webrooming and showrooming, in which the physical store and the
Internet exchange roles during the purchase decision-making process. As a
result, the Internet is becoming the main sales channel for most retailers,
whereas their physical stores are becoming a source of information for many
consumers. This phenomenon is not particular to a geographic area or
consumer typology; it can actually be considered a more generalized
consumption trend (Quint, Rogers, and Ferguson 2013).
The evolving online consumer behaviors require a more in-depth analysis
as online purchasing represents a growing trend among consumers; 42% of
Literature review
Definition and state of showrooming
The main premise of e-commerce is to transform consumer behavior.
The reduction of the discrepancies between supply and demand offered by
e-commerce enables ubiquitous market space, known as u-commerce (Cox
2004). Consumer behavior is changing (Chiang and Dholakia 2003) due to
technological advances such as the Internet, social networks, and mobile
devices, which have transformed traditional consumption and allowed retai-
lers to reach consumers through new touchpoints (Shankar et al. 2010). These
consumers that use different retail channels are known as multichannel
buyers (Zaubitzer 2013). The concept of showrooming is used to explain a
176 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
purchase behavior based on the comparison of products and retailers, and has
become a trend in the area of online consumer behavior, as stated by the
National Retail Federation (NRF; Smith 2013). According to Richter (2014),
showrooming refers to the practice of examining products in traditional retail
stores or any other offline expositions and later purchasing the products
online. In other words, “showroomers” visit a physical retail store, observe,
touch, feel, and try a product, but they do not buy it. An opposite trend also
exists and is called webrooming, in which consumers visit retail websites to
compare prices, attributes, opinions, and warranties among brands, but
purchase the desired product offline, at a physical store. That is, consumers
research products online (RO = Research Online), but the final purchase
occurs offline (PO = Purchase Offline) (Kramer 2014). A relevant aspect about
showrooming is that price plays a decisive role in the purchase decision-
making. Consumers are generally attracted to the lower prices on retail
websites relative to those at physical stores. This can be explained by the fact
that many online retailers do not incur as many expenses as most offline
stores do (Kramer 2014).
Today, showrooming is a practice that suggests a further step in the pur-
chasing process supported by consumers’ common sense. The phenomenon
has caught the attention of retailers, who have started to take actions in order
to solve this issue. Some actions focus on lowering product prices with the
intention of reducing the gap between prices at the physical store and those
offered online. According to a survey by Cetelem (2013), 23% of respondents
confirmed to know what showrooming is, and 28% of respondents stated to
have practiced showrooming in the past.
Marketing Vibes, a consulting firm, presented the following statistics
regarding showrooming: (1) There was a rise of 156% in purchases using price
comparison between online and offline stores from 2012 to 2014; (2) in 2012,
14% of consumers bought on a competitor’s website (and not on the website
of the visited retailer’s store); (3) most buyers who practice showrooming are
in the 25–34 age range, whereas 20% of buyers are in the range of 35–44 years
old; and (4) 30% of consumers buy a product on Amazon’s website after
obtaining information at a retail store (Vibes 2013). According to ComScore
(2012), 50% of the customers who engaged in showrooming were between
25–34 years old, 72% of them stated that a reason for this behavior was lower
online prices, and 45% of them stated that they wanted to view the product
before buying it online. The most purchased items in showrooming were
consumer electronics (63%), clothing and accessories (43%), books (29%),
and appliances (22%), followed by toys, jewelry/watches, and others
(Zaubitzer 2013).
Furthermore, the practice of showrooming has extended to the mobile
environment through the use of mobile terminals both inside and outside
stores (Kowatsch and Maass 2010). In a Google (2013) report about
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 177
extensively used in both the offline and online purchasing contexts (George
2004; Hansen, Jensen, and Solgaard 2004; Hsu et al. 2006). According to
previous research, the TPB is adequate to explain how consumer attitudes
toward practicing showrooming, the influence of subjective norms, and
perceived behavioral control may predict consumer intentions to practice
showrooming (Luo et al. 2014). The following section describes the main
variables used on the proposed model as well as their interrelationships.
Reasons of use
A literature review suggests that reasons are the link between an individual’s
beliefs, his global motivations (e.g., attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
control), and his behavioral intentions or intentions of use (Westaby et al.
2005). The theoretical framework proposes that reasons help consumers
justify and defend their behaviors by influencing their motivations and global
intentions (Westaby et al. 2005). This posits an important theoretical issue as
the reason concept has been proven to have a predictive validity in the context
of decision-making and judgment (Campion 1991; Pennington and Hastie
1988; Westaby et al. 2005). Therefore, reasons for and against performing a
behavior serve as an important link between the attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived control, behavioral intentions, and final behavior (Westaby et al.
2005). According to Inks and Mayo (2002), some consumers have reserva-
tions about online shopping which can be negatively affecting the acceptance
rates of the online channel. For this study, an analysis of previous research
was done to determine the main variables making up the reasons for and
against online purchasing, as such variables could affect consumers’ attitudes
toward showrooming and their intentions to perform this behavior.
This research uses the most relevant behavioral reasons addressed by the
e-commerce literature. The main reasons for consumers to purchase
(or not to purchase) online include the following:
1. Reduced stress by purchasing online, which has a direct effect on consumers’
behavioral changes and an indirect effect on their decision-making and
physical and psychological well-being (Moschis 2007). Research on stress
has proved that under stressful conditions, consumers perform behaviors
aimed to use resources more efficiently in order to have more control over
their environment, such as restraining themselves from making unnecess-
ary purchases (Durante and Laran 2016).
2. Reasons related to price differences between distribution channels which
suggest the existence of lower online prices (Kannan and Kopalle 2001;
Koufaris and Ajit Kambil 2001; Quint et al. 2013). The premise that
consumers may purchase products online at lower prices relative to the
offline channel becomes a reason for consumers to develop positive
attitudes toward online purchasing and intentions to purchase products
180 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
Perceived control
Perceived control has been analyzed from different perspectives in order to
explain its influence on consumer behaviors (Koufaris 2002). A literature
review revealed that perceived control was incorporated to the TPB to
improve the prediction of behavioral intentions in cases of willingness (Ajzen
and Madden 1986; Millstein 1996), and it also represents one of the main
antecedents of technology use (Teo et al. 2009).
From the perspective of flow in online navigation, perceived control can be
defined as “the degree of control over one’s actions and the environment”
(Koufaris 2002, 208). In the e-commerce context, there is massive information
about products available, and consumers have less time for shopping
(Koufaris 2002), which causes utilitarian consumers to require more control,
less effort, and higher efficacy for their purchases (Jarvenpaa and Todd 1996;
Tracy 1998). Therefore, websites must offer consumers a higher control and
convenience by providing interfaces that are simple and easy to navigate,
facilitate product search and transactions, and allow consumers to easily
understand their use and content (Baty and Lee 1995). In this way, a high
degree of perceived control must foster an individual’s intention to perform
a behavior, increasing his effort and perseverance (Ajzen 2002a). If consumers
think that showrooming is difficult to do due to the difficulties found on the
store’s website, their degree of perceived control may be lower (Luo et al.
2014). Thus, the perceived control may translate into a behavior only if the
182 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
consumer has the time, abilities, willingness, and other resources needed to
perform the behavior. This research considers that the environment perceived
by consumers on a store’s website differs significantly from that of the
physical store, and that the perceived control variable suggests a measure of
self-efficacy in performing a specific behavior, which can vary across different
events or actions (Bandura 1982). As a consequence, consumers’ perceived
control over the action of performing showrooming will influence their
behavioral intentions. Thus, the authors hypothesize the following:
H4a: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming
will have a more positive attitude toward online purchases.
H4b: Consumers who perceive a higher control over performing showrooming
will have a higher intention to purchase on the store’s website.
Subjective norms
Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to
perform a behavior, and may be defined as the degree to which the people
who are important to the user think a specific behavior should be performed
(Ajzen 1991). In other words, subjective norms relate to the normative beliefs
about people’s expectations. For Ajzen (1991), a person of reference’s opinion
is weighed by the motivation that an individual has to comply with the desires
of such person. For example, a consumer may utilize a communication
medium to obtain information or make a purchase if he considers that other
influencing people demand such behavior, or if the user observes other people
around him performing the behavior. For this research, subjective norms are
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 183
Table 1. Scales.
Variables Items Source(s)
Reasons for In regards to online shopping, I think that: Peterson et al. (1997), Burke
purchasing . Shopping online reduces my stress (2002); O’Connor (2003);
online . Online prices are generally lower than Moschis (2007); Ofek, Katona,
in-store prices and Sarvary (2011); Maity and
Reasons against In regards to online shopping, I think that: Arnold (2013);Quint et al.
purchasing . It is more difficult to return a product (2013); Gurrea and
online purchased online than a product pur- Sanclemente 2014; Li, Lu, and
chased in-store Talebian (2015), Kannan and
. Not being able to see the product when Kopalle (2001); Koufaris and
purchasing online is a problem for me Ajit Kambil (2001)
. Shopping at a physical store is quicker
than shopping online
Compatibility . Evaluating products online is similar to Jiang and Benbasat (2007)
with evaluating them at a physical store
purchasing at . Evaluating products online is consistent
retail store with how I like to evaluate products at
the physical store
. Becoming familiar with products online is
similar to becoming familiar with
products at the physical store
Perceived During my last visit to the online store, I felt: Koufaris (2002)
control . Confused
. Calm
. In control
. Frustrated
Showrooming . Have you purchased a product on a store’s Luo et al. (2014)
experience website after visiting the physical store to
see and/or try the product?
Social influence: . People that usually influence my buying Venkatesh et al. (2003)
subjective behavior think that I should purchase
norms products online
. People that matter to me think that I
should purchase products online
Attitudes toward In regards to the store’s website that you are Lee et al. (2006)
online visiting,
purchasing . I like the idea of using Internet to make
purchases on the store’s website
. Using the Internet to purchase products
on the store’s website is a good idea
. I believe that the final outcome of
purchasing products online should be
positive.
Intention to . I have the intention to use the website of Venkatesh et al. (2003)
purchase on a store in order to purchase products in
the store’s the near future
website . My prediction is that I will use the website
of a store to purchase products in the near
future.
. I am going to use the website of a store to
purchase products in the near future.
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 185
such behavior occurs (Jarvenpaa et al. 2000; Van der Heijden et al. 2003; Jiang
and Benbasat 2007). Regarding the online environment, Jarvenpaa and collea-
gues (2000) found that favorable attitudes toward purchasing on a store’s
website increase the likelihood of purchasing at the store, and consequently,
the attitude toward the store will influence purchase intentions (Grazioli
and Jarvenpaa 2000; Coyle and Thorson 2001). Other studies evaluated
purchase intentions through websites and concluded that online purchasing
is influenced by utilitarian value, attitudes toward online shopping,
availability of information, and hedonic values (Khare and Rakesh 2011).
The attitude toward the retail store is defined as the belief that purchasing
at the store will be very likely to produce an overall positive result or an
overall negative result (Jarvenpaa et al. 2000; Lim et al. 2006).
This research considers the attitude toward purchasing online as a global
evaluation of past online purchase experiences. Thus, the authors hypothesize
the following:
H7: A more positive attitude toward online purchasing will have a greater
influence on consumers’ intention to purchase on the store’s website.
Methodology
Sample and data collection
One-hundred-and-seventy-six retail consumers (77 male and 99 female)
participated in a survey about the state of showrooming in the consumer
electronics retail environment. Participants were selected using a stratified
non-probabilistic sampling method in which the control variables were age
and gender. Respondents were recruited at the entrance of some of the main
consumer electronics stores in the province of Granada, Spain. Data were
186 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
Survey measures
To assure the content validity of the measures used in the survey, the authors
reviewed previous research studies and adapted the scales accordingly. They
used a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly
Agree. The indicators for the online purchase experience factor were drawn
from Hui, Teo, and Tom Lee (2007). The indicators used to measure the
compatibility with the purchases at the store were adapted from the scale
proposed by Jiang and Benbasat (2007). Regarding the evaluation of reasons
for and against online purchasing, due to the lack of empirically tested scales
in the literature, the authors used individual items tested in previous studies
by Peterson and colleagues (1997); Burke (2002); O’Connor (2003); Moschis
(2007); Ofek, Katona, and Sarvary (2011); Maity and Arnold (2013); Quint
and colleagues (2013); Gurrea and Sanclemente (2014); Li, Lu, and Talebian
(2015); Kannan and Kopalle (2001); and Koufaris and Ajit Kambil (2001).
These items included the following, regarding purchasing on a store’s website:
(a) purchasing online reduces my stress, (b) online prices are regularly lower
than those at the physical store, (c) it is more difficult to return the product
compared to an in-store purchase, (d) not seeing the product when buying at
the store is a problem for me, and (e) purchasing the product at the physical
store is faster. The indicators to measure the social influence of subjective
norms were adapted from the scale proposed by Venkatesh and colleagues
(2003). As for the measurement of perceived control, the indicators proposed
by Koufaris (2002) were adapted to this context. Regarding the scale for
attitudes toward the retail store, the authors used the items developed by
Lim and colleagues (2006). Finally, to measure the intention of using
the web to perform showrooming, the scale proposed by Venkatesh and
colleagues (2003) was adapted to the study.
Structural model
Following Falk and Miller (1992), it was demonstrated that the R2 of
latent variables is higher than 0.1 before accepting or rejecting the proposed
hypotheses. Considering that the main objective of PLS is prediction, the
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit indices for the estimated model.
Standard Cronbach
Factor Indicator Mean Deviation λ alpha CFI AVE
Reasons for online Shopping online reduces my stress 4.06 1.973 0.756 0.079 0.684 0.521
shopping Online prices are generally lower than in-store prices 4.99 1.481 0.685
Reasons against online It is more difficult to return a product purchased online than a product 4.50 1.766 0.644 0.571 0.777 0.540
shopping purchased in-store
Not being able to see the product when purchasing online is a problem for me 4.74 1.852 0.786
Shopping at a physical store is quicker than shopping online 4.73 2.065 0.765
Compatibility with Evaluating products online is similar to evaluating them at a physical store 3.60 1.660 0.901 0.654 0.850 0.740
purchasing at retail store Evaluating products online is consistent with how I like to evaluate products at 3.60 1.691 0.817
the physical store
Becoming familiar with products online is similar to becoming familiar with
products at the physical store
Perceived control Confused 5.16 1.929 0.910 0.640 0.714 0.531
Calm 4.81 1.976 0.453
In control 4.42 2.281 0.748
Frustrated 5.32 1.903 0.297
Showrooming experience Have you purchased a product on a store’s website after visiting the physical 4.03 2.413 1 1 1 1
store to see and/or try the product?
Social influence: Subjective People that usually influence my buying behavior think that I should purchase 3.70 1.749 0.940 0.765 0.890 0.803
norms products online
People that matter to me think that I should purchase products online 4.03 1.782 0.849
Attitudes toward online I like the idea of using Internet to make purchases on the store’s website 4.42 1.581 0.875 0.833 0.897 0.743
purchasing Using the Internet to purchase products on the store’s website is a good idea 4.81 1.515 0.857
I believe that the final outcome of purchasing products online should be 4.83 1.464 0.855
positive.
Intention to purchase on I have the intention to use the website of a store in order to purchase products 4.88 1.581 0.970 0.963 0.976 0.932
the store’s website in the near future
My prediction is that I will use the website of a store to purchase products in 4.85 1.515 0.960
the near future.
I am going to use the website of a store to purchase products in the near future. 4.69 1.464 0.965
CFI = Comparative Fit Index.
189
190
Table 5. Discriminant validity of scales (correlations between constructs, square-root of AVE, diagonal in bold).
Attitudes toward Reasons
online Perceived Intention Subjective Reasons against
purchasing Compatibility control of use norms for … … Showrooming
Attitudes toward online 0.862
purchasing
Compatibility 0.217 0.860
Perceived control 0.410 0.160 0.728
Intention of use 0.324 0.243 0.231 0.965
Subjective norms 0.191 0.101 0.141 0.207 0.896
Reasons for showrooming 0.213 0.175 0.100 0.499 0.217 0.721
Reasons against showrooming −0.267 −0.173 −0.255 −0.462 −0.130 −0.507 0.735
Showrooming 0.157 0.154 0.016 0.440 0.121 0.333 −0.314 1
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 191
with the attitude toward the retail store, as proposed by Jiang and Benbasat
(2007). This finding supports the argument that online retailers should mimic
the processes and aesthetics of their physical stores so that consumers may
perceive that the online purchase environment is similar the purchase
environment at the physical store. To extend the compatibility across chan-
nels, the authors suggest the creation of websites oriented to simplicity and
usability, the use of virtual shopping carts, and the categorization of products
using a structure similar to that used by department stores.
With regard to the antecedent variables analyzed in the model, perceived
control has been confirmed as the main antecedent of attitudes toward the retail
store (H3a), as proposed in literature (Westaby et al. 2005). This finding implies
that if retailers want to increase the positive attitudes toward purchasing on
their websites, consumers’ perceived control should be increased. To do so, it
is recommended that retailers improve their websites’ usability, with a main
focus on facilitating consumers’ navigation on the websites. The results demon-
strate that there is not a direct relationship between perceived control and
intention to use the website, based on the rejection of hypothesis H4b. Thus,
perceived control has a greater influence on attitudes relative to purchase inten-
tions, which contradicts the arguments proposed by Luo and colleagues (2014).
Regarding consumers’ previous experience with showrooming, the authors
found it the main antecedent of intentions of use (H5b) and on a lower scale,
an antecedent of the attitude toward purchasing online (H5a) (May So et al.
2005; Huang and Hsu 2009). This confirms that learning based on past
behaviors may be helpful to predict intentions of future behaviors (Conner
and Armitage 1998). The results suggest to retailers that their customers’ prac-
tice of showrooming increases the chances of repeating this behavior. Thus,
the authors recommend an in-depth analysis of customers’ showrooming
behaviors in order to understand their unmet needs and reasons for perform-
ing this behavior. With this information, a retailer may direct customers to its
own website, increase their loyalty, and reduce their intention to visit other
competitors’ websites.
Social influence through subjective norms demonstrates that such norms
are important to improve consumers’ attitudes toward online purchases
(H6a) but not to influence their online purchase behavior (H6b), which con-
tradicts the argument proposed by Luo and colleagues (2014). An explanation
for this result is that for some consumers, the online purchase process
represents a lonely act in front of a computer or mobile device, such that their
final purchase decision is not influenced by others but their opinions still
effect their attitudes considerably (Ickler et al. 2009). Hence, controlling the
influence of others, especially online actors such as bloggers, analysts, and
journalists, may be interesting to understand the effect of subjective norms
on showrooming. Finally, as demonstrated in e-commerce literature that
uses the TPB, the attitude toward online purchases is directly and positively
194 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
associated to the intention of web use (H7) (Armitage and Conner 2001). A
summary of all hypotheses and results is shown in Table 7.
As for the implications of this research, a relevant question is, how can a
small retail store compete against showrooming? Most small retailers have
focused on customer service. The authors provide the following recommenda-
tions: (1) to improve the customer experience by offering an aesthetic and
highly-usable website that includes a detailed analysis of products and price
comparisons, and integrating the online and offline channels effectively
(e.g., free Wi-Fi, discounts on mobile purchases); (2) to increase consumers’
perceived control (which would subsequently improve their attitudes toward
the retail store) by enhancing the product return process, increasing the
“tangibility” of the product, showing graphic information about products that
is as realistic as possible, and reducing product delivery times; (3) to maximize
the compatibility between the online purchase and the purchase at the
physical store by maintaining the web environment as similar as possible to
the retail store environment, using virtual shopping carts, categorizing
products effectively, offering similar payment procedures, and using bloggers
and other “influencers” to provide advice on the online channel; and (4) to
increase purchase likelihood by identifying and targeting loyal customers,
understanding their reasons for purchasing, reducing their reasons against
purchasing, and improving their overall attitudes toward the store.
References
Abdul-Muhmin, A. G. 2010. Repeat purchase intentions in online shopping: The role of
satisfaction, attitude, and online retailers’ performance. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing 23 (1):5–20. doi:10.1080/08961530.2011.524571.
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control,
11–39. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2):179–211.
Ajzen, I. 2002a. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32:665–83. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.
2002.tb00236.x.
Ajzen, I. 2002b. Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action
perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2 (6):107–22. doi:10.1207/s15327957
pspr0602_02.
Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., and T. J. Madden. 1986. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22 (5):453–74.
doi:10.1016/0022–1031(86)90045–4.
Albers, S. 2010. PLS and success factor studies in marketing. In Handbook of partial least
squares, 409–425. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Armitage, C. J., and M. Conner. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. The British Journal of Social Psychology 40 (Pt 4):471–99. doi:10.1348/
014466601164939.
196 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
Durante, K. M., and J. Laran. 2016. The effect of stress on consumer saving and spending.
Journal of Marketing Research 53 (5):814–28. doi:10.1509/jmr.15.0319.
Eagly, A. H., A. Mladinic, and S. Otto. 1994. Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward
social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 30 (2):113–37.
doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1006.
Falk, R. F., and N. B. Miller. 1992. A primer for soft modeling. Akron, OH: University of
Akron Press.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1):39–50. doi:10.2307/
3151312.
George, J. F. 2004. The theory of planned behavior and Internet purchasing. Internet Research
14 (3):198–212. doi:10.1108/10662240410542634.
Google. 2013. Mobile-in-Store_research-Studies.pdf. https://ssl.gstatic.com/think/docs/
mobile-in-store_research-studies.pdf.
Grazioli, S., and S. L. Jarvenpaa. 2000. Perils of Internet fraud: An empirical investigation of
deception and trust with experienced Internet consumers. IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans 30 (4):395–410. doi:10.1109/3468.
852434.
Gurrea, R., and C. O. Sanclemente. 2014. El Papel de La Vivacidad de La Información Online,
La Necesidad de Tocar Y La Auto-Confianza En La Búsqueda de Información Online-
Offline. Revista Española de Investigación En Marketing ESIC 18 (2):108–25. doi:10.1016/
j.reimke.2014.06.004.
Hansen, T., J. M. Jensen, and H. S. Solgaard. 2004. Predicting online grocery buying intention:
A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.
International Journal of Information Management 24 (6):539–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.
2004.08.004.
Hsu, M.-H., C.-H. Yen, C.-M. Chiu, and C.-M. Chang. 2006. A longitudinal investigation of
continued online shopping behavior: An extension of the theory of planned behavior.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 64 (9):889–904. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.
04.004.
Huang, S., and C. H. C. Hsu. 2009. Effects of travel motivation, past experience, perceived
constraint, and attitude on revisit intention. Journal of Travel Research 48 (1):29–44.
doi:10.1177/0047287508328793.
Hui, K.-L., H. H. Teo, and S.-Y. Tom Lee. 2007. The value of privacy assurance: An
exploratory field experiment. MIS Quarterly 31 (1):19–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/
25148779.
Ickler, H., S. Schülke, S. Wilfling, and U. Baumöl. 2009. New challenges in e-commerce: How
social commerce influences the customer process. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the
5th National Conference on Computing and Information Technology, NCCIT, Bangkok,
Thailand,
Inks, S. A., and D. T. Mayo. 2002. Consumer attitudes and preferences concerning shopping
on-line. Journal of Internet Commerce 1 (4):89–109. doi:10.1300/J179v01n04_06.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., and P. A. Todd. 1996. Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the
World Wide Web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 1 (2):59–88. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/27750810.
Jarvis, C. B., S. B. MacKenzie, and P. M. Podsakoff. 2003. A critical review of construct
indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2):199–218.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., N. Tractinsky, and M. Vitale. 2000. Consumer trust in an Internet store.
Information Technology and Management 1 (1–2):45–71. doi:10.1023/A:1019104520776.
198 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
Jiang, Z., and I. Benbasat. 2007. Research note—Investigating the influence of the functional
mechanisms of online product presentations. Information Systems Research 18 (4):454–70.
doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0124.
Kannan, P. K., and P. K. Kopalle. 2001. Dynamic pricing on the Internet: Importance and
implications for consumer behavior. International Journal of Electronic Commerce
5 (3):63–83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27750982.
Kempf, D. S. 1999. Attitude formation from product trial: Distinct roles of cognition and affect
for hedonic and functional products. Psychology and Marketing 16 (1):35–50. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1520-6793(199901)16:1<35::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-U.
Khare, A., and S. Rakesh. 2011. Antecedents of online shopping behavior in India: An
examination. Journal of Internet Commerce 10 (4):227–44. doi:10.1080/15332861.2011.
622691.
Koufaris, M. 2002. Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online
consumer behavior. Information Systems Research 13 (2):205–23. doi:10.1287/isre.13.2.
205.83.
Koufaris, M., and P. A. L. Ajit Kambil. 2001. Consumer behavior in web-based commerce: An
empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6 (2):115–38. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/27751014.
Kowatsch, T., and W. Maass. 2010. In-store consumer behavior: How mobile recommendation
agents influence usage intentions, product purchases, and store preferences. Computers
in Human Behavior, Emerging and Scripted Roles in Computer-supported Collaborative
Learning 26 (4):697–704. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.006.
Kramer, A. 2014. Webrooming, the next big thing in all-channel retailing | blog post.
Capgemini Capgemini Worldwide. https://www.capgemini.com/blog/capping-it-off/2014/
01/webrooming-the-next-big-thing-in-all-channel-retailing.
Kuo, F.-Y., and M.-L. Young. 2008. Predicting knowledge sharing practices through intention:
A test of competing models. Computers in Human Behavior, Including the Special Issue:
Electronic Games and Personalized eLearning Processes 24 (6):2697–2722. doi:10.1016/j.
chb.2008.03.015.
Lee, M. K., C. M. Cheung, C. L. Sia, and K. H. Lim. 2006. How positive informational social
influence affects consumers’ decision of Internet shopping? In System Sciences, 2006.
HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Vol. 6, 115a-115a. Washington, DC: IEEE.
Li, Z., Q. Lu, and M. Talebian. 2015. Online versus bricks-and-mortar retailing: A comparison
of price, assortment and delivery time. International Journal of Production Research
53 (13):3823–35. doi:10.1080/00207543.2014.973074.
Lim, K. H., C. Ling Sia, M. K. O. Lee, and I. Benbasat. 2006. Do I trust you online, and if so,
will I buy? An empirical study of two trust-building strategies. Journal of Management
Information Systems 23 (2):233–66. doi:10.2753/mis0742–1222230210.
Luo, Q., L.-B. Oh, L. Zhang, and J. Chen. 2014. Examining the showrooming intention of
mobile-assisted shoppers in a multichannel retailing environment. In PACIS, 141. http://
www.pacis-net.org/file/2014/2123.pdf.
Maity, D., and T. J. Arnold. 2013. Search: An expense or an experience? Exploring the
influence of search on product return intentions. Psychology & Marketing 30 (7):576–87.
doi:10.1002/mar.20629.
May So, W. C., T. N. Danny Wong, and D. Sculli. 2005. Factors affecting intentions to
purchase via the Internet. Industrial Management & Data Systems 105 (9):1225–44.
doi:10.1108/02635570510633275.
Mehra, A., S. Kumar, and J. S. Raju. 2013. ‘Showrooming’ and the competition between store
and online retailers. Available at SSRN, 2200420.
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 199
Millstein, S. G. 1996. Utility of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior for
predicting physician behavior: A prospective analysis. Health Psychology 15 (5):398.
Moore, G. C., and I. Benbasat. 1991. Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research 2 (3):192–222. doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192.
Moschis, G. P. 2007. Stress and consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 35 (3):430–44. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0035-3.
Neslin, S. A., and V. Shankar. 2009. Key issues in multichannel customer management:
Current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, Anniversary
Issue 23 (1):70–81. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2008.10.005.
Neslin, S. A., D. Grewal, R. Leghorn, V. Shankar, M. L. Teerling, J. S. Thomas, and P. C.
Verhoef. 2006. Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management.
Journal of Service Research 9 (2):95–112.
O’Connor, P. 2003. On-line pricing: An analysis of hotel-company practices. The Cornell Hotel
and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (1):88–96.
Ofek, E., Z. Katona, and M. Sarvary, M. 2011. “Bricks and clicks”: The impact of product
returns on the strategies of multichannel retailers. Marketing Science 30 (1):42–60.
Onurbodur, H., D. Brinberg, and E. Coupey. 2000. Belief, affect, and attitude: Alternative
models of the determinants of attitude. Journal of Consumer Psychology 9 (1):17–28.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0901_2.
Parago. 2013. Dynamic pricing in a smartphone World.pdf. https://info.bhengagement.com/
acton/attachment/7506/f-0005/1/-/-/-/-/Dynamic%20Pricing%20in%20a%20Smartphone%
20World.pdf.
Pavlou, P. A., and O. A. El Sawy. 2006. From IT leveraging competence to competitive
advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information
Systems Research 17 (3):198–227. doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0094.
Peck, J., and J. Wiggins Johnson. 2011. Autotelic need for touch, haptics, and persuasion: The
role of involvement. Psychology and Marketing 28 (3):222–39. doi:10.1002/mar.20389.
Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1988. Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory
structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 14 (3):521–33. doi:10.1037/0278–7393.14.3.521.
Peterson, R. A., S. Balasubramanian, and B. J. Bronnenberg. 1997. Exploring the implications
of the Internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
25 (4):329. doi:10.1177/0092070397254005.
Quint, M., D. Rogers, and R. Ferguson. 2013. Showrooming and the rise of the mobile assisted
shopper. Columbia Business School. Center on Global Brand Leadership. http://www.
academia.edu/download/40699309/Aimia_MobileAssistedShopper.pdf.
Richter, F. 2014. Infographic: Showrooming in the retail environment. http://www.statista.
com/chart/1024/showrooming-infographic/ (accessed October 19, 2014).
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0.M3 (beta), Hamburg, Germany:
University of Hamburg. Available at www.smartpls.de
Ringle, C. M., S. Wende, and A. Will. 2010. Finite mixture partial least squares analysis:
Methodology and numerical examples. In Handbook of partial least squares, ed. V. E. Vinzi
W. W. Chin J. Henseler and H. Wang 195–218. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Handbooks of
Computational Statistics.
Sarstedt, M., J. Henseler, and C. M. Ringle. 2011. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares
(PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Measurement and
research methods in international marketing. Advances in international marketing, Vol. 22,
195–218. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/
10.1108/S1474-7979(2011)0000022012.
200 F. REJÓN-GUARDIA AND C. LUNA-NEVAREZ
Shankar, V., A. Venkatesh, C. Hofacker, and P. Naik. 2010. Mobile marketing in the retailing
environment: Current insights and future research avenues. Journal of Interactive Marketing
24 (2):111–20. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.02.006.
Smith, S. 2013. The showrooming showdown. Text. National Retail Federation. February 28.
https://nrf.com/news/retail-trends/the-showrooming-showdown.
Sommer, L. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour.
International Business & Economics Research Journal 10 (1):91. doi:10.19030/iber.
v10i1.930.
Statista. 2015a. Digital buyer penetration worldwide from 2011 to 2018. http://www.statista.
com/statistics/261676/digital-buyer-penetration-worldwide/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Statista. 2015b. Global retail e-commerce sales volume from 2009 to 2018. http://www.statista.
com/statistics/222128/global-e-commerce-sales-volume-forecast/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Statista. 2015c. Retail e-commerce sales in the United States from 2012 to 2018. http://www.
statista.com/statistics/183750/us-retail-e-commerce-sales-figures/ (accessed February 10, 2015).
Stephens, D. 2013. The retail revival: Reimagining business for the new age of consumerism.
1st ed. Ontario: Wiley.
Taylor, S., and P. A. Todd. 1995. Understanding information technology usage: A test of
competing models. Information Systems Research 6 (2):144–76. doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144.
Teo, T., C. B. Lee, C. S. Chai, and S. Luan Wong. 2009. Assessing the intention to use technology
among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis
of the technology acceptance model (TAM). Computers & Education 53 (3):1000–09.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.05.017.
Tracy, B. 1998. E-tailing: What web customers really want. Advertising Age’s Business
Marketing 83(11):39–41
Umit-Kucuk, S., and R. C. Maddux. 2010. The role of the Internet on free-riding: An
exploratory study of the wallpaper industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services
17 (4):313–20. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.03.003.
Van Baal S., and C. Dach. 2005. Free riding and customer retention across retailers’ channels.
Journal of Interactive Marketing 2 (19):75–85. doi:10.1002/dir.20036.
Van der Heijden H., T. Verhagen, and M. Creemers. 2003. Understanding online purchase
intentions: Contributions from technology and trust perspectives. European Journal of
Information Systems 12 (1):41–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000445.
Venkatesh, V., M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information
technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3):425–78. http://www.jstor.org/
stable/30036540.
Vibes. 2013. About Showrooming. Retrieved from http://www.vibes.com/press-releases/
showrooming-increases-156-percent-from-2012-finds-new-research-from-vibes/
Vinzi, V. E., W. W. Chin, J. Henseler, and H. Wang. 2010. Handbook of partial least squares:
Concepts, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Walsh, G., A. K. Albrecht, W. Kunz, and C. F. Hofacker. 2016. Relationship between online
retailers’ reputation and product returns. British Journal of Management 27 (1):3–20.
doi:10.1111/1467–8551.12120.
Webloyalty. 2013. Comprador online Europeo 2013. http://corporatecontent.s3.amazonaws.
com/1113NPWebloyaltyEstudioIpsos_1385024160.pdf.
Westaby, J. D., and K. N. Braithwaite. 2003. Specific factors underlying reemployment self-
efficacy comparing control belief and motivational reason methods for the recently
unemployed. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 39 (4):415–437.
Westaby, J. D., A. Versenyi, and R. C. Hausmann. 2005. Intentions to work during terminal
illness: An exploratory study of antecedent conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology
90 (6):1297–1305. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.90.6.1297.
JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE 201
Wolk, A., and C. Ebling. 2010. Multi-channel price differentiation: An empirical investigation
of existence and causes. International Journal of Research in Marketing 27 (2):142–50.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.01.004.
Xioani, Z., and V. Prybutok. 2003. Factors contributing to purchase intentions on the Internet.
Journal of Internet Commerce 2 (1):3–18. doi:10.1300/J179v02n01_02.
Yu, U.-J., L. S. Niehm, and D. W. Russell. 2011. Exploring perceived channel price, quality,
and value as antecedents of channel choice and usage in multichannel shopping. Journal
of Marketing Channels 18 (2):79–102. doi:10.1080/1046669X.2011.558826.
Zaubitzer, C. 2013. Understanding the showrooming phenomenon. Thesis, Grin Verlag, Munich.
http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/278999/understanding-the-showrooming-phenomenon.
Zimmerman, A. 2012. Showdown over “showrooming.” Wall Street Journal, January 23, Tech
section. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204624204577177242516227440.