消费者网上购物研究-留学生作业

网上购物的一些产品种类很受广大消费者喜爱，如购买书本、电子产品、视频等等。然而，在网上购物，网上零售商在赢得更多消费者上面临重大困难(Ring and Tigert,2001)。虽然印度的消费者能很好地接触网络文化，他们仍然不适应网上购物。深层度的研究表明，以接受网上购物的消费者作参考，研究消费者在网上杂货店购物的的意图(Verhoef Langerak,2001)。根据Morganosky和Cude(引用汉森,2006)，也存在例外情况，很少有关注消费者通过互联网购买杂货的研究，许多消费者尚未进行在线杂货店购买(Geuens et al .,2003)，这可能影响消费者在网上购物的调查(Hansen, T . 2006)。然而,Morganosky和Cude(2002)发现，三分之一的消费者并没有继续在网上超市购物，相反，他们更喜欢传统的购物方式，因为这样可以有更多的满足感。消费者在网上购物的某个瞬间只是为了体验网上购物是如何操作的。Substantiation by Shang,et al .(2005)表明，网上购物是目的导向型的活动，而不是源于从对互联网的认知上收获经验。知觉认知吸收是一种人格特征，尤其是知觉分化(Antonides,1998)。

互联网的使用数量是每年快速的增长，消费者接触到在线广告和网上的商品。据对网上购物的研究，全世界许多国家有一个值得注意改进的地方。2008年大陆研究(引用blogcatalog,2010)表明，拥有9000卢比的印度消费者体验过网上交易，如网上购物或支付下载。互联网信息中心信息产业研究所发现（2004) 。估计2003年台湾消费者在网上购物的消费是204亿元，增加了30%(2007年Ming-Shen)，2004年预期达到266亿新台币。虽然这是该州其他类别商品的网上购物，但许多消费者都采用在线杂货店购买。根据研究和市场调查(2006)，网上购物市场将来可能会扩大，，但仍然有很多客户拒绝接受这种购物方式。据相关商会行业和印度企业的报告显示，在印度的两个地铁站推动了24%的电子书销量增长，为德里的经济作出了贡献，并且在孟买推销了20%的电子书(引用 blogcatalog,2010)。虽然网上购物为消费者提供了一些优点，如方便、轻松搜索产品、比较不同产品类别的价格和安排交货事项，但消费者仍在犹豫是否网上购物。大多数消费者更喜欢传统的购买方式，因为相比网上购物更能够满足自己的需求。在其他国家的研究，例如英国杂货市场的购买账户总额只有网上杂货购买账户总额的1%，(食品学院分布2004))也显示出类似的结果。(Ramus and Nielsen, 2005)

Online shopping has strong consumer acceptance in some sort of product categories such as buying books, electronic items, videos etc. However, in online grocery shopping, online retailers have faced difficulties in reaching consumers (Ring and Tigert, 2001). Though consumers in India are well exposed to the internet culture, they still are not acclimatize to online shopping. A great extent of research with reference to consumer acceptance of online grocery shopping has studied consumers’ intentions to carry out an online grocery purchase at some point in the future (Verhoef and Langerak, 2001). According to Morganosky and Cude (Cited in Hansen, 2006) exceptions exist as few studies have been concerned with studying consumers who already have purchased groceries via the Internet. Many consumers have not yet carried out online grocery buying (Geuens et al., 2003), it is relevant to investigate what could influences such consumers’ to buy groceries online (Hansen, T. 2006). However, Morganosky and Cude (2002) found that one third of the shoppers did not continue online grocery shopping. Instead they prefer that traditional way of shopping gives more satisfaction. Consumers sometime buy goods online just to experience how the online shopping works. Substantiation by Shang, et al. (2005) suggests that online shopping is not much of a goal-oriented activity rather than a result from cognitive absorption experiences from the Internet. Cognitive absorption is a personality characteristic that influences perception, and especially perceptual differentiation (Antonides, 1998).

The use of internet is rapidly growing every year. Consumers are exposed to online advertisement and online shopping of goods. According to research online shopping has a notable improvement in many parts of the world. Continental Research in 2008 (cited in blogcatalog, 2010) shows that, 9000 crores of Indian consumers had experienced online transactions such as online shopping or paid downloading. The Institute for Information Industry Internet Information Center (FIND, 2004) estimated that the amount spent on online shopping in Taiwan in 2003 was NT 20.4 billion, with a 30% increase to NT 26.6 billion expected for 2004 (Ming-Shen 2007). While this is the state for online shopping of other category goods many consumers have adopted online grocery buying. According to Research and Markets (2006), the online grocery market may expand in the future, but still a large group of customers refuse to accept this way of buying groceries. According to report from Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India, in the India, two metros are driving growth with Delhi contributing 24% of the E-sales and Mumbai contributing 20% of the E-sales (cited in blogcatalog, 2010). Though the online shopping provide consumers with several advantages, such as convenience, ease to search for products, to compare price among various product category and to arrange for delivery but still consumers hesitate from buying groceries online. Most of the consumers prefer traditional way of buying groceries give a better fulfilment compared to online shopping. Studies conducted in other countries (e.g. online grocery purchase accounts to only1% of total UK grocery market (Institute of Grocery Distribution 2004)) showed similar results (Ramus and Nielsen, 2005).


1.1网上购物的优点和要素—  Advantages and essentials of online shopping:

The concept of retailing has never changed with in the electronic trading environment. Retailing’s core mission was “getting the right product in right place at the right time” (Christensen and Tedlow cited in McGoldrick 2002:601) has unchanged even with the electronic shopping environment, but the only difference was the way the retailers accomplish this mission to online shopping has changed. Online shopping has several advantages when compared to physical shopping. Factors such as convenience and accessibility, costs and pricing, branding and trust are some of the advantages that consumers consider about online shopping.

1.1.1方便和可访问性— Convenience and Accessibility

The main advantage of online shopping is its convenience of ordering goods at any time and from any place. Convenience in online shopping is often suggested as being the most important ‘order winning’ criterion for retailers (Hill, 1993; Wilson-Jeanselme, 2001). “Shopping online can economise on time and effort by making it easy to locate merchants, find items and produce offerings. Consumers do not have to leave their home, nor travel to find and obtain merchandise online. They can also browse for items by category or online store. These time and browsing benefits of online shopping are likely to be manifested in more positive perceptions of convenience” (Szymanski and Hise cited in McGoldrick 2002:602). “You can shop at any time of day, on any day. You can get to any stores in minutes flat. You never have to look for parking. You never have to wear a coat. You never have to wear anything” (Underhill cited in McGoldrick 2002:602). The only criterion to get access to any shop through online is the net connection. An agreement that fast and easy to navigate sites both economize on shopping time, and reduce cognitive effort, thereby improving consumers’ pleasure with online experience (Pastrick, 1997; Szymanski and Hise, 2000) and increasing the likelihood of sales and repeat purchases (Lohse and Spiller, 1998; Vassilopoulou et al., 2001). Lose and Spiller (cited in McGoldrick 2002) found that product list navigation features to purchase products online accounted for 6 percent of discrepancy in periodical sales. According to Szymanski and Hise (cited in McGoldrick 2002) the convenience had greatest impact on online shopping satisfaction levels. Reports of Morganosky and Cude (2000) shows that 70 percent of US e-shoppers surveyed at the end of 1999 cited convenience and saving time as their primary reason for purchasing groceries online. The report (Forrester research, 2000) suggests that price may be an ultimate gap for UK consumers to prefer online shopping. Hoque and Lohse (cited in McGoldrick 2002) suggests that information-processing models provide a useful theoretical basis for predicting the ways in which electronic marketing channel influence consumer information processing and for generating more effective marketing interventions, although they believe that models of human-computer interaction are still in their formative years. Shagun (1980) regards the cognitive cost of decision making as a measure of the potential difficulty of a consumer’s decision. Jarvenpaa and Todd (1997) identified the personal and emotional rewards the consumer feels after using a website contribute towards satisfaction and purchase intentions. Lohse and Spiller’s (1998) argues that consumer’s evaluation of an online store integrates many of the same characteristics as ‘bricks and mortar’ shopping and so can be considered equivalent to their evaluation of a physical store. Vassilopoulou et al. (2001) confirmed the importance of these attributes but also added a further variable identified by Lindquist but omitted by Lohse and Spiller, store atmosphere, to account for social, entertainment and flow aspects for internet shopping.

1.1.2费用和定价—Costs and pricing

The retailers’ transaction and other costs can be significantly reduced by trading online, further, prices to be more competitive online that off, which could be done partly by reducing consumers’ search costs, and that this in turn will create competitive pressure that will tend to drive price levels down (McGoldrick 2002). The advantage of online shopping is that helps in reducing the number of distribution channels involved in trading of goods. Price cut can happen in a greater extent for products that are purchased through online as it does not require any store arrangements or display units. “The internet is a nearly perfect market. The result is fierce price competition, dwindling product differentiation and vanishing brand loyalty” (Kuttner cited in McGoldrick 2002:605). The books, software and CD market was examined by Bailey (1998) and determined that these products were charged higher online than offline, within similar categories. According to Degeratu et al. (1998) price sensitivity was lower for online grocery shoppers than for consumers shop in traditional grocery stores. Some business models, mainly C2B, that have been developed focus on price above other factors. Sites such as Ebay .com have successfully positioned themselves, where the consumer bids for new or used products. Maes (1998) suggested that search engines and price comparison services could compensate for the undifferentiated complexity of the online environment and make consumers using them considerably more sensitive to price levels.

On the other hand Bakos (2001) observed that, by reducing search costs on seller’s side as well as buyer’s side, buyers should be able to consider more products offerings and better identity products that meet their needs. The information seeking process is a key stage in consumer buying process, which becomes more structured and constrained in an e-commerce environment (Rowley 2000). The challenge faced by the customer is to identify the product and compare between different product offerings from different providers in different time frame. The hypothesize provided by Degeratu et al. (2000) states that features that reduce consumers’ ‘consideration sets’ may, keep consumers’ price sensitivity lower online than offline. There are more frequent price changes observed among online retailers within particular markets which could be explained well by the price comparison agents (Bailey, 1998). According to Brynjolfsson and Smith (2000) study the books and CD sales those internet retailers’ priced were over 100 times smaller than those of conventional retailers, reflecting lower costs on list of options. For the question of what sort of pricing strategies should retailers adopt for online grocery sales, Baker et al. (2001) identified two pricing approaches. First is, “many start-ups offered untenably low price in the rush to capture first-mover advantage. Many incumbents, by contrast, have simply transferred their offline prices onto the internet. In some cases, they believe their brand strength inoculates them from the need to price competitively; in other cases, they feel pressure to establish an online presence but aren’t prepared for the complexities of multi-channel pricing” (Baker cited in McGoldrick 2002). The second approach could also create significant problems for international businesses whose price levels vary market by market, even if for perfectly justifiable reasons, now that consumers are learning to shop more globally (cited in McGoldrick 2002). The methods and environment of price-setting and consumer attitudes towards price may not inherently stable over the longer term (Bailey, 1998; Reynolds, 2000a). However, Bakos (2001) argues that, while lower search and information costs should push markets towards a greater degree of price discrimination, the reality is that internet technology provides a means for retailers to create differentiation for which price premiums can be charged.

1.2网上购物的复杂性—Complexities in online shopping:

In spite of the fact that online shopping has several advantages over the traditional method, there are also few pitfalls pertaining to internet buying. There are two different features that illustrate the complexity of online shopping: in virtual shops, the consumer is not able to see and check the product quality, as would be the case in physical store (Childers 2001; Verhoef and Langerak 2001). Instead the customer should touch and feel the information from product descriptions. Buying products on internet seems to be more complex decision as it is more difficult for the consumer to form an impression as to whether the products on offer are appropriate (Raijas 2002). The second area of complexity concerns the mode of payment for the ordered products. Most of the consumers who are used to pay by cash at a checkout may find the electronic transfer and security checks unfamiliar and more complex.

1.3网上购物的缺点—Drawbacks of online shopping:

According to the research done by Maton (2006) the proportion of the online grocery shoppers has remained static at 5% over three years. The interest in general Internet shopping increases steadily the longer a consumer has been online, grocery shopping doesn't see a significant rise until shoppers have been using the Internet for over six years (Maton 2006). Three times as many adults who have had six years of Internet access buy groceries online compared to those who have only had access for up to a year (ibid cited in Maton 2006). According to Wilson-Jeanselme (2001) the greater convenience benefits afforded by the online experience can ‘leak away’ as a result of four sets of ineffective or ineffective operational practices such as, a poor internet interface, ineffective management of customer demand information, badly planned warehouse, poor physical flow of products from store. These sorts of poor consumer experiences would create a bad image on consumers mind in spite of the greater convenience online.

Grocery store that allows shopping online typically charges with a delivery fee, which is an additional cost to the customer (Albright, 2007). If the consumer’s motivation to shop online was to save money spend on fuel and parking, and his motivation was not satisfied then probability of that consumer not shopping online was also high. Online shoppers have to purchase or spend a minimum amount of money in order to have their groceries delivered (Albright, 2007). Consumers who are looking to purchase grocery for a quantity less than the minimum criteria, they are left with no option other than choosing physical shopping. Consumers has an impression that they could save time by online shopping but eventually the consumer has to stay at home or at delivery address until the ordered grocery items have been received. If the consumer has to meet with some other appointment and the products delivered were not on time, the possibility that consumer creates bad image not only with online service (e.g. Child brand) but also with their physical store (parent brand) (Aaker and Keller, 1990). Returning or exchanging groceries bought online can be more difficult than making a return or exchange of products that have been purchased in store (Albright, 2007).

1.4消费者的购买行为—Consumer Buying Behaviour:

Consumer behaviour is a study to understand how individuals and groups buy goods to gratify their needs. Consumers have different and wide range of needs and wants. The acquisition of such products and services helps these consumers to satisfy their current and future needs (Dibb, 2006).

Customer behaviour on online grocery shopping is different from physical shopping. While most of the existing studies about online shopping investigated consumers’ purchasing intensions and there is no proper evidence on the actual problems encountered in online shopping. This study attempts to understand and explain what are the motivational factors that attracts consumers' online shopping intentions from the viewpoint of social norms, attitude, and personal value that the consumer has on buying process using the well-developed theory of planned. Consumers are more likely to shop groceries traditionally rather than shopping online. According to Hansen (2005) most of the US online grocery shopper adopters attached higher compatibility, higher relative advantage, more positive social norms and lower complexity to internet grocery shopping, not only compared with consumers who had never bought anything on the internet, but also compared with consumers who had purchased other goods on the internet but not groceries. The finding suggests that online shopping is adopted in connection with specific product categories (Robinson 2007).

In support to this, Morganosky and Cude’s (2000) and Geuens et al. (2003) says that many online grocery shoppers tend to buy non-food items online but continue to purchase fresh products in stores. Hansen (2005) concluded that the main differentiator of online grocery shoppers is the perceived compatibility with existing grocery shoppers’ patterns. But, perceived compatibility appears to change over time, as shoppers become more accustomed to the innovation (Robinson 2007). This is evident by the findings of Morganosky and Cude (2000) that only 20% of online shoppers bought all their groceries online, further studies by the same authors showed that the proportion of online shoppers buying all their groceries online increased 3 and 4 fold after 1 and 2 years respectively, suggesting that expertise with the online mode of shopping may offset barriers arising from the characteristics of the products. Morganosky and Cude’s and Hansen’s studies are steps in the direction on the perceptions of customers who have already tried e-grocery shopping, that need to gain a more in-depth understanding of individual consumers’ adoption processes, in terms of what motivated them to try e-grocery shopping in the first place, what keeps them using the new mode of shopping and possible reasons for discontinuing the adoption (cited in Robinson 2007). The research on adoption process will enable e-grocery managers to understand their customers better and also make certain that the Internet shopping process provided by grocery e-retailers is as compatible as possible with consumers’ entrenched habits of in store shopping (Hansen 2005).

1.5激励因素—Motivational factors:

Stone (1954) says that four factors of motives for shopping: economic/price; ethical; personalising/service; and apathetic. According to Tauber (1972) the combination of personal and social motives is to be the basis of shopping behaviour. Tauber also gave an important suggestion that shopping is motivated by the satisfaction arising from shopping activities, as well as by the expected utility obtained from the products bought. Pechtl (2003) says that there are three separate aspects can be discerned in the utilitarian dimension of online shopping: greater assortment variety, better deals and convenience. The internet has bought the world under one roof and even the consumer may perceive retailers and manufacturers he/she never knew before or which would not be physically visited because of geographical distance. The internet allows a consumer to screen a broader variety of suppliers and alternatives in particular product category (Alba et al. 1997; Darian 1987) than would be possible in physical stores, leading to a great assortment. Due to higher market transparency, price competition among internet sellers is assumed to be stronger (Bakos 1997; Brynjolfsson and smith 2000). Price search among internet suppliers is made easier by internet shopping agents which makes the customers a chance of selecting better deals because the customers will probably discover suppliers offering the preferred item at a lower price when compared to the price in a physical store. While speaking about the convenience of online shopping, a consumer can go online shopping independently of opening hours, does not have to drive to, or wait in, stores and need not invest any physical effort in carrying products home (Darian 1987; Verhoef and Langerak 2001).

Westbrook and Black (1985) proposed that the shopping motivation should include the analysis of the satisfaction derived from the process of shopping, as well as the utility derived from its outcome. Based on these grounds, an extensive body of research was conducted to develop a typology of shoppers, both in general ( Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980; Darden and Ashton 1974; Ezell and Russell 1985; Westbrook and Black 1985; Williams et al. 1978; Williams et al. 1985) and in relation to online shopping in particular (Brown 2003; Childers 2001; Fenech and O’Cass 2001; Rohm and Swaminathan 2004; Sénécal 2002). The characteristic of all these typologies of shoppers is the essential distinction between a utilitarian or functional (goal and outcome driven) versus a recreational or hedonic (process driven) motivation to shop (Robinson 2007). The hedonic component of online shopping is based on the aesthetic and playful nature of virtual stores (Mathwick 2001). Nevertheless, the utilitarian and the hedonic motivations to shop can co-exist, both offline (Dawson 1990; Babin 1994) and online (Brown et al. 2003; Scarpi and Dall’Olmo Riley 2003). According to Rohm and Swaminathan (2004) typology of online shoppers can be classified into: convenience shoppers, variety seekers, balanced buyers and store-oriented shoppers, based upon their predominant shopping motivations (cited in Robinson 2007). Convenience shoppers, variety seekers and balanced buyers were found to exhibit a high propensity overall to shop online, but with varying purchase frequencies, depending upon the product category and in relation to their main shopping motivation (Robinson 2007). Opposing to the expectations from previous research Corbett (2001) came with a result that time saving did not appear to motivate consumers to shop online, maybe because of the time taken to receive the goods. For that reason, shoppers who are interested in store oriented purchasing, who were mainly motivated by immediate possession of goods and by the desire for social interaction, preferred to shop in stores. Consistently, Ramus and Nielsen found that the loss of the recreational aspect of grocery shopping acted as a barrier to the uptake of e-grocery (cited in Robinson 2007). According to Rohm and Swaminathan’s (2004) finding the shoppers seeking variety and convenience are significant motivating factors for online shopping is consistent with research findings by Morganosky and Cude (2000), Ramus and Nielsen (2005) and Verhoef and Langerak (2001) in the specific context of online grocery shopping. In addition, Morganosky and Cude (2000) noted that convenience was an especially relevant motive when there were situational constraints such as ill health or the presence of small children in the household. This suggests thatsituational factors may also be important in the study of online shopping motivations. Indeed, Gillett (1976) found that most of the time in-home shopping was motivated by specific needs or circumstances, such as avoiding an extra trip to pick up a needed item. Yet, Belk’s (1975) observation that situational variables have gone largely unheeded in consumer behaviour research is still valid today. Finally, research findings concerning online shopping motives are broadly consistent with earlier studies in the context of catalogue shopping, which have identified functional motives relating to convenience, product assortment, price and availability of unique products to be dominant (Jasper and Lan 1992; Korgaonkar 1984; Reynolds 1974; Januz 1983; Gillett 1976; Eastlick and Feinberg 1999). Additionally, non functional motives relating to company responsiveness and reputation have been found to influence the choice of shopping mode - from home or in the store (Eastlick and Feinberg 1999). However, there is no clear cut evidence on whether the lack of shopping enjoyment in-store motivates people to shop from home. Berkowitz et al. (1979) and Reynolds (1974) contended that those who do not like shopping in store would shop from home, but this was opposed by Eastlick and Feinberg’s (1999) findings. Certainly, there is evidence which shows that catalogue shoppers are also frequent in-store shoppers (Gillett 1976; Lumpkin and Hawes 1985). The evidence so far suggests that online grocery shoppers do not completely give up shopping in traditional stores, at least for some products (Geuens et al. 2003; Morganosky and Cude 2000, 2001, 2002). Situational variables are generally neglected in motivational studies (Belk 1975; Gillett 1976), even though there is some evidence that situational variables may be important in triggering the adoption of online grocery shopping (Morganosky and Cude 2000).

1.6计划行为理论—The Theory of Planned Behaviour:

The Theory of Planned Behaviour-TPB (Ajzen, 1985, 1988, 1991) is developed by extending the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). TRA views a consumer’s behaviour as determined by the consumer’s behavioural intention, which is a function of ‘attitude towards the behaviour’ and ‘subjective norm’ (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Chang, 1998). Despite considerable hold up for TPB’s predictive ability, subjective norm is often considered the weakest of the model’s three constructs – along with attitude and perceived behavioural control (PBC) – in determining behaviours and intentions (Armitage and Conner (2001), Conner and Armitage (1998)). The subjective norm’s predictive weakness include measurement problems (Armitage & Conner, 2001), respondents’ attitudinal versus normative bias (Trafimow & Finlay, 1996), the behaviours under study (Trafimow & Fishbein, 1994), and interdependency between norm and attitude (Lim & Dubinsky, 2005). Differing from these explanations, some researchers contend that the crux of subjective norm’s poor predictive power lies in its conceptualisation (Rivis & Sheeran, 2003; Schofield, Pattison, Hill, & Borland, 2001; Terry & Hogg, 1996). Drawing on Turner’s (1991; also see Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) self-categorisation theory, they argue that rather than a subjective norm that arises from social pressure from what important others approve, the norm should be a group norm due to the overt behaviours of relevant reference groups. Moreover, group norm evolves from a social influence process, where individuals identify with relevant social groups, internalise group norms as their own, and adopt group behaviours. Consequently, stronger group identity leads to stronger norm-intention correlations (Johnston & White, 2003; Terry & Hogg, 1996). TPB is not only a cognitive psychology theory within an expectancy value framework, but also a social psychology theory for explaining human decision processes (Ming-Shen 2007). According to the theory of planned behaviour, an individual thinking of undertaking a specific action will estimate and evaluate expected results, determine his or her willingness to comply with the viewpoints of salient individuals or groups about the action, and decide how well his capabilities will allow him to control the action or behaviour in question (Ming-Shen 2007).

1.7感知行为控制—Perceived behavioural control

TPB suggests that decisions made by humans based on their concern are only partly involved, where as the decision-making over uncertain time and opportunity is called as ‘perceived behavioural control’. PBC can be conceptualized as the consumer’s subjective belief about how difficult it will be for that consumer to generate the behaviour in question (Posthuma and Dworkin, 2000). In this study PBC theory is used for the purpose of investigating consumer online grocery shopping behaviour. Hansen (2008) suggests that TPA well suited for the for the purpose of investigating consumer online grocery buying behaviour. Research indicates that consumers may perceive obstacles and difficulties (PBC) in performing online shopping (Hansen, 2008). In the context of search goods, it has been suggested that ‘when studying consumers’ internet purchasing behaviour, researchers should take perceived behavioural control into consideration in that Internet shopping does require skills, opportunities, and resources, and thus not occur merely because consumers decide to act’(Shim et al., 2001). Secondly, because consumers may perceive both difficulties and risk when considering online grocery shopping, they can be expected to use their cognitive resources in forming beliefs towards the related attributes, which in turn may result in the development of an overall attitude towards the behaviour in question ( Zaichkowsky, 1985; Rossiter and Percy, 1987). According to Bagozzi (1981) , TPB is applicable whenever there is an attempt to identify the various factors that determine any piece of behaviour, especially the specific intentions that precede or underlie the specific action or behaviour, such as the present study with respect to online shopping.

1.7.1个人价值观—Personal Value

Values are concerned with behaviours that effect for a long run. Value is a permanent belief that certain ways of behaviour or end states are preferred to the opposite ways of behaviour or end states (Rokeach 1973). Several writers (Homer and Kahle, 1988; Claeys et al., 1995;

Jensen, 2001; Kilbourne et al., 2005) consider consumer values as central to consumer decision making. “Values are the ultimate source of choice criteria that drive buying behaviour” (Claeys et al. 1995:193). Different points of view are advocated, and there is no widely accepted definition seems to exist though a large body of research exists within the concept of consumer values. Schwartz and Sagiv (1995) proposed that values are trans-situational goals that serve the interest of individuals or groups and that act as guiding principles in consumers’ personal life. Research was conducted to differentiate personal values and social values. Blackwell, (2001) defines social values as desired behaviour or end-state for a society or group, whereas personal values are desired behaviour or end-state for an individual. While social values (i.e. the values held by other people) are indirectly inherent in TPB (conceptualized as ‘social norm (SN)’ in the theory), personal values are not explicitly dealt with in the theory (Hansen, T. 2006). It should also be emphasized that social and personal values do not exist and evolve independently. Social values may have a strong influence on the behaviour and the decision making of the individual consumer. People consume groceries (especially food) and engage in grocery-related activities not only to obtain some functional consequences but also to communicate with others (Douglas and Isherwood, 1996).

This study is based on the conceptual model already been proposed by Hansen. The article focus on the association between consumers’ personal values and their attitudes and behaviour associated with online grocery shopping, with the aim to investigate the role of consumer values in explaining consumer online grocery shopping of Indian population. Combining personal values with TPB, the study possibly links several latent variables: openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement, attitude, Social norms, PBC and Willingness to Buy.

1.8开放性改变—Openness to change:

Openness to change focuses on diversity and thrill. Internet shoppers have been found to be more innovative, impulsive, convenience seeking and less risk averse than non-Internet shoppers (Donthu and Garcia, 1999). A similar pattern has been obtained in relation to online grocery shopping. Hansen (2005) showed that non-online grocery shoppers regard online grocery shopping as less compatible with their daily lives as compared with adopters of online grocery shopping.

1.8.1自我超越和自我提升—Self-transcendence and self-enhancement

Morganosky and Cude (2000) instituted that online grocery shoppers prefer convenience and time saved as the primary reasons for shopping online. As an additional advantage of online grocery shopping, compared with conventional shopping, Ramus and Nielsen (2005) found that consumers emphasize that this form of shopping allows one to shop without leaving home and to order groceries in a situation which is less stressful than going to the grocery store during rush hours. Moreover, it was also detected that many consumers are concerned with the missing social interaction with other people when shopping online (Hansen, T. 2006). Self-enhancement focuses on wealth and power and getting thing done effectively, whereas self-transcendence emphasizes equality and maintaining good social relations.

1.9态度—Attitudes:

Attitudes are when one intends to take specific action which is also termed as Behaviour intentions (BI). Attitude is an individual’s enduring evaluation, feelings and behavioural tendencies towards online buying activity (Dibb, Simkin 2006). According to Hansen (2008) Theory of planned behaviour suggests that a consumer’s attitude towards certain behaviour is predictive of the person’s intention to engage in that behaviour. The theory suggests that behaviour intentions are the most direct, dominant factor in determining the decision to take a specific action or not, and that all factors which may influence actual behaviour are a manifestation of the indirect influence of intentions on behaviour (Ming-Shen 2007). Basing predictions on behaviour intentions is typically the best way to forecast specific behaviours, given the close connection between intention and behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). A person’s perceived behaviour may be favourable or unfavourable based on the attitude. The more the favourable behaviour towards something, the more likely the person will want to engage in the behaviour.

2.0社会规范—Social norms:

Consumer’s intention to perform certain behaviour may be influenced by the normative social beliefs held by the consumer. Social norms can be understood as the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform behaviour (Ajzen, 1991).

When you finish your literature you will need to have a short summary before you move to the next chapter which would link your literature with the rest of your work.

See my comments and do the necessary changes. One problem I found in your literature is that there is no discussion of India. Since that is the context you want to do your empirical research it would be necessary to have a section in the literature about India in order to set the context of your research!