The Analysis of Consumers - Attitudes Towards Online Grocery Shopping - A Case Study in Indian Context

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283352978
The analysis of consumers' attitudes towards

online grocery shopping - A case study in Indian
context
Article November 2015
READS
203
2 authors, including:
Leena Ajit Kaushal
Management Development Institute Gurgaon
12 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Leena Ajit Kaushal

Retrieved on: 02 July 2016
The analysis of consumers attitudes towards online grocery shopping A case study in Indian context
Vidhi BAHETI
Ex-MSc student, GD Goenka World Institute, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
Leena Ajit KAUSHAL
Associate Professor of Economics, Amity School of Economics, Amity University, India
Abstract
The concept of online grocery shopping is in its nascent stage. This study has been carried out to examine
the impact of varied attributes on the consumers attitude towards online grocery shopping. Perceived
Cost, Convenience, Risk and Enjoyable are the four attributes examined in this study. The sub-populations
of the various demographic traits and usage behavior will be compared and analyzed to find out if there is
any significant difference amongst the attitudes of sub-populations towards online grocery shopping in
India.
Introduction
Grocery shopping is considered as one of the most vital and regular task of every household. People
purchase groceries irrespective of the countrys economic condition. People may stop going to vacations,
restaurants, movies, etc but they cannot stop buying the basic necessity goods such as fruits and
vegetables, oils, breads, etc. However, in the hustle and bustle of modern lifestyle, people are unwilling to
spend their time and energy on purchasing groceries. People associate shopping at grocery stores as
tiresome and stressful. In addition to heavy traffic and long working hours, many people avoid buying
groceries. Anckar et al. (2002) claim that "consumers generally dislike shopping for groceries; they have a
desire to accomplish the task as fast as possible" (p.215). A survey by Peapod.com, one of the worlds
largest e-grocer showed that individuals dislike grocery shopping as a job next to visiting a dentist.
( Huang and Oppewal, 2006; Wu and Teng, 2011).
Luckily, the emergence and development of e-commerce has opened new ways of doing business. Thus,
online grocery shopping is becoming more and more popular (Ankar et al, 2002; Wu and Teng, 2011).
With the growing Internet connectivity, clientele and rising popularity of electronic shopping,
entrepreneurs have seen the opportunity of opening online grocery stores .Various e-grocers like
BigBasket.com, AaramShop.com, et cetera have emerged in Indian online grocery market.
The e-commerce sector of India is small when compared globally but it is growing rapidly. A survey by
Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) revealed that the e-commerce market in India rose
from U.S. $3.9 billion in 2009 to U.S. $12 billion in 2013. Another study by Crisil Research displays that
the e-tailing industries in India are expected to grow 50-55% annually. Although, online food and grocery
industry forms an insignificant part of the Rs 2700 crore e-tailing market of India, it is growing
approximately 25 to 30 % year on year. This category will add significantly to the total online retail
market of India in the next ten years. Thus, it is a great opportunity for businessmen aspiring to open retail
stores online, especially online grocery stores. (The Hindu Businessline, 2014)
www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015
Page 36
Literature Review
Robertson (1967) classifies innovations as continuous, dynamically continuous and discontinuous.
Critically, discontinuous innovation not only involves the innovation of a new product but also triggers a
significant change in the customers behavior. Online grocery shopping is debatably a discontinuous
innovation (Hansen, 2005), involving a significant change in behavior (Robertson, 1967): online shoppers
give up the social interaction at supermarkets and the ability to inspect the quality of groceries prior to
purchase. For the advancement of online grocery shopping beyond its existing niche size, retailers not
only need to understand what makes the customers to change their behavior but also the degree to which
their shopping experience online strengthens the adoption process (Hand et al., 2008). Thus, there is a
direct relationship between the customers perception of an innovation and its rate of adoption. For
example: Perceived convenience brought by online grocery shopping has a positive influence on its
adoption by the time-pressed consumers.
Liebmann(1988, p.25) noticed that despite the fact that customers are regularly shopping at more outlets,
these same consumers repeatedly tell us they are time-pressed and want more convenience-oriented and
added value services that will save them time. In reference with the above need for convenience and
increasing penetration levels of internet, Huang and Opperwal , 2006 believe that consumers would
welcome the benefits offered by online grocery shopping. Since the mid 1990s, researchers have shown
different opinions about the suitability of groceries for e-commerce. Some researchers gave their outlook
of grocery shopping to emerge as a big business opportunity (Andersen Consulting, 1998). However, there
are others who are negative about the success of online grocery shopping in the online environment
(Ankar et al, 2002).
The study by Bell et al, (1998) shows that shopping costs comprise of both fixed and variable costs. The
travelling distance from the customers house to the supermarket, customers loyalty and innate preference
towards a store constitutes fixed cost of shopping. While, variable costs are dependent on the customers
shopping list. Transportation costs such as petrol and parking expenditure, and travel time discourage
consumers to purchase from a supermarket and encourage them to purchase goods online (Forman, Ghose
and Goldfarb, 2009; Chntagunta, Chu and Cebollada, 2012). However, majority of the consumers hate to
pay premium in the form of delivery fee for everyday necessity products like groceries (Baker, 2000;
Kacen, Hess and Chiang, 2003). A survey conducted by OMD snapshots revealed that about 20 percent of
online groceries shoppers deterred to shop online due to the delivery charges. (Anonymous, 2001)
Since the 1960s, the theory of perceived risk has been used to explain consumers behavior.
Researchers have provided various definitions for perceived risk. Perceived risk in electronic shopping has
been defined as a persistent expectation of loss, uncertainty and unfavorable consequences by an online
shopper in planning a specific online purchase of product or service (Forsythe and Shi, 2003; Dowling and
Staelin, 1994).
Couple of risks emerge in online shopping such as the risk of losing money by means of credit card
stealing ( Bhatnagar et al,2000 ; Maignan & Lukas, 1997), or privacy risk which shows the unwillingness
of the customer to give away personal information.( Liebermann and Stashevsky, 2002). A study
conducted by (Ranganathan and Ganapathy, 2002) revealed that security and privacy factors came
forward to be the most important predictors for distinguishing the high and low purchase intent
purchasers. However, another study by (Swaminathan, Lekowska- White and Rao, 1999) displayed
opposing results that the consumers did not show much concern over the transactions security.
Page 37
Shopping experience has been assessed by consumers' along two central dimensions (Childers et al, 2001;
Babin, Darden and Griffin, 1974) -1) utilitarian value in which consumers are rational, task oriented and
desire to obtain utilitarian outcomes; and 2) hedonic value which can be associated with the consumers
need to obtain fun such that the fulfillment of a task may not be very essential (Wolfinbarger and Gilly,
2001)
Dawon et al. (1990) points out that social interaction offered by shopping is one of the major reasons for
people to go shopping. It has been indicated that shopping at stores is often treated as an opportunity for
people to spend time with their friends or family members and also take pleasure from the social activities
whilst shopping. (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Ramus and Neilsen, 2005)
However, few online shoppers do not want to be bothered while they are shopping online. The
technology interface offered online provides them with the convenience to browse for products without
being disturbed by sales people. (Joerding and Meissner , 1998)
Convenience is related to forms of non monetary costs like time, stress and effort and psychological cost
(Aylott and Mitchell, 1998). Study conducted by Morganosky and Cude (2000) state that convenience
and times saving are the two major reasons for the consumers to purchase groceries online. Online
shopping offers greater convenience to consumers as consumers can shop from anywhere at any time
and provides customers with an opportunity to save time by making trips to physical retail stores. Similar
study conducted by Ramus and Nielsen (2005) shows that online grocery shopping relieves the
customers from the burden of carrying heavy groceries home from the supermarket. Aylott and Mitchell
(1998) found crowding and queuing to be the two major stressors when buying groceries at the
supermarket or grocery store. Crowding is not liked by customers as it does not let customers achieve
their task as easily and quickly they like, while queuing adds to the customers level of frustration as
they have to waste their time standing in a long queue for checkout. Predictably, shopping online also
has its disadvantages and difficulties. Geuens et al., (2003) report that online shoppers may find
difficulty in obtaining relevant information about groceries online before purchasing the product.
Additionally, as proposed by Ring and Tigert (2001), many online grocery website are difficult to
navigate around and shop. A study conducted by Raijas (2002) of electronic grocery consumers revealed
that easiness to order groceries might have a positive influence on the consumers preference to select
an e-grocery store. If the customers find what they are looking for but fail to carry out the transaction,
they are likely to cancel their order (Oderketken-Schroder and Wetzels, 2003).
Methodology
The study follows quantitative methodology. Data was collected by sending online questionnaires to the
people, using convenient and snowball sampling. Within the timeframe, questionnaires were filled by 100
respondents and their responses were analyzed by using SPSS software. Independent sample T-test and
one way ANOVA was used to find out significant differences between the attitudes of sub-populations of
demographic traits and usage behavior towards online grocery shopping in India.
The research aims to study the consumers attitude towards online grocery shopping in India
The research objectives for the study are as follows:
1).To determine the impact of Perceived Cost on the consumers attitude towards online grocery
shopping.
Page 38
H1a: Cost will be perceived differently by non-Online grocery shoppers and online grocery shoppers
H1b: Cost will be perceived differently by customers not aware of online grocery shopping and customers
aware of online grocery shopping.
H1c: Males and Females will perceive cost differently.
H1d: Single and married customers will perceive cost differently.
H1e: Unemployed and employed customers will perceive cost differently.
H1f: Different age groups will perceive cost differently
H1g: Different income groups will perceive cost differently
2). To determine the impact of Perceived Risk on the online consumers attitude towards online grocery
shopping.
H2a: Risk will be perceived differently by non-Online grocery shoppers and online grocery shoppers
H2b: Cost will be perceived differently by customers not aware of online grocery shopping and customers
aware of online grocery shopping.
H2c: Males and Females will perceive risk differently.
H2d: Married customers will perceive risk higher than single customers
H2e: Employed and Unemployed customers will perceive risk differently
H2f: Different age groups will perceive risk differently
H2g: Different income groups will perceive risk differently
3). To determine the impact of Perceived Convenience on consumers attitude towards online grocery
shopping.
H3a: Online grocery shoppers and non- online grocery shoppers will perceive convenience differently
H3b: Customers aware of online grocery shopping and customers who are not aware of online grocery
shopping will perceive convenience differently
H3c: Males and Females will perceive convenience differently
H3d: Single and married customers will perceive convenience differently
H3e: Employed and unemployed customers will perceive convenience differently
H3f: Different age groups will perceive convenience differently
H3g: Different income groups will perceive convenience differently
4). To determine the impact of Perceived Enjoyable on the consumers attitude towards online grocery
shopping.
H4a: Online grocery shoppers and non- online grocery shoppers will perceive enjoyable differently
H4b: Customers aware of online grocery shopping and customers who are not aware of online grocery
shopping will perceive enjoyable differently
H4c: Males and Females will perceive enjoyable differently
H4d: Single and married customers will perceive enjoyable differently
H4e: Employed and unemployed customers will perceive enjoyable differently
H4f: Different age groups will perceive enjoyable differently
H4g: Different income groups will perceive enjoyable differently
Page 39
Reliability
The internal consistency of the data was measured using the Cronbachs Alpha coefficient. The
coefficient value for scale variables in the sample was above the 0.6, the prescribed value below which
the data lacks internal consistency reliability. (Malhotra and Dash, 2009). Thus, the data collected is fit
for statistical analysis.
Perceived Cost
The analysis showed that the customers value the offers and discounts offered in online grocery
shopping. As seen in various literatures such as Baker, 2000; and Kacen, Hess and Chiang, 2003,
delivery fee is one of the major reasons for consumers hesitating to purchase groceries online. However,
with the average of 2.48, it is apparent that majority of the people would not mind paying delivery fee
for groceries.
Difference between online grocery shoppers and non grocery shoppers
No significant difference was found between these two groups of shoppers as the p-value is greater than
= 0.10. Therefore, H1a was not supported.
Difference between customers aware/ not aware of online grocery shopping
It was found that these two groups significantly differed in one variable: not having to incur travelling
costs to a store as the p value is less than = 0.10.
Therefore, H1b is partly supported.
Furthermore, the means of perceived cost variables was connected with each sub-population of the various
demographic traits like gender, marital status, and employment status.
No significant difference was found in the sub populations for all the three demographic traits, gender,
marital status and employment status as the p values are greater than = 0.10.Therefore, hypothesis H1c,
H1d and H1e are not supported.
Difference between age groups Young Adults, Adults and Older Citizens
One way ANOVA was applied to measure if there is any significant difference between the three age
groups for perceived cost elements. No significant difference was observed in any age groups as p-value
was greater than =0.10. Therefore, H1f was not supported.
Difference between income groups- No Income, Mid Income, High Income
One way ANOVA was applied to measure if there is any significant difference between the three income
groups for perceived cost elements. No significant difference was observed in any income groups as pvalue was greater than =0.10. Therefore, H1g was not supported.
Perceived Convenience
Descriptive Statistics
The mean and standard deviation of perceived convenience variables were analyzed.
The result showed that customers value the convenience which comes with online grocery shopping,
Page 40
most especially not having to stand in the queue at billing counter, carry home all the products by
themselves, less time and the comfort of purchasing at any location and time. This is in harmony with
previous literature by Morganosky and Cude (2000) , Ramus and Nielsen (2005) and, Aylott and
Mitchell (1998).
Difference between online grocery shoppers and non-online grocery shoppers
The two groups of shoppers differed significantly in 6 variables as the p-values are less than 0.10.
The 6 variables are expect that shopping online takes less duration of time than going to a physical store,
comfort of purchasing at any location and time, value of not having to stand in the queue at the billing
counter, convenience of goods being delivered to the customers doorstep, concerned if the goods wanted
can be easily found and worry if the product information is easy to locate online.
Therefore, H2a is partly supported.
These two groups of customers differed significantly in two variables namely online shopping takes less
duration of time than going to a physical store and not having to stand in the queue at the billing counter,
as the p-values for these variables are less than =0.10.
Therefore, H2b is partly supported.
The means of perceived risk variables were connected with each sub-population of the various
Males and females differed significantly in one variable namely the comfort of purchasing at any location
and time as the p-value is less than = 0.10. Therefore, H2c was partially supported.
In the same way, it was found that these married and single respondents differed significantly in two
variables namely, worry about the ease of navigating the website or if the goods wanted would be found
easily as the p-value is less than = 0.10. Therefore, H2d was partly supported.
Similarly, it was found that employed and unemployed respondents differed significantly in two
variables namely online shopping takes less duration of time than going to a physical store and the
complexity of the transaction process online as the p-values are less than = 0.10. Therefore, H2e was
partly supported.
groups for perceived enjoyable elements. It was found that age groups differed significantly in three
variables namely; not having to stand in the queue at checkout, convenience of goods being delivered to
the doorstep and worry if the goods wanted would be found easily. With the help of Tukeys post hoc
test, it was found that young adults and adults have differed significantly in all the three variables as pvalues are less than =0.10. Adults perceive all the variables significantly higher than young adults.
Therefore, H2f was partly supported.
One way ANOVA was applied and it was found that income groups differed significantly in three
variables namely, online shopping takes less time, not having to stand in the queue at checkout and
Page 41
convenience of goods being delivered to the doorstep. With the help of Tukeys post hoc test, it was
found that no income and high income customers differed in one variable namely online shopping takes
less time. Customers with high income perceive this higher than customers with no income. Also, mid
income and high income customers differed significantly in all the three variables. High income
customers perceive all the three variables higher than the mid income customers. Therefore, H2g was
partly supported.
Perceived Risk
The mean and standard deviation of perceived risk variables were found. The most significant perceived
by the customers is the quality of the products delivered. So, online grocers should make sure that they
provide customers with fresh groceries. This is in harmony with the previous literature Jarvenpaa &
Todd, 1997; Bhatnagar et al, 2000 where consumers hesitate to buy groceries as they doubt the product
quality.
These two groups differed significantly in three variables as the p-value is less than 0.10. The variables
are: concerned about the credit card data security, doubt the quality of goods received and worry if the
product would perform as expected. Therefore, H3a was partly supported.
The groups differed significantly in one variable i.e. credit card data security as p-value is less
than =0.10. Therefore, H3b was partly supported.
The means of perceived risk variables were connected with each sub-population of the various
It was found that males and females differed significantly in three elements i.e., credit card data security,
quality of goods received and concerned whether the right goods would be delivered on time as the pvalue is less than =0.10. Females perceive this risk higher than males. Therefore, H3c was partly
supported.
Also, married and single customers differed significantly in three elements i.e., credit card data security,
safety of personal data and concerned whether the right goods would be delivered on time as p-value is
less than =0.10. Married population perceives this risk higher than single population. Therefore, H3d
was partly supported.
However, no significant difference for perceived risk was observed between the employed and
unemployed customers. Therefore, H3a was not supported.
One way ANOVA was applied and it was found that age groups differed significantly in three variables
namely; credit card data security, personal data risk and whether the right product would be delivered at
the right time. With the help of Tukeys post hoc test, it was found that young adults and older citizens
have differed significantly in two variables: credit card data risk and personal data risk as p-values are less
than =0.10 . Older citizens perceived both these risks higher than young adults.
Also, young adults and adults differed significantly in two variables; personal data risk and whether
Page 42
right product would be delivered at the right time as p-values are less than =0.10.Adults perceive
both these risks higher than young adults. Therefore, H3f was partly supported
groups for perceived risk elements. No significant difference was observed in any income groups.
Therefore, H3g was not supported.
Perceived Enjoyable
The mean and standard deviation of perceived enjoyable variables were found.
The most significant perceived enjoyable variable in average is that customers expect to find new
products online.
These two groups differed significantly on one variable namely; online shopping to be enjoyable as pvalue is less than =0.10. Therefore, H4a was partly supported.
These two groups differed significantly on 3 variables as p-values are less than =0.10.
The three variables are: expect online shopping to be enjoyable, expect going to the supermarkets to be a
recreational activity and expect to enjoy finding new products online. Therefore, H4b was partly
supported.
The means of perceived enjoyable variables were connected with each sub-population of the various
No significant difference was found in the sub-populations of gender and marital status demographics as
p-values are greater than =0.10. Therefore, H4c and H4d are not supported.
However, employed and unemployed respondents were compared on one variable, namely going to the
supermarkets to be a recreational activity as p-value is less than = 0.10.
Therefore, H4e was partly supported.
groups for perceived enjoyable elements. No significant difference was found between the three age
groups as p-values are greater than 0.10. Therefore, H4f was not supported.
One way ANOVA was applied and it was found that the age groups differed significantly in one variable
namely- expect to have fun from socializing at supermarkets. To better understand the interrelationship
between the age groups, Tukeys post hoc results were seen. It was found that mid-income and high
income customers differed significantly in one variable: expect to have fun from socializing at
supermarkets and no significance was found between no income and mid income or no income and high
income customers. Customers in the mid-income group perceived this variable higher than the customers
Page 43
in the high-income group category. Therefore, H4g was partly supported.

Conclusion
This research shows that consumers' attitude towards online grocery shopping in India is influenced by
four factors namely Perceived Cost, Perceived Convenience, Perceived Risk and Perceived Enjoyable.
The existing literature on the various perspectives of online grocery shopping is done in Europe,
Australia but no study has been done in India for online grocery shopping. However, as the concept of
online grocery shopping is in its budding phase in India, it would be beneficial to find out the consumers
attitude towards various aspects of online grocery shopping. This would help the e-grocers to direct their
attention towards those and provide best value to the consumers.
Sample of 100 respondents was collected and the consumers were asked for their demographic traits,
awareness of online grocery shopping and usage behavior of online grocery shopping. Seven hypotheses
were made and tested for each factor to find out if the attitudes differed amongst the sub-populations of
the demographic variables, or usage behavior.
Table 1, 2, 3 and 4 summarizes the studys finding in terms of demographic and usage behaviour effects
for Perceived Cost, Perceived Convenience, Perceived Risk and Perceived Enjoyable respectively
Table 1
Perceived Cost Variables
Concerned about the additional

costs of online shopping
Appreciate not having to incur
travelling costs to a physical store
Value the discounts and offers
offered in online grocery shopping
Online
Grocery
Shopping
Aware Online
Grocery
Shopping
Gender
Marital
Status
Employment
Status
Age
Income
Notes: * Statistically significant difference (at p<0.10 two tailed), n=100
The findings for Perceived cost show that there was no significant difference among the various
demographic traits of the consumers. However, significant difference was found in customers who are
aware and not aware of online grocery shopping. This information can be used by marketers to cater to the
different attitudes of two individual groups.
Page 44
Table 2
Perceived convenience variables
Believe that online shopping takes

less duration of time than going to
a physical store
Appreciate the comfort of
purchasing at any location and time
Appreciate the value of not having
to stand in the queue at checkout
Appreciate the convenience of
goods being delivered to the
doorstep
Worry about the ease of navigating
the website
Concerned if the goods wanted can
be found easily
Worry if product information is
easy to locate online
Worry about the complexity of the
transaction process online
Online
Grocery
Shopping
*
Aware Online
Grocery
Shopping
Marital
Status
*
*
Gender
Employment
Status
Age
Income
*
*
*
*
*
*
Table 3
Significant differences in the perceived risk variables by usage behaviour characteristic and demographic traits
Perceived Risk Variables
Online
Aware Online
Gender
Grocery
Grocery
Shopping
Shopping
Concerned about the credit card
data security
Concerned about the security of
personal information
Doubt the quality of goods received
Concerned if the right goods would
be delivered timely
Worry if the product would perform
as expected
*
*
Marital
Status
Employment
Status
Age
Income
Table 4
Significant differences in the perceived enjoyable variables by usage behavior characteristic and demographic traits
Perceived Enjoyable Variables
Expect online shopping to be

enjoyable
Expect going to the supermarkets
be a recreational activity
Expect to have fun socializing at
supermarkets
Expect to enjoy finding new
products online
Online
Grocery
Shopping
*
Aware Online
Grocery
Shopping
Gender
Marital
Status
Employment
Status
Age
Income
*
*
*
*
The findings for the other three factors show that, both the usage behavior variables and demographic
traits have their own effect on the different elements of the factors. This information can further be used
by various e-grocers or marketers along the course of personalization. Each individual can be dealt with
differently and more efficiently on the basis their attitude towards the various elements of Perceived
Page 45
Risk, Perceived Convenience, and Perceived Enjoyable. Different personalization message or

advertisements can then be sent to these diverse individuals.
This research was undertaken to study the consumers attitude towards online grocery shopping in India.
However, generalizing from the responses of a sample size of 100 respondents to the attitude of customers
all over India is not straightforward as India is a culturally rich country.
Thus, it is recommended to conduct similar nature studies for the various cultural groups India and study
their personality traits before trying to generalize these results.
IV.
Limitation:
1. The research was targeted towards the whole demographic population of India but since the sample
size is small, the accuracy and authenticity can be low.
2. Some people may have filled the questionnaire without interest which may have lead to the
collection and analysis of inaccurate data.
References
1) Advisors, T. (2014). KIT: Online Grocery Retail in India. [online] Business-standard.com.
Available at: http://www.business-standard.com/article/management/kit-online-grocery-retail-inindia-112040200065_1.html [Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].
2) Anckar, B., Walden, P. and Jelassi, T. (2002). Creating customer value in online grocery shopping.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(4), pp.211--220.
3) Andersen Consulting, (1998). On-line grocery shopping on track for rapid growth.
4) Arnold, M. and Reynolds, K. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of retailing, 79(2),
pp.77--95.
5) Aylott, R. and Mitchell, V. (1998). An exploratory study of grocery shopping stressors. British
Food Journal, 101(9), pp.683--700.
6) Babin, B., Darden, W. and Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. Journal of consumer research, pp.644--656.
7) Baker, M. (2000). ). Online Grocery ShoppingTime for a Stock-Taking. ICSC Research
Quartely, 7(1).
8) Bell, D., Ho, T. and Tang, C. (1998). Determining where to shop: fixed and variable costs of
shopping. Journal of Marketing Research, pp.352--369.
9) Berry, L., Seiders, K. and Grewal, D. (2002). Understanding service convenience. Journal of
marketing, 66(3), pp.1--17.
10) Bhatnagar, A., Misra, S. and Rao, H. (2000). On risk, convenience, and Internet shopping
behavior. Communications of the ACM, 43(11), pp.98--105.
11) Businesstoday.intoday.in, (2013). Selling groceries online is catching up in India - Business Today Business News. [online] Available at: http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/online-grocery-shoppingvegetables-new-trend-in-india/1/197141.html [Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].
12) Childers, T., Carr, C., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2002). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online
retail shopping behavior. Journal of retailing, 77(4), pp.511--535.
13) Corbitt, B., Thanasankit, T. and Yi, H. (2003). Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumer
perceptions. Electronic commerce research and applications, 2(3), pp.203--215.
Page 46
14) Dawson, S., Bloch, P. and Ridgway, N. (2002). Shopping Motives, Emotional States, and
Retail Outcomes. The Environments of Retailing. London: Routledge, pp.65--81.
15) Dowling, G. and Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling
activity. Journal of consumer research, pp.119--134.
16) Elliot, S. and Fowell, S. (2000). Expectations versus reality: a snapshot of consumer experiences
with Internet retailing. International Journal of Information Management, 20(5), pp.323--336.
17) Forbesindia.com, (2014). Forbes India Magazine - ZopNow Takes a Crack at Online Grocery.
[online] Available at: http://forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/zopnow-takes-a-crack-at-onlinegrocery/35899/1 [Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].
18) Forman, C., Ghose, A. and Goldfarb, A. (2009). Competition between local and electronic
markets: How the benefit of buying online depends on where you live. Management Science,
55(1), pp.47--57.
19) Forsythe, S. and Shi, B. (2003). Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet
shopping. Journal of Business Research, 56(11), pp.867--875.
20) Freeman, S., Walker, I. and Gabbott, M. (1999). Consumer Behaviour and Attitudes
Towards Technology and Internet Shopping.
21) Geuens, M., Brengman, M. and SJegers, R. (2003). Food retailing, now and in the future. A
consumer perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10(4), pp.241--251.
22) Hansen, T. (2005). Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis.
23) Honea, H. and Dahl, D. (2005). The promotion affect scale: defining the affective
dimensions of promotion. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), pp.543--551.
24) Huang, Y. and Oppewal, H. (2006). Why consumers hesitate to shop online: An experimental
choice analysis of grocery shopping and the role of delivery fees. International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, 34(4/5), pp.334--353.
25) Jarvenpaa, S. and Todd, P. (1996). Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the World Wide
Web. International Journal of electronic commerce, pp.59--88.
26) Jarvenpaa, S., Tractinsky, N. and Saarinen, L. (1999). Consumer trust in an internet store: a
cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2), pp.0--0.
27) Joerding, T. and Meissner, K. (1998). Intelligent multimedia presentations in the web: Fun
without annoyance. Computer networks and ISDN systems, 30(1), pp.649--650.
28) Kacen, J., Hess, J. and Kevin Chiang, W. (2013). Bricks or clicks? Consumer attitudes toward
traditional stores and online stores. Global Economics and Management Review, 18(1),
pp.12--21.
29) Liebermann, Y. and Stashevsky, S. (2002). Perceived risks as barriers to Internet and e-commerce
usage. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 5(4), pp.291--300.
30) Maignan, I. and Lukas, B. (1997). The nature and social use of the internet: a qualitative
investigation. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31(2).
31) Marketing Week, (2001). Online groceries in a bag. [online] Available at:
http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/online-groceries-in-the-bag/2035029.article [Accessed 2 Aug.
2014].
32) Menon, B. (2014).Private equity players bullish on online grocery retailers. [online] The
Hindu Business Line. Available at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-andeconomy/private-equity-players-bullish-on-online-grocery-retailers/article5570644.ece
[Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].
33) Morganosky, M. and Cude, B. (2000). Consumer response to online grocery shopping.
Page 47

34) Morganosky, M. and Cude, B. (2002).Consumer demand for online food retailing: is it really
a supply side issue?. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30(10),
pp.451--458.
35) Odekerken-Schr"oder, G. and Wetzels, M. (2003).Trade-offs in Online Purchase Decisions:: Two
Empirical Studies in Europe. European Management Journal, 21(6), pp.731--739.
36) Oliver, R. and Shor, M. (2003). Digital redemption of coupons: Satisfying and dissatisfying effects
of promotion codes. Journal of Product & Brand Management,12(2), pp. 121134.
37) Oppenheim, A. (2000).Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. 1st ed.
London: Continuum.
38) Parsons, A. (2002).Non-functional motives for online shoppers: why we click. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 19(5), pp.380--392.
39) Pastore, M. (2000).Online Grocery Market Treading New E-Commerce Waters. [online]
ClickZ. Available at: http://www.clickz.com/clickz/news/1704019/online-grocery-markettreading-new-e-commerce-waters [Accessed 2 Aug. 2014].
40) Raijas, A. (2002). The consumer benefits and problems in the electronic grocery store.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 9(2), pp.107--113.
41) Ramus, K. and Nielsen, N. (2005). Online grocery retailing: what do consumers think?.
Internet Research, 15(3), pp.335--352.
42) Ranganathan, C. and Ganapathy, S. (2002). Key dimensions of business-to-consumer web sites.
Information & Management, 39(6), pp.457--465.
43) Ring, L. and Tigert, D. (2001). Viewpoint: the decline and fall of Internet grocery
retailers.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 29(6),pp.264-271.
44) Robertson, T. (1967). The process of innovation and the diffusion of innovation. The Journal of
Marketing, pp.14--19.
45) Rogers, E. (1983).Diffusion of Innovation.The free press, New york,(3rd ed).
46) Rowley, J.(2003).Beds, insurance and coffee-a complete retail experience from Tesco online.
British Food Journal, 105(4/5), pp.274--278.
47) Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. 1st
ed. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.
48) Swaminathan, V., Lepkowska-White, E. and Rao, B. (1999).Browsers or buyers in
cyberspace?An investigation of factors influencing electronic exchange.Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 5(2), pp.0-0.
49) Tan, S. (1999).Strategies for reducing consumers risk aversion in Internet shopping.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(2), pp.163--180.
50) Verhoef, P. and Langerak, F. (2001).Possible determinants of consumers adoption of electronic
grocery shopping in the Netherlands.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,8(5).pp.275
285)
51) Webster, J., Trevino, L. and Ryan, L. (1994).The dimensionality and correlates of flow in
human-computer interactions.Computers in human behavior, 9(4), pp.411--426.
52) Westbrook, R. and Black, W. (1985).A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing
53) Wolfinbarger, M. and Gilly, M. (2001).Shopping online for freedom, control, and fun.
California Management Review, 43(2), pp.34--55.
54) Wu, Y. and Teng, W. (2011).An enhanced recommendation scheme for online grocery
shopping. pp.410--4
Page 48

The Analysis of Consumers - Attitudes Towards Online Grocery Shopping - A Case Study in Indian Context

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Analysis of Consumers - Attitudes Towards Online Grocery Shopping - A Case Study in Indian Context

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

See

The analysis of consumers' attitudes towards

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

Available from: Leena Ajit Kaushal

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

in the high-income group category. Therefore, H4g was partly supported.

Perceived Cost Variables

Concerned about the additional

Notes: * Statistically significant difference (at p<0.10 two tailed), n=100

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

Believe that online shopping takes

Notes: * Statistically significant difference (at p<0.10 two tailed), n=100

Expect online shopping to be

Notes: * Statistically significant difference (at p<0.10 two tailed), n=100

Risk, Perceived Convenience, and Perceived Enjoyable. Different personalization message or

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28(1), pp.17--26.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 05, Number: 7, November 2015

Você também pode gostar