Understanding Consumers' Behaviour: Can ...

13 downloads 0 Views 440KB Size Report
Jan 4, 2017 - Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 ..... Mitchell is Lecturer in Marketing at Manchester School of Management, UK. ... Dah-Kwei Liou Department of Finance, Chihlee Institute of Technology, New Taipei ... Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences,.

Management Decision Understanding Consumers’ Behaviour: Can Perceived Risk Theory Help? V-W. Mitchell

Article information: To cite this document: V-W. Mitchell, (1992),"Understanding Consumers’ Behaviour: Can Perceived Risk Theory Help?", Management Decision, Vol. 30 Iss 3 pp. Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749210013050 Downloaded on: 04 January 2017, At: 00:20 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3386 times since 2006*

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2003),"Identifying key factors affecting consumer purchase behavior in an online shopping context", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 Iss 1 pp. 16-29 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550310457818 (1987),"Consumer Behaviour in Tourism", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss 10 pp. 5-44 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000004718

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:476352 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

26

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

C

MANAGEMENT DECISION 30,3

onsumer thinking and behaviour, in view of the recent food scares, are important guideline areas for foodstuff manufacturers.

Understanding Consumers' Behaviour: Can Perceived Risk Theory Help? V-W. Mitchell

Management Decision, Vol. 30 No. 3, 1992, pp. 26-31, © MCB University Press Limited, 0025-1747

Introduction The importance of understanding a theory which has one of the longest research traditions in consumer behaviour should not be underestimated. Proof, if proof was needed, of the theory's power has been recently demonstrated in the food market. The article begins by providing a resume of recent examples risk in the food and other markets. Having established some popular examples of the theory at work, the discussion turns to the perceived risk theory and its premises and components. In the second section of the article attention is drawn to the ways in which risk and risk reduction form an integral part of the standard consumer decision-making process. Risky Product Examples Recent food scares are set against a backcloth of increasing consumer concern about general health issues and food. Consumers; acknowledging the risks involved, are forcing manufacturers to produce food and other products which are low in fat and salt, additive and preservative free, organically grown and environmentally friendly. A more detailed discussion of risk in food is given in Mitchell and

Greatorex[1]. Only the highlights are given here by way of example. Perhaps the most notorious case was the "salmonella in eggs" scare. Fuelled by media hype, risk perceptions soared and egg consumption plummeted. There were, however, many more food scares which were to demonstrate the power of risk perceptions in affecting consumers' purchasing behaviour. Listeria bacteria were found in Belgium pate. The listeria problem was also thought to affect certain soft cheeses which provide a less acidic environment than harder varieties for the bacteria to grow. In a press release on 13 June 1989, the Rt Hon. John MacGregor, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, "a total ban from human consumption of certain cattle offal". It had been found that beef brains and offal could contain the agent BSE. Withdrawn in the USA, but cleared for continued use here, and sprayed on 7-10 per cent of the UK's apple crop, Daminozide, marketed under the name of Alar, is a potentially dangerous pesticide. Fears about its effects on humans resulted in a reduction in the consumption of apples. Hazelnut yogurts were to make headline news as consumers contracted food poisoning from contaminated pots. But public anxiety reached its peak when slivers of glass were found in some baby food products. Many batches were withdrawn from sale. In November 1989, there was a scare concerning botulism in cans of Smedley's tuna fish and lead contamination of imported Dutch cattle feed resulted in some milk and beef containing unsafe levels of lead. Cattle have been a "favourite" for food scares. Most recently there have been fears expressed about the safety of some Irish beef, which has been found to contain high levels of a drug nicknamed "Wonderdust" used to reduce fat deposits in cattle. The drug can cause increased heart rate (tachycardia) and palpitations in humans. There have also been fears about the levels of carcinogenic dioxins in milk. Produced in the combustion process, low levels of dioxins are present all the time, however, if concentrated by the food chain, they can cause severe health problems. Some farms have been effectively quarantined and milk production arrested after the discovery of abnormally high levels in milk samples. It is not only food products which have suffered from consumer risk perceptions, although they have been the most obvious and most numerous, but also other products such as electric shavers, instant cameras, deep fat fryers and cars. For a comprehensive account of the many products which have had to be recalled, see [2]. In October 1978, Remington launched a nationwide campaign in the electrical press and national press telling owners to return their shavers if they had certain markings. The products were recalled because of a risk of electrocution. Kodak instant cameras were recalled becauseof a patent action brought by Polaroid against Kodak in the United States. In January 1986, the US Court

UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS' BEHAVIOUR: CAN PERCEIVED RISK THEORY HELP?

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

of Appeal banned Kodak from manufacturing, using or selling cameras and film which infringed any of the 14 claims offivecurrent Polaroid patents. In October 1990, a US judge awarded Polaroid $909.4 million in compensation for the patent infringement. Sold through Europe, the Nova Fritex deep-fat fryer was a safe product except when used without being earthed. It was believed that the standard European plug could easily be forced into a two-pin socket and many of these two-pin sockets, particularly in Belgian kitchens were not earthed. The product was recalled despite there being only two reported accidents. Recalls of motor vehicles are a fact of life, which the motoring public accepts as one of the ways in which they are protected from possible harm. Up to a million vehicles are recalled each year, which represents four per cent of those on the roads[2]. However, consumer perceptions can be greatly influenced by such recalls and negative images based on increased risk perceptions can easily be created. Having demonstrated the numerous occasions on which consumer risk perceptions directly affect consumer's behaviour and purchasing patterns, the article will now turn to a consideration of the Theory of Perceived Risk.

Perceived Risk Theory Perceived risk has a long and varied research tradition, yet many authors have failed to recognize in their research how pervasive the construct is in all the stages of the buying process. Bauer[3] first introduced the marketing world to the concept, but only at the broadest level. This article takes the reader through parts of traditional consumer purchasing process from a perceived risk perspective. Cunningham[4] was one of the first to suggest that risk comprises two dimensions; uncertainty and consequences. Peter and Ryan[5] have modified the original

model slightly and in its simplest form can be represented as: Risk = Probability of x Negative consequences consequences of poor brand choice occurring The notion to multiply these two dimensions is likely to stem from probability theory where utility is measured by multiplying the probability by expected value. This is one of the simplest models of perceived risk, yet it has been used over the past 25 years by many researchers. The consequences of a failed purchase were originally categorized into performance and psychosocial by Cox[6]. Since then other investigators[7,8], have distinguished psychological from social consequences, and identified yet other types of consequences, e.g. physical, time, safety andfinancial.In general terms the consequences or losses can easily be described. Garner[9], describes them for services (see Table I). Perceived risk has a part to play in all types of consumer buying behaviour. Assael[10] has suggested four types: (1) Complex buying behaviour is usually characterized by high involvement and there being significant differences between brands. Typically purchases will be expensive, infrequently bought and highly expressive. The consumer usually does not know much about the product category and has to learn. These characteristics result in an increased risk perception in this type of buying behaviour. A high price may result in financial loss, the highly expressive nature of the product may result in significant psycho-social loss, and the infrequent purchase and lack of product category knowledge will result in increased uncertainty. (2) Dissonance-reducing buying behaviour a usually characterized by high involvement. After the purchase the consumer attempts to reduce the risk of dissatisfaction by gathering information about the

Table I. Social risk

27

Descriptions of Types of Perceived Risk the risk that the selection of the service provider will affect in a negative way the perception of other individuals about the purchaser.

Financial risk

the risk that the service purchased will not attain the best possible monetary gain for the consumer.

Physical risk

the risk that the performance of the service will result in a health hazard to the consumer. .

Performance risk

the risk that the service purchased will not be completed in the manner which will result in customer satisfaction. '-

Time risk

the risk that the consumer will waste time, lose convenience or waste effort in getting a service redone.

Psychological risk

the risk that the selection or performance of the producer will have a negative effect on the consumer's peace of mind or self-perception.

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

28

MANAGEMENT DECISION 30,3

purchase which is favourable and which reinforces the soundness of the initial purchase choice. This is an attempt to reduce the dissonance or losses involved in the purchase, whether or not this is in terms of time loss, or more likely, psychological loss and social loss. These losses result from a mismatch between actual purchase performance and expected purchase performance and are at the heart of the Perceived Risk Theory. (3) Habitual buying behaviour is characterized by low consumer involvement and low levels of brand difference, e.g. salt purchase. The interesting feature of this type of decision is that marketers are constantly trying to move this type of product from a low involvement to a higher involvement status by emphasizing the risks involved in the purchase, e.g. by emphasizing the health risks involved and developing higher priced sea salts and "low salt" salts. (4) Variety seeking behaviour is characterized by low consumer involvement, but significant brand differences. Typically, consumers will change their brand frequently, e.g. different types of biscuits, not through dissatisfaction, but through boredom. In this case perceived risk explains consumer choice of riskier brands, since consumers will purchase the brands which have higher degrees of perceived risk associated with them. The Consumer Decision Process Several models of the consumer-buying process have been developed by marketing scholars, the most prominent being proposed by Howard and Sheth[ll], Nicosia[12] and Engel eta/.[13].Although the models vary in detail there are five stages which consistently occur in the models. These are problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision and postpurchase behaviour. The models are mostly relevant to complex decision making in which significant amounts of risk are involved, and it is this setting which will be taken to continue the discussion. Problem Recognition

Marketers can, and frequently do, use perceived risk to stimulate consumer problem or need recognition. This is primarily done through the use of appeals based on the risk or loss types which can be perceived by consumers. Financial risk is used when highlighting the difference between what the consumer pays now for a product or service and what he could pay for a similar purchase from another retailer. A price reduction may alert consumers to the problem that they are paying over the odds for a product or service by appealing to their need to get value for money and to reduce their financial risk. Time risk may also be used. A product may be promoted on the

basis of time saving — thus alerting the consumer to the fact that the existing product is wasting the consumer's time, e.g. microwave foods, ready prepared meals, etc. Risk, then, has a major role to play in encouraging consumers to recognize problems or needs. Within this initial stage the consumer has a more strategic choice to make which induces uncertainty and may increase the riskiness of the decision; what are to be the buying goals? Should the consumer upgrade their TV viewing by buying a new TV set, by buying a new video for the old set, or by buying a second-hand video and using the rest of the money to buy video tapes. All combinations of buying goals will increase the quality of their TV viewing. Uncertainty arises then, as to which goal will best satisfy the need. This goal uncertainty has been noted by Cox[14] and Urbany et al. [15]. Pre-purchase Information Search

The consumer may or may not gather information about the purchase. If the consumer does decide to collect information then the search may be passive, i.e. his attention becomes heightened and he becomes more receptive to sources of information such as TV advertisements, friends' conversation, etc. The consumer may also engage in active information search. The fact that the consumer will engage in information search is thought to be a result of the risk perceived in the purchase. For convenience goods, perceived risk usually seems to remain below the tolerated threshold and even for complex goods, information search turns out to be only one among several risk-reducing strategies. Information sources are personal, e.g. family and friends, neighbours, etc.; commercial, e.g. advertising, salespeople, packaging, etc.; public, e.g. mass media, consumer organizations, and experiential sources such as handling, examining, and using the product. Pre-purchase risk reduction essentially focuses on increasing the amount of certainty that a satisfactory product will be purchased as well as reducing the negative consequences should the purchase be unsatisfactory. Post-purchase risk reduction, on the other hand, focuses solely on the reduction of the consequences of an unsatisfactory purchase. Within this search process the consumer can face sources of uncertainty which increases the riskiness of the decision. Where can the information be obtained? The consumer may be unsure about the sources of information which exist and which source has most credibility[16]. The consumer may be unsure about how much weight to give to advice from salespeople or claims in advertising; to the extent that he may disbelieve some claims. The more sources used, the greater the amount of data and the greater the likelihood of conflicting reports being received which may result in confusion. Furthermore, information acquisition may alert the consumer to risks and pitfalls within the product choice of which they had previously

UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS' BEHAVIOUR: CAN PERCEIVED RISK THEORY HELP?

been unaware. Information acquisition then does not automatically equate with risk reduction. Recent research has indicated the presence of two general types of uncertainty; knowledge uncertainty'(uncertainty regarding information about alternatives) and choice uncertainty (uncertainty about which alternative to choose) [15]. Although these uncertainties were first thought to exist back in 1967[16], their effect on search behaviour had remained unstudied until recently. Choice uncertainty appears to increase search, while knowledge uncertainty has a weaker negative effect[15].

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

Evaluation of Alternatives

This stage is essentially concerned with how the consumer chooses between alternative products and brands. The first concept is that buyers see products as bundles of attributes, e.g. a hi-fi system is seen in terms of; sound quality, number of speakers, style, reliability, warranty, price, etc. Different consumers are likely to require different attributes depending on their needs. This is the first source of uncertainty. Which criteria or attributes should consumers use to judge products? They may be uncertain about which ones to use, and may even have been totally ignorant of some attributes until information search had made them aware of their existence. This leads on to the suggestion that consumers attach importance weights to the attributes they have chosen. This is the second source of uncertainty. The consumer is unsure how important the possession of each attribute is, e.g. very high quality speakers versus a twin tape deck. How important is it to me that I have a graphic equalizer? Assigning importance weights to attributes is therefore not something which even the most rational and informed of consumers can be certain about. This is especially so for new or infrequent purchases. Cox[16] has suggested that each information "cue", such as an attribute, has a predictive value. This predictive value is-defined as how well the attribute will predict the future performance of the product. The consumer, however, can never be sure about the usefulness of these predictive values, for example, will a warranty help to predict future performance of a product better than a brand name?

The Purchase Decision

The evaluation of alternative brands will have led the consumer to form preferences for brands in the choice set. In most circumstances, the highest preference, according to the theory of perceived risk, will be associated with the brand which has least perceived risk. The actual purchase of the item may be subject to various unanticipated situational factors such as temporary cashflow problems, time availability, stock levels, etc. If the item cannot be purchased there may be a substantial risk involved. If the least risky brand is not available, the penalty for non-purchase must be weighed against the risks of purchasing a brand which has more risk.

29

The consumer who decides to execute a purchase intention will be making several more purchase subdecisions. For example, in the purchase of a hi-fi, the brand-attribute decision is only one decision. Others are; which dealer or store to purchase from, the number of the items required, as well as when to buy and how to pay? For different products these decisions will carry different importances and risks. For examples, the store from which the hi-fi is to be purchased may have a good reputation for after-sales service; it may also have a reputation for being the store to which many opinion leaders go for electrical goods. Toriskchoosing another store, from which to buy the same brand, may be unacceptable. Consider the purchase of milk in a supermarket; not usually a particularly risky item to purchase, but how much will you need? In order to save time and money an accurate assessment of the weekly demand is essential. How many pints will be used in the following week? The risks of getting it wrong could result in considerable inconvenience, as well as psycho-social loss. The consumer may be disappointed at not being capable of accurately estimating demand and suffer criticism from the family who will complain if the milk runs out, in addition to the cost of an additional trip to the supermarket.

The exact timing of a purchase may be crucial □ The exact timing of a purchase may be crucial. The hi-fi may be a birthday gift and the psycho-social risk of not purchasing it may be enormous, even to the extent of overriding most, if not all, other considerations. In some cases timing may be used to relieve financial loss by postponing the time of a purchase until the sales. Finally, the hi-fi could be paid for in cash, by easy-terms, by credit-card or even "buy now, pay in six months time". Each of the methods hasrisksattached; theriskof interest payments, the risk of not having the money in six months time. How will the purchaser's spouse, family or friends react to the different purchase methods? In the purchase situation then, the consumer is faced with a number of choices in addition to the brand choice, each of which presents its own risks and problems. Post-purchase Behaviour

The purchase made, the consumer then enters the postpurchase phase. The buyer's satisfaction is a function of the closeness between the buyer's product expectations and the product's perceived performance[17]. If performance

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

30

MANAGEMENT DECISION 30,3

is below expectations then the consumer will be dissatisfied and will suffer the consequences resulting from the mismatch. Because a consumer strives "to establish internal harmony, consistency, or congruity among his opinions, knowledge and values" [18, p. 260], dissatisfied consumers will try to reduce the cognitive dissonance. In reducing this cognitive dissonance the consumer exhibits risk-reducing behaviour. This time the riskreducing strategies are employed not to reduce the uncertainty of the purchase outcome, which is their usual pre-purchase use, but to reduce the consequences of a less than satisfactory purchase. Such strategies include returning the good to the place of sale and demanding a refund or an exchange and acquiring information from formal and informal sources to confirm its high value. The buyer attempts to reduce the internal dissonance of owning a less than satisfactory product. This process is effectively reducing the psychological risk involved in the purchase, i.e., how does the purchase of an unsatisfactory product fit in with my self-perceptions? The consumer may need to reduce the social risk involved by considering how he can justify to his friends/family the buying of an unsatisfactory product? The consumer may change his attitude in order to conform with his behaviour. Festinger[18], and his associates, concentrated on the way in which people reduce perceived risk after decisions are made and have shown that risk reduction is as much a part of post-purchase as pre-purchase behaviour.

Great tact is usually exercised by those whose opinions are sought □ In examining the role of word-of-mouth advertising Arndt[19] observed its use in the reduction of cognitive dissonance. In sum, the research suggested that under certain conditions word-of-mouth is used to reduce the cognitive dissonance following a major purchase decision. In some cases the motive for transmitting information is to be helpful to their friends. In other cases word-of-mouth serves functions of ego-defence or as a means of enhancing the status of the information giver, as well as dissonance reduction. Gemunden[20] agrees that Perceived Risk represents a state of Cognitive Dissonance. It induces a selective search for congruent information, and an active avoiding of potentially dissonant information. Frey[21] who has considerably revised Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance conducted a series of experiments which address this, problem. He could show that, in nonreversible decisions which have high perceived risk, subjects searched for more consonant and less dissonant information[21, pp. 18-240]. At this post-purchase stage one might expect the consumer to be much more sensitive

to the opinions of family, and friends. Recognizing this sensitivity, great tact is usually exercised by those whose opinions are sought. In extreme cases of dissatisfaction the purchaser may attempt to alter the facts of the purchase scenario, most typically by reducing the proposed price paid for the goods. In others, where a purchase has resulted in complete dissatisfaction and return of the goods is not possible, the strategy may be to hide the goods away in an attempt to forget about the purchase event.

Conclusion Recent evidence from consumer product markets indicates that perceived risk can be a powerful influence on consumers' behaviour and as such managers, particularly marketing managers, ignore it at their peril. Perceived risk influences every stage of the consumer decision-making process and the challenge is for marketers to use this knowledge to gain a competitive advantage.

References 1. Mitchell, V.W. and Greatorex M., "Consumer Perceived Risk in the UK Food Market", British Food Journal, Vol. 92 No. 2, 1990, pp. 16-22. 2. Abbot, H., Managing Product Recall, Pitman, London, 1991. 3. Bauer, R.A., ' 'Consumer Behaviour as Risk Taking'', in Hancock, R.S. (Ed.), "Dynamic Marketing for a Changing World", Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the American Marketing Association, 1960, pp. 389-98. 4. Cunningham, S.M., "The Major Dimensions of Perceived Risk" in Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Boston Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University Press, 1967, pp. 82-108. 5. Peter, J.P. and Ryan, M.J., "An Investigation of Perceived Risk at the Brand Level'', Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 13, 1976, pp. 184-88. 6. Cox, D.F., "Introduction" in Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Boston Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1967, pp. 1-20. 7. Perry, M. and Hamm, B.C., "Canonical Analysis of Relations between Socioeconomic Risk and Personal Influence in Purchase Decisions", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 6, 1969, pp. 351-54. 8. Roselius, T., "Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, January 1971, pp. 56-61. 9. Garner, S.J., "Perceived Risk and Information Sources in Services Purchasing", The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, Winter, 1986, pp. 5-15. 10. Assael, M., Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action, Kent Publishing Co., Boston, MA, 1981, p. 80.

UNDERSTANDING CONSUMERS' BEHAVIOUR: CAN PERCEIVED RISK THEORY

11. Howard, J.A. and Sheth, J.N., The Theory of Buyer Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1969. 12. Nicosia, F.M., Consumer Decision Processes, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1966.

31

17. La Barbera P., and Mazursky, D., "A Longitudinal Assessment of Consumer Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction: The Dynamic Aspect of the Cognitive Process", Journal of Marketing Research, November, 1983, pp. 393-404.

13. Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Kollat, P.M., "Consumer Behaviour" (3rd ed.), Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1978.

18. Festinger, L., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1957.

14. Cox, D.F., ' 'Risk Handling in Consumer Behaviour — An Intensive Study of Two Cases", Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 1967, pp. 34-81.

19. Arndt, J., "Perceived Risk, Sociometric Integration and Word of Mouth in the Adoption of a New Food Product'', in Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 1967, pp. 289-316.

15. Urbany, J., Dickinson P.R. and Wilkie, W.L., "Buyer Uncertainty & Information Search", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, September 1989, pp. 208-15. Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

HELP

16. Cox, D.F., "The Influence of Cognitive Needs and Styles on Information Handling in Making Product Evaluations" in Cox, D.F. (Ed.), Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behaviour, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, Boston, MA, 1967, pp. 370-93.

20. Gemunden, H.G., "Perceived Risk and Information Search: A Systematic Meta-analysis of Empirical Evidence", International Journal of Research An Marketing, Vol. 2, 1985, pp. 79-100. 21. Frey, D., "Informationssuche und Informtionsbe — weitung bei Entscheidungen", Muber, Bern, Stuttgart and Wein, 1981.

V-W. Mitchell is Lecturer in Marketing at Manchester School of Management, UK.

Application Questions

(1) (2) (3)

What kind of risks do you think your customers perceive when purchasing the products or services your company offers? How could you communicate with your customers more effectively to enhance their perceptions of the risk which are more favourable to your, product/service than to those of the competition? If you have a personal salesforce, how worthwhile do you think it might be for them to know about the theory of perceived risk to enable them to better understand your customers? What advantages might accrue from this?

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

This article has been cited by: 1. Thamer Baazeem, Gary Mortimer, Larry Neale. 2016. Conceptualising the relationship between shopper religiosity, perceived risk and the role of moral potency. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 15:5, 440-448. [CrossRef] 2. Yu-Shan Chen, Stanley Y.J. Huang. 2016. The effect of task-technology fit on purchase intention: The moderating role of perceived risks. Journal of Risk Research 1-21. [CrossRef] 3. Jiuchang Wei, Ming Zhao, Fei Wang, Dingtao Zhao. 2016. The effects of firm actions on customers’ responses to product recall crises: analyzing an automobile recall in China. Journal of Risk Research 19:4, 425-443. [CrossRef] 4. JiménezNadia Nadia Jiménez Nadia Jiménez, PhD. Lecturer and Researcher in Marketing at the University of Burgos (Spain). Her current research areas include international marketing, relationship marketing, consumer behaviour and electronic commerce. She has written a book, several book chapters and has published in national and international journals such as the International Business Review, Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, International Journal of Business and Management and Electronic Markets. San-MartinSonia Sonia San-Martin Sonia San-Martín, PhD, is a Lecturer and Researcher in Marketing at the University of Burgos (Spain). Her current research areas include contractual approach and marketing, relationship marketing, consumer behaviour and electronic commerce. She has written a book, several book chapters and has published in national and international journals such as International Business Review, Journal of Services Marketing, Online Information Review, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Psychology & Marketing, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Cyberpsychology and Behaviour and Personnel Review. Coordinación Académica Región Altiplano, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, Mexico Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Burgos, Burgos Spain . 2016. The central role of the reputation of country-of-origin firms in developing markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:3, 349-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 5. Jiuchang Wei, Ming Zhao, Fei Wang, Peng Cheng, Dingtao Zhao. 2016. An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions. Risk Analysis 36:1, 114-129. [CrossRef] 6. Dah-Kwei Liou Department of Finance, Chihlee Institute of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan Li-Chun Hsu DaYeh University, Dacun, Taiwan Wen-Hai Chih Department of Business Administration, National Dong Hwa University, Shoufeng, Taiwan . 2015. Understanding broadband television users’ continuance intention to use. Industrial Management & Data Systems 115:2, 210-234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 7. Jayanthi K, G. Rajendran. 2014. Examining Variety Seeking Behavior–A Study With Reference to Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). Journal of Food Products Marketing 20:3, 283-307. [CrossRef] 8. Ching-Hsun Chang, Yu-Shan Chen. 2014. Managing green brand equity: the perspective of perceived risk theory. Quality & Quantity 48:3, 1753-1768. [CrossRef] 9. Bruce C. Y. Lee. 2014. Critical decisions in new product launch: pricing and advertising strategies on consumer adoption of green product innovation. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 22:1, 16-32. [CrossRef] 10. Melanie Bruce, Stephen Kelly. 2013. Expectations, Identity and Affordability: The Housing Dreams of Australia’s Generation Y. Housing, Theory and Society 30:4, 416-432. [CrossRef] 11. Yu‐Shan ChenDepartment of Business Administration, National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan Ching‐Hsun ChangDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2013. Towards green trust. Management Decision 51:1, 63-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 12. Bruce C.Y. Lee. 2012. The determinant of consumer adoption of product innovation: a multi-component measure and its antecedents. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 20:2, 295-307. [CrossRef] 13. Lily Shui-Lien Chen, Yung-Hsin Lee, Shih-Tse Wang. 2012. Impact of intangibility on perceived risk associated with online games. Behaviour & Information Technology 31:10, 1021-1032. [CrossRef] 14. Adri Labuschagne, Sonna van Zyl, Daleen van der Merwe, Annamarie Kruger. 2012. Consumers' expectations of furniture labels during their pre-purchase information search: an explication of proposed furniture labelling specifications. International Journal of Consumer Studies 36:4, 451-459. [CrossRef] 15. Yu‐Shan ChenDepartment of Business Administration, National Taipei University, New Taipei City, Taiwan Ching‐Hsun ChangDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2012. Enhance green purchase intentions. Management Decision 50:3, 502-520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 16. Bruce C.Y. LeeFinance and International Business Department, Fu Jen Catholic University, Hsin Chuang, Taiwan. 2012. The determinants of consumer attitude toward service innovation – the evidence of ETC system in Taiwan. Journal of Services Marketing 26:1, 9-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 17. Lawrence F. Cunningham, James Gerlach, Michael D. Harper, Deborah L. Kellogg. 2011. Perceived Risk for Multiple Services in the Consumer Buying Cycle. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector 1:4, 33-49. [CrossRef] 18. James J.H. Liou. 2011. Consumer attitudes toward in-flight shopping. Journal of Air Transport Management 17:4, 221-223. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

19. Erwin RauschYi‐Chun HuangDepartment of Business Administration, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Yen‐Chun Jim WuDepartment of Business Management, National Sun Yat‐Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Yu‐Chun WangDepartment of Applied Foreign Languages, National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences, Kaohsiung, Taiwan Nolan Christopher BoulangerDepartment of Business Management, National Sun Yat‐Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2011. Decision making in online auctions. Management Decision 49:5, 784-800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 20. Long‐Yi LinAssistant Professor, Graduate School of Management Sciences, Aletheia University, Taipei, Taiwan Yeun‐Wen ChenGeneral Manager, Olé Travel Service Co. Ltd, Taipei, Taiwan. 2009. A study on the influence of purchase intentions on repurchase decisions: the moderating effects of reference groups and perceived risks. Tourism Review 64:3, 28-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 21. Hung-Chang Chiu, Yi-Ching Hsieh, Mei-Chien Wang. 2008. How to Encourage Customers to Use Legal Software. Journal of Business Ethics 80:3, 583-595. [CrossRef] 22. Hui-Ying Hsu, Wan-Yu Chen, Calvin S. Weng, Shang-Ping LinRisk-reduction strategies for internet shopping of search goods and experience goods 1052-1059. [CrossRef] 23. Lloyd C. HarrisWarwick Business School, The University of Warwick, Coventry, UK Chris EzehCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 2008. Servicescape and loyalty intentions: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing 42:3/4, 390-422. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 24. Heiko Gewald, Tom Gellrich. 2007. The impact of perceived risk on the capital market’s reaction to outsourcing announcements. Information Technology and Management 8:4, 279-296. [CrossRef] 25. B.C.Y. Lee. 2007. Consumer attitude toward virtual stores and its correlates. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14:3, 182-191. [CrossRef] 26. Haixia GaoResearch on components of consumer perceived risk 334-335. [CrossRef] 27. Susan A. HornibrookKent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK Mary McCarthyDepartment of Food Business and Development, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Andrew FearneCentre for Food Chain Research, Imperial College at Wye, Ashford, Kent, UK. 2005. Consumers' perception of risk: the case of beef purchases in Irish supermarkets. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 33:10, 701-715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 28. Lawrence F. Cunningham, James H. Gerlach, Michael D. Harper, Clifford E. Young. 2005. Perceived risk and the consumer buying process: internet airline reservations. International Journal of Service Industry Management 16:4, 357-372. [CrossRef] 29. David KuhlmeierDepartment of Marketing and International Business, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA Gary KnightDepartment of Marketing and International Business, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 2005. Antecedents to internet‐based purchasing: a multinational study. International Marketing Review 22:4, 460-473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 30. Jen‐Hung HuangNational Chiao Tung University, Department of Management Science, Hsinchu, Taiwan Bruce C.Y. LeeDepartment of Management Science and Department of International Trade, National Chiao Tung University, Ta‐Hwa Institute of Technology, Hsinchu, Taiwan Shu Hsun HoHsuan Chuang University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 2004. Consumer attitude toward gray market goods. International Marketing Review 21:6, 598-614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 31. Amit K. GhoshJames J. Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Goutam ChakrabortyCollege of Business Administration, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. 2004. Using positioning models to measure and manage brand uncertainty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 13:5, 294-302. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 32. Khai Sheang Lee, Soo Jiuan Tan. 2003. E-retailing versus physical retailing. Journal of Business Research 56:11, 877-885. [CrossRef] 33. Sandra M Forsythe, Bo Shi. 2003. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. Journal of Business Research 56:11, 867-875. [CrossRef] 34. Benjamin TanAssistant Professor, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Business School, Singapore. 2002. Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated software. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19:2, 96-111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 35. Soo Jiuan TanAssistant Professor, Marketing Department, Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 1999. Strategies for reducing consumers’ risk aversion in Internet shopping. Journal of Consumer Marketing 16:2, 163-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 36. Philippa WardLecturer, Department of Business and Finance, Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham, UK Fiona SturrockResearch Assistant, Department of Retailing and Marketing, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK. 1998. “She knows what she wants…”: towards a female consumption risk‐reducing strategy framework. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 16:5, 327-336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] 37. Arjun Chaudhuri. 1998. Product class effects on perceived risk: The role of emotion. International Journal of Research in Marketing 15:2, 157-168. [CrossRef]

38. Amit K. GhoshAssistant Professor of Marketing at Cleveland State University, James J. Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. Goutam ChakrabortyAssistant Professor at Oklahoma State University, College of Business Administration, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA. Debra Bunch GhoshVisiting Instructor at Cleveland State University, James J. Nance College of Business Administration, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.. 1995. Improving brand performance by altering consumers′ brand uncertainty. Journal of Product & Brand Management 4:5, 14-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Downloaded by City, University of London At 00:20 04 January 2017 (PT)

39. Lawrence F. Cunningham, James Gerlach, Michael D. Harper, Deborah L. KelloggPerceived Risk for Multiple Services in the Consumer Buying Cycle 309-323. [CrossRef]

Suggest Documents