The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis
Abstract
Purpose: To empirically investigate whether consumers who have adopted online grocery buying perceive this way of shopping differently from other online consumers. Design/methodology/approach: The data presented in this study were collected from an online (web‐based) survey of US consumers using self‐administered questionnaires. Data from 784 US online consumers are analyzed. Findings: Multiple discriminant results suggest that online grocery shopping adopters attach higher compatibility, higher relative advantage, more positive social norms, and lower complexity to internet grocery shopping both compared with consumers who have never bought anything on the internet yet and also compared with consumers who have purchased goods/services on the internet but not groceries. The results also suggest that online grocery shopping adopters have higher household incomes than non‐adopters. Research limitations/implications: This research used a single respondent as a household representative. Since grocery buying concerns the entire household, this procedure assumes that the selected respondent provides answers which are representative of the household's opinion. Practical implications: Provides practical advice to online retail managers on how to attract different consumer online grocery segments. Originality/value: This paper investigates both experienced and inexperienced online grocery consumers. Thereby the paper adds to the understanding on how different groups of online consumers perceive characteristics of the online grocery channel.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping
Forsythe, S. M., & Shi, B. (2003) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/s0148-2963(01)00273-9 · Cited by 1,433
Cited by
Adopting sustainable innovation: what makes consumers sign up to green electricity?
Ozaki, R. (2011) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.650 · Cited by 422
Re-examining online customer experience to include purchase frequency and perceived risk
Martin, J., Mortimer, G., & Andrews, L. (2015) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.03.008 · Cited by 321
Online grocery shopping: the influence of situational factors
Hand, C., Dall'Olmo Riley, F., Harris, P., Singh, J., & Rettie, R. (2009) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090560910976447 · Cited by 257
Celik, H. (2016) · Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics · doi:10.1108/apjml-05-2015-0077 · Cited by 209
Perceived freshness and the intention to repurchase fresh food products online
Ferreira, D., Barbosa, B., & Sousa, A. (2026) · EuroMed Journal of Business · doi:10.1108/emjb-11-2024-0289 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Hansen, T.
- Venue
- International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2005-02-01
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-121
- ISSN
- 0959-0552 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029320228
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1108/09590550510581449
- The paper
- Hansen, T. (2005). Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581449
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.