CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 210Consumer Retail Behavior StudiesConsumer Behavior and Marketing InfluenceTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour

Consumers online: intentions, orientations and segmentation

Open access
Jayawardhena, Chanaka, Tiu Wright, Len, Dennis, Charles·2007·International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
DOI 10.1108/09590550710750377
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the purchase intentions of online retail consumers, segmented by their purchase orientation. Design/methodology/approach: An e‐mail/web survey was addressed to a consumer panel concerning their online shopping experiences and motivations,n=396. Findings: It is empirically shown that consumer purchase orientations have no significant effect on their propensity to shop online. This contradicts the pervasive view that internet consumers are principally motivated by convenience. It was found that aspects that do have a significant effect on purchase intention are prior purchase and gender. Research limitations/implications: There are two limitations. First, the sample contained only UK internet users, thus generalisations about the entire population of internet users may be questionable. Second, in our measurement of purchase intentions, we did not measure purchase intent per se. Practical implications: These findings indicate that consumer purchase orientations in both the traditional world and on the internet are largely similar. Therefore, both academics and businesses are advised to treat the internet as an extension to existing traditional activities brought about by advances in technology, i.e. the multi‐channel approach. Originality/value: The paper adds to the understanding of the purchase orientations of different clusters of e‐consumers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/09590550710750377

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jayawardhena, C., Tiu Wright, L., & Dennis, C.
Affiliations
  • Loughborough University (GB)
  • Brunel University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2007-05-22
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
515-526
ISSN
0959-0552 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1108/09590550710750377
OpenAlex
W2101858533
Cited by
210
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
18.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management (publishedVersion)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Retail Behavior Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior and Marketing Influence
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
Keywords
online shopping, purchase intention, customer segmentation, online consumers, online retail, convenience motivation, gender differences, multichannel retailing

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