CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127E-commerce and Technology InnovationsTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

To sell or not to sell: exploring sellers’ trust and risk of chargeback fraud in cross-border electronic commerce.

Open access
Guo, Yue, Bao, Yongchuan, Stuart, Barnes J., Le‐Nguyen, Khuong·2018·Information Systems Journal
DOI 10.1111/isj.12144
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Over the past few decades, chargeback fraud from buyers has been identified as a major risk faced by online sellers, particularly small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises, in cross‐border electronic commerce. However, most previous studies have focused on trust and perceived risk from the buyers' perspective and in domestic online marketplaces, while neglecting the importance of sellers' trust and perceived risk in the success of online transactions and the significance of cross‐border transactions. To fill this gap in the literature, this study examines both the antecedents and the impacts of sellers' trust in buyers and their perceived risk of chargeback fraud on sellers' intention to trade with buyers in the context of cross‐border e‐commerce. To this end, we develop a conceptual model that identifies a set of institutional mechanisms to enhance sellers' trust and reduce their perceived risk. Hypotheses are tested via a survey of 443 sellers on DHgate.com , one of the major cross‐border e‐commerce websites connecting the small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises of mainland China with overseas buyers. Our research makes concrete contributions to e‐commerce research and generates useful insights for third‐party online transaction platforms and online trade policy makers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/isj.12144

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cross-border transactional processes usually involve delivery risks and crossing language barriers, which may increase consumers' perceived risks and uncertainties and deter consumers from taking full advantage of cross-border e-commerce.

    “For instance, the transactional processes usually involve delivery risks and crossing language barriers, which may increase consumers’ perceived risks and uncertainties and deter consumers from taking full advantage of cross-border e-commerce (Koh et al., 2012; Guo et al., 2018).”

    From How Live Streaming Features Impact Consumers’ Purchase Intention in the Context of Cross-Border E-Commerce? A Research Based on SOR Theory (2021) · cites this paper as Guo et al., 2018

    The Introduction and Literature Review describe language barriers and delivery risks in cross-border commerce. The Literature Review also says buyers’ perceived risks can inhibit purchase intentions in e-commerce generally, but it does not establish that those cross-border barriers increase consumers’ perceived risk or deter them from using cross-border e-commerce. The paper’s discussion of cross-border delivery risk focuses chiefly on sellers. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Houser, D., and Wooders, J. (2006) Reputation in internet auctions: theory and evidence from eBay, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 15(2), 353-369.
  2. Mackie, G. (2001). Patterns of trust in western Europe and their genesis, In: Trust in Society, Cook, K.S. (eds.), pp. 245-281.
  3. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA
  4. Spence, M.A. (1974). Market Signaling. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Guo, Y., Bao, Y., Stuart, B. J., & Le‐Nguyen, K.
Affiliations
  • Hohai University (CN)
  • University of Alabama in Huntsville (US)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Kent State University (US)
Corresponding author
Guo, Yue
ORCID
Venue
Information Systems Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
359-383
ISSN
  • 1350-1917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2575
DOI
10.1111/isj.12144
OpenAlex
W2612758197
Cited by
127
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 2
FWCI
20.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Information Systems Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2014B18914)
  • Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education in China (16YJC630028)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Business and International Management › E-commerce and Technology Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
seller trust, risk perception, cross-border e-commerce, online marketplaces, small and medium-sized enterprises, institutional mechanisms, trade policy

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