CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 452Technology Adoption and User BehaviourCustomer Service Quality and LoyaltyPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 70 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Online Trust Building Factors between Potential Customers and Repeat Customers

National University of Singapore, Singapore, Kim, Hee-Woong, Xu, Yunjie, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Koh, Joon, Samsung Electronics·2004·Journal of the Association for Information Systems
DOI 10.17705/1jais.00056
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

While vendors on the Internet may have enjoyed an increase in the number of clicks on their Web sites, they have also faced disappointments in converting these clicks into purchases. Lack of trust is identified as one of the greatest barriers inhibiting Internet transactions. Thus, it is essential to understand how trust is created and how it evolves in the Electronic Commerce (EC) context throughout a customer's purchase experience with an Internet store. As the first step in studying the dynamics of online trust building, this research aims to compare online trust-building factors between potential customers and repeat customers. For this purpose, we classify trust in an Internet store into potential customer trust and repeat customer trust, depending on the customer's purchase experience with the store. We find that trust building differs between potential customers and repeat customers in terms of antecedents. We also compare the effects of shared antecedents on trust between potential customers and repeat customers. We find that customer satisfaction has a stronger effect on trust building for repeat customers than other antecedents. We discuss the theoretical reasons for the differences and the implications of our research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17705/1jais.00056

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 70 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 452

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
National University of Singapore, S., Kim, H.-W., Xu, Y., National University of Singapore, S., Koh, J., & Electronics, S.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Koh, Joon
ORCID
Venue
Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Publisher
Association for Information Systems
Published
2004-10
Volume
5
Issue
10
Pages
392-420
ISSN
1536-9323 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.17705/1jais.00056
OpenAlex
W2293834668
Cited by
452
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 18
FWCI
16.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
e-commerce, potential customers, repeat customers, customer satisfaction, antecedents of trust, online store, online purchase decision

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