Online shopping and moderatingrole of offline brand trust

Soyoung Kim and Christie JonesDepartment of Textiles, Merchandising and Interiors,

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine how offline brand trust moderates: therelationship between consumers’ general attitude toward the internet and their perceptions ofthe quality of a retailer’s web site and the relationship between their perceived web site quality andintention to shop from the web site.

Design/methodology/approach – Two hundred young female consumers participate in the study.Each selected one of three pre-determined apparel retailer brands that she has either had experiencewith or are familiar with. Participants are then asked to keep their selected retailer in mind whencompleting an online questionnaire. They are also asked to browse the retailer’s web site in search of ashirt or blouse. Factor and multiple-regression analyses are conducted to test hypotheses.

Findings – Offline brand trust exerted a significant moderating effect in the relationship between theefficiency factor of attitude toward the internet and the usability and information quality factor of website quality. Offline brand trust also played a moderating role in the relationship between theinteractivity factor of web site quality and online shopping intention. Implications for multi-channelapparel retailers are discussed.

Originality/value – While a great deal of research has been conducted to study brand trust, mosthas focused on product brands not on retail brands. Furthermore, none of the studies on brand trusthas questioned nor investigated the moderating role of retail brand trust in the relationship betweenconsumer characteristics and their attitudes and behaviors toward the company’s new businessformat. This paper seeks to contribute to the extant literature on brand trust and multi-channelretailing by exploring the role of offline brand trust in shopping at a multi-channel retailer’s web site.

Keywords Internet shopping, Consumer behaviour, Trust, Brand loyalty

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionA brand is “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design (or a combination) intended toidentify a seller’s goods or services, and to differentiate them from competitors”(Lau and Lee, 1999, p. 344). Brand, however, encompasses more than a consumer’s ideaof the seller’s products; it also incorporates the seller’s company image and philosophyalong with their products. While most researchers studying the role of brand trust havefocused on product brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester, 2004;Wang, 2002), brand trust can also be established with regard to the retailersthemselves (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004; Hahn and Kim, 2009; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000).With the growing competitiveness in the retail market retailers find that managingbrand images effectively is becoming more important, as it helps them differentiatetheir offerings from competing retailers and also helps build a loyal customer base(Ailawadi and Keller, 2004). Compared to product brands, retailer brands are morecomplex and multi-sensory in nature as they rely on customers’ experiences with notonly the retailers’ products but also their services, product assortment, pricing, andstore environment (Ailawadi and Keller, 2004; Chen and He, 2003). The current study

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-5933.htm

DMIJ3,4

282

Direct Marketing: An InternationalJournalVol. 3 No. 4, 2009pp. 282-300q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1750-5933DOI 10.1108/17505930911000874

examined the role of a consumer’s trust in a retailer brand by testing hypothesesdeveloped based on the brand trust and the retailing literature.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that brand trust is an underlying factorcontributing to brand commitment, purchase intention, loyalty, and brand extensionacceptance (Berry, 1995; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Delgado-Ballester, 2004;Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003; Lau and Lee, 1999; Rios and Riquelme, 2008; Wang, 2002).Researchers have recently begun to explore brand trust on the internet (Ha, 2004;Hahn and Kim, 2009; Harris and Goode, 2004) realizing the importance of brand trust ininternet companies’ marketing strategies, given the inherent uncertainty and decreasingproduct differentiation in the internet business environment (Ha, 2004). Brand trust mayplay a more critical role in online businesses than brick-and-mortar stores because onlinebusinesses are essentially intangible and their consumers cannot use physical andtangible features to infer trust (Rios and Riquelme, 2008). Although previous studies(Flavian et al., 2006; Gefen et al., 2003; Gommans et al., 2001; Harris and Goode, 2004)have supported the link between brand trust and brand loyalty or commitment for onlinecompanies most of these studies have not considered the multi-channel business settingand measured brand trust as trust in the online business rather than trust in thecompany based on customer experiences with their brick-and-mortar stores (Rios andRiquelme, 2008). Shankar et al. (2002) suggest that the investigation of trust formulti-channel organizations should consider how that trust transfers across channels.The current study, therefore, takes a distinct approach in that it examines how aconsumer’s trust in retailers who have established themselves through theirbrick-and-mortar business influence the consumer’s perception of and behavioralintention toward the retailer’s online business.

Additionally, most empirical work to date in brand trust has also been directedtoward understanding the role of brand trust as a direct or indirect determinant ofother attitudinal and behavioral variables (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera-Aleman,2001; Hahn and Kim, 2009; Wang, 2002). Absent from the current literature is adiscussion of the moderating role of brand trust. The purpose of this study was toexamine how brand trust moderates:

. The relationship between consumers’ general attitude toward the internet andtheir perceptions of the quality of the retailer’s web site.

. The relationship between their perceived web site quality and intention to shopfrom the web site.

Literature reviewBrand trustBrand trust is defined as confident expectations of the brand’s reliability and intentions(Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001; Lau and Lee, 1999) and is considered to be a centralingredient contributing to a long-term bond between the consumer and the brand(Hiscock, 2001). It is also viewed as a major component of brand equity (Bainbridge,1997) and central to the development of brand loyalty (Berry, 1995; Wang, 2002).

Lau and Lee (1999) argued that brand trust is determined by several brandcharacteristics such as brand reputation and brand predictability. Brand reputation,defined as the opinion commonly held by other consumers that the brand is good orreliable, is developed through product quality and performance as well as throughadvertising and public relations. Lau and Lee (1999) further argued that if a brand

Offline brandtrust

283

meets a consumer’s minimum expectations a good reputation then reinforces theconsumer’s trust in that brand; if a brand does not have a good reputation theconsumer will become more suspicious of the brand and more critical to any flaws theymay find in the brand.

Another brand characteristic known to significantly correlate with brand trust isbrand predictability. Brand predictability is the degree to which a consumer canaccurately anticipate a consistent level of product quality or service (Vanhonacker,2007). Predictability is determined through repeated experiences with a brand orproduct and it enhances a consumer’s trust in the brand because predictability leads toconsistently positive expectations (Lau and Lee, 1999; Vanhonacker, 2007).

In Lau and Lee’s (1999) study brand reputation and brand predictability were bothfound to be highly significantly correlated with overall trust in a brand. While Lau andLee (1999) considered both brand characteristics to be antecedents to brand trust, webelieve that the two variables are actually an integral part of brand trust in that theyboth reflect consumers’ perceptions of a brand’s reliability. Brand reputation appearsto be based on others’ opinions while brand predictability seems to be based on one’sown experiences. Therefore, we treated brand reputation and brand predictability asmajor factors comprising overall brand trust rather than as antecedents to brand trust.

Numerous studies have indicated direct and indirect impacts of brand trust onattitudinal and behavioral intentions such as future purchases, brand loyalty, andbrand extension acceptance (Berry, 1995; Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001;Delgado-Ballester, 2004; Delgado-Ballester et al., 2003; Lau and Lee, 1999; Wang,2002). For example, using a legal advice web site, McKnight et al. (2002) examinedwhether trust in the business encourages consumers to take specific actions on the website. They found that trust in the business was positively related to intention to followlegal advice from the site, intention to share personal information with the site, andintention to purchase from the site. This study, however, focused on the consumer’sinitial trust, that is, trust in an unfamiliar online business, with whom the consumerhad no prior experience. McKnight et al. (2002) also observed that initial trust in thatparticular unfamiliar business was created by the consumers’ perceptions of thatcompany’s reputation and the quality of its web site. Other researchers (McWilliam,1993; Reast, 2005) have found that consumers are willing to try brand extensions whenthe brands are highly trusted, at which times brand trust compensates for the lack ofknowledge about the new products. In the context of multi-channel retailing theconsumer’s trust in the retail brand may well influence his or her acceptance ofthe retailer’s offerings at a new business channel such as the internet. In otherwords, the trust consumers have built from their experiences with the retailer’sbrick-and-mortar store may directly translate into confidence in shopping for the brandat the company’s online storefront (Hahn and Kim, 2009; Kwon and Lennon, 2009).Using college students as subjects, Hahn and Kim (2009) found that consumers’ trust inan offline apparel store significantly predicted both their confidence in shopping at thecompany’s online store and their willingness to purchase from that site. Another recentstudy by Kwon and Lennon (2009) observed that prior offline brand image exerted notonly direct effects on online brand loyalty intention but also indirect effects onperceived risk associated with purchasing from the retailer’s web site. Based on thesefindings, we predicted that a consumer’s offline trust (trust in a retail brand, builtbased on previous experience with the retailer’s brick-and-mortar store) will be critical

DMIJ3,4

284

not only in encouraging the consumer to shop at the retailer’s web site but also ininfluencing them to view its web site favorably. Accordingly, it is hypothesized that:

H1. Consumers’ offline brand trust will positively influence their perceptions ofthe quality of the retailer’s web site.

H2. Consumers’ offline brand trust will positively influence their intentions toshop from the retailer’s web site.

Trust is central to determining relationship quality, given that trust mitigatessome of the perceived risks associated with the relationship (Wang, 2002). In theconsumer-brand relationship, consumers’ perceptions of risks associated withpurchasing the brand will decrease as they perceive the brand more reputable,reliable, and predictable. In the context of shopping at a retailer’s web site, offlinebrand trust may even mitigate some of the negative perceptions a consumer may haveabout the general idea of shopping online (Hahn and Kim, 2009; Kwon and Lennon,2009) so as to lessen the impact negative attitude toward the internet has on perceivedquality of the retailer’s web site. In a similar manner prior offline brand trust may alsoreduce the impact of a consumer’s negative perception of the retailer’s web site on hisor her intention to shop from the site, leading to our next two hypotheses, stated asfollows:

H3. Offline brand trust moderates the relationship between attitude toward theinternet and perceived web site quality.

H4. Offline brand trust moderates the relationship between perceived web sitequality and shopping intention.

Attitude toward the internetAttitude toward the internet tends to improve as users become more experienced withboth computers and the internet (Corbitt et al., 2004; Durndell and Haag, 2002; Liaw,2002). As technology advancement stimulates the increasing adoption and utilizationof computers and the internet, the number of internet users is growing and manypeople are also spending more time on the internet (Hoffman et al., 2004; Shih, 2004).Computer hardware and software prices have dropped as technology improves, andcompetition among internet service providers has also pushed down the cost of internetaccess. These factors have made internet access available to a wider range of economicclasses. Furthermore, higher network speeds allow for faster connections and relievethe frustration of waiting for web pages to download. Forrester Research estimatedthat more than 50 percent of US households that have access to the internet now usebroadband connections (Mulpuru et al., 2007). Additionally, cellular phone technologynow allows consumers to access to the internet even while away from their computers.

Studies on computer proficiency and internet usage in non-US countries (Liao andCheung, 2001; Loch et al., 2003; Park and Jun, 2003) reveal that computer proficiency hasincreased not only in the USA but also in countries throughout the world. As a result ofthe increasingly widespread availability of computer technology computer proficiencyis now emphasized at all levels of education in many countries (Liao and Cheung, 2001;Liaw, 2002). It is now obvious that the internet has become a global phenomenon,serving many functions and most especially that of creating a readily availableinternational marketplace (Hoffman et al., 2004; Howard et al., 2001; Shih, 2004).

Offline brandtrust

285

While general access to and proficiency in the usage of the internet have improved,consumers’ attitudes differ greatly due to varying levels of individual skill, priorexperience, risk-tolerance levels, shopping orientations, and demographics (Durndelland Haag, 2002; French and O’Cass, 2001; Jackson et al., 2001; Liaw, 2002). Forexample, Durndell and Haag (2002) found that attitude toward the internet waspositively related to computer self-efficacy and negatively to computer anxiety. Liaw(2002) observed that positive attitude toward the internet was associated with greaterlevels of prior experience with the internet. Attitude toward the internet was also foundto be more positive among male students than female students (Durndell and Haag,2002; Liaw, 2002).

Previous studies also support that attitude toward the internet influences one’s useof the internet for a variety of reasons such as gathering information, communicatingwith others, and online shopping (Goldsmith, 2000; Goldsmith and Goldsmith, 2002;Helander and Khalid, 2000; Jackson et al., 2003; Klobas and Clyde, 2000). For example,in a study of American college students, Goldsmith and Goldsmith observed thatonline apparel buying was motivated by positive attitude toward the internet. In thisstudy, attitude toward the internet incorporated an element of entertainment inaddition to such dimensions as security, ease of use, and usefulness. However, moststudies of attitude toward the internet have focused on the utilitarian aspect of internet(Davis et al., 1989; Liaw, 2002; Shih, 2004). Utilizing the technology acceptance model(TAM) to establish the definition for attitude toward the internet, these studies suggestthat attitude, thus defined, is comprised of perceived ease of use and perceivedusefulness and that it determines an individual’s behavioral intention to use internettechnologies (Liaw, 2002; Shih, 2004; Venkatesh and Davis, 2000).

Although currently no empirical studies exist that investigate the impact of attitudetoward the internet on one’s perception of a particular retail web site, one study (Kimet al., 2003) has supported the relationship between attitude toward online shoppingand a shopper’s perception of a retail web site. For both American and Koreanconsumers, Kim et al. (2003) found that more positive perceptions of online shoppinglead to more favorable perceptions of the quality of a retail web site. While attitudetoward online shopping measures one’s attitude toward only one dimension of theinternet, it may well serve as a good indicator of the person’s attitude toward theinternet. Zeithaml et al. (1999) argue that a person’s propensity to embrace newtechnologies for accomplishing goals may be significantly related to the person’sperception of web site quality. Accordingly, we proposed that those who hold favorableattitudes toward the internet will tend to view a retail web site more favorably:

H5. Consumers who have a more positive attitude toward the internet will have amore positive perception of an apparel brand’s web site.

Web site qualityRecently, a wave of studies (Aladwani and Palvia, 2002; Lee and Kozar, 2006; Lin and Lu,2000; Liu and Arnett, 2000; Kim and Stoel, 2004; Kim et al., 2003; Zhang and von Dran,2000) has been published that focuses on determining quality dimensions of a web site.Uniformly these studies support that web site quality is a multi-dimensional conceptalthough prominent dimensions constituting web site quality vary by the nature of thesite as well as by the product. Kim and Stoel (2004) argue that important dimensions ofweb site quality for soft goods such as apparel may be different from those for hard

DMIJ3,4

286

goods such as electronics, equipments and furniture. Because the ability to see, feel, andtry on the actual product is important to the apparel shopper, apparel is considered ahigh-touch product and accordingly the associated web sites face challenges that maynot exist for those selling standardized products such as books, airline tickets, andcomputer software. In response to such obstacles, many apparel retailers such as Lands’End, H&M, Adidas, Speedo, and L.L. Bean are now using web technology to simulatein-store product experiences either by providing a 3D virtual model to showcase clothingon a customized model or by allowing customers to view garments from various anglesand to zoom into see details more clearly (Kim et al., 2007).

Kim and Stoel (2004), using Loiacono’s WebQuale scale, examined thedimensionality of web site quality specifically for apparel retailers and identified thefollowing six dimensions: web appearance, entertainment, informational fit-to-task,transaction capability, response time, and trust. In this study, Kim and Stoel (2004)asked respondents to rate the online apparel retailer they visited most frequently onvarious aspects of web site quality. Web appearance, a factor that emerged asmost dominant, accounting for 42 percent of the variance, combined three of the12 dimensions of web site quality originally proposed by Loiacono (2000) andaddressed both the visual quality of a web site as well as intuitive and easy navigation.The entertainment dimension, a second web site-quality factor found in Kim andStoel’s (2004) study, addressed a web site’s capability to provide an emotionallysatisfying shopping and social experience as well as to be seen as innovative andinteresting. The informational fit-to-task factor pertained to the quality of theinformation provided at the site, particularly in the context of supporting a customer’stask. The transaction quality factor represented how well a web site supports itsbusiness function. The response time factor related to how quickly the web site loaded.The final factor, trust, measured a shopper’s confidence in the web site’s capability toprocess secure transactions and protect customer privacy (Kim and Stoel, 2004).

Studies have shown that those who have a more favorable perception of a web siteare more likely to have a satisfying experience and ultimately more likely to shop at thesite (Chiu et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2003; Kim and Stoel, 2004; Lin and Lu, 2000; Loiacono,2000; Yang et al., 2005; Zhang and von Dran, 2000). For example, Chiu et al. (2005),using five dimensions of web site quality (connectivity, information quality,interactivity, playfulness, and learning), examined how web site quality affected ashopper’s behavioral intention to shop at and recommend the site. They observed thatthe impacts of specific web site quality dimensions on behavioral intention varied byproducts. For products/services with attributes that potential buyers can determineprior to purchase (e.g. books, clothing, and gifts), Chiu et al. (2005) found all fivedimensions of web site quality to be significant in predicting a customer’s behavioralintention. However, for goods or services with attributes that cannot be known untilpurchase (e.g. travel and hotels), playfulness and learning were not related tobehavioral intention. In Kim and Stoel’s (2004) study of apparel retail web sites, onlythree of the six dimensions of web site quality were significantly related to customersatisfaction. The information quality factor had the strongest impact on customersatisfaction, followed by response time and transaction factors. Therefore, thefollowing hypothesis was developed:

H6. Consumers’ perceived web site quality will be positively related to their onlineshopping intention.

Offline brandtrust

287

MethodMeasurementSixteen questions were used to measure three dimensions of brand trust characteristics:brand reputation (six questions), brand predictability (six questions), and overall brandtrust (four questions). The scale was adapted from Lau and Lee’s (1999) study andmeasured a consumer’s notion of how a brand is known to be (e.g. “This retailer has areputation for being good.”) and how reliable the brand is in terms of quality andperformance (e.g. “This retailer’s apparel performs consistently” and “When I buy apparelfrom this retailer, I know exactly what to expect”) as well as her overall trust (e.g. “I feelI can trust this retailer completely”). Modifications were made to the original scale byreplacing the term “brand” with “retailer.” (e.g. “I trust this brand” was changed to “I trustthis retailer.”) The changes were made to clarify that the questions were referring to aretailer, not just to certain product brands carried by the retailer. Responses weremeasured on a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Factoranalysis confirmed the existence of a single factor and therefore all the items werecombined to form a single measure of brand trust. The Cronbach’s a coefficient was 0.93.

Characteristics regarding attitude toward the internet were measured with acombination of scales. Computer knowledge and level of comfort with technology weremeasured using six items (e.g. “The internet makes me uncomfortable because I don’tunderstand it” and “Life will be easier and faster with the internet”) from the internetattitude scale developed by Durndell and Haag (2002). Although not included in theinternet attitude scale, security concerns have often been treated by many researchersas constituting attitude toward the internet (Chen and Barnes, 2007; Goldsmith andGoldsmith, 2002; Park and Jun, 2003; Teo, 2002). Therefore, we decided to includesecurity concerns in the measure of attitude toward the internet. This dimension wasmeasured using three questions (e.g. “Shopping over the internet would be very risky”and “I would trust online retailers enough to feel safe shopping over the internet”)adapted from Lee and Johnson’s (2002) study. The only changes made to the originalscale included replacing the term “www” with “the internet” throughout the scale andreplacing the word “vendors” to “retailers.” All the responses were based on afive-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree).

Results from exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation indicated thatattitude toward the internet was composed of three factors (Table I). Varimax rotationis the most popular orthogonal rotation method, a method which maximizes thevariance of squared loadings on a factor (Conway and Huffcutt, 2003). This techniquewas chosen because it made interpretation of the results easier than other methods.The first factor included three reverse-coded items that referred to the respondents’level of comfort and feelings of intimidation while using the internet and wasaccordingly named anxiety issues. This factor had a Cronbach’s a value of 0.93,an eigenvalue of 4.27, and the total variance explained of 47.47 percent. The secondfactor was composed of three questions relating to security concerns about shoppingonline and therefore named security. This factor had a Cronbach’s a value of 0.83, aneigenvalue of 1.51, and the total variance explained of 16.72 percent. The remainingthree items were combined to create the third factor. This factor reflected therespondents’ perceived efficiency of the internet, and was thus named efficiency.Factor 3 had a Cronbach’s a value of 0.77 and an eigenvalue of 1.22. This factorexplained 13.56 percent of the total variance.

DMIJ3,4

288

Perceived web site quality was measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ stronglydisagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree) using a shorter version of the WebQuale scale(Loiacono, 2000). Of the original 21-question scale, 16 questions were chosen based onfactor analysis results in Kim and Stoel’s (2004) study of web site quality of apparelretailers. Only those items that in the Kim and Stoel study loaded high on one factorand low on all others were used. Because previous studies (Loiacono, 2000; Kim andStoel, 2004; Kim et al., 2003) both used the WebQuale scale for different samples andalso revealed varying factor structures, we decided to conduct exploratory factoranalysis to examine which structure actually emerged from our data. As shown inTable II, exploratory factor analysis indicated the existence of three distinctdimensions. The first factor included eight items measuring usability and informationquality. This factor had an eigenvalue of 8.50, and explained 53.08 percent of the totalvariance. The Cronbach’s a efficient was 0.94. The second factor included four itemsand was labeled visual appeal and image. The factor had an eigenvalue of 1.84, andexplained 11.48 percent of the total variance. The Cronbach’s a coefficient was 0.88.The third factor included four items measuring interactivity and innovativeness.It showed an eigenvalue of 1.16, and a total variance explained of 7.26 percent.The Cronbach’s a coefficient was 0.86.

Online shopping intention was measured using three items (“I would be willing to buyapparel from this retailer’s web site,” “The likelihood that I would search for apparel on thisretailer’s web site is high,” and “I would be willing to recommend this retailer’s web site tomy friends”) adapted from scales used by Chiang and Dholakia (2003). Modifications weremade to the original scale by replacing the term “product” with “apparel.” This scale wasused as a uni-dimensional scale in previous studies and found reliable (Baker et al., 1992;Chiang and Dholakia, 2003). Responses were measured on a five-point Likert scale(1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The Cronbach’s a was 0.86.

Sample descriptionFemale college students between the ages of 18 and 25 were chosen not only forthe convenience of sampling but also for the fact that young women constitute a majormarket for online apparel shopping (Goldsmith and Goldsmith, 2002; Sullivan andHeitmeyer, 2008). A preliminary study with 28 female college students was used to guide

Factors Factor loadings

Anxiety issuesI feel intimated by the interneta 0.93The internet makes me uncomfortable because I do not understand ita 0.91The internet complexity intimidates mea 0.84SecurityShopping over the internet would be a safe way to shop 0.87I would trust online retailers 0.84Shopping over the internet would be very risky 0.81EfficiencyLife will be easier and faster with the internet 0.86The internet can eliminate a lot of tedious work 0.84The internet is a fast and efficient means of gathering information 0.63

Note: aReverse-coded items

Table I.Factor analysis resultsfor attitude toward the

internet

Offline brandtrust

289

the selection of three apparel retailers that were used in the final survey instrument.The students were asked to name their favorite apparel brands and state whether they hadever visited and/or purchased items from each retailer’s web site. Three retailers, BananaRepublic, Urban Outfitters, and Forever 21, were identified as some of the most popularapparel retail brands among college students and as representing the widest range ofstyles and prices that would appeal to the chosen population. A final survey instrumentwas posted online accompanied by links to these three retailers’ web sites.

Participants in the survey were first asked to select one of the three pre-determinedapparel retailer brands that they have either had experience with or were familiar with.They were then asked to keep their selected retailer in mind while completing thequestionnaire. After responding to questions regarding offline brand trust and attitudetoward the internet, respondents were asked to briefly visit the retailer’s web site,search the web site for a shirt or blouse, select a color and size for the garment, andreview the information provided about the garment. Following this visit to the web site,respondents were asked about their perceptions of different attributes of the web siteand finally instructed to indicate the degree of their willingness to shop from the site.

A total of 616 female students were contacted through classes in a variety ofdisciplines (e.g. education, business, biology, housing, and interior design) and handedout requests to visit the survey web site. One of the researchers visited 11 classes andbriefly explained the survey before distributing a small flyer including the survey website address to each of the students. Of those who received the flyers, 225 participatedin the survey resulting in a 36.53 percent response rate. Twenty-five surveys were thendiscarded due to missing data. The average age of the respondents included in furtheranalyses was 21 and a vast majority (85 percent) was Caucasian. Nearly, half of therespondents (46 percent) selected Forever 21 as the apparel retailer brand with which

FactorsFactor

loadings

Usability and information qualityThe web site labels are easy to understand 0.87The display pages within the web site are easy to read 0.83The information on the web site is effective 0.82It would be easy for me to become skillful at using this web site 0.79I find the web site easy to use 0.79The web site adequately meets my needs 0.77The text on the web site is easy to read 0.67The information on the web site is pretty much what I would need to completemy purchase 0.64Visual appeal and imageThe web site displays a visually pleasing design 0.81The web site is visually appealing 0.81The web site projects an image consistent with the retailer’s image 0.70The web site fits with my image of the retailer 0.67Interactivity and innovativenessI can interact with the web site in order to get information customized to my specific needs 0.82The web site allows me to interact with it to receive customized information 0.79The web site design is innovative 0.74The web site is innovative 0.73

Table II.Factor analysis resultsfor web site quality

DMIJ3,4

290

they had the most experience. Of the remainder 37 percent selected Banana Republicand 17 percent selected Urban Outfitters.

ResultsIn order to testH1 on the relationship between offline brand trust and perceived web sitequality, and H5 on the relationship between attitude toward the internet and perceivedweb site quality, a series of hierarchical regression analyses were performed using eachof the three web site-quality factors as the dependent variable. H3, hypothesizing themoderating role of offline brand trust in the relationship between attitude towardthe internet and perceived web site quality, was tested using an interaction term (offlinebrand trust £ attitude toward the internet). Because attitude toward the internetconsisted of three distinct factors separate analysis was performed on each of thesefactors. Each regression analysis included two models with Model 1 testing for only themain effects and Model 2 testing for the interaction effect. F-tests were used to assessthe significance level of the incremental variance accounted by the interaction effect.The significant amount of the incremental variance indicated the presence of asignificant interaction effect, which suggested a moderating effect of brand trust in therelationship between attitude toward internet and perceived web site quality.

Table III shows the results of three separate regression analyses performed with thefirst factor of web site quality: usability and information quality. Main effects of offlinebrand trust and three factors of attitude toward internet were found significant,suggesting that brand trust and positive attitude toward internet positively influencedperceptions of the usability and information quality of a web site. Significantinteraction effect was only found for the efficiency factor of attitude toward internet;the significant incremental R 2 (F ¼ 8.65(1,196), p , 0.01) indicated that offline brandtrust significantly moderated the effect of efficiency on usability and informationquality. The negative coefficient of the interaction term (b ¼ 20.18) suggested that thepositive effect of efficiency on usability and information quality was stronger with alower level of brand trust.

Dependent R 2 R 2 diff. b F-value

Model 1 0.23 29.20 * *

Trust 0.35 * *

Anxiety 0.28 * *

Model 2 0.23 0.00 0.03Trust £ anxiety 20.01

Model 1 0.21 25.86 * *

Trust 0.37 * *

Security 0.24 * *

Model 2 0.21 0.00 1.01Trust £ security 20.06

Model 1 0.27 35.65 * *

Trust 0.34 * *

Efficiency 0.34 * *

Model 2 0.30 0.03 8.65 *

Trust £ efficiency 20.18 *

Notes: *p , 0.01; * *p , 0.001

Table III.Regression analysis

results for usability andinformation quality

(web site quality)

Offline brandtrust

291

Table IV summarizes the results of regression analyses testing the second factor ofweb site quality (visual appeal and image) as a dependent variable. Brand trust wasagain a significant predictor of visual appeal and image whereas two of three factors ofattitude toward internet significantly affected the web site quality factor. Securityissues did not exert any significant impact on the perception of visual appeal andimage, nor did the three interaction terms.

The third factor of web site quality (interactivity and innovativeness) was alsosignificantly influenced by brand trust (Table V). Of the three factors of attitude

Dependent R 2 R 2 diff. b F-value

Model 1 0.20 24.68 * *

Trust 0.38 * *

Anxiety 0.19 *

Model 2 0.20 0.00 0.37Trust £ anxiety 20.04

Model 1 0.18 21.02 * *

Trust 0.40 * *

Security 0.11Model 2 0.18 0.00 0.05

Trust £ security 20.02Model 1 0.24 31.00 * *

Trust 0.37 * *

Efficiency 0.28 * *

Model 2 0.25 0.01 1.46Trust £ efficiency 20.08

Notes: *p , 0.01; * *p , 0.001

Table IV.Regression analysisresults for visual appealand image (web sitequality)

Dependent R 2 R 2 diff. b F-value

Model 1 0.16 18.54 * *

Trust 0.38 * *

Anxiety 0.06Model 2 0.16 0.00 0.77

Trust £ anxiety 0.06Model 1 0.16 18.23 * *

Trust 0.39 * *

Security 0.04Model 2 0.16 0.00 0.61

Trust £ security 0.05Model 1 0.19 23.76 * *

Trust 0.37 * *

Efficiency 0.20 *

Model 2 0.20 0.00 9.71Trust £ efficiency 20.06

Notes: *p , 0.01; * *p , 0.001

Table V.Regression analysisresults for interactivityand innovativeness(web site quality)

DMIJ3,4

292

toward internet, only efficiency was positively related to the web site-quality factor(b ¼ 0.20). None of the interaction terms was significant.

Additional regression analyses were conducted to test the other three hypotheses: H2tested the relationship between offline brand trust and online shopping intention,H6 testedthe relationship between web site quality and online shopping intention, and H4 tested themoderating role of offline brand trust in the relationship between web site quality andonline shopping intention (Table VI). Because perceived web site quality consisted of threedistinct factors, three separate regression models were developed including each of the threeweb site-quality factors. Offline brand trust and two of the three factors of web site quality(usability and information quality and visual appeal and image) were significant predictorsof online shopping intention. Of the three interaction terms, the interaction between brandtrust and interactivity and innovativeness was significant supported by the significantincremental R 2 results (F ¼ 6.52(1,195), p , 0.05). The positive coefficient of theinteraction terms indicated that the relationship between interactivity and innovativenessand online shopping intention was stronger with a higher level of brand trust.

DiscussionWhile a great deal of research has been conducted to study brand trust, most has focusedon product brands not on retail brands. Furthermore, none of the studies on brand trusthas questioned nor investigated the moderating role of retail brand trust in therelationship between consumer characteristics and their attitudes and behaviors towardthe company’s new business format. Additionally, while it might seem intuitively obviousto expect the link between offline brand trust and perceived web site quality, no empiricalstudies have established this relationship for apparel retailers. We sought to contribute tothe extant literature on brand trust and multi-channel retailing by exploring the role ofoffline brand trust in shopping at a multi-channel retailer’s web site. Specifically, thisstudy examined the role of offline brand trust in the relationship between attitude towardthe internet and perceived web site quality and in the relationship between perceived website quality and online shopping intention.

Dependent R 2 R 2 diff. b F-value

Model 1 0.30 41.01 * *

Trust 0.28 * *

Usability 0.37 * *

Model 2 0.30 0.00 0.84Trust £ usability 0.06

Model 1 0.27 36.03 * *

Trust 0.29 * *

Visual appeal 0.33 * *

Model 2 0.27 0.01 2.71Trust £ visual appeal 0.10

Model 1 0.19 22.40 * *

Trust 0.39 * *

Interactivity 0.09Model 2 0.21 0.03 6.52 *

Trust £ interactivity 0.17 *

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.001

Table VI.Regression analysis

results for onlineshopping intention

Offline brandtrust

293

In our study, consumers with a higher level of offline trust in a retail brand perceivedthe retailer’s web site more favorably than others and they also more strongly intendedto purchase from the site. Previous studies have shown that when brands are highlytrusted consumers are willing to try new products introduced under the existing brandnames, in which brand trust compensates for the lack of knowledge about the newproducts (McWilliam, 1993; Reast, 2005). The current study suggests that in thecontext of trust in a retail brand, a high degree of brand trust may compensate for thelack of knowledge about the retailer’s new business format, online business, and alsofor the perceived risks involved with shopping over the internet. These findingsconfirm the importance of brand trust in a retailer’s success across channels, as brandtrust in a retail brand appears to predispose consumers to a favorable perception of theretailer’s web site and also leads to a strong likelihood of shopping at the site. This maypartly explain why many of the top-selling retail web sites are owned by multi-channelretailers with established names and good reputations: highly trusted and recognizedretail brand names serve as an advantage when retailers introduce a new businessformat, and give them an edge over pure online players and relatively small and newentrepreneurs.

The findings from this study also supported significant effects of attitude towardinternet on perceived web site quality. Specifically, those who had less anxiety issuestoward internet were more likely to favorably perceive usability and informationquality and visual appeal of a retail web site. Those who indicated a strongerconfidence about secure transactions online were more likely to favorably perceiveusability and information quality of a web site. Finally, those who more stronglyperceived the internet as an efficient tool for gathering information and completing atask were more likely to favorably perceive usability and information quality as well asinteractivity and innovativeness of a web site. It is noteworthy that the anxiety-issuefactor of attitude toward the internet influenced all three dimensions of perceived website quality. This finding suggests that when a degree of brand trust is assumed equal,those who more strongly perceive the internet as complex and intimating evaluate aretail web site less favorably in every aspect. The only dimension of attitude towardthe internet that predicted interactivity and innovativeness of a web site was efficiency.Perhaps, those who believe in the benefit of the internet as a useful and efficient tool areindividuals who tend to embrace new technologies in life, and therefore they may bemore appreciative of a web site with interactive and innovative technology features.Finally, it is not surprising that the only dimension of attitude toward the internet thatwas not significantly related to the visual appeal and image factor of web site qualitywas security. That is, a consumer’s concerns for security issues on the internet did notinfluence her evaluation of the visual appearance and image of a retail web site.

In this study, a significant moderating effect of offline brand trust was found onlyfor the relationship between efficiency (attitude toward the internet) and usability andinformation quality (web site quality): efficiency was more strongly related to usabilityand information quality for a lower degree of brand trust. In other words, perceivingthe internet as an efficient tool predicted a positive perception of usability andinformation quality of a web site more strongly when the respondent had a lowerdegree of trust in the retailer. This finding suggested that offline brand trust perhapsexerts a hallo effect and that when individuals have a strong trust in a retailer, theirconsideration of the internet as an efficient tool does not make as strong an effect on

DMIJ3,4

294

their perception of the usability of the retailer’s web site as it does for individualslacking in brand trust.

As for the relationship between perceived web site quality and online shoppingintention, a shopper’s positive perception of usability and visual appeal of the web sitesignificantly predicted a stronger intention to purchase from the site. Interestingly,offline brand trust played a moderating role in the relationship between interactivity andonline shopping intention. The impact of interactivity on online shopping intentionintensified for a consumer with a stronger trust in the retailer. In other words, the effectof interactivity of a web site is salient in the existence of a strong trust in the retailer.When consumers have a low level of trust in the retail brand, their perceiving the web siteas interactive and innovative may not necessarily translate into shopping at the site;however, when they highly trust the retail brand, the more positive they perceive theweb site to be in terms of those aspects, the more likely they are to shop from the site.

In an increasingly challenging market environment, building brand equity hasbecome critical in order for retailers to improve their performance (Pappu and Quester,2006). The results of this study lend firm support evidencing the importance of buildingbrand trust in order for multi-channel retailers to increase cross-channel customer trafficand sales. In this study, trust in a retail brand not only directly influences a customer’sperception of the retailer’s web site and online shopping intention but also does soindirectly through its interaction with attitude toward the internet and perceived website quality. Overall, a higher level of trust in the retail brand reduces perceived risks anddoubts that one might have about using the internet and intensifies the positive impactof certain aspects of perceived web site quality on online shopping intention.Accordingly, retailers must incorporate brand trust, building this into their strategiesacross channels and realizing that their performance and the reputation at theirbrick-and-mortar stores may well have a significant impact on their online business. Thefindings of this study also have implications for the effective allocation of a retailer’sresources; the significant role of offline brand trust indicates that multi-channel retailersmay experience a higher return by improving their offline reputation and providingconsistent performance than by simply investing heavily in web site design and otherenhancements. A significant role of offline brand attitude in online shopping experiencewas also affirmed in a recent study by Kwon and Lennon (2009). Using fictitious apparelretail web sites, Kwon and Lennon (2009) found that offline brand image directlyaffected online brand image and that online brand image mediated the effect of offlinebrand image on perceived risk associated with the stimulus web site. In their study,however, the moderating role of offline brand image was not examined. In order to betterunderstand the process by which offline and online shopping experiences influence eachother, additional research is needed that takes a more systematic approach to examiningthat interaction. This research should investigate not only how prior offline brand trustinfluences a consumer’s online shopping experience but also how the consumer’s onlineshopping experience affects the person’s experience at the retailer’s brick-and-mortarstore. Future studies following this line of research should also examine the interplaybetween offline and online shopping experience for retailers of different products inorder to establish generalized relationships amongst relevant variables.

Because this study was conducted with young college students, the results of thisstudy are of particular relevance to apparel retailers targeting Generation Y. Accordingto a recent study by Sullivan and Heitmeyer (2008), a majority of Generation Y apparel

Offline brandtrust

295

shoppers exhibit retail loyalty and therefore apparel retailers who create a cohesiveretail brand image through a variety of shopping experiences will be particularlysuccessful with this generation. Sullivan and Heitmeyer (2008) further argue thatbecause they are bombarded with promotional advertising, Generation Y consumerstend to become disinterested in incidental promotional efforts making it even moreimportant for retailers to retain these consumers’ loyalty through strong brand trust.Additionally a lack of differentiation of products found in the fashion retail marketfurther emphasizes the importance of the psychological value apparel retailers provideto consumers (Brıdson and Evans, 2004). The ability to build strong brand trust and totransfer offline brand trust to other business channels, accordingly, will be morecritical for apparel retailers in gaining a competitive advantage over their competitors.

The results of this study should be interpreted in view of the following limitations.Owing to the use of the convenience sampling method the population of the study wasnot representative of US female college students and therefore the results must beinterpreted with caution. Additional studies that use a larger random sampling arewarranted to establish the validity of the results. Generalizability of the findings mayalso be enhanced by replicating this study with different product categories andpopulation groups including non-US consumers. Additionally, it should be noted thatthe participants in the study were instructed to carry out imaginary purchases afterviewing the web site of a retailer with which they were familiar. This method wasdeemed necessary in order to assure that each respondent had enough familiarity withthe retailer to be able to answer questions regarding offline brand trust, that theywould spend an adequate amount of time to properly evaluate the web site, and thatthey would be able to answer questions regarding their shopping intention. However,this method of giving an artificial shopping scenario, although used in several previousstudies (Kwon and Lennon, 2009; Kim et al., 2003), might not have provided therespondents with a realistic shopping experience. The use of shopping intention as aproxy for shopping behavior also needs to be noted. Although intention has beensupported as a reasonable predictor of actual behavior in many consumer studies(Chen and Barnes, 2007; Chen and He, 2003; Hahn and Kim, 2009; Jarvenpaa et al., 2000;Park and Jun, 2003; Teng et al., 2007), it should be acknowledged that shoppingintention does not automatically translate into action. Finally, in this study we chosethree multi-channel retailers representing three different price points, yet did notconsider the possibility of those different price points causing variability in thefindings. Future studies with a larger sample should allow researchers to examineretailer-related differences and to determine whether the relationships among theselected variables are influenced by retailers’ characteristics.

References

Ailawadi, K.L. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “Understanding retail branding: conceptual insights andresearch priorities”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 4, pp. 331-42.

Aladwani, A.M. and Palvia, P.C. (2002), “Developing and validating an instrument for measuringuser-perceived web quality”, Information & Management, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 467-76.

Bainbridge, J. (1997), “Who wins the national trust”, Marketing, October 23, pp. 21-3.

Baker, J., Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), “An experimental approach to making retail storeenvironmental decisions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 445-60.

DMIJ3,4

296

Berry, L.L. (1995), “Relationship marketing of services, growing interest, emerging perspectives”,Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 236-45.

Brıdson, K. and Evans, J. (2004), “The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation”,International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 403-11.

Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affectto brand performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 2,pp. 81-93.

Chen, R. and He, F. (2003), “Examination of brand knowledge, perceived risk and consumers’intention to adopt an online retailer”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 677-93.

Chen, Y.-H. and Barnes, S. (2007), “Initial trust and online buyer behavior”, IndustrialManagement & Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 21-36.

Chiang, K.P. and Dholakia, R.R. (2003), “Factors driving consumer intention to shop online:an empirical investigation”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2, pp. 177-83.

Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C. and Kao, C.-Y. (2005), “Website quality and customer’s behavioralintention: an exploratory study of the role of information asymmetry”, Total QualityManagement, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 185-97.

Conway, J.M. and Huffcutt, A.I. (2003), “A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysispractices in organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 147-68.

Corbitt, B.J., Thanasankit, T. and Yi, H. (2004), “Trust and e-commerce: a study of consumerperceptions”, Electronic Commerce Research and Application, Vol. 2, pp. 203-15.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warsaw, P.R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology:a comparison of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 983-1003.

Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004), “Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 5/6, pp. 573-92.

Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2001), “Brand trust in the context of customerloyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12, pp. 1238-58.

Delgado-Ballester, E., Munuera-Aleman, J.L. and Yague-Guillen, M.J. (2003), “Development andvalidation of a brand trust scale”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 45 No. 1,pp. 35-53.

Durndell, A. and Haag, Z. (2002), “Computer self efficacy, computer anxiety, attitudes towardsthe internet and reported experience with the internet, by gender, in an East Europeansample”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 521-35.

Flavian, C., Guinalıu, M. and Gurrea, R. (2006), “The role played by perceived usability,satisfaction and consumer trust on website loyalty”, Information & Management, Vol. 43,pp. 1-14.

French, T. and O’Cass, A. (2001), “Internet users’ adoption of web retailing: user and productdimensions”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 361-81.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W. (2003), “Trust and TAM in online shopping:an integral model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-90.

Goldsmith, R.E. (2000), “How innovativeness differentiates online buyers”, Quarterly Journalof Electronic Commerce, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 323-33.

Goldsmith, R.E. and Goldsmith, E.B. (2002), “Buying apparel over the internet”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 89-102.

Offline brandtrust

297

Gommans, M., Krishnan, K.S. and Scheffold, K.B. (2001), “From brand loyalty to e-loyalty:a conceptual framework”, Journal of Economic & Social Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 43-58.

Ha, H.-Y. (2004), “Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust online”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 329-42.

Hahn, K.H. and Kim, J. (2009), “The effect of offline brand trust and perceived internet confidenceon online shopping intention in the integrated multi-channel context”, InternationalJournal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 126-41.

Harris, L.C. and Goode, M.M.H. (2004), “The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: astudy of online service dynamics”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80, pp. 139-58.

Helander, M.G. and Khalid, H.M. (2000), “Modeling the customer in electronic commerce”,Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 609-19.

Hiscock, J. (2001), “Most trusted brands”, Marketing, March 1, pp. 32-3.

Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. and Venkatesh, A. (2004), “Has the internet become indispensable”,Communications of the ACM, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 37-42.

Howard, P.E.N., Rainie, L. and Jones, S. (2001), “Days and nights on the internet”, AmericanBehavioral Scientist, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 383-404.

Jackson, L.A., Ervin, K.S., Gardner, P.D. and Schmitt, N. (2001), “Gender and the internet: womencommunicating and men searching”, Sex Roles, Vol. 44 Nos 5/6, pp. 363-79.

Jackson, L.A., von Eye, A., Barbatsis, G., Biocca, F., Zhao, Y. and Fitzgerald, H.E. (2003), “Internetattitudes and internet use: some surprising findings from the HometNetToo project”,International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 59, pp. 355-82.

Jarvenppa, S.L., Tractinsky, N. and Vitale, M. (2000), “Consumer trust in an internet store”,Information Technology and Management, Vol. 1, pp. 45-71.

Kim, J., Fiore, A.M. and Lee, H.-W. (2007), “Influences of online store perception, shoppingenjoyment, and shopping involvement on consumer patronage behavior toward an onlineretailer”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 14, pp. 95-107.

Kim, S. and Stoel, L. (2004), “Apparel retailers: website quality dimensions and satisfaction”,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 11, pp. 109-17.

Kim, S., Williams, R. and Lee, Y. (2003), “Attitude toward online shopping and retail websitequality: a comparison of US and Korean consumers”, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 89-111.

Klobas, J.E. and Clyde, L.A. (2000), “Adults learning to use the internet: a longitudinal study ofattitudes and other factors associated with intended internet use”, Library & InformationScience Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 5-34.

Kwon, W.-S. and Lennon, S.J. (2009), “What induces online loyalty? Online versus offline brandimages”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62, pp. 557-64.

Lau, G.T. and Lee, S.H. (1999), “Consumers’ trust in a brand and the link to brand loyalty”,Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 341-70.

Lee, M.Y. and Johnson, K.K.P. (2002), “Exploring differences between internet apparelpurchasers, browsers and non-purchasers”, Journal of Fashion Marketing andManagement, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 146-57.

Lee, Y. and Kozar, K.A. (2006), “Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success:an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach”, Decision Support System, Vol. 42 No. 3,pp. 1383-401.

Liao, Z. and Cheung, M.T. (2001), “Internet-based e-shopping and consumer attitudes:an empirical study”, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 299-306.

DMIJ3,4

298

Liaw, S.-S. (2002), “An internet survey for perceptions of computers and the world wide web:relationship, prediction and difference”, Computer in Human Behavior, Vol. 18, pp. 17-35.

Lin, J.C.-C. and Lu, H. (2000), “Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a website”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 20, pp. 197-208.

Liu, C. and Arnett, K.P. (2000), “Exploring the factors associated with web site success in thecontext of electronic commerce”, Information & Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 23-33.

Loch, K.D., Straub, D.W. and Kamel, S. (2003), “Diffusing the internet in the Arab world: the roleof social norms and technological culturation”, IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 45-63.

Loiacono, E.T. (2000), “WebQuale: a website quality instrument”, PhD dissertation, Universityof Georgia, Athens, GA.

McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V. and Kacmar, C. (2002), “The impact of initial consumer trust onintentions to transact with a web site: a trust building model”, Journal of StrategicInformation Systems, Vol. 11, pp. 297-323.

McWilliam, G. (1993), “The effect of brand typology on brand extension fit: commercial andacademic research findings”, European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 1, pp. 485-91.

Mulpuru, S., Mendelsohn, T. and Johnson, C.A. (2007), “Topic overview: US online retail”,Forrester Research, available at: www.forrester.com/Research/Document/Excerpt/0,7211,41752,00.html (accessed June 25, 2008).

Pappu, R. and Quester, P. (2006), “Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity?An empirical examination of two categories of retail brands”, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-14.

Park, C. and Jun, J.-K. (2003), “A cross-cultural comparison of internet buying behavior: effects ofinternet usage, perceived risks, and innovativeness”, International Marketing Review,Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 534-53.

Reast, J.D. (2005), “Brand trust and brand extension acceptance: the relationship”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-13.

Rios, R.E. and Riquelme, H.E. (2008), “Brand equity for online companies”, Marketing Intelligence& Planning, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 719-42.

Shankar, V., Urban, G.I. and Sultan, F. (2002), “Online trust: a stakeholder perspective, concepts,implications, and future directions”, Journal of Strategic Information System, Vol. 11,pp. 325-44.

Shih, H.-P. (2004), “Extended technology acceptance model of internet utilization behavior”,Information & Management, Vol. 41, pp. 719-29.

Sullivan, P. and Heitmeyer, J. (2008), “Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and intentions:exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement”, International Journal ofConsumer Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 285-95.

Teng, L., Laroche, M. and Zhu, H. (2007), “The effects of multiple-ads and multiple-brands onconsumer attitude and purchase behavior”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1,pp. 27-35.

Teo, T.S. (2002), “Attitudes toward online shopping and the internet”, Behavior & InformationTechnology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 259-71.

Vanhonacker, W.R. (2007), “Brand extension naming strategies: an exploratory study of theimpact of brand traits”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-72.

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptancemodel: four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.

Offline brandtrust

299

Wang, G. (2002), “Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment: an empirical study”, Journal ofRelationship Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 57-75.

Yang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z. and Zhou, N. (2005), “Development and validation of an instrument tomeasure perceived service quality of information presenting web portals”, Information &Management, Vol. 42, pp. 575-89.

Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (1999), “Service quality delivery throughweb sites: critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 362-75.

Zhang, P. and von Dran, G. (2000), “Web sites that satisfy users: an empirical investigation ofweb site interface features”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science,Vol. 51 No. 14, pp. 1253-68.

About the authorsSoyoung Kim is an Associate Professor in the Department of Textiles, Merchandising andInteriors at the University of Georgia. Her research interests are in online apparel shopping.Soyoung Kim is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: soyoung@uga.edu

Christie Jones is graduated from the Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Interiors atthe University of Georgia with a Master’s degree. Her research interests are in multi-channelshopping.

DMIJ3,4

300

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints