See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276272890

Online shopping experiences: a qualitative research

Conference Paper · May 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 28,127

2 authors:

Aurélia Michaud-Trevinal Thomas Stenger

Université de La Rochelle Université de Poitiers
23 PUBLICATIONS   72 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Multilocation View project

Conceptualisation and measurement of the Online Home Shopping Experience (OHSE) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aurélia Michaud-Trevinal on 03 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Abstract
This research tackles the issue of shopping experiences in an online environment. Previous
studies have already focused on consumption experiences (Holt, 1995; Arnould and
Thompson, 2005) and consumer experiences on the web focusing on ‘browsing’ and ‘flow’
online (Hoffman, Novak, 1996, 2009). This paper intends to examine online shopping
experiences from three aspects: the physical, ideological and pragmatic dimensions.
As an exploratory research study, a qualitative research method was used (in France) with
four focus groups –thirty-one consumers who differ in terms of age, gender and consumer
experience.
The results highlighted the three proposed dimensions and underline as core issues online
trust (or mistrust), age and online social interactions with friends. The appropriation process
of commercial websites is also considered.
Keywords: online shopping experience, shopping behavior, trust, privacy, appropriation.

1
 ONLINE SHOPPING EXPERIENCES:
A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATORY RESEARCH

Introduction

This research takes place in France where 86% of Internet users declare that they use the

Internet before making a purchase decision, the final purchase not necessarily taking place

online (Fevad, 2010). Multi-channel shopping behavior is not only a potentiality but reflects

the vast majority of shopping behaviors and modifies the consumer experience as a whole.

This paper tackles the issue of shopping experiences in an online environment.

Previous studies have already focused on consumption experiences (Holt, 1995 ;Arnould and

Thompson, 2005; Sherry and Fischer, 2009), shopping motivations (for instance Babin and

Darden, 1996) and consumer experiences on the web focusing on “browsing and flow” online

(Hoffman, Novak, 1996, 2009). Although numerous are their contributions, these researches

have focused on individual behaviors or experiences in a particular channel. These contexts

are quite separated in the literature whereas consumer practices are becoming more and more

cross-channeled. Moreover, the shopping experience has not been investigated yet.

This paper intends to consider online shopping experiencesas a whole – and not just purchase

experiences, considering shopping practices online and offline, and the appropriation process

of commercial websites.

As an exploratory research study, a qualitative research method was used (in France) with

four focus groups - thirty-one consumers who differ in terms of age, gender and consumer

experience.

E-commerce sales rose by 24% in 2010 in France, that is to say the French e-commerce sales

totalled €31 billion in 2010i. In France, 4% of e-commerce sales take place via a mobile

phone, and the mobility of shoppers as well as the rise of smart phone sales may reinforce this

phenomenon. Along with the mobility of shoppers and the dematerialization of purchases,

2
another trend in e-commerce is the co-creation of products and services by customers. Indeed,

beyond simply personalizing products, private labels use the opportunityof the web 2.0 in a

co-creation process. For instance, Reebok invites their customers to design a completely

customized shoe as a one-off, in order to inspire other customers - via Facebook, Twitter, e-

mail and beyond - to embrace their own Reestyle. This mass customization provides

autonomy to the customers, like a free zone where they are able to live new experiences. With

an increased use of internet shopping facilities and new shopping experiences online, does the

shopping experience remain the same? What do the shoppers experiment with online?

These new shopping experiences are key factors that the e-retailers have to take into account

in the web context where trust is important to facilitate electronic transactions (Grabner-

Krauter and Kaluscha, 2003). Indeed, are the online shopping experiences of younger

shoppers different from the previous generation? This research addresses the issue of online

shopping experiences. On the one hand, fifteen years after the eruption of the internet in the

retailing context, some things have changed: from disintermediation, the online retailing

strategy has moved towardsa cross-retailing one. Here, the shoppers have experienced pure-

players as well as brands that they are used to shopping off-line. But on the other hand, some

things stay the same: shopping is always an experience.

This research synthesizes the literature on online shopping experiencesand online trust. The

research method involving focus groups is presented. The results provide insights into the

physical, ideological and pragmatic dimensions of the online shopping experience. The results

also show that depending on some personal characteristics, on their social interaction, and on

the situation, the online shopping experiences vary a lot and puttheir trust and belief in

recommendation agents.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Literature Review

3
Experience and consumption

Etymologically, experience means a test, an attempt, and refers to experimentation, that is to

say the knowledge based upon sense experience as opposed to a pure and a priori knowledge.

So experience is enabled by an individual learning process. Experience may also be revealed

(for instance the mystical experience), which means that experience is part of the individual

subjective insight experience. From an anthropological perspective, experience refers to how

each individual experiments with his own culture (Bruner, 1986). Experience differs from

behavior, which is avisible part of experience (what is seen from the outside) and differs from

the situation itself.

Research in marketing defines experience as a personal and subjective moment that may build

and transform a person’s life (Arnould and Thomson, 2005); the principal dimension is the

emotional and sensitive dimension, followed by the cognitive dimension (Addis and

Holbrook, 2001). The experience undergone in a shopping context is a whole shopping

experience (Arnouldet al., 2002). Consumers may live in many ways; it depends on the social

context, on the products and services andon the personal relationships that are related to the

situation (Edgellet al., 1997). Moreover, the shopping experience is not just under the

influence of the environment: the personal experience is influenced by the environment, and

then the experience itself is transformed.

In addition to the functional dimension of consumption items, Heilbrunn (2010) brings out

three components of consumption experience which may be analyzed as latent dimensions of

consumption (Filser, 2008). Indeed, these components integrate three salient aspects of the

concept which have been pointed out in other literature:

- A physical dimension, linked to the fact the experience takes place somewhere, in a

particular context and in a period of time. This dimension refers to the tangible base of the

consumption experience : experience is multi-sensory based (an individual may see,

4
 touch, smell, taste, feel the consumption object) and takes place in space and time (the

consumer may choose, hesitate, reject, use the object); this dimension is related to the

physical participation in the environment and the specific relationship the individual is

committed to (Pine and Gilmore, 1999);

- An ideological dimension relating to the ability of the object to promote values and an

imaginary world. This ideological dimension pertains to the way that consumer’s attitudes

and behaviors may be shaped and modified. This aspect of experience refers to the

marketing research on shopping value and consumer behavior (Holbrook, 2000) and the

search for identity and self-image (Firat and Dholakia, 1998).

- A pragmatic dimension, that is to say the use of tools, artifacts and all the shopping

practices which structure the rituals of consumption and shopping. Thus, it is a practice-

based dimension; depending on the culture, the consumption may be defined by a precise

setof acts and gestures so that the consumers make the brand and products theirs: they

“appropriate” them (Holt, 1995).

These dimensions highlight that people do not undergo the experience: it brings into play a

learning process that modifies the individual who in his turn, transforms the environment.

The individual is intending to participate in the experience, extra-ordinary or not; he/she

wants to be part of the experimentation (De Certeau, 1984); the consumer appropriates his

everyday life by conducting his own experiences.

Online shopping experience

An experiential framework based on the concepts of flow and cognitive absorption has been

purposed by (Hoffman and Novak, 1996, 2009; Novak, et al. 2000; Agarwal and Karahanna,

2000). This framework is accurate to analyze the online consumer behavior in general. The

central hypothesis of these models is that the online environment is interactive by nature:

5
consumers interact with websites, with other consumers and with the interface itself. Another

perspective is proposed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004); they consider a personalized

consumer experience, referring to the concept of co-creation. Unique experiences between

consumers and companies are considered and new product development is taken as an

example.

Marketing research provides considerable evidence suggesting shopping is a social

experience. Thus, co-creation experiences may be shared by consumers with their social

network (family, friends, members of the community: all types of companions). But

surprisingly, previous research on online consumption experiences, examines the individual

experience, but does not examine the global online experience with a companion. Moreover,

to the best of our knowledge, online shopping in groups has not been examined in current

research yet.

The literature on shopping behavior (and online shopping) considers that consumers’

motivations when they shop online may be hedonistic or utilitarian (for instance: Babin and

Attaway, 2000; Sénécal et al., 2002; Bridges and Florsheim, 2008).

Trust, experience and online shopping

Customers learn from their buying experience and product use. These experiences shape their

trust and behavior on the website and generates word-of-mouth communication, through

online and off line social networks. Online trust is developed over a process of repeated visits

to a site as a user gains experience and believes that his/her expectations are met during the

visits, explain Urban et al. (2009). Trust is thus considered as a process, a permanent and

continuing consumer experience. Bart et al. (2005) consider that « online trust includes

consumer perceptions of how the site would deliver on expectations, how believable the site’s

information is, and how much confidence the site commands ». The state of the art realized by

6
Urban et al. (2009) explains that online trust extends beyond privacy and security, and is

closely connected to website design, and that its formation is an on-going process, and is

heterogeneous across individuals and products. It is indeed fairly hard to identify a single

behavior rule or model to consider online trust worldwide... Multiple national surveys and

international comparisons are required (e.g. Dinev et al., 2006). Moreover, recent national

surveys in France suggest that online trust as a topic might be over-estimated. The trust rate in

online shopping is growing, but remains pretty low (between 51% and 64% according to

various surveys1 – i.e. the percentage of internet users who declare to trust online shopping).

An “online trust paradox” is then evoked: internet users massively shop online (85% of

French internet users) in spite of their trust level. Surveys usually conclude that the ‘use’

value is considered higher than perceived risks. Trust rate in online banking (69%) and e-

administration (89%) are higher.

So in this research, the online shopping experience is examined through the three dimensions

described above. The extent research presented above drives us to consider two general

propositions. The first one deals with the theoretical framework for online experiences. Are

the three dimensions of the experience developed by Heilbrunn (2010) accurate for online

shopping experience? The second research proposal deals with the differences in online

shopping behaviors among shoppers. Actually, shoppers who have experienced online

shopping are more familiar with e-commerce and should be more confident to shop online,

above all, the youngest shoppers, the “digital natives” who are used to the internet

environment. Their online shopping experience must be different: they might be more

curious, fond of new brands with an appetite for novelty.

Methodology

1
ACSEL-Caisse des Dépôts, 2010 ; Fevad, 2010.

7
Two focus groups have been conducted with consumers from 31 to 63 years old: sixteen

respondents, six male and ten female with different professions. Two other focus groups were

conducted with undergraduate students from 18 to 20 years old: fifteen respondents, five male

and ten female with the same diploma/from the same course.

Each focus groups has been video captured in order to be integrally written; F.G. n°1 gave 20

pages, that is to say 985 lines, F.G. n°2 gave 26 pages, so 816 lines, F.G. n°3 gave 11 pages,

that is to say 451 lines, and F.G. n°4 gave 10 pages, which represented 412 lines. Two of

them were composed of consumers with various activities, from 31 to 63 years old, while the

other groups were students, in order to situate the online shoppers socially and culturally.

Indeed, the aim of these homogeneous groups in term of age/activity of the participants was to

examine how this so-called Generation Y, operate as a group in the internet context. In

exploring online experiences of shoppers who had not experienced the arrival of pure players,

who are used to the web 2.0, and in exploring their in-group and out-group relationships, the

research may investigate how they behave as tribes, how deep their bonds are and what are

their shopping rituals. The group discussions may also offer participants an environment

where they may feel free to share their experiences in the company of the same

socioeconomic background. This methodology may serve to facilitate conversation and

dialogue between the different participants of the study (Moisanderet al., 2009).

A content analysis has been conducted in order to reveal on the one hand, the use and

appropriation of websites and shopping environment and to distinguish the adaptable

strategies during the online shopping experiences.

Table n°1 – Focus groups on online shopping experience (details)

Focus groups Firstname (initials), age, activity and gender Use of

commercial sites
FG n°1 :6 members U. (woman) 38 years old –marketing woman Very intensive
M. (woman) 61 years old - retired Regular
5 women from 38 to 61 N. (woman) 59 years old –executive in a Regular
years old school. Limited

8
1 man – 40 years old S. (man) 40 years old - brocker Frequent
S. (woman) 39 years old - optician Frequent
M-L. (woman) 39 years old – teacher
FG n°2 :10members V. (woman) 31 years old - unemployed Intense
engineer
5 women from 31 to 41 C. (woman) 36 years old –marketing woman Very intensive
years old G. (man) 37 years old -executive in a local Intense
community
5 men from 37 to 63 K. (woman) 39 years old - Human Resource Frequent
years old Director
D. 39 years old –senior police officer Frequent
M. (woman) 41 years old - psychologist Regular
Ch. (man) 45 years old - engineer Frequent
T. (man) 63 years old –teacher retired Limited
A-D. (woman) 32 years old –manager of a pub Frequent
FG n°3: 8 students Marie-Haud. (woman) 19years old Very intensive
(1st degree University) Carole.(woman) 19years old Regular
6 female -19 years old Sophie.(woman) 19 years old Regular
Lucie. (woman) 19years old Frequent
Manon.(woman) 19 years old Regular
Camille. (woman) 20years old Limited
2 men – 19 and 20 Jonathan.(man) 19 years old Limited
years old Jordan.(man) 20 years old Limited
FG n°4: 7students Joana.(woman) 18years old Regular
(1st degree University) Nancy.(woman) 19years old Very intensive
4 female from 18 to 19 Aurélie.(woman) 19years old Frequent
years old Fiona.(woman) 19 years old Frequent (but no
purchase)
3 men from 19 to 20 Arnold. (man) 19 years old Regular
years old Florent. (man) 19years old Limited
Benoît. (man) 20years old Limited

Major Results

Dimensions of online shopping experience

Some of the main relevant verbatim accounts referring to the three dimensions of the online

shopping experience have been summarized in table 2.

Table 2. Results: three-dimensional online shopping experience

Dimensions of the Verbatim accounts

online experience
and components
Physical - “When we are in front of our computer, time passes quickly”
dimension (Laurène). “We have to think it over, because it [the computer he
wants to buy online] costs a lot, so we must spend a lot of time on it”
- Time pressure (Jordan). “Actually, when you return items, the VentesPrivées website

9
- Companions takes too much time to return your money » (Coralie). « You need
- Visual time to search around [all the websites] » (Sidonie). “I am not a
variables: web compulsive consumer: I wait and I wait until the product is sold at a
design, colours, discount” (Marie-Haude). « if only I had a little time to go shopping
website downtown, I would probably spend half the amount of money I
ergonomics actually spend per month! (Ulrike)
and ease-of- - « The website was recommended by a friend” (Virginie). ‘I have a lot
use. of friends who buy online (Carrefour online) (Sidonie). “If something
costs a lot, we ask friends whether you can find it for less, and also
what their opinionisabout it andwhetherit’s worth buying” (Laurène).
- The physical aspect is important for me; I never browse for clothes
online: it isn’t worthwhile, because in the end the design,andeven the
colour, won’t be the same” (Carole). “The ergonomics of the
frontpage…some websites show the clothes from every angle”
(Nicole). “First they have to catch my eye and after that, the content
must be clear” (Sidonie). “The vision is reduced [on mobile phones],
it is not as attractive as it is [online]” (Marine). “On the VentesPrivées
website, the product just appears [suddenly] like that!!” (Ulrike). « I
look at the different sections, the website design and the tabs relating
to the services (Karine).
Ideological - « I try to buy useful items, contrary to my husband, who buys for fun
dimension on ebay, because he is a comic strip collector” (Coralie). “I buy a lot
online, but contrary to my husband, I don’t buy useless things online. I
Utilitarian and/or buy a lot of things… but useful things. I only buy useful stuff.
hedonic value of (Marie). “it’s some specific stuff that we need to have that we cannot
shopping find in La Rochelle so […] sometimes we need specific stuff for our
pub”. (Anne-Do). “When you buy something, if you are not too silly,
you want the best price for the same quality. So me, I buy a lot of
furniture looking for the best quality-price ratio; I start with a
benchmark of prices, I browse websites (Darty and others) if I need
something […] you know what I mean!” (Monique). « Sometimes,
you want to read a book, as if you were craving for food. It’s now!
and immediate! » (Monique). «For me, the internet arouses my
desires!” (Ulrike). « I don’t want to buy online… I have to buy a TV
set… but I will buy it because some people I know bought one before,
as Manu [one of his friends], who is crazy about the internet, and
therefore has experience of it, I’m ready to do it now, even though I
am not particularly in favour of it…” (Stéphane). « I’ve used online
stores for a long time! Well, I don’t like shopping… I shop online, but
I really don’t like shopping in stores.» (Sidonie). « I’ve been shopping
online because the store I chosedoesn’t exist in La Rochelle.”
(Virginie - student). “I buy only online when I don’t have any other
choice!” (Amandine)
Pragmatic - « When I find a very interesting product or item on an unknown
dimension website, I go to search engines to find opinions about the seller”
(Gilles). “I never browse on the internet” (Jonathan). “Sometimes,
- Web surfing & while I chat with my friends, I browse the internet so I can say to my
shopping friends: “Hey, look at this gorgeous t-shirt!” and send her a link to the
- Surfing & website” (Aurélie).“I tagged VentesPrivées: I put the website in my
browsing tools bookmarks” (Jennyfer). “Usually, I don’t even mark the websites

10
 (browsing because I already know them” (Mélie).
history, - “You can put something aside for a while, twenty minutes, half an
bookmarks) hour” (Sidonie). “You just need to click on it again and it is re-
- Shopping tools activated within twenty minutes, so it gives me time to think about it,
(shopping cart, and then I re-activate…” (Ulrike). “I put [products] in the shopping
online cart, but after that, I remove them! I give up!” (Nicole). « I also put
comparison) [products] into the shopping cart, and when I feel strong enough, I
move on to something else, but when I want to indulge myself, I say:
“let’s go! Let’s order online” (Ulrike). “I never use the shopping cart
because when I have enough money to buy it, it isn’t for sale
anymore!” (Sophie). “It isn’t worth using the shopping cart, because
in 3 month’s time when I return to the website it will not exist
anymore!” (Manon).

The first dimension is aphysical dimension, linked to the fact thatonline shopping experience

takes place in the World Wide Web specific context, in 2011, in Europe (France).

Components of the physical dimension of shopping experience had been expressed by the

respondents: the design influence and visual aspects of the websites, the uses of customer

reviews and opinions shared by the customers and the time pressure.

Time is not experienced the same way on the internet: time may pass slowly if respondentsdo

not find directly what they need. The flow model, evoked supra (Hoffman and Novak, 2009)

pointed out this specific relationship to time distorsion while connected online.

Furthermore, respondents explain they might spend time chatting with their friends while

shopping online. Indeed, they underlined that they rely on their friends and relations to help

them shopping. They need their opinion on the products they are interested in. For instance,

one of the students explains that when she browses fashion brands websites or accessories,

she shares a link with a friend who is chatting with her (on Facebook) at the same time.

Through these online social interactions, the shopper places its decision process within a

collective process and a social consumption framework. This collective process being very

specific as it is limited to a few close friends connected online on Facebook.

11
The analysis also clearly underlines a gender issue in the shopping behavior: the social links

that are enabled in shopping patronage, the presence of companions, the nature of shopping

trips are highlighted by the female respondents.

The ideological dimension of online shopping experience can be measured by the value of

shopping. As pointed out by the literature, the consumers interviewed may have a hedonistic

or a utilitarian value of shopping. The shoppers declare to shop online because they want to

treat themselves or because it is useful, or because they are looking for the best price-quality

ratio.

Concerning the pragmatic dimension of the online shopping experience, different uses of

browsing tools have been highlighted. Some of them are very interesting, like the virtual

shopping cart which isa part of specific online routines. Shoppers may place items in an

online shopping cartin order to secure online price promotions, to put aside items they really

like, or to have fun – and not necessary to buy the product. This routine goes beyond purchase

intention and is really part of online shopping experiences.

Trust, privacy and the Y generation

Site design and recommendation have been notified by the consumers to be variables that may

influence online trust. The respondents trust the websites on the basis of word-of-mouth,

number of customers, marks and reviews of customers, but they argue that they do not need

more precise information on the sellers; the public information is enough.

Table 3. Online trust: selection of verbatim accounts

Online trust Verbatim accounts

Site design “According to the layout of the website, as a result, we trust it or

don’t trust it, me, I look at the site and I say to myself […]. I look at
the different sections, the website design and the tab concerning the
services, also the number of customers, I find out where the site is
located, and then I choose.” (Karine). “The aspect of the website may
have an impact on the way I [feel more confident] (Virginie)

12
 « Easy access is also really important ! The first time we visit a site, if
the registration process is fast, it’s attracting and encouraging ! I like
the simplicity and friendly aspect ! (Karine). “The display ! Now, I
pay attention to that. For instance, the display of the editor Le
Manuscrit is crappy. You cannot get out of there !it is very interesting
but you cannot escape […] Another example is the site that sells very
expensive trips but sometimes with 70% discount, five star hotels, the
homepage is user-friendly. Well, only the front page is clean, because
if you browse the site, it is not as appealing, it is so-so but at the
beginning it is pleasant! (Monique). « The site is nice, it’s attractive ».
(Sidonie). “Well, this site is flashy and that changes my shopping
behavior. Something in the structure of the site makes me behave
differently » (Monique). « The site has to catch the eye, and then, it
has to be easy to use”. (Sidonie).« a bag has to be shown on the girl’s
hand […] I couldn’t buy it if there wasn’t the model ! (Ulrike). “It is
very important that the product may be emphasized.” (Nicole).
Customer ratings - “I order and buy on big sites, banks, La Redoute, I even don’t
and think about it […] I have bought cosmetics on a site because a
Social interactions friend of mine had recommended it, and I also have bought
clothes on a small Asian website managed by a couple who travel
and sell original products, because it had been recommended by a
friend, so I did not ask myself if it was serious or not” (Virginie).
“If something costs a lot, we ask friends if they don’t have to pay
it less, and also what are their opinion on it, if it is worth buying
it” (Laurène). “I have watched this site on Youtube” (Virginie -
student)
- “Each internet profile is rated on Ebay, whereas they are not on
LeBon coin. There are ratings.” (Coralie). « There are stars, and
testimonies. (Karine). « There is thenumber of sales for example
for sellers, you may check the number of sales, the satisfaction
rate… (Coralie)…
Age / generation of “Once you are online, you are not safe anymore” (Jordan). « I prefer
web users not to buy online, you never know!” (Lucie). “I do not trust the online
system. I rather go in traditional stores” (Jessica). “I’ve never bought
online (Fiona). « I’m not used to online shopping and above all
buying things (Manon). “Cash is better [than electronic payment] we
are more aware of spending, maybe because of the “Monopoly” game
when I was a child (Jordan). “I never go on foreign or unknown
websites ». « I usually shop on LaRedoute, Les 3Suisses websites.”
(Mélie)

Secondly, it has to be noticed that the young consumers are more cautious towards online

shopping. Compared to the older respondents, students from 18 to 20 years old are more

fearful in their online behaviors. They go shopping online less regularly, and above all, they

are much more followers: they only browse very famous websites and mainstream brands.

13
This wary attitude is revealed by their shopping experience, firstly on their use of personal

data. They all are reluctant to give personal data online: the youngest respondents are the most

reluctant in revealing personal data on the websites. Apart from the students who are even

afraid to give their credit card number on the Internet (only one female student considers the

risk-perceived do not check her e-commerce utilization). Older respondents give personal data

such as name, mobile phone number or credit card number. However, they clearly choose the

data they reveal; they only give the ones they consider necessary and they may lie about the

other ones, such as their age, or their phone number.

It has to be noticed that the students have spontaneously describe their fear of buying online,

that they have never given their credit card number or even bought online because they feel

afraid of “what may happen”. In the focus groups where respondents were aged from 30 to 63

years old, online shopping was not a new experience, so they have experienced some

problems, but their trust on sellers is better. If some of them refuse to give some personal

data, it is not because they believe that information revealed in the course of an e-commerce

transaction might be misused (as the youngest respondents may think so), but because they

fear personal data might be aggregated into a database. They do not want firms to keep their

personal data and behave a way to avoid them to be considered as a marketing target.

Discussion

This research points out that it is relevant to use the theoretical framework of consumption in

the online context: the dimensions of online shopping experience enable us to analyze the

global online shopping experience lived by consumers and their companions.

Concerning the physical dimension of the online shopping experience, from information

seeking to the final purchase, online shopping is a social and shared experience. Indeed,

respondents declare that they shop online with companions and they shop differently with

14
peers and family. Firstly, shoppers point out that they the online shopping is not often a lonely

experience: they may be with someone, who may be compared to a companion or not. Indeed,

they may chat with friends or/and they may share their experience with someone who is aside.

Secondly, peers may enhance the experience whereas a family member (parents for a student

or husband for a woman) does not. They express more positive affect and hedonic shopping

value when shopping with a friend relative to either shopping alone or with a family member,

which is consistent with the study of Borges, Chebat and Babin (2010) on companions within

an offline context. As far as social aspects are concerned, it is interesting to underline that

gender moderates the online shopping behavior. As it is shown in literature (e.g. Gefen,

2003), social presence online differs between men and women. The female respondents

declared they need to share their experience more than the male respondents did.

Concerning the pragmatic dimension of the online experience, the results of our research

indicate that as in traditional store shopping, different online patronage behaviors are declared

by the consumers, depending on the context and situation. Shoppers may patronize the

websites in different ways: they open different tabs at the beginning of their session and while

they browse the web, they are used to bookmarks and browsing history, they visit some

specific websites. Concerning the use and rituals with other Internet tools such as shopping

cart for instance, this research show that beyond purchase intentions, shoppers may place

items in an online shopping cart with or without buying them, in order to secure online price

promotions, to put aside items they really like, or to have fun. These findings are consistent

with those of Close and Kukar-Kinney (2010).

These different activities and uses of internet characterize different online shopping

experiences and not different shoppers. Indeed, a same shopper may have different online

experiences depending on when the experience occurs (the evening, the daytime), the context

in which it takes place (at home with a cup of tea or at school during a lunch time), and with

15
whom (friends, parents…). While extent literature stressed the fact that online shopping

context is specific and that it may require new focus on the shopping behaviors, Rohm and

Swaminathan (2004) underline that “there is a paucity of research examining typologies in an

online shopping context”. They presented a typology of online customers of a single online

retailer within a single industry. Thus, the clusters may be different within another online

context. This study therefore suggests that it would be interesting to draw an online shopping

typology.

Concerning the nature and role of trust in online shopping behavior, it is interesting to notice

that the respondents trust pure players and brick & mortar companies not because of the

guarantees or trustful relationship the vendors may provide; the consumers declare that they

do not even look for this information. They reduce their risk perceptions by trusting their

peers, friends and by looking at the number of customers on the websites. This result is

consistent with Bart et al. (2005) who found a number of site variables that affect consumers'

trust (in addition to the brand and fulfillment variables). They confirmed that privacy and

security are important in site design, but not as important as user-friendly navigation and

presentation.

This research shows that if it remains very important for online vendors to provide insurance

to their customers in order to reduce their risk perceptions as it is established in the literature

(e.g. Kim and Bensabat, 2006), online shopping experience is also linked to the off line and

online social network (friends, blogs, online expert groups…) of the shopper.

Finally, dealing with the online privacy, young consumers show resistance to reveal personal

data. They feel reluctant in giving personal information that might be put in file by a “Big

Brother” company which might know and misuse their entire life. Far from fitting with the

digital native stereotype (Prensky, 2001), the youth interviewed show reluctance and mistrust

towards online shopping. But they neither behave as digital naïve (Hargittai, 2010). Their

16
behavior is made of skepticism and prudence but very rational. To lie while filling

formularies/questionnaires in this contextis a very rational behavior. According to a recent

national survey in France (Caisse des Dépôts - Acsel en 2010), a third of Internet users give

false information as they fulfill online registration form. They do it to avoid advertising

(declared by 64% of respondents), because they do not want to give personal information

(60%) and 28% of them declare they want to remain anonymous. Moreover, French people

have now been aware that personal data left on the web can be used later without their

agreement. The rise of social network sites and discourses among media about privacy might

explain such concern.

Limits, future research and conclusion

While contributing important insights into the experience of shoppers online, this research

does have some limitations. First, the research is based on a qualitative study: two sets of

focus groups were conducted, representing 31 respondents. Secondly, the focus groups were

conducted in France, with no comparison with other cultural contexts (USA, Australia,

Asia…); future studies should examine other populations in different countries and contexts.

A valuable contribution would be to examine the online shopping experience of young

shoppers. Indeed, apart from the digital native stereotype, there are those most fearful about

online shopping. They experience online shopping differently and initially do not browse the

same websites as the older generation does; most of them prefer to shop on the old-fashioned

catalogue brands they are familiar with. Only two students, who participated in the focus

groups, participated in online shopping on unknown websites.

There are many other opportunities to build on this study in future research work. Suggested

areas for new inquiries include the creation of a typology of experiences and situations within

the online context.

17
Future research may also, as Borges et al (2010) suggest for the off line context, shed light on

who are precisely the online shoppers’ companions? Do they belong to the social network of

the consumer? We may distinguish between:

- Online companions : for instance friends a shopper is chatting with on a social network;

- Online contacts / intermediates: people that might help or on whom the shopper might rely

on, to check the fame of a brand;

- Off line community: members of family, peers, friends who have a role of great

importance on the motivations, cultural context, and attitudes.

When and how does this network play a role? As for the traditional shopping, future research

may catalog the different ways in which the companions influence the online shopping

experience.

Finally, researchers could go deeper into the dimensions of online shopping experiences with

an approach that allows examining group experiences. Moisander et al. (2009) highlight that

“the meanings of an object of knowledge are not always, only, or even primarily a product of

individual experience but importantly are also a function of the discourse (Foucault, 1972),

system of representation (Hall, 1997) or matrix of intelligibility (Butler, 1990) that is brought

to bear”. Therefore, researchers could study the online shopping experience within a socio-

cultural context.

References

Addis, M., Holbrook, M.B., (2001). On the conceptual link between mass customisation and

experiential consumption : an explosion of subjectivity. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1

(1), 50-66.

Agarwal, R., Karahanna, H., (2000). Time flies when you are having fun: Cognitive

absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quaterly, 24, (4), 665-694.

18
Arnould, E.J., Thomson, C.J., (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of

research, Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 868-882, March.

Arnould, E.J., Price, L., Zinkhan, G., (2002). Consumers, McGraw-Hill, New-York.

Babin, B.J., Attaway, J.S., (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining

share of customer, Journal of Consumer Research, 49 (2), 91-99.

Babin, B.J., Darden W.R., (1996). Good and Bad Shopping Vibes: Spending and Patronage

Satisfaction, Journal of Business Research, 35, 201-206.

Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., and Urban G.L., (2005). Are the Drivers and Role of Online

Trust the Same for All Web Sites and Consumers?, A Large-Scale Exploratory Empirical

Study. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 133–52.

Borges, A., Chebat, J-C., Babin, B., (2010). Does a companion always enhance the shopping

experience?, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17, 294-299.

Bruner, E.M., (1986). Experience and its expression, in V.W. Turner and E.M. Bruner (dir.)

The Anthropology of experience, Chicago, University of Illinois Press, 3-33.

Bridges, E., Florsheim, R., (2008). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping goals: the online

experience, Journal of Business Research, 61, 309-314.

Butler, J., (1990). Gender trouble – Feminism and the subversion of identity, London,

Routledge.

Close, A.G., Kukar-Kinney, M., (2010). Beyond buying: motivations behind consumers’on

line shopping cart use. Journal of Business Research, 63, 986-992.

De Certeau, M., (1984). The practice of Every Life, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Dinev, T., Hart, P., (2006), An Extended Privacy Calculus Model for E-Commerce

Transactions, Information Systems Research, 17 (1), 61-80.

Edgell, S., Hetherington, K., Warde, A., (1997). Consumption matters: the Production and

Experience of Consumption. In Edgell et al. (Eds.) Okford, Blackwell.

19
Filser, M., (2008). L’expérience de consommation: concepts, modèles et enjeux managériaux,

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23, 3, 1-4.

Firat, A.F., Dholakia, N., (1998). Consuming people : from political economy to theaters of

consumption, London, Routledge.

Foucault, M., (1972). The Archaeology of knowledge, London, Tavistock publications.

Gefen, D., (2003). Assessing unidimensionality through LISREL: An explanation and

example. Communications of the AIS, 12 (2), 23-47.

Grabner-Krauter, S., and Kaluscha, (2003). E.A. Empiricalresearch in on-line trust: A review

and critical assessment. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 58, 6, 783–812.

Hall, S., (1997). Representation: Cultural representation and signifying practices, London,

Sage.

Hargittai, E., (2010). Digital na(t)ives ? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members

of the « Net generation », Sociological Inquiry, LXXX, 1, feb.

Heilbrunn, B., (2010). La consommation et ses sociologies, A. Colin, 2èmeed, Paris.

Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated

environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.

Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P, (2009). Flow online: Lessons learned and future prospects,

Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 1, February, 23-34.

Holbrook, M.B., (2000). The millennial Consumer in the texts of our time : experience and

entertainment, Journal of Macromarketing, 20 (2), 178-192.

Holt, D.B., (1995). How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. Journal

of Consumer Research, 22, 1-16.

Kim, D., Bensabat, I., (2006). The effect of trust assuring arguments on consumer trust in

internet stores. Information Systems Research, 17 (3), 286-300.

20
 McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., Kacmar, C., (2002). Developing and validating trust

measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13 (3),

334-359.

Moisander, J., Peñaloza, L., Valtonen, A., (2009). From CCT to CCC, Building consumer

culture community, in Explorations of Consumer Culture Theory, Sherry J.F. (Jr) & Fischer

E. (Eds), New York, Routledge, 7-33.

Novak, T.P., Hoffman, D.L., Yung, Y-F., (2000). Measuring the customer experience in

online environments: a structural modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19 (1), 22-42.

Pine, B.J., Gilmore, J., (1999). The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a

stage, HBS Press, Harvard.

Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., (2004). Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in

Value Creation, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5–14.

Prensky, M., (2001).Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 1, On the Horizon,. IX, 5, oct.

Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., (2004). A typology of online shoppers based on shopping

motivations, Journal of Business Research, 57, 748-757.

Sénécal, S., Gharbi, J.E., Nantel, J., (2002). The influence of flow on hedonic and utilitarian

shopping value. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 483-484.

Sherry, J.F., Fischer, E., (2009). Explorations of Consumer Culture Theory, Sherry J.F. (Jr) &

Fischer E. (Eds), New York, Routledge.

Urban, G.L., Amyxb, C., Lorenzonc, A. (2009), Online Trust: State of the Art, New Frontiers,

and Research Potential, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23, 179-190.

i
www.fevad.fr

21

View publication stats