Content uploaded by Antonina Bauman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antonina Bauman on Jun 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 68
Online Consumer Trust: Trends in Research
Antonina Bauman 1* and Reinhard Bachmann 2
Abstract: is paper presents the literature review of studies published in 2004-2014 (Web 2.0 period) in the area of consumer online trust. Based
on the content analysis of 138 papers, this study highlights three major research themes: (1) trust models, (2) technological, and (3) social factors
impacting online trust. It also explores topics in each major theme found in direct studies of online consumer trust. Since this literature review
uses the concept-centric approach, it points out not only the major trends in research but also three understudied areas: (1) green trust, (2) trust
recovery, and (3) the role of ethics in developing online trust.
Keywords: online trust; research trends; literature review
(1) School of Business, Emporia State University, USA
(2) SOAS, University of London, UK
*Corresponding author: abauman@emporia.edu
Submitted: May 20th 2017 / Approved: July 3rd 2017
Introduction
e Internet has become an indispensable tool for international busi-
ness as it does not recognize physical borders between countries and
gives buyers access to online sellers from all continents. Being so far
and yet so close, how does one know if a seller is genuine? With the
ease of creating a commercial website and relatively aordable cost,
the number of online stores has skyrocketed. Don Davis (2012), the
editor of Internet Retailer magazine, estimated that 25 million online
retailers sell products over the Internet. Each retailer tries to attract
customers and entice them to complete a purchase. How does one
know which online retailer (e-retailer) to trust and which e-retailer
not to trust? e answer to this question is essential to academic re-
searchers, businesses, and customers. Academic researchers create
and extend knowledge of online trust; businesses apply that knowled-
ge to practice to develop long-term relationships with customers,
while customers become informed online shoppers.
Despite the extensive research in the area of e-commerce, the studies
of online consumer behavior with emphasis on developing online
trust are not that numerous and systematic. Chang, Cheung, and Lai
(2005) in their literature review analyzed factors impacting the adop-
tion of online shopping and noted that although trust has a signicant
impact on e-commerce, it has not been suciently studied and requi-
res further investigation. us, the objective of this paper is to iden-
tify both common themes in online trust research conducted over a
decade of the Web 2.0 environment (2004-2014) and gaps that could
suggest directions for future exploration of this area. e purpose is
not to oer a comprehensive review of the vast body of research but
rather investigate what aspects of online trust need more exploration.
is paper is structured as follows: it starts with an overview of on-
line trust that creates a foundation for and leads to the presentation
of main trends in online trust research; then follows the explanation
of how the search of publications for the literature review was con-
ducted. Aer that, we present the result of the search along with the
dierent types of article classication. Next section discusses results
while Section 6 describes the contribution and practical implications.
Finally, Section 7 concludes the literature review by listing limitations
and oering suggestions for future research.
1. Dening Online Trust
Before discussing the literature on online trust, it is necessary to de-
ne the phenomenon itself and investigate how online trust diers
from traditional trust. While numerous interpretations of the con-
cept of trust exist (Fukuyama, 1995; Mayer et al., 1995; Mollering,
2006; Pettit, 1995), they all focus on the following elements that have
to be present for trust to occur (Bachmann, 2010; Barber, 1983; Cook
et al., 2009; Dietz, 2011; Grabner-Kraeuter & Kaluscha, 2008; Rous-
seau et al., 1998):
•Two actors - trustor and trustee - must exist to develop trust
•Vulnerability must be present (trust exists only in a risky or un-
certain situation)
•Trust is a context-sensitive concept (trust is aected by many
subjective individual and environmental circumstances, and as
such, is dependent on the context of the situation)
While shopping online, a consumer, as a trustor, nds himself/herself
in a risky situation where he/she uses the Internet as a tool to commu-
nicate his/her needs to an e-vendor and submits private information
about himself/herself. He or she chooses a method of payment and
expects the website to be a reliable means for the transaction and the
vendor to behave in an honest and professional manner when ful-
lling the purchase request.
A denition of online trust was formed as “an attitude of condent
expectation in an online situation of risk that one’s vulnerabilities will
not be exploited” (Beldad, de Jong, & Steehouder, 2010, p.860) and
reects consensus among online trust researchers that the nature of,
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 69
and basic meaning of, online trust is not fundamentally dierent from
the concept of face-to-face trust (Shankar, Urban, & Sultan, 2002; Jar-
venpaa & Rao, 2003; Corritore, Kracher, &Wiedenbeck, 2003; Wang
& Emurian, 2005), notwithstanding that a human being has to trust
an object created by a human being rather than another human being
(Corritore et al., 2003).
Online trust has been identied as a critical component of a busi-
ness strategy as it reduces perceived risk and creates positive word-
of-mouth which, consequently, impacts a customer’s decision to buy
(Chen & Barnes, 2007; Fan, Ming, & Whinston, 2005; Fang, Chiu, &
Wang, 2011; Hassanein & Head, 2007). Consumer trust and satis-
faction with the transaction form the foundation for the long-term
commercial relationship between a company and a customer (Kim,
Ferrin, & Rao, 2009; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
2. Literature Search
With the growing popularity of e-commerce, the number of academic
studies in that area increased signicantly covering various aspects of
online retailing. e scope of research widens from technical issues of
the business platforms to long-term customer relationships. Howe-
ver, publications aimed at the review of the previously conducted re-
search are rare and rudimentary. Wareham, Zheng, and Straub (2005)
oered a discussion of the critical themes in e-commerce focusing
on publications in the IS (Information Systems) journals during the
timeframe of 1997 – 2003. Wang and Chen (2010) reviewed studies
published in the rst decade of online commercial activities (1999-
2008) and noted that the focus of research in electronic commerce
shied from technology orientation to management.
As the technology matured, the focus of studies has naturally moved
to managing electronic commerce activities that could attract and re-
tain consumers. At the same time, marketing eorts have more and
more been aimed at establishing customer relationships based on
trust and commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). While this shi in re-
search is acknowledged, there seems to be a lack of observations and
understanding of trends in trust research in the online commercial
environment. e latter is what this paper will provide.
e period for this literature review was selected as 2004-2014 be-
cause 2004 is noted to be a pivotal year for the Internet commercial
development. During that year, the term ‘Web 2.0’ was introduced to
e-commerce to describe Internet technological abilities that drasti-
cally changed the business model. O’Reilly (2007) summarized the
breakthrough in technology that allowed building computer applica-
tions directly on the Web rather than on desktops. is achievement
resulted in the consumers’ ability to create content in the form of text,
pictures, or videos that would deliver value to other people and busi-
nesses. On the one hand, it became relatively easy for individuals to
open an online store, but on the other hand, it made individuals more
powerful regarding creating or ruining a company’s reputation by
posting reviews online. Web 2.0 developments lead to fundamental
changes in business models based on social networking, interaction
orientation, personalization/customization, and user added value
(Wirtz, Schilke, & Ullrich, 2010). e year 2004 was noted by Clarke
and Pucihar (2013) as the beginning of the social network services era
in the digital economy.
e period of 2004-2014 is also important in research of online trust as
it marks the end of the Web 2.0 period and the beginning of the Web
3.0 (Nations, 2016). Although the term Web 3.0 was coined by John
Marko (2006) in 2006, the transition to the Semantic Web did not
happen then as it took time to combine articial intelligence and mo-
bile Internet devices. us, this literature review covers the decade of
online trust research in the Web 2.0 environment as it looks into the is-
sue of trust between customers and e-vendors. e process of selecting
articles for this review followed recommendations expressed by Okoli
and Schabram (2010) and Rousseau, Manning, and Denyer (2008).
e literature search was performed within two databases: the Web
of Science and EBSCO Host. According to omson Reuters (Site 1),
the Web of Science (formerly Web of Knowledge) database was the
rst online citation resource. It currently has 30 years of bibliometric
experience, maintains over 90 million records with over one billion
cited references. e Web of Science provides access to 3,000 journals
in over 55 social science disciplines and 250 scientic journals, thus
meeting the goal of this paper. IEEE Xplore Digital Library of the Ins-
titute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (Site 2) maintains the
database of over 100 peer-reviewed journals, lists almost 2 million
full-time documents and 4 million records. Another popular databa-
se - ACM - the Association for Computing Machinery - digital library
(Site 3) provides 407,367 full-text articles which cover the elds of
computing and information technology. Since online trust is studied
by marketing, management, psychology, and other social sciences
along with computer science and information technology, the Web of
Science database was selected as the most appropriate for the purpose
of this study.
e search was performed using the following two key phrases: “on-
line trust” and “e-commerce” in the “Topic” category of records from
2004 to 2014 inclusively. ese phrases have been carefully selected to
avoid the problem of using trust related specic terms or “buzzwords”
that “appear and disappear from literature” (Levy & Ellis, 2006, p.
190). e “Topic” rather than “Text” category was selected to narrow
down the search results only to the articles focusing on studying trust
directly rather than other aspects of e-commerce that might only in-
directly involve online consumer trust. e other selection criterion
was that papers should be full papers publications in peer-reviewed
English language journals. With this search approach, the Web of
Science database returned 123 results.
e second database used for this study is EBSCOHost, a fee-based
online research service with 375 full-text databases and a collection of
380,000-plus e-books (Brynko, 2013). e search based on the same
combination of “online trust” AND “e-commerce” returned 28 re-
sults. Papers found in EBSCO were combined with the papers found
through the Web of Science. As there were 14 duplicate articles – tho-
se found in both databases, the total number of papers under review
was 138.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 70
Initially, a “practical screen” (Okoli & Schabram, 2010, p.7) was con-
ducted to determine which studies should be selected. At that time abs-
tracts of the papers were reviewed to ensure that articles indeed cover
the subject of online trust. e data about publications were entered in
an Excel worksheet which made ltering of records easier. In the se-
cond round of review, each full article was read, and the content coding
and classication of the articles were completed. Based on the named
selection criteria, some publications were excluded from the review:
•Among the search results, there was one book and individual
chapters in three books discussing online trust in e-commerce
or m-commerce. Since the focus of this review is on the article
publications in academic journals, these four publications were
not considered in our subsequent analysis.
•One result was a publication in Spanish, although its abstract
was in English. Since the full paper was not available in English,
it was not included in further analyses.
•Conference papers or conference abstracts rather than full pa-
pers published in the conference proceedings were not consi-
dered. Clarke and Pucihar (2013) have already reviewed 1,000
conference papers submitted to the Bled eConference in 25 years
(1988-2013) and there was no need to duplicate the previous study.
Fiy-ve conference presentations were dropped from our list.
•Articles studying trust in non-commercial websites (non-prot
and government organizations) were rejected for further analy-
ses as not meeting our selection criteria.
•Articles researching auctions or consumer-to-consumer tran-
sactions were not taken further as consumer bidding behavior
is dierent from the consumer buying behavior in a traditional
retail environment.
•Doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, and unpublished wor-
king papers were excluded from our analyses.
As a result, y-four full papers out of 138 publications in the area
of online trust have been included for the analysis of trends in online
trust research. Although this search is not exhaustive, it captures a
sucient number of publications in this eld.
3. Classications of Publications
First, all y-four publications were classied based on the type of the
article: literature review, theoretical paper, or empirical research. For
the purpose of this paper, literature review articles were identied as
those presenting work of others over a specied period or covering a
specic topic. Such articles “summarize existence evidence, identify
gaps in research and provide a framework for positioning research
endeavors” (Okoli & Schabram, 2010, p. 3). eoretical papers were
dened as papers presenting a theoretical analysis based on ideas not
supported by empirical evidence. Empirical research papers were
classied as such if they reported results of the primary research. Ta-
ble 1 below shows the results of this grouping.
Table 1. Classication of publications based on the type of the article.
Type of the article Number of publications Percent of the total
Literature review 5 9.25%
eoretical paper 6 11.11%
Empirical research 43 79.63%
Tot a l 54 100.00%
Four out of ve studies classied as literature reviews were topic-spe-
cic surveys of literature where the author(s) selected an aspect of
online trust research, and then found, and analyzed academic studies
exploring that topic. For example, the topic of web design was inves-
tigated by Cyr (2014) and Karimov, Brengman, and van Hove (2011),
adoption of e-commerce Chang et al. (2005), and antecedents of on-
line trust were reviewed by Beldad, de Jong, and Steehouder (2010).
One study (Urban, Amyx, & Lorenson, 2009) reported the state of
research in the area of online trust from a holistic perspective and
showed dierent aspects of online trust research – a process of deve-
loping online trust, online privacy and security, website design, and
heterogeneity of trust.
As the literature review studies on web design show, there is empirical
evidence that a website has cues which impact developing consumer
online trust, satisfaction, and loyalty but there is no consensus among
the researchers on exactly what online features signal trustworthiness
to online shoppers (Cyr, 2014). us, Cyr (2014) suggested three cate-
gories of website key elements – navigation, information, and visual,
while Karimov et al. (2011) discussed visual design (graphics and
structure), social cue design (social media, online help and human-
like features), and content design (product and company information,
and assurance of transactions). Both reviews on the website design
noted the abundance of factors inuencing consumer perceptions of
online trustworthiness.
Chang et al. (2005) reviewed 45 papers that they found relevant to
their study and identied three main categories of research on what
impacts e-commerce acceptance – perceived ability of a website to
complete a transaction, characteristics of a customer, and perceived
characteristics of a product. Meanwhile, Beldad et al. (2010) reviewed
literature related to studying antecedents of online trust based on
three groups: consumer-based, website-based, and company-based
determinants of trust. ese two studies support each other as areas
of research identied by Chang et al. (2005) correspond to categories
of determinants of trust introduced by Beldad et al. (2010).
Six theoretical papers covered three major areas: the concept of online
trust, legal, and technological factors impacting online trust. eore-
tical foundations of online trust were presented by papers published
by Riegelsberger, Sasse, and McCarthy (2005) and Wang and Emurian
(2005). O’Hara (2005) discussed how contract statutes and court doc-
trines could be modied in order to enhance consumer trust while
M. R. Muhammad and M. Muhammad (2013) reviewed Shari’ah laws
and how online trust model ts those. e impact of cooperative re-
view mechanisms and the adverse eect of trust certications were
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 71
conceptualized respectively by Fan et al. (2005) and Edelman (2011).
e overall ambition of the theoretical papers was to oer dierent
pieces to a big overall picture of the online trust concept.
e forty-three articles reporting results of empirical studies were
analyzed with the purpose of identifying the major trends in online
trust research. Figure 1 illustrates these trends. An interesting ob-
servation is that all of those studies are conducted with quantitative
research methods. A few researchers used focus groups to discuss
the items on the survey before collecting the data, but no qualitative
studies in the area of online trust research in the commercial environ-
ment were found in the articles selected for the review. e following
section presents the subject areas of these forty-three studies.
4. Main Areas of Online Trust Research
Following the established process for conducting a literature review,
data extraction had to be completed before the analysis and synthe-
sis of studies could begin (Okoli & Schabram, 2010). e review of
the content of forty-three empirical studies was performed to deter-
mine both clusters and outliers of research areas by common data
extraction procedures (Rousseau et al., 2008). As the purpose of the
literature review was to establish research trends in the area of onli-
ne trust in the commercial environment, information about the main
study area was extracted from each article. us, the review process
was completed in several steps: (1) reviewing citations and abstracts
followed by (2) the review of the full text of articles to complete a “the-
matic analysis” of areas of study (Traneld, Denyer, & Smart, 2003, p.
218). During the third step, the content of each paper was coded with
a keyword that reected the main research area and later analyzed
(step four). is method has been dened as an interpretive approach
which was validated by researchers previously (Rousseau et al., 2008;
Traneld et al., 2003).
Following Traneld et al. (2003), a data extraction form was used in
preparation for the content analysis. e form was an Excel worksheet
which contained details of the information source (authors, title, pu-
blication, year of publication) and the context of the study. Aer the
review of the full text of each article, all articles were coded based on
the main study area and the research method. e use of the Excel
worksheet allowed for easier ltering of data based on selected cri-
teria – author, title, publication, year of publication, main study area,
research method, and a study sample size. e form served as eviden-
ce of papers which went through the review, a visual representation of
the link between the articles and the aim of the literature review, and
data storage (Traneld et al., 2003).
e “bottom-up” approach was used during the coding process when
papers were divided into groups according to research topics covered
in studies. is process of grouping is a commonly used and validated
approach in qualitative data analysis consisting of identifying con-
cept categories incrementally during the coding process rather than
using a predetermined list of concepts (Carley, 1993; Gray & Densten,
1998). is method helps to discover new trends rather than trying to
t current research into the list of existing categories.
Once the agreement between two researchers had been achieved,
the review of codes resulted in the following grouping: three major
research categories and twelve subcategories. ree main categories
of topics were identied as trust models, technological factors, and
social factors impacting online consumer trust. Within each category,
specic sub-categories were grouped. e graph in Figure 1 follows
the approach which was originally undertaken by Ngai and Wat
(2002) to present the topic classication.
e three research categories shown in Figure 1 are suggested based
on the following theoretical concepts:
(1) A trust model oers a holistic (overall) picture of on-
line trust development showing antecedents of online
trust under a specic context. Since online trust is
highly contextualized, these models provide a theoret-
ical foundation to better understand the online trust
phenomenon
(2) Technological factors reect a cognitive approach to
trust as they show a company’s ability to complete a
transaction in a secure environment which is rational-
ly evaluated by consumers. ese factors also corre-
spond to the concept of institutional trust where an
individual treats an institutional structure and institu-
tional arrangements as ways to reduce risk in a partic-
ular situation (Bachmann & Inkpen, 2011).
(3) Social factors correspond to the aective approach to
trust as these factors describe consumer’s perceptions
and emotions about perceived trustworthiness of a
website.
Figure1. Main categories of online trust research
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 72
Table 2 shows the frequency of article distribution by subject sub-
categories of research. Each key category is looked into in greater
depth below.
Table 2. Distribution of articles by the topic of research.
Topics of research Number of articles % of total
Determinants of trust 14 32.56%
Website design 5 11.63%
Trust signals 5 11.63%
Initial trust 4 9.30%
E-commerce acceptance 3 6.97%
Trust transfer 3 6.97%
Privacy 2 4.65%
Social presence 2 4.65%
Word –of-mouth 2 4.65%
Culture and trust 1 2.32%
Green trust 1 2.32%
Trust recovery 1 2.32%
Tot a l 43 100.00%*
*Note: Due to rounding, the actual total is 99.97%.
4.1. Trust Models
e largest group of articles on online trust in e-commerce (48.84%)
belongs to the category of trust models. is nding was not surpri-
sing as the phenomenon of online trust is relatively new and “requires
a strong theoretical basis” (Benbasat, Gefen, & Pavlou, p. 6). Papers
found in this category focus on online trust as a process and look at
what causes trust to occur, develop, and/or transfer from one envi-
ronment to another.
•Determinants of online trust are factors that lead to developing
online trust. Studies in this category focus on a variety of ante-
cedents ranging from consumer personal characteristics and we-
bsite features (Chang & Fang, 2013), system structural assurance
(Chau, Hu, Lee, & Au, 2007) to country specic consumer cultu-
ral characteristics (Casaló, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2011; Eid, 2011).
•Initial trust as the rst stage in online trust development was the
focus of four papers under this review (Chen & Barnes, 2007; Li,
Jiang & Wu, 2014; G. Wu, Hu, and Y. Wu, 2010; Yaobin & Tao,
2007).
•Trust transfer as a concept of applying trust in a vendor in one
domain (traditional, brick store) to another (online domain) was
explored by Bock, Lee, Kuan, and Kim (2012), Kuan and Bock
(2007), and Lee, Kang, and McKnight (2007).
4.2. Technological Factors
Articles included in the technological factors category investigated e-
commerce adoption, privacy issues, website design, and trust signals.
• E-Commerce acceptance: In two articles found on this topic, accep-
tance of online shopping is viewed from the consumers’ perspective
rather than from the companies’ side. e scope varied from e-
commerce adoption by older generations of buyers (Chattaraman,
Kwon, & Gilbert, 2012) to a single country case of Tanzania (Maka-
me, Kang, & Park, 2014). e third paper (Roy & Ghose, 2006) dis-
cussed the process of e-commerce adoption as a two-phase action:
rst Internet non-users are converted into Internet users, and then
from the Internet users they transition to e-commerce buyers.
•Privacy issues: Despite the advances in technology and standar-
dization of e-commerce business platforms, the issue of privacy
remains one of the key research areas of online trust studies. e
concept of privacy on the Internet is dened as people’s ability
“to control the terms under which their personal information is
acquired and used” (Culnan, 200, p. 20). Personal information
includes both private and public data. Companies that can co-
llect consumer data to analyze customers’ needs and spending
habits have a strategic advantage in a competitive marketplace
(Wheelen, Hunger, Homan, & Bamford, 2015). Due to the te-
chnological developments that make collecting customer infor-
mation online an easy task for marketers, the public portion of
the personal information has been increasing (Caudill & Mur-
phy, 2000). Privacy concerns relate to data collection techni-
ques as well as data storage, processing and handling (O’Brien
&Torres, 2012; Peštek, Resić, & Nožica, 2004). To protect their
privacy, consumers expect to have a certain degree of control
over their information submitted online and have online tools
that help to exercise that control.
•Website design: According to one of the basic principles of the
trust-building process, a trustor’s experience with the object of
trust determines how much trust toward that object will be esta-
blished (Blau, 1974; Luhmann, 1979). Since the object of online
trust is a website, customers develop trust in a company accor-
ding to their experience of dealing with the company’s websi-
te. If consumers’ perception of the website is that of a company
capable of delivering promised value, then consumers are more
likely to develop trust (Bart, Shankar, Sultan, &Urban, 2005).
is subcategory was in the top three most frequently studied
topics in the articles selected for our analysis.
• Trust signals or trust marks are website elements which are “pre-
sented in an eort to dispel consumers’ concerns about Internet
security and privacy and, therefore, to increase rm-specic trust
levels” (Aiken & Boush, 2006, p. 310). Among trust signals stu-
died by researchers are seals of approval from trusted third party
(certication systems that promote trust online), photos of sales
persons, and consumer rating system. A dierent approach was
taken by San Martín and Jiménez (2011) who studied the role of
gender in interpreting online trust signals in Spanish customers.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 73
4.3. Social Factors
e third category, identied as social factors, contains studies of the
socio-cultural factors impacting online trust development: word-of-
mouth, social presence, culture, trust recovery, and green trust.
•Word-of-mouth: e role of communication between customers
about a company’s ability, benevolence, and integrity, as well as
its product is in the center of studies in this sub-category (Awad
& Ragowsky, 2008; Lee, Park, & Han, 2011).
•Social Presence: As online shopping is viewed as impersonal, au-
tomated, and lacking human touch (Beldad et al., 2010), resear-
chers continue to explore the impact of the virtual environment
on the customers’ perceptions of “human warmth and sociabili-
ty” (Hassainen & Head, 2007, p. 690). Web elements that create
those perceptions – pictures of people, social networks, blogs –
are the main objects of study in this sub-category.
•Culture: Despite the dierent nuances in numerous denitions
of culture there is consensus among researchers that culture is
shared among people, is taught from generation to generation,
and aects people’s view of the world, thinking, and behavior
(G. Hofstede, G.J. Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010; Hall, 1976; Trom-
penaars, 1994). Culture expresses shared values that are reected
in symbols, myths, and languages (Smircich, 1983). As trust is a
social phenomenon, researchers investigate how cultural back-
grounds of online shoppers might impact online trust develo-
pment as the culture of shoppers might not be the same as the
cultural background of the retailers (Bente et al., 2014; Casaló
et al., 2011). When people from two identical cultures interact,
the trust building process should be “relatively straightforward”
(Saunders, Skinner, & Lewicki, 2010, p. 19). However, when
people from dierent cultures interact, they use their value sys-
tems to analyze cues or trust symbols displayed by others. As a
result, there might be misunderstanding and misinterpretation
of intentions (Dietz, Gillespie, & Chao, 2010) which could lead
to abandoning the website.
•Trust recovery: In situations when unsatised consumers com-
plain about their online shopping experiences, e-retailers hand-
le those complaints dierently. Failure to address customers’
complaints lead to reduced trust while satisfactory approaches
to solving customers’ complaints can enhance trust (Pizzutti &
Fernandes, 2010).
•Green trust: A new research area was found among social fac-
tors – the “green” consumer movement. Chen and Chang (2013)
oered a new managerial framework that combines the phe-
nomenon of green marketing and relationship marketing into
green trust. Green trust was dened as “a willingness to depend
on a product, service, or brand based on the belief or expectation
resulting from its credibility, benevolence, and ability about its
environmental performance” (Chen & Chang, 2013, p.72).
5. Discussion
e purpose of this literature review was to identify the main trends
in academic research of online trust in e-commerce during the 2004-
2014 period and not to evaluate or judge the state of this research.
Although 138 publications were selected that met the initial inclusion
criteria, only 54 papers were included in this review. ese studies
showed a fair diversity of topics, but the results of the content analysis
revealed the concentration of studies in three main areas: trust mo-
dels, technological and social factors impacting online trust.
e scope of trust models extends from studying antecedents or de-
terminants of online trust (Gregori et al., 2014; Hwang, 2009; Peštek,
Resić, & Nožica, 2011) to researching the impact of online trust on
the consumer buying behavior (Chau et al., 2007; Chiu et al., 2009),
from investigating specics of initial online trust (Chen & Barnes,
2007; Wu, Hu, &Wu, 2010) to studying a possibility of transfer of tra-
ditional trust in “brick” retailers to “click” retailers (Bock et al., 2012;
Kuan & Bock, 2007) to comparing antecedents of trust and distrust
as two coexisting constructs (Chang & Fang, 2013). e fact that this
topic is the top research area shows the on-going interest to studying
factors impacting online trust and continuous attempts to create a
framework for online trust (Beldad et al., 2010).
Due to the higher number of uncertain aspects in e-commerce, de-
velopment of trust is signicantly more important, but also more
dicult, in the online environment than in a face-to-face situation.
Online buyers are separated from online retailers in time and place
(Pavlou, Liang, & Xue, 2007; Riegelsberger et al., 2005), and shoppers
can not touch, smell, taste or try on tangible products (Chen & Dibb,
2010). Due to these specics of online exchanges, there is a higher le-
vel of opportunism: an online vendor can take the payment but either
delivers a wrong product or does not deliver at all; there is a possibili-
ty of a retailer to delay a product delivery or not to exchange a faulty
product (Peštek, Resić, & Nožica, 2011). Negative consequences of
online transactions that might go wrong are greater than the possible
positive outcome (Lee & Turban, 2001). Hence the trend in the online
trust studies is to explore antecedents of online trust, initial trust, and
trust development. If a consumer does not develop initial trust in an
e-retailer from the initial visit, then there is a little chance of a consu-
mer returning to that website (Wang, Guo, Niu, & Li, 2011).
When observing the dominant trends in online trust research, two
approaches stand out – studying online trust from a technological
perspective or the social one. e technological perspective reviews
online tools and the Web capabilities to complete a transaction. e
social approach focuses on the impact of the online community and
personal attributes of an online buyer. It appears, however, that stu-
dies combine both: it is dicult to consider online word-of-mouth,
for example, as an online trust antecedent if an e-vendor does not
oer a blog or a review system for customers. If a website does not
have this feature, does it mean that customers do not develop online
trust toward that vendor? Or, on the other hand, if technologically,
a website is designed with the use of all the latest interactive tools –
3D images, online chat with a customer service representative, high
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 74
customization of a website, and other tools – does it help a customer
develop online trust without considering that customer’s social envi-
ronment and personal characteristics?
As Table 2 shows, the top four research areas are determinants of
trust, website design, trust signals, and initial trust. e least explored
two topics are green trust and trust recovery, as only one article was
found in each of those sub-categories. e only article in the area of
green trust found for this literature review suggests that companies
which embraced environmental protection as a part of their social
responsibility and business strategy should integrate concepts of
green marketing into all marketing activities (Chen & Chang, 2013).
Green marketing refers to all activities that generate and facilitate ex-
changes to satisfy consumers’ needs with minimal impact on the na-
tural environment (Polonsky, 1994). It is argued that companies need
to reveal more information about their product and its impact on
the natural environment to allow customers compare green products
to traditional ones. is comparison helps to reduce perceived risks
and concerns about the quality of a green product. Chen and Chang
(2013) introduced the new constructs of “green perceived quality”
and “green perceived risk” and empirically tested the relationships
between green perceived quality, green perceived risk, green satisfac-
tion, and green trust.
Process of trust repair aer a company’s failure to deliver a product
was studied previously both in the situation of a traditional, face-to-
face environment (Dietz & Gillespie 2012) and in online situations,
especially with regard to government websites (Beldad et al., 2012;
Schaupp, Carter, & McBride, 2010). However, research of online trust
recovery in the context of e-commerce seems to be understudied. A
quick search in the Google Scholar using the key phrase “online trust
recovery” did not return any results, a follow-up search with the phra-
se “online trust repair” did not show any articles within that database.
6. Contribution and Practical Implications
e most important contribution of this review is that it identies
trends in trust research in the area of e-commerce in the Web 2.0
environment in 2004-2014. Analyzing those trends helps to identify
understudied areas and suggest some future areas for online trust re-
search in Web 3.0.
As our literature review shows, one of the new areas of studies deals
with green trust. Although this type of trust seems to reect consu-
mers’ trust in particular characteristics of some products rather than
overall online trust, an interesting study could be to investigate if
indeed green trust could be treated as a dierent type of trust in a
specic context. It would emphasize trust toward green marketing
in both traditional and online environment, thus adding to existing
trust classications.
e area of trust recovery in the commercial online environment
could and should be explored in more details. Establishing long-
term customer relationships based on trust and commitment is a suc-
cessful business strategy (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Unfortunately, not
all e-vendors implement this strategy awlessly, and issues of failing
to deliver as promised and online fraud are still abound. For example,
the fraud rate in online transactions in China alone was noted to be
between 9% and 47% during seven months (October 17, 2008, and
May 17, 2009) (Zhang et al., 2013).
is literature review also shows that there is another area that is
not studied in depth as it was missing in the topics presented in
Table 2. Since an e-vendor presents a product virtually, it is easy
for a company to exaggerate that product’s value and qualities. An
area that seems to be understudied is online ethics and trust. Cheng,
Yang, Chen, and Wu (2011) dened ethics in e-commerce (EC) as
“as a consumer’s perception about the practice of the EC website in
its handling of consumers in a condential, fair, honest and sincere
manner in the transaction process”(p. 4503). Overall, the studies
of ethics in e-commerce identied the top ethical issues as fraud,
intellectual property, privacy and informed consent, protection of
children, security of information, product warranty, plagiarism, and
trust (Cheng et al., 2011; Roman, 2007; Kracher & Corritore, 2004).
However, not a single article on ethics and trust was found among
the studies selected for this literature review. Hence, there is a lack
of studies investigating a direct impact of e-vendors’ ethical conduct
on online consumer trust, which constitutes a research gap in online
trust research.
ese three areas (green trust, trust recovery, and the role of ethics in
developing online trust) rate high on the online trust research agenda.
Studying these in detail will help not only to extend our knowledge
of various dimensions of online trust but contribute to practical solu-
tions in some key problems in online trust development.
7. Limitations and Future Research
is literature review has its limitations:
First, it is not exhaustive because the number of online trust studies
in the commercial environment meeting the strict criteria of our se-
lection process was not very numerous in the databases used for this
review. A similar search in Google Scholar (a combination of “online
trust” AND “e-commerce” for the 2004-2014 period run on Novem-
ber 3, 2014, for example, returned the total number of 4,340 articles
while EBSCO showed 29 articles when searched with these keywords.
is variation in number (from 29 to 4,340) of papers available online
could be explained by the dierences in algorithm approaches used
by the databases and search engines in nding articles that match key
phrases. It should be noted that some papers were omitted uninten-
tionally as the results of the Web of Science served as the foundation
for this review. Any literature review is biased when it comes to the
selection criteria used to identify papers for a review. Narrowing our
choice of literature oers a better focus on the topic of discussion but
makes generalization dicult.
Second, there was a signicant challenge to clearly and distinctly
identify the major area of research and some of the articles could have
been grouped in several categories.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 75
Despite these limitations, this paper is the rst systematic attempt
to oer a review of research trends in the area of online consumer
trust. It presents initial ndings that lead to identifying areas for fu-
ture research. is literature review covered studies evolving around
the Web 2.0. e term “Web 2.0” (read-write) refers to the second
generation of the Internet that takes advantage of the network nature
of the Web where participants can contribute to the online content.
Unlike Web 1.0 (the Web of documents) where Web administrators
published les for public to read online (Hiremath & Kenchakkana-
var, 2016), Web 2.0 (the Web of people) is a set of applications that
help to create, validate, manage, share and consume information
(Aghaei, Nematbakhsh, & Farsani, 2012). e extension of the Web
2.0 is Web 3.0 (Antunes, Freire, & Costa, 2016), which is referred to
as the semantic web or the web of data. e purpose of the semantic
web is to allow seamless integration of dierent sources in various
formats into one application. It means that the vast volume of data is
read and processed by the system rather than people. It also changes
the focus from “human in the loop to humanity in the loop” (Hendler
& Berners-Lee, 2010, p. 160). Trust as a social concept is a major part
of this humanity in the loop as noted by both researchers and practi-
tioners (Artz & Gill, 2007; Hendler & Berners-Lee, 2010).
It would be of interest to review online trust research trends in the era
of the Web 3.0 to see if the main trends remain the same or change,
and if they change – what direction and why. Since the technological
progress has not stopped and some researchers have already introdu-
ced Web 4.0 as “symbiotic Web” (Aghaei et al., 2012, p. 8), this type
of review could provide an academic foundation for trust research of
Web 4.0.
Another area of future research could and should be mobile and so-
cial commerce as new subcategories of e-commerce. Recent techno-
logical advancements led to the development of mobile electronic
devices (such as smartphones and tablets). Online shoppers started
using these devices for purchases thus creating a new phenomenon
of mobile commerce. Mobile commerce or m-commerce is dened
as a subset of e-commerce (Ngai & Gunasekaran, 2007) which uses
wireless, radio-type signals to conduct business transactions on the
Web (Siau & Shen, 2003; Yeh & Li, 2009).
e popularity of social networks and users’ increased involvement in
social media have changed online consumer purchasing behavior and
led to a new type of the business model known as social commerce or
s-commerce (Liang & Turban, 2012). is new type of e-commerce
combines social networking and shopping into one experience (Hsiao
et al., 2010). Social commerce or s-commerce was dened as ‘a new
business model of e-commerce driven by social media (e.g., SNSs)
that facilitates the purchasing and selling of various products and ser-
vices’ (Kim & Park, 2013, p. 319). Since by denition, social commer-
ce is based on the product reviews created by customers, trust is more
important here than in e-commerce due to a higher level of interac-
tivity where trust in participants of a social network becomes crucial
(Kim & Park, 2013). Once consumers trust product recommenda-
tions, they are more likely to buy that product (Hsiao et al., 2010).
Conclusion
Online trust has been a focus of research in various academic disci-
plines. is paper reviews only studies on consumer online trust in
e-commerce conducted and published in 2004-2014. is period was
selected as it marks the start and the tenth anniversary of the Web 2.0
technological developments that made the Internet truly interactive
(O’Reilly, 2007). One hundred and thirty-eight articles were reviewed
in preparation of this paper. Fiy-four papers were selected for analy-
sis: ve of them reviewed literature, six contributed to the theory de-
velopment, and forty-three articles reported empirical research in the
area of online trust in the commercial environment. An interpretive
approach to research synthesis was used when the content of papers
selected for the literature review was analyzed, the emerging themes
coded and described (Rousseau et al., 2008; Traneld et al., 2003). As
the result of the analysis, this paper highlights three major research
themes (trust models, technological and social factors impacting on-
line trust) and explores topics in each major theme found in direct
studies of online consumer trust.
is paper enhances the scientic community’s understanding of the
existing body of knowledge about online trust. As it is based on the
concept-centric approach (Levy & Ellis, 2006; Webster & Watson,
2002), it points out not only the major trends in research but also
some understudied areas that might help other researchers to expand
our knowledge of online trust.
References
Aghaei, S., Nematbakhsh, M.A., & Farsani, H. K. (2012). Evolution
of the World Wide Web: From WEB 1.0 TO WEB 4.0. International
Journal of Web & Semantic Technology, 3(1), 1-10.
Aiken, D. & Boush, D. (2006). Trustmarks, Objective-Source Ratings,
and Implied Investments in Advertising: Investigating Online Trust
and the Context-Specic Nature of Internet Signals. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 308-323.
Antunes, F., M. Freire, M., & Costa, J.P. (2016). Semantic web and
decision support systems. Journal of Decision Systems, 25(1), 79-93.
Artz, D. & Gil, Y. (2007). A survey of trust in computer science and
the semantic web. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the
World Wide Web, 5(2), 58-71.
Awad, N. F., & Ragowsky, A. (2008). Establishing trust in elec-
tronic commerce through online word of mouth: An examination
across genders. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(4),
101-121.
Bachmann, R. (2010). Towards a context-sensitive approach to re-
searching trust in inter-organizational relationships. In Mark N.K.
Saunders, Denise Skinner, Graham Dietz, Nicole Gillespie and Roy
J. Lewicki (eds). Organizational Trust: A Cultural Perspective, (pp.
87-106). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 76
Bachmann, R. & Inkpen, A. C. (2011). Understanding institutional-
based trust building processes in inter-organizational relationships.
Organization Studies, 32(2), 281-301.
Barber, B. (1983). e Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers.
Bart, Y., Shankar, V., Sultan, F., & 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), 133-152.
Beldad, A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010). How shall I trust
the faceless and the intangible? A literature review on the antecedents
of online trust. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 857-869.
Benbasat, I., Gefen, D. , & Pavlou, P. (2008) Special Issue: Trust in
Online Environments. Journal of Management Information Systems,
24(4), 5-11.
Bente, G., Dratsch, T., Kaspar, K., Häβler, T., Bungard, O., & Al-Issa,
A. (2014). Cultures of Trust: Eects of Avatar Faces and Reputation
Scores on German and Arab Players in an Online Trust-Game. PloS
one, 9(6), e98297. Retrived from: http://www.plosone.org/article/
info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0098297
Blau, P. M. (1974). On the Nature of Organizations. USA: Wiley.
Bock, G. W., Lee, J., Kuan, H. H., & Kim, J. H. (2012). e progression
of online trust in the multi-channel retailer context and the role of
product uncertainty. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 97-107.
Carley, K. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison
of content analysis and map analysis, Sociological Methodology, 23,
75-126.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2011). e generation of
trust in the online services and product distribution: e case of Spa-
nish electronic commerce. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
12(3), 199-213.
Caudill, E. M. & Murphy, P.E. (2000). Consumer Online Privacy: Legal
and Ethical Issues, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1), 7–19.
Chang, M.K., Cheung, W., & Lai, V.S. (2005) Literature derived re-
ference models for the adoption of online shopping. Information &
Management, 42(4), 543-559.
Chang, Y. S., & Fang, S. R. (2013). Antecedents and distinctions bet-
ween online trust and distrust: Predicting high-and low-risk Internet
behaviors. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(2), 149-166.
Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W. S., & Gilbert, J. E. (2012). Virtual agents
in retail web sites: Benefits of simulated social interaction for older
users. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2055-2066.
Chau, P. Y., Hu, P. J. H., Lee, B. L., & Au, A. K. (2007). Examining custo-
mers’ trust in online vendors and their dropout decisions: an empirical
study. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 6(2), 171-182.
Chen, Y. H., & Barnes, S. (2007). Initial trust and online buyer beha-
viour. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(1), 21-36.
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Towards green trust: e inuen-
ces of green perceived quality, green perceived risk, and green satis-
faction. Management Decision, 51(1), 63-82.
Chen, J. & Dibb, S. (2010). Consumer Trust in the Online Retail Con-
text: Exploring the Antecedents and Consequences. Psychology &
Marketing, 27(4), 323-346.
Cheng, H-F. , Yang, M-H., Chen, K-Y. & Wu, J.B. (2011). Ethics in
electronic commerce: An exploration of its consequences. African
Journal of Business Management, 5, 4500-4509.
Chiu, C. M., Chang, C. C., Cheng, H. L., & Fang, Y. H. (2009). Deter-
minants of customer repurchase intention in online shopping. Online
information review, 33(4), 761-784.
Clarke, R. & Pucihar, A. (2013). Electronic interaction research 1988–
2012 through the lens of the Bled eConference. Electronic Markets,
23(4), 271-283.
Cook, K. Cheshire, C. Gerbasi, A. & Aven, B. (2009) Assessing Trust-
worthiness in Providers. In K. Cook, C. Snijders, V. Buskens, and C.
Cheshire (Eds.). eTrust: Forming relationships in the online world (pp.
189-214). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Corritore, C., Kracher, B. & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). Online trust:
concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 58, 737–758. doi:10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00041-7
Culnan, M. (2000). Protecting Privacy Online: Is Self-Regulation
Working? Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(1), 20-26.
Cyr, D. (2014). Return visits: a review of how Web site design can en-
gender visitor loyalty. Journal of Information Technology. 29(1), 1-26.
Davis, D. (2012, October 23). How Many Online Retailers are there World-
wide? Internet Retailer. Retrieved from http://www.internetretailer.com/
commentary/experts/how-many-online-retailers-are-there-worldwide/
Dietz, G. (2011) Going back to the source: Why do people trust each
other? Journal of Trust Research, 1(2), 215-222.
Dietz, G., & Gillespie, N. (2012). Recovery of Trust: Case Studies of
Organisational Failures and Trust Repair, Vol. 5. London: Institute of
Business Ethics.
Dietz, G., Gillespie, N., & Chao, G. (2010). Unravelling the comple-
xities of trust and culture. In M. Saunders, D. Skinner, G. Dietz, N.
Gillespie, & R. Lewicki (Eds), Organizational Trust: A Cultural Pers-
pective (pp. 3 - 41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edelman, B. (2011). Adverse selection in online “trust” certications
and search results. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications,
10(1), 17-25.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 77
Fan, M., Ming, Y.T., & Whinston, A.B. (2005). Evaluation and design of
online cooperative feedback mechanisms for reputation management.
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 17(2), 244-254.
Fang, Y. H., Chiu, C.M., & Wang, E.T. (2011) Understanding cus-
tomers’ satisfaction and repurchase intentions: An integration of IS
success model, trust, and justice. Internet Research, 21(4), 479-503.
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: e Social Virtues and the Creation of
Prosperity. New York: e Free Press.
Grabner-Kraeuter, S. & Kaluscha, E. A. (2008). Consumer trust in
electronic commerce: Conceptualization and classication of trust
building measures. In T. Kautonen, & H. Karjaluoto (Eds.), Trust and
new technologies (pp. 3-22). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Gray, J. H. & Densten, I. L. (1998). Integrating quantitative and quali-
tative analysis using latent and manifest variables. Quality and Quan-
tity, 32(4), 419-431.
Gregori, N., Daniele, R., & Altinay, L. (2014). Aliate Marketing in
Tourism Determinants of Consumer Trust. Journal of Travel Research,
53(2), 196-210.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond Culture. Anchor Press/Doubleday: Garden
City, New York.
Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2007). Manipulating perceived social pre-
sence through the web interface and its impact on attitude towards
online shopping. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
65(8), 689-708.
Hendler, J. & Berners-Lee, T. (2010). From the Semantic Web to social
machines: A research challenge for AI on the World Wide Web. Arti-
cial Intelligence, 174(2), 156-161.
Hiremath, B. K. & Kenchakkanavar, A. Y. (2016). An Alteration of
the Web 1.0, Web 2.0 and Web 3.0: A Comparative Study. Imperial
Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(4), 705-710.
Hofstede, G. Hofstede, G.J. Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organi-
zations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and its
Impor-tance for Survival (3rd edition). New York: McGraw Hill.
Hsiao, K.-L. Lin, J. Wang, X.-Y. Lu, H.-P., & Yu, H. (2010). Antece-
dents and consequences of trust in online product recommendations:
An empirical study in social shopping. Online Information Review, 34
(6), 935-953.
Hwang, Y. (2009). The impact of uncertainty avoidance, social norms
and innovativeness on trust and ease of use in electronic customer
relationship management. Electronic Markets, 19(2-3), 89-98.
Jarvenpaa, S. & Rao V. (2003). Trust in Online Consumer Exchanges:
Emerging Conceptual and Theoretical Trends. In M. Shaw (Ed.) The
E-Commerce and the Digital Economy, (pp. 229-246). M.E. Sharpe,
Inc.
Karimov, F. Brengman, M. Van Hove, L. (2011). e Eect of Web
Site Design dimensions on Initial Trust: A Synthesis of the Empirical
Literature. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 12(4), 272-301.
Kim, D.J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H.R.(2009). Trust and satisfaction, two
stepping stones for successful e-commerce relationships: A longitudi-
nal exploration. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 237-257.
Kim, S. & Park, H. (2013). Eects of various characteristics of social
commerce (s-commerce) on consumers’ trust and trust performance.
International Journal of Information Management, 33, 318-332.
Kracher, B. & Corritore, C. (2004). Is there a special e-commerce
ethics? Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(1), 71-94.
Kuan, H. H., & Bock, G. W. (2007). Trust transference in brick and
click retailers: An investigation of the before-online-visit phase. Infor-
mation & Management, 44(2), 175-187.
Lee, J., Park, D. H., & Han, I. (2011). e dierent e ects of online
consumer reviews on consumers’ purchase intentions depending on
trust in online shopping malls: an advertising perspective. Internet
research, 21(2), 187-206.
Lee, K.C., Kang, I. & McKnight, D. H. (2007). Transfer from oine
trust to key online perceptions: an empirical study. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 54(4), 729-741.
Lee, M. & Turban, E. (2001). A Trust Model for Consumer Internet
Shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(1), 75-91.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. J. (2006). A systems approach to conduct an eec-
tive literature review in support of information systems research. In-
forming Science: International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline,
9(1), 181-212.
Li, H. Jiang, J., & Wu, M. (2014). e eects of trust assurances on consu-
mers’ initial online trust: A two-stage decision-making process perspec-
tive. International Journal of Information Management, 34(3), 395-405.
Liang, T.-P. & Turban, E. (2012) Introduction to the Special Issue So-
cial Commerce: A Research Framework for Social Commerce. Inter-
national Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2), 5-13.
Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and Power. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Makame, W. H., Kang, J., & Park, S. (2014). Factors influencing
elec-tronic commerce adoption in developing countries: The case of
Tan-zania. South African Journal of Business Management, 45(2),
83-96.
Markoff, J. (2006, November) Entrepreneurs See a Web Guiding
by Common Sense. New York Times. [Online] Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/business/12web.html?_r=0
Mayer, R. C. Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F.D. (1995). An
Integrati-ve Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 78
Mollering, G. (2006). Trust: Reason, Routine, Reexivity. Oxford: Elsevier.
Morgan, R. Hunt, S. (1994) e Commitment-Trust eory of Rela-
tionship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Muhammad, M. R., & Muhammad, M. (2013). Building Trust in E-
Commerce: A Proposed Shari’ah Compliant Model, e Journal of
Internet Banking and Commerce, 18(3), 1-13.
Nations, D. (2016, May) What Is Web 3.0 and Is It Here Yet? Li-
fewire. [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-
web-3-0-3486623
Ngai, E.W.T. & Gunasekaran, A. (2007). A review for mobile commer-
ce research and applications. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 3-15.
Ngai, E. W. T. & Wat F. K. T. (2002). A literature review and classi-
cation of electronic commerce research, Information Management,
39, 415-429.
O’Brien, D. & Torres, A.M. (2012). Social networking and online
privacy: Facebook users’ perceptions. Irish Journal of Management,
31(2), 63-97.
O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business
models for the next generation of soware. C ommunications a nd
Strategies, 65(1), 17-37.
Okoli, C. & Schabram, K. (2010). A Guide to Conducting a Syste-
matic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts:
Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26). Retrieved from
http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10-26
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitiga-
ting uncertainty in online exchange relationships: a principal-agent
perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 105-136.
Peštek, A., Resić, E., & Nožica, M. (2011). Model of trust in E-Tran-
sactions. Ekonomska istraživanja, 24(3), 131-146.
Pettit, P. (1995). The Cunning of Trust. Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 24(3), 202-225.
Pizzutti, C., & Fernandes, D. (2010). Effect of recovery efforts on
con-sumer trust and loyalty in e-tail: a contingency model.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 14(4), 127-160.
Polonsky, M. J. (1994). An introduction to green marketing.
Electro-nic Green Journal, 1(2). Retrieved from http://
escholarship.org/uc/item/49n325b7
Riegelsberger, J., Sasse, M. A., & McCarthy, J. D. (2005). The
mecha-nics of trust: A framework for research and design.
International Jour-nal of Human-Computer Studies, 62(3), 381-422.
Roman, S. (2007). Ethics of Online Retailing: A Scale
Development and Validation from the Consumers’ Perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 72(2), 131-148.
Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. (2008). Evidence in Mana-
gement and Organizational Science: Assembling the Field’s Full Weight
of Scientic Knowledge rough Syntheses. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved
from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1309606
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so die-
rent aer all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Roy, S. & Ghose, S. (2006). Internet adoption as a two-stage transi-
tion-Converting internet non-users to internet users and to online
buyers. International Journal of Market Research, 48(3), 321-349.
San Martín, S., & Jiménez, N. H. (2011). Online buying perceptions in
Spain: can gender make a dierence? Electronic Markets, 21(4), 267-281.
Saunders, M., Skinner, D., & Lewicki, R. (2010). Emerging themes, impli-
cations for practice, and directions for research. In M. Saunders, D. Skinner,
G. Dietz, N. Gillespie, & R. Lewicki (Eds, Organizational Trust: A Cul-
tural Perspective (pp. 407-423). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaupp, L. C., Carter, L., & McBride, M. E. (2010). E-le adoption:
A study of US taxpayers’ intentions. Computers in Human Behavior,
26(4), 636-644.
Shankar, V., Urban, G. L., & Sultan, F. (2002). Online trust: A stake-
holder perspective, concepts, implications, and future directions.
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 325-344.
Siau, K. & Shen, Z. (2003). Building Customer Trust in Mobile Com-
merce. Communications of the ACM, 46(4), 91-94.
Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analy-
sis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339-358.
Traneld, D., Denyer, D. & Smart, P. (2003). Toward a methodology
for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means
of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222.
Trompenaars, F. (1994) Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding
Diversity in Global Business. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Urban, G. Amyx, C. Lorenzon, A. (2009). Online Trust: State of the
Art, New Frontiers, and Research Potential. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23(2), 179-190.
Wang, C.-C. & Chen, C.-C. (2010). Electronic Commerce Research in
Latest Decade: A Literature Review. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce Studies, 1(1), 1-14.
Wang, Y. D. & Emurian, H. (2005). An Overview of Online Trust:
Concepts, Elements, and Implications. Computers in Human Beha-
vior, 21, 105-125.
Wang, B., Guo, X., Niu, H., & Li, H. (2011, August). A Review and
Prospects of Initial Trust in E-Commerce. In Management and Servi-
ce Science (MASS), 2011 International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2017. Volume 12, Issue 2
ISSN: 0718-2724. (http://jotmi.org)
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 79
Wareham, J., Zheng, J. G., & Straub, D. (2005). Critical themes in elec-
tronic commerce research: a meta-analysis. Journal of Information Te-
chnology, 20(1), 1-19.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare
for the future: Writing a literature review. Management Information
Sys-tems Quarterly, 26(2), xiii – xxiii.
Wheelen, T. L., Hunger, J.D., Hoffman, A.N., & Bamford, C.E.
(2015). Concepts in Strategic Management and Business Policy:
Globalization, In-novation, and Sustainability, 14th ed., Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
Wirtz, B.W., Schilke, O., &Ullrich, S. (2010). Strategic development
of business models: implications of the Web 2.0 for creating value on
the Internet. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 272-290.
Wu, G., Hu, X., & Wu, Y. (2010). Eects of perceived interactivity,
perceived web assurance and disposition to trust on initial online
trust. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 16(1), 1-26.
Yaobin, L. &Tao, Z. (2007). A research of consumers’ initial trust in
online stores in China. Journal of Research and Practice in Information
Technology, 39(3), 167-180.
Yeh, Y. & Li, Y-M. (2009). Building trust in m-commerce: contribu-
tion from quality and satisfaction. Online Information Review, 33(6),
1066-1086.
Zhang, Y., Bian, J., & Zhu, W. (2013). Trust fraud: A crucial challenge
for China’s e-commerce market. Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 12(5), 299-308.