Next Article in Journal
Wind Energy Conversions, Controls, and Applications: A Review for Sustainable Technologies and Directions
Previous Article in Journal
Forecast of the Evolution Trend of Total Vehicle Sales and Power Structure of China under Different Scenarios
Previous Article in Special Issue
Online Platform Customer Shopping Repurchase Behavior Analysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterizing Young Consumer Online Shopping Style: Indonesian Evidence

Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung 40132, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(5), 3988; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053988
Submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 12 February 2023 / Accepted: 20 February 2023 / Published: 22 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Marketing Strategy and Brand Management)

Abstract

:
Young people make up the majority of online shoppers in Indonesia. The objectives of this study are to characterize the consumer decision-making styles of young internet users and to create a profile of their online shopping styles. A quantitative research approach was used to accomplish the research objectives. The primary data for the study were gathered by sending questionnaires via social media to consumers from Generation Z and millennials who buy goods through e-commerce in Indonesia; 400 people responded. The survey questions were based on the consumer style inventory (CSI). Seven characteristics of Indonesian young consumers’ online shopping styles are identified through factor analysis. According to the findings of this study, young consumers have a hedonic online shopping style in which they prefer high-quality products, seek entertainment when shopping, and are impulsive. Young consumers are obsessed with novelty and branded goods. They frequently have difficulty selecting online stores and products, but they are loyal to specific stores and brands. This study fills the gap by providing a more detailed understanding of the online shopping styles, with the implications of considering shopping styles when promoting the products and designing the user interface and user experience of an e-commerce store.
JEL Classification:
D12; M31

1. Introduction

In Indonesia, internet use has increased dramatically. According to a recent survey, 64.8% of Indonesians use the internet regularly [1]. Online purchases in particular continue to rise as internet technology adoption and penetration levels rise [2]. Indeed, finding product information and making purchases online have grown in popularity [3].
Online shopping has become a trend for customers in Indonesia to purchase products. Some Indonesian consumers believe that patterns of online product sales have assimilated into their way of life [4]. Major benefits of virtual stores include the potential for time and money savings, a wide selection of products, convenient delivery and payment options, and stress-free gift-buying on holiday and pre-holiday days [5].
There are few studies that have been documented that attempt to integrate research findings across studies from a theoretical marketing and consumer behavior perspective, despite the growing attention and interest surrounding online consumer behavior over the past ten years [6]. Consumer behavior patterns refer to decision-making processes and styles, and they are largely conceptualized [7]. Online shopping behavior is the act of purchasing goods or services through a website, which is comparable to traditional shopping behavior [8].
Decision-making, according to [9], is one of the most difficult processes that humans must go through when thinking because it requires deciding between two or more options for goods or services. A purchase decision, according to [10], is the consumer’s behavior pattern that determines and adheres to a decision-making process. The consumer decision-making style methodology, or consumer style inventory (CSI), was developed by [11]. CSI was previously used by researchers to divide groups of consumers according to their predominant decision-making characteristics [12].
Young consumers are increasingly important in online shopping [13]. Young consumers prefer online shopping because it is convenient, cheaper, has more options, saves time, and is available anywhere and at any time [14]. The average online transaction value has increased significantly for almost every product, and Generation Z and millennials have led this expansion, accounting for 85% of total transactions [15].
To successfully deliver products and keep customers in the market, marketers must possess a thorough understanding of the various factors influencing consumers’ decisions [16]. Young people have been the subject of consumer studies in the past because they are: one of the most influential consumer segments [17]; easily adaptable to the internet; and utilize the internet as a tool for shopping [18].
Many attempts have been made to model and analyze online purchase behaviors [6]. However, few studies have been published on understanding online Indonesian buyers from a decision-making perspective, particularly on characterizing the young group of customers using the consumer style inventory. The purpose of this study is to portray the online decision-making styles of young consumers. The study has two main objectives: (1) categorize the shopping styles of young Indonesian internet shoppers, and (2) create a profile of their online shopping styles.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Consumer Decision-Making Style

Sinkovics [19] states that a thorough understanding of the various consumer decision-making processes is required for a successful marketing strategy. According to [20], consumer behavior is a process that occurs when consumers choose, buy, use, and even discard goods, services, ideas, and experiences in order to gain satisfaction from the fulfillment of their needs and desires. According to [21], decision-making is important in consumer behavior because it influences how consumers evaluate and select the products, services, and brands they will use.
One of the most researched topics in consumer behavior research is the decision-making styles, which is used to address market segmentation and positioning issues [22]. Sproles and Kendall [11] identified three approaches to characterizing consumer shopping styles: consumer typology, psychographics or lifestyle approach, and consumer characteristics approach. One of the most intriguing approaches is the consumer characteristics approach, which is concerned with the mental orientation of consumers when making decisions [23].
A consumer’s decision-making style is described by [11] as “a mental orientation characterizing a consumer’s approach to making choices”. Shopping orientation was described by [24] as being a general propensity toward shopping activities. Shopping orientation is described by [25] as consumers’ general attitudes, sentiments, and behaviors toward shopping. Consumers have mental orientations that affect the products they choose to buy, how they choose to buy them, where they choose to buy them, and even for whom they choose to buy them. These mental orientations can be conscious or unconscious. The shopping style is a name for this mentality [26].
Many studies have been carried out in an attempt to recognize and characterize consumer shopping styles. Stone [27] conducted early research on shopping orientations, identifying four distinct shopping types based on their shopping orientations: (1) the economic shopper, (2) the personalizing shopper, (3) the ethical shopper, and (4) the apathetic shopper. When measuring shopping orientations for health and personal care products, [28] supported the four shopper types identified by Stone.
Using lifestyle variables (activities, interests, and opinions), [29] examined the shopping preferences of cosmetic purchasers and identified four categories of purchasers as: store-loyal, brand-loyal, psychosocializing, name-conscious, and problem-solving shoppers. Recreational shoppers were described by [30], in terms of their preferences for using their free time to shop. Westbrook and Black [31] identified four categories, namely the economic consumer, the personalizing consumer, the ethical consumer, and the apathetic consumer. Bae [32] also identified eight traits of various consumer decision-making styles: perfectionist, brand-conscious, novelty-conscious, recreational/hedonic, price-conscious, impulsive/careless, confused by over choice, and habitual/loyal consumers.

2.2. Consumer Style Inventory (CSI)

Previous studies on shopping orientation have been successful in showing that consumers make habitual decisions and frequently disagree with one another, but they do not specifically address the issue of how to measure the characteristics that cause these divisions [33]. The consumer style inventory (CSI), created by [11], was designed to identify the fundamental traits of young American consumers’ decision-making styles. There are eight dimensions in the consumer style inventory (CSI) model: perfectionism consciousness, brand conscious, novelty and fashion consciousness, recreational and hedonistic consciousness, price and value consciousness, impulsiveness and carelessness, confused by over choice, and brand loyal orientation.
Perfectionism consciousness measures the characteristics of consumers who are perfectionists and have high-quality awareness. Items loaded on this factor measure consumers’ search for the best product quality. Perfectionist or high-quality awareness is a utilitarian shopping style because of the focus on price and quality orientation [34]. Consumers with these characteristics look for products with the best or highest quality using systematic searches and making comparisons between products [35].
Brand consciousness identifies the characteristics of brand-conscious consumers, namely, they believe that higher price equals higher quality [33]. Moreover, novelty and fashion consciousness assess the characteristics of the new fashion-conscious consumer. Consumers with this characteristic are those who are fashion-conscious and novelty conscious, they tend to find joy and pleasure from seeking new and innovative things [36]. They keep up-to-date with style, and style making is important to them [7].
Recreational consciousness evaluates the characteristics of recreational and hedonistic shopping awareness. Consumers engage in shopping for pleasure, recreation, and entertainment [34]. Consumers with these characteristics regard shopping as a pleasurable activity, and they shop solely for amusement [36]. Whereas price and value consciousness measures consumer characteristics with a focus on “value for money” where consumers are price conscious. Price awareness is the extent to which consumers focus on minimizing the price paid for a particular good [37].
Impulsiveness and carelessness examine the orientation of consumers who are impulsive and careless. Consumers with this characteristic do not plan their shopping, usually, they shop spontaneously even though they seem not to care about how many items are spent or how much money they spend [7]. Confused by over choice measures the characteristics of consumers who are confused by excessive choice. Consumers with this characteristic perceive many brands and stores to choose from and have difficulty making a choice. Gao and Simonson [38] state that the phenomenon that occurs in the online retail environment is that there is too much choice.
Finally, habitual and brand loyal orientation measures the habits and orientation of consumers who are loyal to the brand. Consumers with these characteristics tend to have favorite brands and stores and have formed a habit of choosing them repeatedly [39]. This refers to a condition where consumers have a favorite brand that is always purchased or a favorite store that is always visited repeatedly [11].

2.3. Cross-Cultural Consumer Decision-Making Style

Consumer style inventory (CSI) was created by Sproles and Kendall in the mid-1980s for offline buying, and previous researchers have applied the CSI for assessing consumer decision-making styles in brick-and-mortar retail shops. Due to the emergence of e-commerce activities, the CSI model should be modified to fit the e-commerce environment [40]. Pavlou and Fygenson [41] equate online shopping to e-commerce and suggest the definition that e-commerce is the activity where consumers obtain information and purchase products using internet technology.
Some researchers in the field of consumer economics conclude that consumers have different styles or rules to make decisions when they are faced with a choice in the market [42]. Nagra and Gopal [43] found in a study that gender, age, and income had a significant impact on consumers’ online shopping behavior while profession had not a significant impact. Previous studies have shown that people of different ages and in different income categories had different attitudes toward online shopping [44].
The eight-factor CSI developed in the United States has been used to study consumer purchasing behaviors across cultures, retail formats, and product categories [45]. It categorizes purchasing behavior as rational, brand, price, and quality-conscious [46]. Walsh et al. [47] investigated the generalizability of the CSI scale on nonstudent German consumers and discovered that six shopping style factors were relevant for German consumers: brand consciousness, perfectionism, recreational, hedonism, confused by over choice, impulsiveness, and novelty-fashion-consciousness.
According to [12], five decision-making styles are valid for Chinese consumers: perfectionism, novelty-fashion-conscious, recreational, price-conscious, and confused by over choice. Tai [48] modified the CSI to study the shopping habits of Chinese working women, adding four new shopping styles: active fashion chaser, rational, value buyer, and opinion seeker. Zhou et al. [49] used materialism to determine whether or not there are any differences in the shopping style of inland and coastal Chinese consumers. Inland and coastal consumers are similar in four ways: perfectionism (quality consciousness), price and value consciousness, confusion due to over choice, and careless or impulsive shopping.
The extant literature on consumer decision-making styles has examined the applicability of the US eight-factor CSI scale on online shopping behaviors across different cultures. Online apparel shopping was positively correlated with quality consciousness, brand consciousness, fashion consciousness, hedonistic shopping, impulsivity, and brand loyalty, according to research on US college students [50]. Sam et al. [51] developed an online CSI model for online consumers in Macau, and the results revealed seven online shopping styles: high-quality consciousness, brand consciousness, novelty-fashion consciousness, price consciousness, portability consciousness, website content consciousness, and website interface consciousness. According to [45], the original U.S. eight-factor of CSI could not be confirmed completely on an Indian online shopping style sample. However, the study discovered support for five factors: quality-conscious shopper, fashion-conscious shopper, uninterested shopper, impulsive shopper, and brand-conscious shopper.
Based on the above literature studies, the following hypotheses are proposed: “Young Indonesian online shopping will exhibit different shopping style characteristics than the eight shopping style characteristics first defined by [11]”.

3. Research Method

To achieve the research goals, a quantitative research method was employed. The main data in this study were collected directly from research respondents through the distribution of online survey instruments. The first section of the questionnaire contains a screening question about whether or not consumers purchased online. The second section assesses gender, education, online store selection, and product purchased online. The third survey instrument section included questions about online shopping decision-making styles. The decision-making style questions were based on the consumer style inventory (CSI) developed by [11]. CSI is a tool used to classify consumer shopping orientation into different decision-making characteristics. The CSI translation is utilized, with minor alterations, such as the addition of the term “online shopping”, to construct the 40-item CSI scale for the assessment. All items were measured using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree.
This research was conducted on members of generations Y and Z in Indonesia who made online purchases in e-commerce. The distribution of questionnaires was carried out online through social media, such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, and line. The total sample was 400, which consisted of 268 females and 132 males. The age of the samples was about 16–40 years old, and most of them had attained an education level above college. The number of samples is considered representative; it exceeds the recommended number for conducting a factor analysis of more than 250 according to [52].
The data were analyzed in two phases. The exploratory factor analysis was performed initially to discover consumers’ online decision-making characteristics, followed by a descriptive analysis profiling consumer decision-making styles for young Indonesians. EFA was utilized because previous research results showed significant cross-loading [7].

4. Result

Young consumers from the Y and Z generations were assessed in terms of their consumer style inventory, and in this case, their online decision-making style. The ages of both generations ranged from 16 to 40 years. A description of the survey respondents is presented in Table 1. Of the 400 respondents, 67 percent were female respondents, while only 33 percent were male respondents. They are the highest educated, with 75 percent still studying or having graduated from university. In terms of employment, nearly 70% are productive workers, while only 19% are still in school.
According to the survey, young Indonesian consumers prefer to shop at marketplaces, with only a small proportion shopping at online stores on social media or official store websites. Meanwhile, clothing and shoes were the most frequently purchased online among the seven product categories studied, accounting for 77% of the 308 total respondents. Body/beauty products are the second most popular, accounting for 43 percent of all purchases. With 31 percent, food comes in third place.
To investigate the dimensions of the research construct using the consumer style inventory, an exploratory factor analysis was performed. To determine the factor structure of the consumer style inventory in the context of young Indonesians shopping online, an exploratory factor analysis was required. The scale used to measure the consumer decision-making style was derived from the original study by [11]. Eight dimensions were presented by the first forty items used to gauge consumer decision-making characteristics: perfectionism consciousness, brand conscious, novelty and fashion consciousness, recreational and hedonistic consciousness, price and value consciousness, impulsiveness and carelessness, confused by over choice, and brand loyal orientation.
A varimax rotation procedure was also used to make each factor easier to interpret. The extraction of factors was based on a screen test and eigenvalues greater than 1.00. Following three iterations of data processing from the 40 items in [11] the consumer style inventory (CSI), it was encountered that the questionnaire was reduced by a total of 13 items.
The remaining 27 variables had factor loadings of at least +0.50 and ranging from 0.600 to 0.826, heavily weighted toward one of the identified factors. Each factor’s level of reliability was investigated. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for factors 1 to 7 ranged between 0,741 and 0,898, indicating an acceptable reliability. Factor number eight was removed because its coefficients were less than 0.7. Finally, a mean statistical analysis was used to profile the online decision making style of the young consumer. Table 2 displays the factor loading results, as well as the reliability and mean of each factor.

5. Discussion

As online marketing grows in popularity, this study provides many intriguing insights into online purchasing behavior, particularly in terms of consumer decision-making styles. Following a closer examination of the loading of the factors (Table 2), each factor was given a name based on the content of the variables contributing the most to each of the dimensions. As a result, when shopping online, young Indonesian consumers identify as having the following shopping style: quality orientation, store and brand loyalty, novelty enthusiasm, brand enthusiasm, entertainment shopping, over choice confusion, and impulsiveness.
Young online shoppers are found to be quality orientated, as evidenced by their relatively high shopping style scores. These shoppers are more systematic or comparative in their purchases. they are willing to spend time searching, checking, and selecting products with high performance. For young consumers considering making a purchase online, brand style and price were the most important variables. Customers who care about quality typically take their time to compare prices and stick with their favorite brands because they believe these brands to be representative of quality [33].
Young consumers have favorite online stores that they trust and make frequent purchases from. They also have brand loyalty, which results not only from a positive and strong brand image and personality, but also from their product consumption experience. This method of decision-making is consistent with [53] findings, which show that online shoppers are less price sensitive when shopping online than they are offline, and have less brand switching and size switching online than they do offline, implying higher brand loyalty. Furthermore, [54] discovered that brands with a high market share have an advantage in terms of brand loyalty in online stores, whereas brands with a low market share have a higher level of brand loyalty in offline stores. Pozzi [55] discovered that product exploration is systematically less common in online stores, which suggests that online shoppers are more loyal to brands and sizes and less price sensitive.
As they discovered to be novelty enthusiasm, young consumers value appearance and are aware of emerging trends; they are focused on achieving a fashionable and attractive appearance that will increase their self-esteem and social admiration. This is also reflected in their enthusiasm for novelty when shopping online. The excitement of finding new products, looking for inspiration, and learning about new brands drives these consumers. These people are explorer shoppers who are always looking for the best deals. Hanzaee and Aghasibeig, [56] confirm this study’s findings that young consumers are both innovative and brand conscious. Additionally, customers who seek novelty are more likely to buy popular brands from expensive retailers [57].
Young consumers demonstrated a high level of brand enthusiasm when making online purchasing decisions. Brand consciousness is the belief in well-known brands. Most young consumers are willing to spend more money to obtain products from well-known brands, especially since they are of productive working age, and purchasing branded products can provide them with a sense of pleasure and satisfaction. Furthermore, when consumers decide to buy products online, they will look for good and trusted online stores because stores with good reputations will also provide the best quality products. This is in line with a study conducted by [58], who concluded that brand orientation is positively related to the customer’s intention to make an online purchase.
Young consumers were discovered to be entertainment shoppers, although according to the findings, respondents had a medium score in this orientation. The web’s appeal affects how people shop online, according to [59]. Young consumers believe that scrolling through online stores on social media or e-commerce is a form of entertainment and can bring feelings of happiness. Young consumers may gain experiential value from various online stores’ stimulation, playfulness, and positive affect. Young users enjoy interacting with the website, which is encouraged by features, such as usability and aesthetic appeal, which heightens the pleasure they experience when making impulse purchases online. This contributes to their online decision-making style which is categorized as recreational shopping. Pleasure, arousal, and escape were identified as the three components of recreational shopping by [60].
Because there are fewer restrictions when shopping online, consumers are more likely to make impulsive purchases than when shopping in physical stores [61]. So, compared to traditional retailers, online shoppers may be more impulsive [62]. Young consumers were discovered to have an impulsive decision-making style. When they shop in brick-and-mortar markets, they have to go around to select products, which consumes energy and time, whereas when they shop online, they don’t have to go anywhere, they just need their cellphone and their internet quota and they can explore and select a product, which unconsciously causes consumers to put a lot of things into their online shopping baskets. The availability of 24-hour retailing via the internet has increased online retailing and, inevitably, impulse buying [63], this demonstrates that most young consumers frequently purchase non-essential items online.
In general, young consumers had a high score in the over choice confusion decision-making style. Given the wide variety of available products, brands, and stores, the current study’s findings suggest that young consumers find it difficult to choose the product and online store. As a result, they discover an over choice confusion style of online shopping. Consumers with this decision-making style, according to [64], are indecisive in terms of selecting the store to shop at and have difficulty selecting the products to buy due to over choice, and frequently engage in careless shopping, which they later regretted.
Several studies have emerged in adapting the original CSI [11] decision-making style to examine the online decision-making styles. This research constructed seven characteristics of online shopping styles. The constructed characteristic has similarities and differences with a previous study that examined a factor/characteristic of online shopping styles (Table 3).
Similar to the studies of [40,45,50], this research finding confirms that consumer, when shopping online, display the characteristics of quality, branded, and novelty product-oriented, as well as hedonic, impulsive, and loyal shopping styles. This study reveals one difference: online shoppers exhibit over choice confusion rather than price consciousness, as suggested by [50], or website consciousness, as suggested by [40]. The difference is not only because their study was conducted more than eight years ago, but also because as online shopping in Indonesia has grown, more and more online shops have joined the marketplace, and as a result, consumers have been bombarded with an abundance of products and store selections. It has the effect of causing over choice confusion.
The results of this study show that young Indonesian online shoppers could use the original measurement tool (CSI). Items loaded on emerged characteristics were largely consistent with the original scales, even though thirteen items from the forty original items had to be removed during the factor refinement process. The current study’s findings identify seven characteristics and contribute to a better understanding of young consumers’ online shopping styles and with their emerging online shopping behavior.

6. Conclusions

As they grow up with the internet, shopping online has become a young consumer lifestyle, this study focused on exploring and profiling the decision-making styles of young consumers. The study identified seven relevant dimensions that characterize Indonesian young consumers’ online shopping styles: quality orientation, store and brand loyalty, novelty enthusiasm, brand enthusiasm, entertainment shopping, over choice confusion, and impulsiveness. According to empirical findings, young consumers have a hedonic online shopping style in which they prefer high-quality products and seek entertainment when shopping, and as a result, their shopping style is accordingly impulsive. Young consumers obsessed with self-esteem and social admiration exhibit not only novelty orientation but also brand enthusiasm for online shopping. They experience over choice confusion when faced with a wide range of online stores and product selections, and to reduce the confusion, they demonstrate loyalty to specific stores and brands.
In comparison to previous online shopping style research, this study reveals that online shoppers exhibit over choice confusion rather than price consciousness. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in online shopping practices, for many young people, shopping online is a recreational activity. They shop online not to fulfill a need, but to satisfy their wants and desires. They seek out high-quality branded products or make impulse purchases. Furthermore, young consumers may be willing to pay more for online shopping due to the convenience and timelessness of the internet. Thus, convenience compensates for price consciousness.
This study contributes to the body of knowledge on consumer decision-making by attempting to provide a more detailed understanding of online shopping styles, particularly among young consumers who are becoming increasingly reliant on online shopping. The research findings have practical implications because of the importance of assisting consumers in their online shopping through electronic decision aids, as well as the importance of considering shopping styles when providing products and designing the user interface and user experience of marketplaces or stores. To meet the demands of the young consumer when they shop online, marketplaces or online stores must emphasize comfort and convenience, as well as offer a high quality and branded product selection. Because of the impulsive shopping style of young consumers, any online sales promotion will be extremely effective.
This study encourages additional empirical studies in the area while extending the current theoretical framework for online consumer behavior. However, this study has limitations as well, First, data were primarily gathered from two major cities in Indonesia. Second, the respondents were not given a thorough interview due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the social distancing policy. Third, the current study employed only a quantitative research design. Future research could broaden the survey’s reach and include both qualitative and quantitative analyses, with triangulation methodology used to refine the findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.H. and R.K.; methodology, V.S.; software, L.Y.; validation, A.H., R.K. and V.S.; formal analysis, A.H.; investigation, R.K.; resources, R.K.; data curation, L.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, V.S.; supervision, V.S.; project administration, L.Y.; funding acquisition, R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat (DRPM) Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to the fact that the data were completely anonymous and informed consent was obtained at the time of original data collection.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This paper was possible thanks to the financial support of the Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Himawan, K.K.; Underwood, M.; Bambling, M.; Edirippulige, S. Being Single When Marriage is The Norm: Internet Use and The Well-Being of Never-Married Adults in Indonesia. Curr. Psychol. 2021, 41, 8850–8861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rose, S.; Hair, N.; Clark, M. Online Customer Experience: A Review of The Business-to-Consumer Online Purchase Context. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 24–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Farag, S.; Schwanen, T.; Dijst, M.; Faber, J. Shopping online and/or in-store? A structural equation model of the relationships between e-shopping and in-store shopping. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2007, 41, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Prayitno, T.H. The Effect of Price Perception and Convenience Online Shopping Towards Customer Satisfaction of Batik Products in Indonesia. Int. J. Recent Adv. Multidiscip. Res. 2016, 3, 2086–2091. Available online: http://ijramr.com/sites/default/files/issues-pdf/1085.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  5. Sammer, A.; Malkova, Y. Online Shopping: Some Advantages and Shortcomings. J. Econ. Soc. Sci. 2016, 8, 31289. Available online: http://earchive.tpu.ru/handle/11683/31289 (accessed on 4 June 2022).
  6. Darley, W.; Blankson, C.; Luethge, D. Toward an Integrated Framework for Online Consumer Behavior and Decision Making Process: A Review. Psychol. Mark. 2010, 27, 94–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lysonski, S.; Durvasula, S. Consumer Decision Making Styles in Retailing: Evolution of Mindsets and Psychological Impacts. J. Consum. Mark. 2013, 30, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liang, T.P.; Lai, H.J. Electronic Store Design and Consumer Choice: An Empirical Study. In Proceedings of the The 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2000; p. 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Furaji, F.; Latuszyńska, M.; Wawrzyniak, A.; Wasikowska, B. Study on The Influence of Advertising Attractiveness on The Purchase Decisions of Women and Men. J. Int. Stud. 2013, 6, 20–32. Available online: https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/11205 (accessed on 4 June 2022).
  10. Erasmus, A.C.; Boshoff, E.; Rousseau, G.G. Consumer decision-making models within the discipline of consumer science: A critical approach. J. Consum. Sci. 2001, 29, 52799. Available online: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jfecs/article/view/52799 (accessed on 3 June 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Sproles, G.B.; Kendall, E.L. A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’ Decision-Making Styles. J. Consum. Aff. 1986, 20, 267–279. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23859027 (accessed on 3 May 2022). [CrossRef]
  12. Hiu, A.S.; Siu, N.Y.; Wang, C.; Chang, L.M. An Investigation of Decision Making Style of Consumers in China. J. Consum. Aff. 2001, 35, 326–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alam, S.S.; Bakar, Z.; Ismail, H.B.; Ahsan, M. Young consumers online shopping: An empirical study. J. Internet Bus. 2008, 5, 81–98. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d55c48c2156beedbd65f8794843cdc47c60e7b76 (accessed on 6 October 2022).
  14. Musyifah, I.; Simanjuntak, M. Online shopping behavior on generation Y in Indonesia. Glob. Bus. Financ. Rev. 2016, 21, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Sampoerno, A.E.; Asandimitra, N. Pengaruh Financial Literacy, Income, Hedonism Lifestyle, Self-Control, dan Risk Tolerance Terhadap Financial Management Behavior pada Generasi Milenial. J. Ilmu Manaj. 2021, 9, 1002–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hollywood, L.E.; Armstrong, G.; Durkin, M. Using Behavioural and Motivational Thinking in Food Segmentation. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 691–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bucuta, A. A review of the specific characteristics of the generation Y consumer. In Marketing-From Information to Decision; Babes Bolyai University: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2015; p. 38. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/8a24542e8ecce266f0d14da20e73eba2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1606336 (accessed on 16 May 2022).
  18. Kiyici, M. Internet Shopping Behavior of College of Education Students. Turkish Online J. Educ. Technol. 2012, 11, 203–214. Available online: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ989212.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  19. Sinkovics, R.R. A Comparative Examination of Consumer Decision Styles in Austria. In Multicultural Perspectives in Customer Behaviour; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Solomon, R.M. Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having and Being; Pearson Education, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Priporas, C. V Smart Consumers and Decision-Making Process in The Smart Retailing Context Through Generation Z Eyes. In Retail Futures; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Siu, N.Y.; Wang, C.C.; Chang, L.M.; Hui, A.S. Adapting Consumer Style Inventory to Chinese Consumers: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2001, 13, 29–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yang, C.; Wu, C.C. Gender and Internet Consumers’ Decision-Making. Cyber Psychol. Behav. 2007, 10, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Brown, M.; Pope, N.; Voges, K. Buying or browsing? An exploration of shopping orientations and online purchase intention. Eur. J. Mark. 2003, 37, 1666–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Davis, L.; Jai, T. Mediating Effects of Faith Driven Consumption (FDC) on Religiosity and Apparel Shopping Orientation. Q. Rev. Bus. Discip. 2018, 5, 199–221. [Google Scholar]
  26. Helmi, A.; Sudarma, Y. Study of Profile and Segmentation of Shopping Style of Indonesian. J. Mgt. Mkt. Rev. 2020, 5, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Stone, G.P. City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on The Social Psychology of City Life. Am. J. Sociol. 1954, 60, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Darden, W.R.; Reynolds, F.D. Shopping Orientations and Product Usage Rates. J. Mark. Res. 1971, 8, 505–508. Available online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224377100800416 (accessed on 3 May 2022). [CrossRef]
  29. Moschis, G.P. Social Comparison and Informal Group Influence. J. Mark. Res. 1976, 13, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bellenger, D.N. and Korgaonkar, P.. Profile the recreational shopper. J. Retail. 1980, 56, 77–92. [Google Scholar]
  31. Westbrook, R.A.; Black, W.C. A Motivation-Based Shopper Typology. J. Retail. 1985, 61, 78–103. Available online: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1986-10686-001 (accessed on 7 May 2022).
  32. Bae, S. Shopping Pattern Differences of Physically Active Korean and American University Consumers for Athletic Apparel. Ph.D. Thesis, The Florida State University, Florida, FL, USA, 2004. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/6518b7b1b60309537e566bbbffc2659c/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y (accessed on 5 June 2022).
  33. Bakewell, C.; Mitchell, V.W. Male consumer decision-making styles. The International Review of Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2004, 14, 223–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Park, J.E.; Yu, J.; Zhou, J.X. Consumer Innovativeness and Shopping Styles. J. Consum. Mark. 2010, 27, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rezaei, S. Segmenting Consumer Decision-Making Styles (CDMS) Toward Marketing Practice: A Partial Least Squares (PLS) Path Modeling Approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wesley, S.; LeHew, M.; Woodside, A.G. Consumer Decision-Making Styles and Mall Shopping Behavior: Building Theory Using Exploratory Data Analysis and The Comparative Method. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Konuş, U.; Verhoef, P.C.; Neslin, S.A. Multichannel Shopper Segments and Their Covariates. J. Retail. 2008, 84, 398–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gao, L.; Simonson, I. The Positive Effect of Assortment Size on Purchase Likelihood: The Moderating Influence of Decision Order. J. Consum. Psychol. 2016, 26, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bennett, G.; Lachowetz, T. Marketing to lifestyles: Action sports and Generation Y. Sport Mark. Q. 2004, 13, 239–242. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gregg-Bennett/publication/265630698_Marketing_to_Lifestyles_Action_Sports_and_Generation_Y/links/57dc427108ae4e6f1846a775/Marketing-to-Lifestyles-Action-Sports-and-Generation-Y.pdf?_sg%5B0%5D=started_experiment_milesto (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  40. Sam, K.M.; Chatwin, C. Online Consumer Decision-Making Styles for Enhanced Understanding of Macau Online Consumer Behavior. Asia Pacific Manag. Rev. 2015, 20, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pavlou, P.A.; Fygenson, M. Understanding and Predicting Electronic Commerce Adoption: An Extension of The Theory of Planned Behavior. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Canabal, M.E. Decision making styles of young south Indian consumers: An exploratory study. Coll. Stud. J. 2002, 36, 12. [Google Scholar]
  43. Nagra, G.; Gopal, R. An Study of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 2013, 3, 1–4. Available online: https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46216411/ijsrp-p1853-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1666337553&Signature=dEv2Cek3jnF8C47Jo5k4eh2eFNZmU0j5EIgaIQJ2WFzLBHYEmwWn8ob-zaYGvRCv14ImVi1gT-Is8Thpd0RvN80RtAJP7D9njJqycoVDboo5mhkL3qtBNK5ekwO7G3~L4bbgvEoHf6uNxnDe (accessed on 12 June 2022).
  44. Richa, D. Impact of Demographic Factors of Consumers on Online Shopping Behaviour: A Study of Consumers in India. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2012, 3, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  45. Khare, A. Consumer Shopping Styles and Online Shopping: An Empirical Study of Indian Consumers. J. Glob. Mark. 2016, 29, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lysonski, S.; Durvasula, S.; Zotos, Y. Consumer Decision-Making Styles: A Multi-Country Investigation. Eur. J. Mark. 1996, 30, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Walsh, G.; Mitchell, V.W.; Hennig-Thurau, T. German Consumer Decision-Making Styles. J. Consum. Aff. 2001, 35, 73–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tai, S.H.C. Shopping Styles of Working Chinese Females. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2005, 12, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhou, J.X.; Arnold, M.J.; Pereira, A.; Yu, J. Chinese Consumer Decision-Making Styles: A Comparison Between The Coastal and Inland Regions. J. Bus. Res. 2010, 63, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cowart, K.O.; Goldsmith, R.E. The Influence of Consumer Decision-Making Styles on Online Apparel Consumption by College Students. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 639–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sam, K.M.; Chatwin, C.R.; Zhang, J.X. Adoption of Near Field Communication for Mobile Payment: Evidence from Macau. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Selangor, Malaysia, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 1121–1125. [Google Scholar]
  52. Catell, R.B. The Scientific Use of Factor Analysis in Behavioral and Life Sciences; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  53. Andrews, R.L.; Currim, I.S. Behavioral Differences between Consumers Attracted to Shopping Online vs. Traditional Supermarkets: Implications for Enterprise Design & Marketing Strategy. Int. J. Mark. Advert. 2004, 1, 3. [Google Scholar]
  54. Danaher, P.J.; Wilson, I.W.; Davis, R.A. A Comparison of Online and Offline Consumer Brand Loyalty. Mark. Sci. 2003, 22, 461–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Pozzi, A. Shopping Cost and Brand Exploration in Online Grocery. 2009. Available online: https://archive.nyu.edu/jspui/bitstream/2451/29507/2/Pozzi_09-10.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).
  56. Hanzaee, K.H.; Aghasibeig, S. Generation Y Female and Male Decision-Making Styles in Iran: Are They Different? Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2008, 18, 521–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mokhlis, S. An Investigation of Consumer Decision-Making Styles of Young-Adults in Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Jayawardhena, C.; Tiu Wright, L.; Dennis, C. Consumers Online: Intentions, Orientations and Segmentation. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 515–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Wirtz, B.; Piehler, R.; Ulrich, S. Determinan of Social Media Website Attractiveness. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2013, 14, 11–33. Available online: http://www.jecr.org/sites/default/files/DETERMINANTS%20OF%20SOCIAL%20MEDIA%20WEBSITE%20ATTRACTIVENESS.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).
  60. Monsuwe, T.P.; Dellaert, B.G.C.; Ruyter, K. What Drives Consumers to Shop Online? A Literature Review. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 2004, 15, 102–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Chan, T.K.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, Z.W.Y. The state of online impulse-buying research: A literature analysis. Inf. Manag. 2017, 54, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Donthu, N.; Garcia, A. The internet shopper. J. Advert. Res. 1999, 39, 52–58. Available online: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A60072293/AONE?u=anon~96af957&sid=googleScholar&xid=b27a3cb4 (accessed on 3 October 2022).
  63. Li, H.; Kuo, C.; Russell, M. The Impact of Perceived Channel Utilities, Shopping Orientations, and Demographics on The Consumer’s On-Line Buying Behavior. J. Comput. Commun. 2000, 5, JCMC521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Gonen, E.; Ozmete, E. Decision-Making Styles of Young Turkish Consumers. J. Home Econ. 2006, 13, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Demographic profile and online shopping behavior of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic profile and online shopping behavior of the respondents.
CharacteristicPercentage
Gender
- Male33
- Female67
Education
- High School25
- Undergraduate75
Occupation
- Student19
- Employee39
- Professional/Business owner29
- Housewife11
- Other2
Online Store Selection
- Instagram/FB20
- Marketplace84
- Other3
Products purchased online
- Clothing, shoes77
- Household electronic/Appliances30
- Gadgets30
- Body/Beauty products43
- Food31
- Other3
n = 400.
Table 2. Factor loading, reliability and mean of each factor.
Table 2. Factor loading, reliability and mean of each factor.
FactorFactor LoadingCronbach’s AlphaMean *
1. Perfectionism Consciousness 0.807
- I try to get the best selection when purchasing products online.0.815 6.41
- In general, I try to buy online products that are of the highest quality.0.818 6.36
- I have high standards and expectations for the products I buy online.0.754 6.30
- I feel satisfied when I get the perfect product.0.649 6.66
2. Habitual and Brand Loyal Orientation 0.773
- When I shop online, I have a favorite brand that I buy again and again.0.826 5.76
- I stick with a brand I like once I find it.0.824 5.72
- When I shop online, I always go to the same store.0.633 5.07
3. Novelty and Fashion Consciousness 0.863
- I usually have one or more products in the most recent style.0.600 5.27
- My products are up to date with fashion trends.0.691 5.37
- A fashionable and appealing appearance is very important to me.0.609 5.50
4. Brand Conscious 0.836
- I prefer to purchase items from well-known brands.0.695 5.18
- My preference is usually for the most expensive brand.0.694 4.42
- I believe that the higher a product’s price, the higher its quality.0.701 5.55
- A good online store will have the best products for me.0.665 5.81
- The most well-known brands provide an excellent selection.0.661 5.16
5. Recreational and Hedonistic Consciousness 0.813
- Shopping online is a fun activity for me.0.825 4.83
- My time will be wasted if I visit and shop at various online stores.0.831 4.54
- When I shop online, I do so quickly.0.743 4.19
6. Confused by Over Choice 0.898
- There are so many brands to choose from that I often get confused.0.804 5.59
- I sometimes have difficulty deciding which online store to visit or brand to buy.0.826 5.32
- The more information I gather, the more difficult it becomes to choose the best product.0.854 5.42
- All of the different information I receive about a product confuses me.0.844 5.38
7. Impulsiveness and Carelessness 0.741
- I frequently make spontaneous online purchases.0.780 5.02
- I frequently buy non-essential products online and then regret it.0.702 4.35
Note: * = 1 stands for strongly disagree and 7 for strongly agree.
Table 3. Comparison of Emerging Factors in Several Studies.
Table 3. Comparison of Emerging Factors in Several Studies.
[11][50][40][45]Current Study
1. Perfectionism consciousness,
2. Brand conscious
3. Novelty and fashion consciousness
4. Recreational consciousness,
5. Price and value consciousness,
6. Impulsiveness and carelessness
7. Confused by over choice
8. Brand loyal orientation
1. Quality consciousness
2. Brand consciousness
3. Fashion consciousness
4. Hedonistic shopping,
5. Impulsivity
6. Brand loyalty
1. High-quality consciousness
2. Brand consciousness
3. Novelty-fashion consciousness
4. Price consciousness
5. Portability consciousness
6. Website content consciousness
7. Website interface consciousness
1. Quality conscious shopper
2. Fashion-conscious shopper,
3. Uninterested shopper
4. Impulsive shopper
5. Brand-conscious shopper
1. Quality orientation
2. Store and brand loyalty
3. Novelty enthusiasm
4. Brand enthusiasm
5. Entertainment shopping
6. Overchoice confusion
7. Impulsiveness
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Helmi, A.; Komaladewi, R.; Sarasi, V.; Yolanda, L. Characterizing Young Consumer Online Shopping Style: Indonesian Evidence. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053988

AMA Style

Helmi A, Komaladewi R, Sarasi V, Yolanda L. Characterizing Young Consumer Online Shopping Style: Indonesian Evidence. Sustainability. 2023; 15(5):3988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053988

Chicago/Turabian Style

Helmi, Arief, Rita Komaladewi, Vita Sarasi, and Ledy Yolanda. 2023. "Characterizing Young Consumer Online Shopping Style: Indonesian Evidence" Sustainability 15, no. 5: 3988. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15053988

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop