The document discusses a study investigating the effects of consumer trust and perceived risk on purchasing behavior in B2C e-commerce, highlighting the impact of brand recognition, privacy perception, and financial risk. Methodology included surveys and interviews with 114 respondents, revealing insights into consumer demographics and trust factors. Key findings indicated that brand perception positively influences buying intentions, while privacy concerns and financial security have varying impacts on consumer trust.

1. Consumer Trust and
Perceived Risk in
B2C E-Commerce

2. PREPARED BY
Samiha Majid RH 01
Shafqat Aurin Siddiqua RH 04
Mastura Tasnim RH 08
Chowdhury Ashiqur Rahman ZR 24
Joya Chowdhury RH 26
Md. Danial Rafi ZR 27
Silma Subah Ahmed RH 46
Rakib Ibnay Hossain ZR 47
Tanzir Islam ZR 51
Shaadmaan Ahmed Siddiqui ZR 58
GROUP 2
BBA BATCH 21, SECTION A
PREPARED FOR
Dr. Muhammad Z Mamun
Professor
Institute Of Business Administration
University Of Dhaka

3. CONTENTS
3
LITERATURE
REVIEW
INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESEARCH
FINDINGS
CONCLUSION
1 2 3 4 5

4. INTRODUCTION

5. 1 INTRODUCTION
5
1.1 BROAD OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effect of consumer trust and perception
of risk on buying intent via e-commerce

6. 1 INTRODUCTION
6
1.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE
To gauge the effect of known vendors or brands
on consumers’ trust.
To measure the effect of perception of privacy of
information on a consumer’s trust
To understand the impact of perceived financial
risk on consumers’ trust

7. METHODOLOGY

8. 2 METHODOLOGY
8
Questionnaire Responses
Phone Interviews
Journals
Articles
Reports
Books
PRIMARY SOURCES SECONDARY
SOURCES
2.1 DATA COLLECTION

9. 2 METHODOLOGY
9
2.2 SAMPLING METHODS
CONVENIENT JUDGEMENTAL

10. 2 METHODOLOGY
10
2.3 SAMPLE SIZE
273 RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE
INTERVIEWED
WE APPROACHED ONLY 140
RESPONDENTS
USE E COMMERCE
SERVICES
PRESICION LEVEL COMES TO 7%
AT 5% PRECISION LEVEL
DUE TO CONSTRAINTS
114 OUT OF 140 RESPONDENTS

11. 2 METHODOLOGY
11
2.4 QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT
INSTRUCTIONS
IDENTIFICATION DATA
REQUEST FOR COOPERATION

12. 2 METHODOLOGY
12
2.5 INFORMATION SOUGHT
Respondent’s
Orientation To
E Commerce
Effect Of Brand
In Perceived
Value And Trust
Effect Of Site
Reputation On
Buying Intent
Effects Of
Privacy In
Perceived Value
And Trust
Effects Of
Perceived
Financial Risk
PART A PART B PART C PART D PART E

13. 2 METHODOLOGY
13
2.6 VALIDITY CHECK
Measures what it is supposed to measure
Direct Measure= Self Evident
Indirect Measure= Only Approximate
We have chosen Face Validity
i.e. items chosen to measure a variable are logically
related to it

14. 2 METHODOLOGY
14
2.7 REALIBILITY OF DATA
Reliability Statistics (Cronbach’s Alpha and Split Half Technique)
Cronbach's Alpha Part 1 Value .879
N of Items 9a
Part 2 Value .733
N of Items 8b
Total N of Items 17
Correlation Between Forms .374
Spearman-Brown Coefficient Equal Length .544
Unequal Length .545
Guttman Split-Half Coefficient .482
Cronbach’s Alpha
0.502 (Regular)
0.600 (Standardized Items)

15. LITERATURE REVIEW

16. 3 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
16
3.1 FINDINGS
Only 7% penetration per population
Expected rise from Tk. 450 mil to Tk. 2000 mil
Started from 1980s
1
2
3

17. 3 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
17
3.2 E COMMERCE VS. BRICK AND MORTAR
E COMMERCE BRICK & MORTAR
Ease Of Use Tryout Possible
Pricing Very Crucial Shelf Positioning
Time Lag Immediate Consumption
Solitary Activity Can Be A Social Activity

18. FACTORS INFLUENCING TRUST IN E- COMMERCE
18
3 KEY COMPONENTS
BRAND PRIVACY PRICING

19. RESEARCH FINDINGS

20. 4 E-COMMERCE PENETRATION
20
140 Total Respondents
123 Are Aware
114 Avail Of E-commerce Services
AWARENESS TO USAGE RATIO 92.7%
AWARENESS TO USAGE RATIO
AWARE USERS
NON-AWARE USERS
4.1-3 E-COMMERCE AWARENESS & USAGE

21. 4 E-COMMERCE PENETRATION
21
4.4 MONTHLY SHOPPING BUDGET OF E-COMMERCE USERS
Mode 5%
Mean 14.1%

22. 5 USER DEMOGRAPHICS
22
5.1-2 GENDER & AGE
53.5% Female : 46.5% Male
Average Age Of Users 20.8 Years
80.5% In 18-24 Age Group

23. 23
5 USER DEMOGRAPHICS
5.3-4 EDUCATION & PROFESSION
Education Demographics
Non-Graduate
Undergraduate
Graduates
74.6% Undergraduates
Profession Wise:
76.3% Students
23.7% Job Holders

24. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
24
6.1 OVERVIEW
4 PERCEPTION OF
PRODUCT QUALITY
5 PERCEPTION OF
SERVICE QUALITY
6 PERCEPTION OF
VALUE FOR MONEY
2 MOST PREFERRED
BRANDS
3 MEASURING BRAND
LOYALTY
1 NUMBER OF
BRANDS PER USER

25. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
25
6.1 NUMBER OF BRANDS PER USER
Mean 2.19

26. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
26
6.2 MOST PREFERRED BRAND
36
19
8
7
4
3
3
21
14
Food Panda
Rokomari.com
Bikroy.com
Hungry Naki
Ekhanei.com
Akhoni.com
Banglashoppers.com
Others
No Particular Brand
24 Brands From 140 Respondents
53% Loyal To 4 Brands

27. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
27
6.3 PERCEPTION OF PRODUCT QUALITY
Mode 8
Mean 6.29

28. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
28
6.4 PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QUALITY
Mode 8
Mean 6.29

29. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
29
6.5 PERCEPTION OF VALUE FOR MONEY
Mode 2
Mean 4.47

30. 6 PERCEPTION OF BRANDS
30
LACK OF LOYAL CONSUMERS
INEXPERIENCED CONSUMERS
FEW SUCCESSFUL BRANDS
MANY BRANDS PRESENT
SATISFIED WITH PRODUCT AND SERVICES
6.7 FINDINGS

31. 31
7 PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
7.1 LEVEL OF INFORMATION NEEDED
Detailed Moderate Minimal Total
In Number 8 95 11 114
In
Percentage
7 83.3 9.6 100

32. 32
7 PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
7.2 CUSTOMER CONTROL OVER INFORMATION SHARING
Sites Asking For Consumer Permission
Yes No N/A
22%
46%
32%

33. 33
7 PERCEPTION ON PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
7.3 PERCEPTION ON EFFECTIVENESS OF PRIVACY POLICY
Are You Aware Of Your Provider’s Privacy Policy?
YES 60.2%
NO 39.8%

34. 34
7 PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
7.4 AWARENESS ABOUT PRIVACY POLICY
Mean 5.97
Mode 5

35. 35
7 PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
7.5 MEASURE TAKEN FOR PRIVACY VIOLATION
Any Affirmative Action Taken On Behalf Of The
Victims?
YES – For 5 out of 6 people who were victimized

36. 20.4
67.3
12.5
8 PERCEPTION OF PRICING
36
8.2 PERCEPTION ON OVER PRICING
HIGH MEDIUM LOW

37. 8 PERCEPTION OF PRICING
37
8.3 PREFFERED METHOD OF FREIGHT COST
86.8%
FIXED
13.2%
PERCENTAGE
BASED

38. 8 PERCEPTION OF PRICING
38
8.4 FREIGHT COST JUSTIFIED?
Mean 5.62
Mode 5

39. 8 PERCEPTION OF PRICING
39
8.5 OVERALL RATING
POSITIVELY SKEWED

40. 8 PERCEPTION OF PRICING
40
8.6 FINDINGS
Moderate Perceived Over Pricing
Fixed Freight Cost Preference
Overall Positive Perception
Room For Price Sensitive Marketing
1
2
3
4

41. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
41
9.1 FINDINGS
How Do We Formulate The Sampling Distribution?
Likert scale values
Every question/variable contains a sample of the real
population
The distribution of the variable means would provide a
sample distribution

42. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
42
9.1 FINDINGS
How do we measure the population mean?
The Likert scale variables are ranged from 1 to 10
According to human perception, ‘5’ is the middle point of ‘1 to
10’

43. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
43
9.1 FINDINGS
Estimating the population mean to 5 would mean a
‘neutral’ response to the scale questions
We Start By Assuming µ=5

44. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
44
HYPOTHESIS 1: BRAND IMAGE POSITIVELY AFFECTS A CONSUMER’S TRUST
H0: µ ≥ 5; The perception of brand image positively affects a
consumer’s trust
H1: µ < 5; The perception of brand image does not positively
affect a consumer’s trust

45. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
45
HYPOTHESIS 1: TEST RESULTS
Statistics
Likeliness to stick
to the Brand in
near future
Branded Providers
more reliable
Branded Providers
provide better
quality
Branded providers
price higher
Branded providers
provide better
service
N
Valid 114 114 114 114 114
Missing 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 4.91 6.69 6.29 4.47 6.29
Mode 3 9 8 2 8
Std. Deviation 2.512 2.832 2.541 2.625 2.523
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Effect of
Brand image
in Buying
Intention
5 5.7300 .97581 .43639
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
90% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Effect of
Brand
image in
Buying
Intention
1.673 4 .170 .73000 -.2003 1.6603

46. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
46
HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULT: HYPOTHESIS 1
Which indicates, a consumer’s perception of high brand
image positively affects his intention to buy.
From t0.10 (df=4) = 2.776, and the tcritical = 1.673,
We CANNOT REJECT the null hypothesis.

47. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
47
HYPOTHESIS 2: A CONSUMER’S PERCEPTION OF HIGH PRIVACY OF INFORMATION
POSITIVELY AFFECTS HIS TRUST
H0: µ ≥ 5; the perception of high privacy of info positively affects
trust
H1: µ < 5; the perception of high privacy of info does not
positively affect trust

48. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
48
HYPOTHESIS 2: TEST RESULTS
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Privacy of
Information
4 5.9100 .58572 .29286
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
90% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Privacy of
Information
3.107 3 .053 .91000 .2208 1.5992
Statistics
Does 'not
sharing info'
affects trust?
Liberty of
choosing to
share info
affects trust
The company
keeps info
private
The company
asks permission
before sharing
info
Interpretation
N
Valid 113 113 113 113 From ‘Seems
Untrustworthy’
to Seems
trustworthy
Missing 1 1 1 1
Mean 5.10 6.04 6.50 6.00
Mode 6 8 9 10
Std. Deviation 2.542 2.568 2.676 3.047

49. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
49
HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULT: HYPOTHESIS 2
Which indicates, a consumer’s perception of high privacy of
information does not affect his intention to buy
From t0.10(df=3) = 2.353, and the tcritical = 3.107,
We may REJECT the null hypothesis.

50. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
50
HYPOTHESIS 3: A CONSUMER’S PERCEPTION OF FINANCIAL SECURITY POSITIVELY
AFFECTS HIS TRUST
H0: µ ≥ 5; Perception of financial security positively affects trust
Ha: µ < 5; Perception of financial security positively does not
affect trust

51. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
51
HYPOTHESIS 3: TEST RESULTS
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Effect of
financial security
on buying
behavior
2 5.4450 .26163 .18500
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 5
t df Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
90% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower Upper
Effect of
financial
security on
buying
behavior
2.405 1 .251 .44500 -.7230 1.6130
Statistics
How effective is the
pricing system?
How much is the
transport charge
justified
N
Valid 113 112
Missing 1 2
Mean 5.26 5.63
Mode 7 5
Std. Deviation 1.963 1.791

52. 9 HYPOTHESIS TESTING
52
HYPOTHESIS TESTING RESULT: HYPOTHESIS 3
Which indicates, a consumer’s perception of high privacy of
information does not affect his intention to buy
From t0.10(df=1) = 6.314, and the tcritical = 2.405.
We CANNOT REJECT the null hypothesis

53. 10.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS
53
10.1 USAGE BENEFITS
Identifies unobserved variables that explain patterns of
correlations within a set of observed variables.
Used to identify a small number of factors that explain most
of the variance embedded in a larger number of variables.

54. 10.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS
54
10.2 USAGE
16 Likert scale variable available. 15 was used in the
factor analysis.
One of the variable had the overall trust perception in its
data.
This was used as the dependent variable later.

55. 10.1 FACTOR ANALYSIS
55
10.2 USAGE
3 Factor components were calculated
Each of the factor represented a distinct area of our
research, and had the appropriate variables.
They were:
- Perception of brand recognition.
- Pricing system and liberty of sharing private
information.
- Overall privacy measures and its effect on
trust

56. 10.2 KMO and Bartlett's test
56
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .788
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx. Chi-Square 536.752
df 105
Sig. .000
The KMO measures the sampling adequacy which should be greater than 0.5
for a satisfactory factor analysis to proceed
The Bartlett's test of sphericity is significant. That is, its associated
probability is less than 0.05

57. 10.3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS
57
The co-efficient of correlation is .713, it is a significant measure
The model explains 49% of the consumers’ trust and perceived risk
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .713a .508 .490 1.560

58. 10.4 ANOVA
58
H0: β1 = β2 = β3 = 0; the perception of the factors does not affect a consumer’s
trust or perceived risk in e-commerce.
Ha: β1 = β2 = β3 ≠ 0; the perception of the factors does not affect a
consumer’s trust or perceived risk in e-commerce.
ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 201.085 3 67.028 27.538 .000b
Residual 194.725 80 2.434
Total 395.810 83
a. Dependent Variable: Grade of Service
b. Predictors: (Constant), Overall privacy measures and its effect on trust, Pricing system and Liberty of
sharing private information., Perception of Brand recognition.
The test statistic is the F value of 27.538. The p value for 27.538 is almost zero (up to three
decimal points) so it is not significant at a 90% level of confidence. Therefore, we have to
reject the null hypothesis of zero beta coefficients, and have to accept the alternate
hypothesis, that our model has significant relations to consumer trust and perceived risk in
e-commerce.

59. CONCLUSION

60. CONCLUSION
60
Two Out Of Three Hypotheses
Cannot Be Rejected
Brand Perception
Consumer Privacy
Financial Risk
Room For Research
Valid And Reliable
1 2 3 4 5 6

61. 61
THANK YOU
QUESTIONS?