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

net/publication/326318908

An empirical investigation on the Role of Self-efficacy, Outcome Expectations,

Anxiety, and Trust in B2C e-commerce from the Aspects of Social Cognitive
Theory

Article in Life Sciences · July 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 673

4 authors:

Mahmoud Al-dalahmeh Anas Aloudat

University of Jordan University of Jordan
11 PUBLICATIONS 299 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 669 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Omar Al Hujran Mutaz M. Al-Debei

United Arab Emirates University Oracle Corporation
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,186 CITATIONS 77 PUBLICATIONS 4,111 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mahmoud Al-dalahmeh on 11 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

An empirical investigation on the Role of Self-efficacy, Outcome Expectations, Anxiety, and Trust in B2C e-
commerce from the Aspects of Social Cognitive Theory

Mahmoud Al-dalahmeh1, Anas Aloudat1, Omar Al-Hujran2, Mutaz M. Al-Debei1

1. Management Information Systems Department, Faculty of Business, The University of Jordan, Jordan
2. Department of Management Information Systems, King Talal Faculty of Business and Technology, Princess
Sumaya University for Technology, Jordan
m.aldalahmeh@ju.edu.jo, a.aloudat@ju.edu.jo, o.hujran@psut.edu.jo, m.aldebei@ju.edu.jo

Abstract: There is a stressing need in the literature for the application of the well-known social cognitive theory in
the area of electronic commerce (e-commerce), but more specifically, in the developing countries such as Jordan. To
better understand how individual differences influence the use of e-commerce (B2C e-commerce) a conceptual
framework was developed and modeled based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory to test the importance of
dynamic and stable traits (i.e., e-commerce self-efficacy, outcome expectations, trait anxiety, e-commerce anxiety,
and consumer trust) on the intention of an individual to shop online. A self-administered questionnaire was used to
capture the data from individual users in Jordan, from whom only 3% are e-commerce users (Arab Advisors Group
Survey, 2011). In order to test the hypotheses introduced in the research model of this study, a method that engages
individuals in a free simulation of real-life e-commerce situations was adopted. The findings indicate that e-
commerce self-efficacy, outcome expectation, technology anxiety, and consumer trust are all significant predictors
of the Jordanian intention to use e-commerce. E-commerce self-efficacy was the second powerful factor after
consumer trust in determining consumer intention to shop online. In addition, this study surprisingly shows that
general self-efficacy and trait anxiety do not influence the specific e-commerce self-efficacy. From a theoretical
perspective, the study attempts to further our understanding of the nomological network of individual differences
that lead to e-commerce usage. From a practical perspective, the findings can help in designing more effective
strategies aiming to increase the use of e-commerce for individuals with different dispositional characteristics by
providing some valuable insights into the performance and adoption of e-commerce by individual customers. These
insights can help designers/developers, implementers, and managers of organizations of e-commerce systems to
improve the effectiveness of their electronic services and increase the usage rates of e-commerce in the developing
world in general.
[Mahmoud Al-dalahmeh, Anas Aloudat, Omar Al-Hujran, Mutaz M. Al-Debei. An empirical investigation on the
Role of Self-efficacy, Outcome Expectations, Anxiety, and Trust in B2C e-commerce from the Aspects of
Social Cognitive Theory. Life Sci J 2014;11(8):656-672] (ISSN:1097-8135). http://www.lifesciencesite.com. 96

Keywords: B2C e-commerce, e-commerce adoption, social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, trait anxiety,
technology anxiety, outcome expectations, trust, psychological factors.

1. Introduction technology (IT) and behavioral sciences, not much

Business to Consumer electronic commerce (B2C research has been conducted about their role in
e-commerce) has been generally defined as "the sale online commerce transactions. Indeed, Al-Ziadat
of goods or services electronically via internet (2013) stated that "prior studies conducted in Jordan
directly to individual customers for their own use, failed to determine the success factors of e-commerce
rather than to businesses" (Chan, 2001). But, even adoption". Hence, there are many factors yet to be
though the e-commerce usage worldwide is fully understood in the literature dealing with the
dramatically increasing, there are two facts that need issues that affect the usage of e-commerce. Thus, one
to be addressed. The first: little is known about e- of the purposes of this paper is to extend our
commerce adoption in developing countries since understanding of e-commerce adoption through
most of the published studies were conducted about social cognitive factors. A better understanding of
developed countries. The second: there are still many these factors is rather critical for policy making in
factors, such as self-efficacy, anxiety, or outcome designing training programs that effectively increase
expectations, that can impact on the growth of e- the e-commerce usage. Still, it could be argued that
commerce worldwide but have not been given the while this paper focuses only on Jordan, but it should
right amount of attention or examination. be clear that the key findings presented in this
While cognitive social factors and self- research may also have important implications for all
efficacy have been introduced and utilized in a developing countries around the world which truly
considerable amount of research in information have many similarities with Jordan.

656
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

We are identifying new factors such as e- through the internet, excluding people who use it for
commerce self-efficacy, e-commerce anxiety, entertainment, communication, and information
consumer trust, which have not been used yet, in this purposes. Due to the rapid growth of e-commerce,
particular combined format, in the area of e- consumer purchase choices are being processed in
commerce before. environments defined as computer-mediated (Nuseir
The remainder of this study is organized as & Al-Masri, 2010). Even though Internet penetration
follows: Section 2 examines the situation of e- in Jordan was stated at 30% depending on the
commerce in Jordan and reports the theoretical Internet World Stats (2011), just 3% of the entire
background for this study. The framework developed users are actually e-commerce users with those who
will be reported in section 3 as well as the pay bills online and shop products (Arab Advisors
hypothesis. Section 4 describes the empirical Group Survey, 2011).
research methods used and reports the results with a 2.2 Theoretical Background
discussion of the findings. Section 5 concludes by This study develops a model that helps to
presenting the implications and suggestions for future explain the human behavior in the area of e-
research. commerce, based on the Social Cognitive Theory.
The founder of the Social Cognitive Theory was
2. Literature Review Albert Bandura, in 1977. He has written many
2.1 Jordan: A general overview articles and four books to explain how this theory can
Bounded by Syria to the north, Iraq to the explain human behavior (Bandura, 1977, 1979, 1982,
northeast, Saudi Arabia to the east and south, the Red 1986, 1987, 1989, 1995, 1997, 2002, 2006).
Sea to the south, and Israel and the Palestinian Three previous models have provided the
National Authority to the west, the Hashemite theoretical foundation for the model constructs
Kingdom of Jordan (or simply Jordan) is strategically presented in this research. The first model, by
located in the heart of Middle East region. Jordan Compeau et al. (1999) (Figure.1), put social
currently has a population of around 6.5 million cognitive theory into practice for the computer area.
people, nearly 3 million of which make their home in The second model, by Thatcher and Perrewe (2002),
the capital Amman. Jordan also has a high young applied trait anxiety, and computer anxiety to
population as more than 70% of the population is less computer self-efficacy. The final model was
than 30 years of age, which suggests that an constructed by Kim and Kim (2005) and used
investment in youth can be a strategic instrument for specific self-efficacy (online trading self-efficacy) on
the future of electronic commerce (UNDP, 2014). customer trust and buying intention. Therefore, it can
In the context of Jordan the trend is that IT be positively confirmed that this research model is a
(information technology) has only been started to be solid model, as it unites these three models into one
used as a marketing tool. In this way the Jordanian to generate a clarification of users’ behavior in the
consumer, have some reservations of shopping framework of e-commerce utilization.

Figure 1. Social Cognitive Theory and Computer Usage. Adopted from Compeau et al. (1999).
Source: MIS Quarterly Vol. 23 No. 2/June 1999

3. Development of the Research Model and Hypothesis

Bandura’s work on the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) over more than 20 years has produced a widely

657
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

accepted and confirmed theory of individual behavior. This theory is mainly based on self-efficacy and outcome
expectation (Bandura, 1986, 1982; Meier, 1985; Seligman, 1990). Bandura’s observations specified that "nothing is
more influential in people’s everyday lives than conceptions of their personal efficacy. People often do not behave
optimally even though they know full well what to do. This is because self-referent thought mediates the
relationship between knowledge and action" (1986, p. 390). Self-efficacy is “people’s judgments of their
capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances” Bandura
(1986, p. 391).
According to this theory, the positive outcomes that individuals expect out of any technology will
encourage them to utilize it. However, the theory does not establish a direct relationship between individuals’
expectations of their capabilities (self-efficacy) and their behavior. Conversely, beliefs about outcomes are not
considered sufficient to shape behavior as indicated by this theory, particularly if individuals suspect their abilities
to successfully accomplish the task. The above argument suggests that self-efficacy, besides outcome expectations,
must be taken into consideration (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986; Igbaria and Iivaria, 1995). The SCT was exemplified
as a construct of two main expectations:
1. Expectations related to self-efficacy (Igbari and Iivari, 1995).
2. Outcome expectations, a concept presented also in a research study by Davis (1989) as the perceived
usefulness for individuals.

Bandura (1977, 1986), through research related to cognitive theory, has conceived joint relations between
behavior, key cognitive elements, and environment. It is very important to obtain deep insights into these existing
relations, yet it is difficult to draw a linear recursive model to entirely understand this conceptualization, due to the
richness of its contents (Compeau and Higgins, 1995).

Schematization of the relations among behavior (B), Cognitive and other personal factors (P) and the
External (E)

Figure 2: Triadic Reciprocal Causation Model, 1979. Source: Bandura 1986

In this study, these three elements were incorporated into the developed research model and the question
of what factors to include was answered from previous IS research through investigating constructs within the
structure of SCT. Therefore, the discoveries resulting from previous IS research will be incorporated into the model
by relating key constructs within those of the SCT as follows.
3.1 The Research Model
Researchers have applied SCT and the self-efficacy construct, particularly, in many empirical research
fields such as health, education, science, and, for the first time, in IT in 1989. However, no study has verified an
existing relation between Social Cognitive Theory and the utilization of e-commerce until now. Only one study by
Kim and Kim (2005) has partially discussed the effect Social Cognitive Theory has on online shopping by only
examining self-efficacy. However their research suffered many limitations, which this study attempts to cover.
This study is presented with confidence that it is the first research (up to our knowledge) that attempts to
explain the influence of a comprehensive set of cognitive social factors on the adoption and the usage of e-
commerce systems as no definite model for SCT has been built to date. Additionally, this study will introduce new
terms (such as e-commerce self-efficacy, and technology anxiety) that have not been previously used combined.
These terms were developed in view of the literature resulting from studies in related fields, such as information
technology, information systems, and other specific software research. Constructs belonging to Social Cognitive
Theory were also used in this model (such as general self-efficacy, e-commerce self-efficacy, trait anxiety,
technology anxiety). This study claims that this model will empower the research in e-commerce and marketing

658
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

area, from which one construct was utilized (i.e., user trust).

3.2 Hypothesis Development

3.2.1 Construct Definition
The research model has seven constructs. The definition of each construct is summarized in Table 1.

Figure 3. The research Model

Table 1. Definitions of Research Constructs

Construct Definition
B2C E-commerce system The procedure of buying, selling, transferring or exchanging product, services, and/or information via
computer software networks, including the Internet (Turban et al., 2004).
Trait anxiety (TA) The general feeling of fear when confronted with problems or challenges (Thatcher and Perrewe, 2002).
Technology Anxiety (TE-A) Fear of e-commerce system use or learning to use this technology, reasons for fear (e.g., pressing the wrong
key or fear of other possible mistakes), (Thatcher and Perrewe, 2002).
General self-efficacy (GSE) Individuals’ acuity of their ability to achieve across a variety of different situations. (Kim and Kim, 2005)
E-commerce self-efficacy A judgment of one’s capability to use and buy through an electronic commerce system. (Kim and Kim, 2005)
(E-C SE)
Outcome expectation (OUT- The expected consequences of behaviour when using the ecommerce system (Compeau et al, 1999)
E)
Consumer trust (Con-T) A user’s confident belief in the company’s e-commerce system (Macintosh and Lockshin, 1997; Tax et al.,
1998).
Intention to shop online Refers to the degree to which a consumer intends to use e-commerce technology for buying her/his products
(INT) (Gefen, 2000)

3.2.1.1 Trait Anxiety defined by Spielberger et al., (1970) as a common

Eisenberg et al., (1996) identified anxiety as tendency to undergo a state of anxiety when
an emotional state, associated by negative prospects contending with troubles or challenges. Tellegen
of outcomes or concerns about how serious these (1985) argued that individuals are more expected to
outcomes can turn out to be. Trait anxiety (TA) was suffer anxiety through time and across situations, as

659
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

TA is comparatively stable. observation was also reported in other 10 research

Both anxiety and cognitive efficiency have reports, as pointed out by Rosen and Maguire (1990).
been believed by researchers for a long time to be In a study by Thatcher and Perrewe (2002),
strongly associated. Yerkes and Dodson (1980) tried they explained how SCT indicated how self-efficacy
to simplify this relationship by suggesting a U- and anxiety influence each other. As implied in the
shaped relationship model to represent anxiety and SCT, individuals who suffer higher levels of anxiety
cognitive performance. This model and other related may report lower levels of efficacy; while as their
research material suppose that very low anxiety efficacy rises, they report decreased anxiety. Despite
levels, increasing to fairly average levels, will trigger the reciprocal nature of this relation, SCT research
more cognitive resources to become more accessible has found that efficacy beliefs are the major
and foster the rate of mental operations (Suri and influence on individuals’ decision-making regarding
Monroe, 2001). Trait anxiety is identified as a their ability to perform tasks (Bandura, 1986), and
person’s general disposition to be anxious, whereas thus, the following hypothesis is presented:
state anxiety refers to the anxious effect of situational
frustration (Spielberger, 1966; Usala and Hertzog, H2a: There is a negative relationship between
1991). individual’s technology anxiety and e-commerce
Trait anxiety is regarded as a major element self-efficacy.
of personality in most modern personality theories, as
indicated by Thatcher and Pamela (2002) (see Computer utilization is expected to be
Digman, 1990, for a review). Wilson et al., (1999) negatively influenced by feelings of anxiety, due to
built a model which indicated that Individuals the fact that people are expected to avoid behaviors
suffering high levels of trait anxiety will be more that give rise to anxious feelings. Many studies have
likely exposed to significant increase in state anxiety illustrated a relationship between computer anxiety
compared to those with lower levels of trait anxiety. and usage (Compeau and Higgins, 1995b; Igabaria et
Trait anxiety, according to Murata, et al. al., 1989; Webster et al., 1990). Additionally, in
(2004), represents the general propensity to be Webster (1989), computer anxiety has been linked to
anxious as a personality characteristic, whereas state negative beliefs about computers, difficulties while
anxiety is described as the level of anxiety at a playing with them, and evasion of technology.
particular moment. That is to say, reasonable degrees Individuals who produce desired and better
of anxiety are supposed to assist learning and consequences are those who feel more relaxed while
memory performance; nevertheless, consecutive using the machine.
intensifying in these levels of anxiety beyond the People who interact intensively and
optimal anxiety level will lead to lower degrees of or/frequently with computers are usually computer
learning and memory operating (Christianson, 1992). phrenics are less anxious, while those who are more
Anxiety experienced while using e- anxious are less expected to use computers (Igabaria
commerce systems is perceived as a form of domain- and Iivari 1995). These remarks suggest that anxiety
specific trait anxiety. Thus it is hypothesized that: must be taken into consideration when studying
technology usage (i.e., e-commerce system), and
H1: There is a negative relationship between an based on this line of argument, the following
individual trait anxiety and e-commerce self-efficacy. hypothesis is defined:

3.2.1.2 Technology Anxiety H2b: There is a negative relationship between

State anxiety demonstrates personal feelings individual’s technology anxiety and his or her
of tension, anxiety, and concern which vary in intention to use e-commerce system.
strength and over time (Spielberger et al., 1983).
Computer anxiety is defined as “the fear of 3.2.1.3 General Self-efficacy (GSE)
impending interaction with a computer that is In 1977, Bandura, in relation to the Social
disproportionate to the actual threat presented by the Cognitive Theory, defined self-efficacy as “the belief
computer” (Howard et al., 1986, p. 630). A similar in one’s ability to perform a task or more specifically
definition for computer anxiety was offered by to execute a specified behavior successfully” (p. 79).
Bozionelos (2001), who explained that the concept As observed, the self-efficacy was first presented as
stands for the destructive emotions and cognitions very task-specific, which caused research to be
evoked either in real or imaginary dealings with conducted according to this belief. Later on, attempts
computer-based technology. In a study by Anderson to investigate the concept as a comprehensive rather
(1995), a positive significant relation was found than specific resulted in the construction of general
between mathematics and computer anxiety. This self-efficacy (GSE) (Woodruff and Cashman, 1993).

660
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

General self-efficacy is described as “one’s SSE in a variety of tasks. Therefore, individuals with
belief in one’s overall competence to effect requisite higher GSE perform better through varying tasks and
performances across a wide variety of achievement situations. Consequently, it can be hypothesized that:
situations” (Eden, 2001, p. 73) or as “individuals’
perception of their ability to perform across a variety H3: There is a positive relationship between general
of different situations” (Judge et al., 1998a, p. 170). self-efficacy and e-commerce self-efficacy.
Even though GSE is derived from the idea of self-
efficacy generality explained in Social Cognitive 3.2.1.4 E-commerce Self-efficacy (E-C SE):
Theory (Bandura, 1997), GSE is viewed as a separate Self-efficacy is described as an individual’s
concept. Self-efficacy is differentiated from GSE as belief that he or she has the needed abilities and skills
it is a relatively flexible, task-specific belief, while to successfully perform a particular task. In 1986,
GSE is relatively constant, characteristic-like, general Bandura presented the term specific self-efficacy
belief of capability (Chen et al., 2000; Chen et al., (SSE) which refers to one’s belief in abilities to
2001). mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and
Gibbons and Weingart (2001) and Siu et al., courses of action needed to meet specified situational
(2007) also discriminated between task-related and demands. SSE relates to one’s confidence of being
general self–efficacy, since self-efficacy varies able to accomplish specific performance levels
collectively across tasks and performance areas and (Wood and Bandura, 1989).
in constancy over time and circumstances. The Stajkovic and Luthans (1998, P. 244)
highest level of aggregation entails general self- distinguished between GSE and SSE by explaining
efficacy, explained as “one’s belief in one’s overall how SSE is characterized as “a dynamic,
competence to effect requisite performances across a multifaceted belief system that operates selectively
wide variety of achievement situations” (Eden, 2001, across different activity domains and under different
p. 73). At the lowest level, one’s capability of situational demands, rather than being a
successfully finishing a certain task in particular decontextualized conglomerate”. Conversely, and
circumstances is referred to as self-efficacy. In short, according to Bandura (1997b, p. 42) GSE is “not tied
the level of aggregation positively influences the to specific situations or behavior” but takes a broader
stability of self-efficacy. view to a “variety of situations” (Sherer et al., 1982,
Individuals differ in motivation and affect, p. 664).
according to trait and state differences. Kanfer and Consistent with the definition of SSE, this
Heggestad (1997) and Chen et al. (2000) study will describe e-commerce self-efficacy as one’s
distinguished between these variations and clearly judgment of being capable to successfully use and
outlined associations between different kinds of perform transactions through an electronic-commerce
personality differences and performance. system.
State-individual differences are flexible and Experimental research during the past 10 years
restricted to particular tasks; on the other hand, trait- has revealed the effect of self-efficacy on
individual differences are not limited to a particular individuals’ decision to use information systems.
task or circumstance and are relatively steady over Hill, Smith and Mann (1987), for example, have
time as personality and cognitive ability. confirmed the relation between self-efficacy and
Specific-task self-efficacy (SSE) is a some work-performance measures (for example,
motivational state, and general self-efficacy (GSE) is adaptability to using computer and information
a motivational trait (Eden, 1988, in press; Gardener systems). Bandura (1986) has demonstrated how
and Pierce, 1998; Chen et al., 2001). Some past special self-efficacy can be used to predict task
experiences (actual experience, vicarious, verbal performance outcomes, mainly because the outcomes
persuasion, psychological states) affect both GSE and to be measured have been clearly identified.
SSE. Nevertheless, Eden (1988) points to the fact Compeau and Higgins (1995) found that computer
that GSE is much more resilient to short-lived self-efficacy also influenced expectations about the
experiences than is SSE. In other words, future outcomes of computer use, such as job
accumulative successes and failures through an performance and personal accomplishment.
individual’s life-time are most responsible for Outcome expectations (i.e., perceived
shaping her/his GSE (Shelton, 1990). usefulness) are estimates that a behavior will
As stated by Eden (1988), Chen et al., (2001), produce particular outcomes (Oliver and Shapiro,
Shelton (1990) and Sherer et al., (1982), GSE 1993; Eastin and LaRose, 2000) but it depends
positively impacts on SSE across tasks and situations greatly on how well the individual believes he or she
(that is, GSE) “spills over” into particular situations, can perform the task; therefore, self-efficacy
as observed through the relationship between it and judgments are consecutively related to outcome

661
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

expectations (Bandura, 1977). Oliver and Shapiro determining behavioral intention (Taylor and Todd,
(1993) observed that the stronger a person’s self- 1995).
efficacy beliefs, the more likely that s/he will aim to Self-efficacy perceptions were characterized
successfully accomplish the desired outcome. by Hsu and Chiu (2003) as a significant predictor and
In terms of e-commerce particularly, research precursor to computer technology use; this
has generally supported positive relations between hypothesis is maintained by researching the
self-efficacy and outcome expectations (Gist and utilization of computers. The relationship between
Mitchell, 1992; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998, technology self-efficacy, the choice to use
Schwoerer et al., 2005). Nowadays, and in the technology and adoption has been confirmed by
context of e-commerce, these observations mean that numerous studies. A new variable was presented by
there should be a positive connection between self- Compeau and Higgins (1995, 1999), Davis et al.
efficacy and the expectation of positive outcomes of (1989), Hill et al. (1987), Igbaria and Iivari (1995),
e-commerce use. These outcomes, as mentioned which is the user’s feeling of “being prepared”. This
earlier, can be reduced costs, more saved time, better variable is considered similar to the concept of “self-
quality, and the ability to consult and discuss efficacy” and has also been found to be related to the
products with consumers around the world. All these degree of use. Internet self-efficacy was positively
expectations will increase positively with related to Internet usage in the context of the Digital
individuals’ believes of being capable of using e- Divide (Eastin and LaRose, 2000).
commerce systems to purchase items. Thus, it can be Special self-efficacy was suggested for
hypothesized that: consideration as a new variable in the adoption
process “consumers with high self-efficacy are more
H4a: There is a positive relationship between e- active, attempt to proactively manage situations, and
commerce self-efficacy and end-users’ outcome more likely to initiate innovative decisions, as
expectation. opposed to those with low self-efficacy who avoid
difficult tasks and are passive” (Tabak and Barr,
People described as low in self-efficacy are 1999, p. 252).
less certain of their ability to impeccably perform the In 1987, Hill et al. observed that the decision
transactions of buying, selling or returning items to use technology is considerably related to self-
online. So, if any of their online merchandises do not efficacy. Compeau and Higgins (1995b, 1999) also
turn out satisfactorily, they will be most probably revealed a direct positive connection between
unable to take care of this problem by returning the computer self-efficacy and computer usage. This
purchased item and they will refrain from contacting positive relationship between web-specific self-
web vendors to buy products. On the other hand, efficacy and electronic services utilization was also
highly efficacious people are willing to perform noted by Hsu and Chiu (2003), Burkhart and Brass
transactions with almost any web vendor without (1990), Compeau and Higgins (1995, 1999) and
hesitation and be able to take care of any defected Oliver and Shapiro (1993). In the context of e-
items themselves by directly returning them (Kim commerce, self-efficacy is also supposed to be
and Kim, 2004). directly related to the usage of e-commerce, since
The higher the customers’ self-efficacy while customers are more likely to attempt and continue
dealing with an e-commerce portal, the more positive this behavior as long as they feel capable of
outcome expectation they will probably have and the successfully performing needed tasks. Therefore, the
more they will trust the vendor. This study expands following hypothesis is proposed:
the term of e-commerce self-efficacy to a situation-
specific self-efficacy. The extent to which one H4c: There is a positive relationship between e-
believes in his or her proficiency to accomplish a commerce self-efficacy and the intention to use e-
successful specific task (e-commerce self-efficacy) commerce.
influences his or her trust in the domain of e-
commerce. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that: 3.2.1.5 Outcome Expectation
Bandura (1986), in his social cognitive theory,
H4b: There is a positive relationship between e- stated that people are more likely to take on
commerce self-efficacy and user trust. behaviors that they suppose will be rewarded. It is
important to understand that self-efficacy and
As stated by Bandura (1997), self-efficacy outcome judgments are two separate concepts
refers to one’s belief in his or her ability to perform a according to Bandura, as he states in a research paper
task successfully and here in e-commerce it is published in 1982: “In any given instance, behavior
suggested that self-efficacy plays a significant role in would be best predicted by considering both self-

662
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

efficacy and outcome beliefs” (Bandura, 1982, p. 2002).

140). Surprisingly, Heijden et al. (2001) did not
Studies directly concerned with measuring observe any explicit relation between user's trust in
outcome expectation in the IT literature are limited in online stores and their behavior toward purchasing.
number. In 1989, researchers Davis et al., conducted The explanations provided by Heijden contradict a
a study on MBA students in which they detected a previous study conducted by Jarvenpaa et al. in 1999.
development of behavioral intentions about using a However, Heijden et al. (2001) warned that their
word-processing program, derived from expectations study excluded substandard websites and they
that it would enhance their performance in the MBA suggested that a deeper analysis and understanding of
program (Davis et al., 1989). Previously, Smith and the matter can be accomplished by diverging the
Mann (1987) demonstrated that individuals’ choice levels of quality covered through the study
to gain knowledge of a programming language was (O’Donnell, 2002).
highly influenced by outcome expectations. In two separate studies both Gefen (2000)
In the area of computing technology and Kim and Kim (2005) demonstrated how purchase
specifically individuals’ intentions are significantly intentions are being significantly shaped by users’
shaped by outcome expectations (Compeau and trust in web-vendors. As an example, they showed
Higgins 1995b), since outcome expectations are a how consumers’ low trust in web-vendors makes
key originator of usage behavior. Both Bandura’s them less willing to engage in e-commerce
research on aggressive behavior in children (1971) transactions. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
and information systems (IS) research by Davis et al.
(1989), Hill et al. (1987), Pavri (1988) and H6: There is a positive relationship between users’
Thompson et al. (1991) provided positive support for system trust and intention to use e-commerce
the debate on outcome expectations. This study will systems.
be the first to offer a comprehensive exploration of
the relationship between e-commerce utilization and 4. Methodology
outcome expectations. 4.1 Data Collection Method and Measurements
Outcome expectations are demonstrated in the A self-administered structured
e-commerce context clearly through the increased questionnaire, constructed based on other related
utilization of this technology by consumers who previous studies, was used to examine the adoption
expect higher quality, lower prices, extended of B2C e-commerce in Jordan. This questionnaire
availability (24/7), and a wider variety of products was pre-tested, modified, and used to capture data of
while shopping online. The extra value individuals e-commerce users in Jordan.
expect out of simple tasks they are capable of Multiple items were used for measuring the
performing will create a major motivating factor for research variables using a five-point Likert scale,
them to use the system. Therefore, we hypothesize ranging from 5= “strongly agree” to 1= “strongly
that: disagree”. To ensure content validity, the selected
items in the instrument were operationalized using
H5: There is a positive relationship between validated items from prior research to ensure the
customers’ outcome expectations and intention to use validity of the content. The general self-efficacy
e-commerce systems. scale was measured using items adopted from
Bosscher and Smit (1998). The Electronic-commerce
3.2.1.6 User Trust Self-efficacy scale was adapted from Compeau and
O’Donnell (2002) defines consumer trust as Higgins (1995), and Kim and Kim (2005). Outcome
the consumers’ belief that the vendor, that is, a firm Expectation items were adopted from Compeau and
or website, will accomplish the transaction as the Higgins’ (1995). Trait Anxiety Scale was adopted
consumer expects. The twenty-first century has from Thatcher and Perrewe (2002). Technology
witnessed a huge growth in the number of electronic Anxiety items were adopted from Thatcher and
transactions, due to the increased trust in technology, Perrewe’s (2002). User Trust Scale was
which promotes its utilization, acceptance, and operationalized based on previous studies on online
adoption by users (Sukar, 2005). transactions (Gefen, 2000). The items of intention to
The concept of user trust is becoming more use e-commerce were adapted from Kim and Kim
important equally to both experts and academics (2005).
(Lippert, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c). The concept of For content and preface validity, the
technology trust attempts to measure the user’s trust instrument was pre-tested with three academics in the
in the inanimate IS technologies: hardware and field of IS. The three academics were consulted
software, operating on a daily basis (Lippert, 2001a, regarding where they commented on the

663
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

questionnaire and made comments concerning its using a buying online simulation environment, in
ease of use, expected effectiveness, which the respondents can participate in.
unambiguousness, expressiveness, content validity Another decision that was made by the
(that is, that the scale items appeared to measure researchers and two academic experts from
what they were intended to measure) and the general information systems and marketing upon evaluating
appropriateness. Afterwards, five academic excellent all available data-gathering techniques and sources is
postgraduate students were asked to fill the survey. to obtain the sample from university student
When they finished it, they were asked to point out population. Further reasons supporting the validity of
any problems in the survey questions. Based on their selecting the sample of university students were that
feedback, the wording of some questions was university students are the more expected future users
modified to improve the clarity. Feedback was very of e-commerce systems. In addition, many
helpful in determining what changes to apply (for academics, in response to the continuous argument
example, changes to individual questions/statements about using university students as a sample, have
and to the instructions for respondents, such as confirmed the validity of students as subjects (for
replacing the word “uncertain” in the five-point example, Calder and Tybout, 1999; Chow, 1999). As
Likert scale to “neutral” with the intention of well as researchers targeting Internet users have
reducing participants’ tendency to frequently make discovered that the online population is young, more
that choice). educated, and wealthier than the general public
To ensure the items are measuring the same (Bellman, Lohse and Johnson, 1999; Jupiter
construct, Cronbach’s alpha was used to evaluate the Communications, 1998 and 1999; Kehoe et al.,
reliability of the instrument items (Cronbach, 1970). 1999), which are truly some of the characteristics of
Although researchers suggest 0.7 as the accepted the students of universities.
reliability cut-off, a value of more than 0.6 is The questionnaire was administered to 350
regarded as a satisfactory level (Hair et al., 2006). students in the University of Jordan, A total of 238
The reliability function in the SPSS 17 was used to questionnaires were returned. 19 questionnaires were
test the internal consistency (i.e. reliability) for the excluded due to the significant number of
items in each scale. The results are presented in unanswered questions. Finally, 209 questionnaires
Table 2. The outcomes of the statistical analysis were judged as eligible and suitable for analysis. The
demonstrate satisfactory, ranging from 0.71 to 0.94 buying simulation, in which the respondents
participated, produced a comparatively high total
Table2. Internal Consistencies of Constructs response rate (68%).
Scale No. of Cronbach’s The demographic characteristics of the
items alpha participants are presented in Table 3. One hundred
Trait anxiety 4 0.710 and five males participated in this survey, which
Technology anxiety 5 0.932 represents 50.2% of the total respondents, while
General self-efficacy 12 0.813 females (104) comprised the remaining 49.8%. As
E-commerce self- 6 0.841 for age groups, the 18–22 year group comes first as a
efficacy modal group, with 63.6% (133 respondents).
Outcome expectation 11 0.883 Subsequently, the 22–29 group is represented by
User trust 6 0.833 20.1% of the total sample, with 42 respondents. The
Intention to use e- 4 0.939 30–38 group is represented by 9.6 % of the total
commerce sample, with 20 respondents. Whereas the 39–44
group is represented by 5.7 % of the total sample,
4.2 Sampling Strategy and Study Population with 12 respondents. Above 45 years is the final
Specific to the current research, the group in the set, scoring 1% (2 respondents).
population includes everyone who is over 18 years of Examining the level of education results revealed that
age, with adequate experience in using the Internet, 133 respondents (63.6 %) were undergraduate
in addition to Internet-connected computers (Al students, whereas 76 of them (36.4 %) were
Shiply, 2006). However, the researchers lacked the postgraduate students.
right to access reliable e-commerce client lists due to Examining the Internet usage, around 61%
privacy policies, confidentiality laws, and ethical of the respondents are using the Internet on daily
concerns which complicated the process of bases. These results indicate that young people in
recognizing a good evocative sample. The alternative Jordan have considerable experience in using
solution investigated by the researchers involved computers and Internet.

664
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

Table 3. Demographic characteristics of the participants

Ptc. Frequency Category Characteristic
49.8 104 Female Gender
50.2 105 male
63.6 133 18-22 Age
20.1 42 22-29
9.6 20 30-38
5.7 12 39-44
1.0 2 over45
63.6 133 Under-graduate Education
36.4 76 Post- graduate
25.8 54 Less than 100 Level of income
33.0 69 101-200
13.9 29 201-300
27.3 57 More than 300
7.0 15 Several times monthly Internet usage Frequency
32.0 67 Several times weekly
61.0 127 Several times daily

4.3 Development of the Survey’s Scenario

In order to test the hypotheses introduced in this research, a method that engages individuals in a free
simulation of real-life situations has been adopted. This approach can be of great assistance in the research, as it
facilitates the observation of individuals’ performance in very “reality-like” situations (Al-Shibly, 2006; Starub et
al., 2005).
As this study sample consists mainly of university students who use Amazon.com for their common
online purchases like university books, the popular site was identified by the researchers and their advisers as the
best site on which to operate the test. One scenario was given to students, whereby they were provided with the
home URL of the website (www.amazon.com) and asked to act as if they wanted to purchase a book. As seen in
Table 4, a scenario was developed regarding a purchase of a book, whereby participants accessed the site through
their home PCs or laptops and experienced the procedures of buying, but without essentially fulfilling the final
transaction of paying. Later, they were asked to answer the survey questions.

Table. 4 The study scenario (free simulation)

Website The Scenario
Amazon Imagine that you are planning to purchase a book for your personal use. The book is not available at
your local library. Use the electronic commerce website www.amazon.com to research the book you
would consider buying. Please DO NOT actually buy anything from the online store. You are only
required to research the information available and see if you can find a book that you like. Once you
have found the book that you are satisfied with, please fill out the following information.

4.4 Findings and Results of Hypotheses Testing

Regression analysis is a statistical tool for the investigation of influence of one or more variables
(independent) on another variable (dependent variable) as defined by Field (2008). A set of linear and multiple
regressions were used to test the hypotheses associated with the research model. Although the path coefficient can
be estimated in many ways, multiple regression analysis is used by most empirical studies to explore the
relationship between a single dependent variable and several predictors (independent variables) (Hair et al., 2006).
The multiple regression assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals were
tested and the integrity of the assumptions was not questioned. Figure 4 is a graphical representation of the analysis
results. Table 5 shows the results of the regression analysis based on the relationships proposed in the research
model. To investigate the research hypotheses, multiple regression analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0
package for Windows. To investigate hypotheses H1, H2a, and H3 (Trait anxiety, technology anxiety, and General
self-efficacy) were simultaneously regressed on e-commerce self-efficacy. Multiple regression analyses were
performed to investigate hypotheses H2b, H4c, H5 and H6 (Technology anxiety, E-commerce self-efficacy,
Outcome expectation, and Consumer’s trust) were simultaneously regressed on behavioral intention to shop online
(BI). To investigate the research hypothesis H4a, H4b, single regressions were performed. All the research

665
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

hypotheses ( H2a, H2b, H4a, H4b, H4c, H5, and H6) have been supported by the empirical test. Whereas
unpredictably H1 and H3 were rejected. In addition, the results indicate that the research model explained around
70.9 % of the variance in consumer’s intention to adopt and use e-commerce (R2 = 0.709).

Figure 4. Significant relationships in the research mode

Table 5. Path coefficients and hypotheses testing

Analysis Hyp. Independent Dependent Std. Beta T Sig. Result
Type Variable Variable Error
Multiple H1 TA .036 .070 1.350 .179 Rejected
regression E-C SE
H2a TE-A .044 *** _11.646 .000 Accepted
_0.643
H3 GSE .080 .086 1.546 .124 Rejected
H2b TE-A .053 *** -4.024 .000 Accepted
-.222
H4c E-C SE INT to shop .068 *** 5.236 .000 Accepted
.295
H5 OUTCOME .074 ** 2.645 .009 Accepted
.137
H6 CON-T .075 *** 5.762 .000 Accepted
.331
Single H4a E-C SE OUTCOME .047 *** 10.525 .000 Accepted
regression .590
H4b E-C SE CON-TRUST .049 *** 12.016 .000 Accepted
.641
Statistical Significance
*** Correlation is significant at <0.001
** Correlation is significant at <0.01
* Correlation is significant at <0.05

666
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

4.5 Discussion
The findings indicate that there are factors which can influence the individual adoption of B2C e-
commerce in Jordan. As hypothesized, technology anxiety, e-commerce self-efficacy, outcome expectation, and
consumer trust are significant predictors of usage intention, and together, accounted for 70.9 % of the variance in
the consumer intention to use e-commerce (R2 = 0.709). Table 6 shows the Model summary.
This study hypothesized that there would be a negative relationship between the trait anxiety and e-
commerce self-efficacy (H1). The findings of this study unexpectedly did not support this hypothesis. Trait anxiety
has no impact on the e-commerce self-efficacy. As shown in Table 5, the standardized coefficient (Beta value) for
the Trait anxiety is not significant (β= 0.070, p<0.05). As hypothesized, technology anxiety had a negative impact
on the e-commerce self-efficacy (H2a). Table 5 shows that Beta value for the technology anxiety is negative and
significant (β= -0.643, p<0.001). As well as technology anxiety has negative impact on the consumer's intention to
use e-commerce (H2b). Table 5 shows also that Beta value for the technology anxiety is negative and significant
(β= -0.222, p<0.001). Inconsistent with previous research (Thatcher and Perrewe, 2002), trait anxiety does not have
a directly negative effect on e-commerce self-efficacy.
The implication from this result is that technology anxiety is not constant. The technology anxiety can be
reduced by teaching these systems in schools, and training people in how to use specific systems (here e-commerce
systems) and using the media (newspapers, radio, television, and special reports) to increase information about
these systems. That will reduce the technology anxiety and increase the e-commerce self-efficacy, which will result
in greater intention to use e-commerce.

Table 6. Multiple Regression Model: Dependent variable: Intension to Shop on-Line

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) .876 .381 2.296 .023
E-Commerce Self Efficacy .354 .068 .295 5.236 .000
Outcome Expectation .194 .074 .137 2.645 .009
E-Commerce Anxiety -.212 .053 -.222- -4.024- .000
Consumer Trust .432 .075 .331 5.762 .000
R 0.842
R 2 0.709
0.703
Adjusted R2 124.139
Regression F-value
Sig. For F-Value .000

One more Hypothesis (H3) was not in table 5, Beta value for the e-commerce self-efficacy
supported by the results of the study, as shown in is positive and significant (β= 0.590, p<0.001). Not
table 5. Contrary to expectations, general self-efficacy surprisingly, e-commerce self-efficacy has a
did not have a significant relationship with e- significant relationship with users’ outcome
commerce self-efficacy and this indicates that general expectations. This indicates that e-commerce self-
self-efficacy will not improve e-commerce self- efficacy improves in general the outcome
efficacy. Table 5 shows that Beta value for the expectations. Individuals who have confidence in
General Self-efficacy is not significant (β= 0.086, their ability to use e-commerce have higher
p<0.05). There are two explanations for this result. expectations of the outcomes of using these systems
The first is that the general users’ expectation about than those who lacked this confidence. This has
their capability is different when they face specific implications for increasing the motivation for using
cases (for example, using e-commerce), so they might these systems.
assume a high level of capability about themselves Hypothesis H4b was supported by the results
generally, but when they face a specific case they find of the study, as shown in table 5. Not surprisingly, e-
themselves incapable of performing this task. commerce self-efficacy has a significant positive
Hypothesis H4a was supported by the results relationship with user trust. The Beta value for the e-
of the study, as e-commerce self-efficacy has positive commerce self-efficacy is positive and significant (β=
impact on the users’ outcome expectation. As shown 0.641, p<0.001). This indicates that e-commerce self-

667
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

efficacy will increase users’ trust in e-commerce factor (after the consumer trust) in determining
systems. E-commerce self-efficacy has a direct consumer intension to shop online (β =0.295 for e-
positive effect on users’ trust. This result shows the commerce self-efficacy, β= 0.331 for consumer trust).
importance of self-efficacy in increasing users’ trust Second, technology anxiety has a negative
in e-commerce technology. significant effect on e-commerce self-efficacy. Third
In addition to Hypotheses H4a, H4b, and surprisingly, there were no effects for general
Hypothesis H4c was supported by the results of the self-efficacy and trait anxiety on individual’s
study, as shown in table 5. As expected, Customer’s intention to use e-commerce.
e-commerce self-efficacy has a significant positive Much of the existing empirical research
relationship with their intention to use e-commerce, focused on e-commerce in developed countries. In
that Beta value for the e-commerce self-efficacy is consequence, very little is known about e-commerce
positive and significant (β= 0.295, p<0.001). This adoption and usage in the developing countries,
indicates that increasing e-commerce self-efficacy including Jordan (Al-Ziadat et al, 2013). Therefore, it
will increase customers’ intention to use e-commerce. could be argued that this study has made significant
Hypothesis H5 was supported by the results contribution to the body of knowledge at academic
of the study. Not surprisingly, user’s outcome and practical levels as an important exploratory study
expectation has a significant positive relationship with in the context of Jordan as one of the developing
users’ intention to use e-commerce; that Beta value countries where there is a real need for much research
for the outcome expectation is positive and significant to be conducted on e-commerce issues.
(β= 0.137, p<0.05); thus, indicating that an increase in The implications of this study are both
users’ motivation will increase their intention to use practical and theoretical. At the practical level this
e-commerce. As table 5 shows, the direct effect of study has many implications. First, the study shows
users’ outcome expectation of using e-commerce on that adoption of e-commerce systems is directly,
their intention to use these systems. significantly, and positively affected by e-commerce
Hypothesis H6 was supported by the results self-efficacy, outcome expectations (perceived
of the study, as shown in table 5. As expected, user usefulness), and trust, but negatively by technology
trust has a significant positive relationship with anxiety. It is proposed that individuals with higher
intention to use e-commerce; that Beta value for the levels of e-commerce self-efficacy, outcome
user trust is positive and significant (β= 0.331, expectations, trust, and with lower technology anxiety
p<0.001). This indicates that increasing users’ trust are more likely to perform an online transaction than
will increase their intention to use e-commerce. Table those experiencing lower levels of these concepts.
3 shows that users’ trust in e-commerce has a direct Second, e-commerce system designers/developers,
positive relationship with users’ intention to use e- implementers, and managers of organizations can
commerce. Accordingly there is considerable cause to derive benefits from the important implications
increase users’ trust by increasing their self-efficacy, derived from this study. In real practice, those
in order to increase their intention to use e-commerce. responsible for creating and managing e-commerce
operations are highly advised to bear in mind the
5. Conclusion and Implications significant impact of social factors that shape
This study is a step forward in developing a individuals’ intention to exploit e-commerce. Third,
more robust understanding of individual differences the media are a very important tool that can be used to
that may inform decisions makers, enhance trainings' boost self-efficacy, as they provide information that
effectiveness, and extend our understanding of factors increases awareness of the environment (Bandura,
linked to individual intention to use e-commerce. This 1988). The media in all their forms: newspapers, TV,
study articulated and tested a conceptual model to test and radio, can be utilized through broadcasting extra
relationships among stable (i.e., independent) and knowledge and awareness regarding e-commerce in
dynamic (i.e., dependent) traits (i.e., e-commerce self- the developing countries. Offering such information
efficacy, outcome expectations, trait anxiety, e- will produce higher e-commerce utilization, as
commerce anxiety, and consumer trust) in online customers’ anxiety decreases and self-efficacy
shopping environments. increases.
Based on the study-discussed findings, three At the theoretical level, this study has many
considerable conclusions can be made. First, the self- implications. First, this study applied the well-known
efficacy (e-commerce self-efficacy), outcome social cognitive theory in the e-commerce area by
expectations, consumer trust, and technology anxiety developing a model based on the combinations of
are significant predictors of an individual’s intention Compeau et al. model (1999); Thatcher and Perrewe
to use e-commerce. It should be noted that e- (2002); and Kim and Kim model (2005) to investigate
commerce self-efficacy was the second powerful the impact of cognitive social factors on the intention

668
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

to use e-commerce. Earlier studies have covered some Khawaldeh, K. (2013) Factors Affecting
of the issues and have mainly applied them (i.e., University Student's Attitudes toward E-
cognitive social factors) in the area of computer Commerce: Case of Mu'tah University.
technology. Therefore, this study is considered International Journal of Marketing Studies; Vol.
innovative, and it can be positively confirmed that the 5, No. 5
study model is a solid model uniting these three 4. Anderson, A. A. (1995). "Predictors of
renowned and robust models into one to generate a Computer Anxiety and Performance in
clarification of individuals’ behavior in the Information Systems." Computers in Human
framework of e-commerce utilization. The developed Behavior 12(1).
model in this study can further enhance the research 5. Arab advisors group. (2011). Survey about e-
in the area of e-commerce and can be applied in commerce in Jordan. Retrieved from
different areas of e-commerce. In addition, the http://www.arabadvisors.com
method used to collect the research data; the free 6. Bandura, A. (1977). "Self-efficacy: toward a
simulation method, can be correctly used in other unifying theory of behaviour change."
contexts and research as well. This method is Psychological Review 84(2).
described as “free” since the researchers attempted 7. Bandura, A. (1982). "Self-efficacy mechanisms
not to control any variables in the investigated in human agency" American Psychologist 37:
environment; thus guaranteeing its free of bias. The 122-147.
model used in the free simulation questionnaire 8. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of
represents only users’ behavior in a bounded duration thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
of time and does not explain how this behavior can Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
change later on. Users’ attitudes can be measured over 9. Bandura, A. (1987). Perceived self-efficacy:
a longer duration in further studies, using a Exercise of control through self-belief.
longitudinal model that can help in identifying any Controversial issues in behavior modification. J.
changes in behavior. P. Dauwalder, M. Perrez and V. Hobi, Berwyn,
Future studies will be employed to fill the PA: Swets&Zeitlinger: 27-60.
gap in the literature on the application of social 10. Bandura, A. (1988a). "Organizational
cognitive theory in e-commerce and to provide further applications of social cognitive theory",
support for the social cognitive constructs in different Australian Journal of Management 13: 275-302.
area of e-commerce. Indeed, more research is required 11. Bandura, A. (1989). "Perceived self-efficacy in
on the techniques used to boost e-commerce self- the exercise of personal agency" The
efficacy, outcome expectations, and reduce Psychologist: Bulletin of the British
technology anxiety. Psychological Society 2: 411-424.
12. Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: the exercise
Corresponding Author* of control. New York, W.H. Freeman.
Dr. Mahmoud Al-dalahmeh 13. Bandura, A. (2002). Environmental
Department of Management Information Systems sustainability through sociocognitive approaches
Faculty of Business to deceleration of population growth.
The University of Jordan 14. P.Schmuch & W.Schultz (Eds.), The psychology
Amman 11942 of sustainable development (pp. 209–238).
E-mail: m.aldalahmeh@ju.edu.jo Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
15. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide to the construction of
*Appendix (construct coding) Available upon self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs
request ofadolescents. F. Pajares and T.Urdan,
Greenwich, CT:Information Age Publishing.B.
References 5: 307-337.
1. Al-Shiply, H. (2006). Customer satisfaction and 16. Bandura, A., Ed. (1995). Self-efficacy in
empowerment as the prerequisite for web-based changing societies. New York: Cambridge
electronic commerce system success, Doctoral University Press.
Dissertation, University of Newcastle, Australia. 17. Bellman, S., G. L. Lohse, et al. (1999).
2. AL-Sukar, A. S. (2005). "The Application of "Predictors of online buying behavior",
Information Systems in the Jordanian Banking Communications of the ACM 42: 32-38.
Sector: A study of the Acceptance of the 18. Bosscher, Rudolf J; Smit, Johannes H.
Internet, Doctoral Dissertation, University Of Confirmatory factor analysis of the General Self-
Wollongong, Australia. Efficacy Scale. Behaviour Research and
3. Al-Ziadat, M., Al-Majali,M., Al Muala. A., & Therapy. Vol 36(3) Mar 1998, 339-343

669
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

19. Bozionelos, N. (2001). "Computer anxiety: self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital
relationship with computer experience and divide", Journal of Computer Mediated
prevalence" Computers in Human Behavior 17: Communication 6(1).
213-224. 34. Eden, D. (1988). "Pygmalion, Goal Setting, and
20. Burkhardt, M. E. and D. J. Brass (1990). " Expectancy: Compatible Ways to Raise
Changing Patterns or Patterns of Change: The Productivity", Academy of Management Review
Effects of Change in Technology on Social 13(4).
Network Structure and Power" Administrative 35. Eden, D. (2001). Means efficacy: External
Science Quarterly 35: 104-127., Smith and sources of general and specific efficacy. Work
Mann (1987) motivation in the context of a globalizing
21. Calder, B. J. and A. M. Tybout (1999). "A vision economy. M. Erez and U. Kleinbeck, NJ:
of theory, research, and the future of business Lawrence Erlbaum: 73-85.
schools", Journal of the Academy of Marketing 36. Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Murphy BC. Parents’
Science 27(3). reactions to children’s negative emotions:
22. Chan, H. (2001). E-commerce: fundamentals Relations to children’s social competence and
and applications. New York ; Chichester, Wiley. comforting behavior. Child
23. Chen, G., S. M. Gully, et al. (2000). Development. 1996;67:2227–2247.
"Examination of relationships among trait-like 37. Field, F. (2008), “Research Methods in
individual differences, state-like individual Psychology: Multiple Regression”, Working
differences, and learning performances", Journal Paper Gardner,
of Applied Psychology 85. 38. Gardener, D and Pierce, J. L. (1998). "Self-
24. Chen, G., S. M. Gully, et al. (2001). "Validation esteem and self-efficacy within the
of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale", organizational context", Group and
Organizational Research Methods 4(1). Organizational Management 23: 48-70.
25. Chow, S. L. (1999). Convenience sample, 39. Gefen, D. (2000). "E-commerce: the role of
random subject-assignment and contrast group. familiarity and trust." International Journal of
[Online]. Available at Management Science 28: 725-737.
http://uregina.ca/~chowsl/pub_papers/Wilcomm. 40. Gibsons, D. E. and L. R. Weingart (2001). "Can
html. I do it? Will I try? Personal efficacy, assigned
26. Christianson, S. (1992). "Emotional stress and goals, and performance norms as motivators of
eyewitness memory: A critical review", individual performance", Journal of Applied
Psychological Bulletin 112: 284-309. Social Psychology 31: 624–648.
27. Compeau, D.R., & Higgins, C.A. (1995, June). 41. Gist, M. E. and T. R. Mitchell (1992). "Self-
Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its
Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19, (2), Determinants and Malleability", Academy of
189-211. Management. The Academy of Management
28. Compeau, D. R. and C. A. Higgins (1995b). Review 17(2): 183.
"Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a 42. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson,
Measure and Initial Test." MIS Quarterly 19: R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data
189-211. analysis (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
29. Compeau, D. R., Higgins, C. A., & Huff, S. 43. Heijden, H. v. d., T. Verhagen, et al. (2001).
(1999). Social cognitive theory and individual Predicting Online Purchase Behavior:
reactions to computing technology: A Replications and Tests of Competing Models .
longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145- 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on
158. System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.
30. Cronbach, L. J. (1970). Essentials of 44. Hill, T., Smith, N. D., & Mann, M. F. (1987).
psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the
Harper & Row. decision to use advanced technologies: The case
31. Davis, F. D., R. P. Bagozzi, et al. (1989). "User of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology,
Acceptance of Computer Technology: A 72, 307-313.
Comparison of Two Theoretical Models", 45. Howard, G., C. Murphy, et al. (1986). Computer
Management Science 35: 982-1003. anxiety considerations for the design of
32. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: introductory computer courses. Proceedings' of
Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Decision
Review of Psychology. 41. 417-440. Sciences Institute, Atlanta, GA: Decision
33. Eastin, M. A. and R. L. LaRose (2000). "Internet Sciences Institute.

670
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

46. Hsu, M.-H. and C.-M. Chiu (2004). "Internet Trust in Information Systems Technology, May
self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance", 2-4,2002, Forthcoming at the 2002 Academy of
Decision Support Systems 38: 369-381. Business and Information Technology Meeting.
47. Igbaria, M., F. N. Pavri, et al. (1989). Pittsburgh, PA.
"Microcomputer application: An empirical look 60. Macintosh, G. and L. Lockshin (1997). "Retail
at usage", Information and Management 16(4): relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level
187-196. perspective", International Journal of Research
48. Igbaria, M. and J. Iivari (1995). "The Effects of in Marketing 14: 487-97.
Self-Efficacy on Computer Usage", Omega 61. Murata, T., T. Takahashia, et al. (2004).
23(6). "Individual Trait Anxiety Levels Characterizing
49. Internet World Stats. (2011). Usage and the Properties of Zen Meditation",
population statistics. Retrieved from Neuropsychobiology 50: 189-194.
http://www.internetworldstats.com/middle.html. 62. Nuseir, M., et al., (2010). Evidence of Online
50. Jarvenpaa, S. L., N. Tractinsky, et al. (1999). Shopping Determinants: A Jordanian Consumer
"Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross- Decision Process Perspective. International
cultural validation", Journal of Computer Review of Business Research Papers, 1(5).
Mediated Communication 15(2). 63. O'Donnell, J. B. (2002). Assessment of the
51. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998a). impact of web site design on consumer trust and
The power of being positive: The relationship purchase decision, Doctoral Dissertation,
between positive self-concept and job University of New York.
performance. Human Performance, 11, 167–187. 64. Oliver, T. A. and F. Shapiro (1993). "Self-
52. Jupiter Communications (1999). Guerrilla efficacy and computers", Journal of Computer-
Marketing: Breaking Through the Clutter with Based Interactions 20: 81-85.
Word of Mouth, A Jupiter Communications 65. Pavri, F. N. (1988). An empirical investigation
publication. of the factors contributing to micro-computer
53. Kanfer, R. and E. D. Heggestad (1997). usage, University of Western Ontario.
"Motivational traits and skills: A person 66. Rosen, L. D. and P. Maguire (1990). "Myths and
centered approach to work motivation", realities of computer phobia: A meta-analysis",
Research in Organizational Behavior 19: 1-56. Anxiety Research 3: 175-191.
54. Kehoe, C., J. Pitkow, et al. (1999). Results of 67. Schwoerer, C. E., D. R. May, et al. (2005).
GVU's tenth World Wide Web user survey. "General and Specific Self-Efficacy in the
Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, Context of a Training Intervention to Enhance
GVU-Center. Performance Expectancy", Human Resource
55. Kim, Y. H. and D. J. Kim (2005). A Study of Development Quarterly 16(1).
Online Transaction Self-Efficacy, Consumer 68. Shelton, S. H. (1990). "Developing the construct
Trust, and Uncertainty: Reduction in Electronic of general self-efficacy", Psychological Reports
Commerce Transaction. Proceedings of the 38th 66: 987-994.
Hawaii International Conference on System 69. Sherer, M., J. E. Maddux, et al. (1982). "The
Sciences, IEEE. Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and
56. Lippert, S. K. (2001a). Trust in Information Validation", Psychological Reports 5(1).
Systems Technology: Implications for 70. Siu, O. l., C. q. Lu, et al. (2007). "Employees'
Academia. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Well-being in Greater China: The Direct and
Annual Research Forum, Washington, D.C., Moderating Effects of General Self-efficacy",
Washington Consortium of Business Schools. Applied Psychology An International Review
57. Lippert, S. K. (2001b). Trust in Information 56(2).
Systems Technology: A Fundamental Metric In 71. Spielberger, C.D. Theory and research on
Systems Development and Usage. Washington anxiety. In C.D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and
Metropolitan Best Practices Forum, Washington, behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.
DC. 72. Spielberger, C. D., R. L. Gorsuch, et al. (1970).
58. Lippert, S. K. (2001c). Why Trust in Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
Information Systems Technology? Does it Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Matter for IT Professionals? Invited Guest 73. Spielberger, C. D., R. L. Gorsuch, et al. (1983).
Lecturer,Management and Organization Manual for the state-Trait Anxiety Inventory.
Seminar. April 23. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologist Press.
59. Lippert, S. K. (2002). Contributing to a Unified 74. Stajkovic, A. D. and F. Luthans (1998). "Self-
Model of Technology Trust: Understanding efficacy and work-related performance: A

671
 Life Science Journal 2014;11(8) http://www.lifesciencesite.com

metaanalysis", Psychological Bulletin 124: 240- 82. Thompson, R. L., C. A. Higgins (1991).
261. "Personal computing: Toward a Conceptual
75. Straub, D. W., D. Gefen, et al. (2005). Model of Utilization", MIS Quarterly 15(1).
Quantitative research in research in information 83. Turban, E., D. King, et al. (2004). Electronic
systems: A handbook for research supervisors Commerce A Managerial Perspective. New
and their students, Elsevier, Amsterdam: D. Jersey, Pearson Prentice.
Avision and J. Pries-Heje (ED). 84. United Nation Development program in Jordan
76. Suri, R. and K. B. Monroe (2001). "The effects (UNDP, 2014), Retrieved from
of need for cognition and trait anxiety on price http://www.jo.undp.org/content/jordan/en/home.
acceptability", Psychology & Marketing 18(1). html.
77. Tabak, F. and S. Barr (1999). "Propensity to 85. Usala, P. D. and C. Hertzog (1991). "Evidence
adopt technological innovations: the impact of of Differential Stability of State and Trait
personal characteristics and organizational Anxiety in Adults", Journal of Personality and
context", Journal of Engineering and Social Psychology 60(3).
Technology Management 16(3/4). 86. Webster, J. (1989). Playfulness and computers at
78. Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, work, New York University.
M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service 87. Wilson, J. R., P. B. Raven, et al. (1999).
complaint experiences: implications for "Prediction of respiratory distress during
relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, maximal physical exercise: The role of trait
62(2), 60-76. anxiety", American Industrial Hygiene
79. Taylor, S. and P. A. Todd (1995). Association Journal 60(4).
"Understanding Information Technology Usage: 88. Wood, R. E. and A. Bandura (1989). "Impact of
A Test of Competing Models", Information conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
Systems Research 6(2). mechanisms and complex decision-making",
80. Tellegen, O. A. (1985). Structures of mood and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:
personality and their relevance to assessing 407-415.
anxiety with an emphasis on self-report. Anxiety 89. Woodruff, S. L. and J. F. Cashman (1993).
and the anxiety disorders. A. H. Tuma and J. D. "Task, domain, and general self-efficacy: A re-
Maser, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, examination of the self-efficacy scale",
Hillsdale, NJ. Psychological Reports 72: 423-432.
81. Thatcher, J. B., and Perrewe, P. L. (2002). An 90. Yerkes, R. M. and J. D. Dodson (1980). "The
Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of
Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Habit Formation", Journal of Comparative and
Self-Efficacy.MIS Quarterly, 26, 4, 381-396. Neurological Psychology 18: 459-482.

6/12/2014

672
View publication stats