| With the development of science and technology, internet has deeply effect onevery aspect of people’s life, online shopping has also attracted more and morepeople. Shopping in the virtual network context has different characteristics fromshopping in real life. It has certain practical significance for the merchants andenterprise to figure out which online shopping decision style they make. Takingcollege students as the research object, we conducted two studies. Study one revisedSpores and Kendall’s network shopping decision-making style scale. And study twoinvestigated the relationship between college students’ online shoppingdecision-making style, the online shopping behavior, shyness and the ideal self andactual self differences, taking sophomore and junior students as subjects.The results and conclusions are as follows:(1) The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the revised scale is0.78,and the coefficient of internal consistency of each subscale is0.54-0.74.(2) College students’ online shopping decision-making style includes eightdimensions: overly-and-fashion consciousness, recreational and hedonisticorientation, brand-conscious orientation, perfectionist and high quality-consciousorientation, impulsive orientation, value for money orientation, confused byover-choice orientation and brand-loyal orientation. The thing college students buyonline mostly is clothing shoes and hats class, followed by household items andbeauty skin care, and the least thing is food medicine, ticket hotel class andeducation services. The most commonly used pattern of payment online is advancepayment through AliPay, confirm payment again after receiving the goods, thesecond pattern of payment is direct payment through the bank online.(3) The frequency of college students’ shopping online has significantdifferences in gender, grade and origin. Specifically, boys’ online shoppingfrequency is significantly higher than girls, junior students’ online shoppingfrequency is significantly higher than sophomore students, and urban students’online shopping frequency is significantly higher than rural students. The average money students cost by shopping online has significant differences in gender andorigin. Specifically, junior students’ is significantly more than sophomore students,and urban students’ average money cost by shopping online is significantly morethan rural students.(4) The most common shyness form of college students was seeking for favor,fear of refuse, self limitation of expression and self-accusation.(5) College students’ shyness is significantly and positively correlated with thedifference between ideal self and actual self.(6) College students’ shyness is significantly and negatively correlated with thefrequency of shopping online, and fear of refuse, self limitation of expression ofshyness is significantly and negatively correlated with the frequency and theaverage money of shopping online.(7) Seeking for favor of shyness is significantly and negatively correlated withoverly-and-fashion consciousness, significantly and positively correlated withperfectionist and high quality-conscious orientation, value for money orientationand confused by over-choice orientation. Self-accusation of shyness is significantlyand positively correlated with impulsive orientation and confused by over-choiceorientation. Fear of refuse and self limitation of expression of shyness issignificantly and positively correlated with confused by over-choice orientation.(8) The difference between ideal self and actual self of college students issignificantly and negatively correlated with the frequency of shopping online andthe average money cost online.(9) The difference between ideal self and actual self of college studentsperforms intermediation function in shyness and online shopping behavior. Collegestudents’ shyness had direct function on online shopping behavior, in addition, italso had indirect effect on online shopping behavior through the difference betweenideal self and actual self. |
PDF Full Text Request