Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
The Effect of Online Return Shipping Insurance and Regulatory
Focus on Consumer Behavior
Bingjia Shao*, Lingli Chang** and Lizhong Zhang***
Online return shipping insurance is an innovative system as introduced by
online retailers in China. This paper compares the effect of return shipping
insurance and return shipping fee on the transaction behaviors of
consumers with different regulatory focuses. Our research findings have
shown that consumers with a promotion focus would prefer return shipping
insurance as a signal of commodity quality and a credibility of the seller.
Based on this preference, the consumers would increase their propensity
to purchase, but not increase their return tendency. Whereas the
consumers with a prevention focus tended to regard return shipping
insurance as a means to reduce return loss, return shipping insurance
improved their propensity to purchase and return tendency at the same
time. By analyzing the ratio of purchase and return, the authors have
found that return shipping insurance can be utilized to improve the volume
of transactions in comparison to return shipping fees.
Field of Research: E-Commerce, Online Return Policy, Regulatory Focus Theory
1. Introduction
With the rapid development of online shopping, the volume and complexity of product
returns have also increased (Bonifield and others, 2010). The main reason is that online
purchase is divided into two decision-making processes: order and keep/return the product;
meanwhile, consumers can not directly experience the product before ordering (Wood,
2001). Therefore it is very hard for online consumers to ensure the quality of the ordered
goods and their preferences to be matched. Return policy has become an important factor
for both consumers to purchase goods and online businesses to compete effectively.
Compared to traditional bricks-and-mortar channels, there is no difference in return time,
return requirements and refund guarantee, so that return shipping policy has become the
focus of online transactions. In order to reduce the negative impact of return shipping fees
________________________________________________________________________
*Dr. Bingjia Shao, School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Email: shaobingjia@cqu.edu.cn
**Lingli Chang, School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Email: linglichang@126.com
***Dr. Lizhong Zhang, School of Economics, LaTrobe University, Victoria, Australia.
Email: l.zhang@latrobe.edu.au
1
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
on online transactions, Huatai Insurance Company of China launched a dedicated
insurance product: online return shipping insurance for Taobao.com, one of the largest
online retailers in China. The insurance includes two categories: for consumers and for
retailers. To avoid turning “contingency” into “necessity”, the insurance company mainly
launched return shipping insurance for the seller, meaning that it is the seller who buys the
insurance, which can ensure “contingency”. However, more and more retailers have
concerns about that return shipping insurance will increase the return rates, although it may
increase the percentage of orders.
Based on Rosenbaum and Bitner-Olson (1999) research, Wachter and others (2012) have
found that consumers have different understanding, attitudes and reflection about buying
and returning because of moral beliefs and life philosophy. Nichols and others (2001) have
claimed that impulsive consumption usually leads to frequent returns with a large number of
transactions as impulsive purchase. Impulsive consumers do not necessarily consider the
return policy before ordering. However the individuals with high impulsivity tend to have a
promotion focus (Sengupta and Zhou, 2007). So, this paper analyzes how the regulatory
focus of consumers affects their perception and sensitivity of the return policy. Consumers
would regard return shipping insurance as a signal of a commodity quality (with a promotion
focus), or as a means to avoid return losses (with a prevention focus).The different
understanding of return policy can affect subsequent return behavior. Therefore, this study
examines the interaction of regulatory focus and online return shipping policy, and
investigates the change of consumer buying and return, in order to confirm the effect of
return shipping insurance on transactions, so as to provide reference information for the
online retailers.
2. Literature Review and Research Assumptions
An Overview about the Theory of Consumer Personality-Regulatory Focus
Personality trait is a very important factor affecting consumers' purchase intention and
behavior (Puri, 1996). The regulatory focus theory as proposed by Higgins (1997, 1998)
maintains that self-regulation with different needs and goals, consists of two mutually
independent systems: promotion focus and prevention focus. Individuals with a prevention
focus are concerned with safety, responsibilities, and obligations. They are sensitive to the
negative outcomes and attempt to minimize errors of commission. In contrast, those with a
promotion focus are concerned with growth, accomplishment, and aspirations. They are
sensitive to the positive outcomes and attempt to minimize errors of commission.
Individuals with a promotion focus strive to emphasize on positive results and benefits,
more concerned about "get" and they are not sensitive to the negative results. Individuals
with a prevention focus strive to emphasize negative consequences and losses, more
concerned about "loss"(Sengupta and Zhou, 2007). Individuals tend to be one regulatory
focus during the process of socialization, so individuals can be identified as
promotion-focused and prevention-focused. It has been suggested that people feel more
2
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
positive and are more motivated when they use strategies that fit their regulatory focus
(Higgins, 2000). Regulatory fit makes the individuals have the sense of importance,
enhance their motivation, and improve task performance and emotional experience, thus
exerting wide-ranging effects on decision-making behavior and attitudes.
Regulatory Focus and the Dual Characteristics of Lenient Return Policy
In the studies about return policy, return time, effort and the costs involved are the criteria
as lenient return policy (Posselt and others, 2008; Su, 2009). The seller return shipping
insurance can make up of the return costs for the consumers; therefore lenient return policy
has double features.
Firstly, lenient return policy is a signal of commodity quality and the seller credibility
(Bonifield and others, 2010; Moorthy and Srinivasan, 1995). Dutta and others (2011) have
found that refund is self-punishment for the seller, because low-quality retailers will have
greater transaction costs for more product returns, such punishment will prevent low-quality
retailer’s fraud. But there are individual differences in thinking of lenient return policy as a
signal of commodity quality (Wu and Li, 2002).When the promotion-focused purchase at
first time, they do not consider the return of goods and the costs, what they are concerned
with is the positive characteristics and the information delivered by the retailers and the
goods. Meanwhile, Friedman and Forster (2002) have found that Individuals with a
promotion focus have improved cognitive ability; they can find the deeper meaning of the
problem and dig out potential links between things. Therefore, consumers with a promotion
focus prefer to regard return shipping insurance as a signal of commodity quality and
credibility of the seller.
Secondly, lenient return policy reduces the perceived risk of the consumer about returns
(Davis and others, 1995) and ensures transaction security. Lenient return policy also
reduces the cost of changing decisions, and makes consumers have better decision
reversibility and flexibility (wood, 2001). Friedman and Forster (2002) have found that, for
the individuals with a prevention focus, their cognitive capacity is limited, so it is difficult for
them to understand the deep connection of things, and what they are concerned with is the
specific points of product information. In the initial purchase process, customers with a
prevention focus have stronger risk perception, and they are more worried about the
negative characteristics of the product and the cost of returns, therefore, more inclined to
regard return shipping insurance as a means to reduce return loss.
Research Assumption 1: Consumers with a promotion focus prefer to regard return
shipping insurance as a signal of commodity quality and credibility of the seller; whereas,
consumers with a prevention focus tend to regard return shipping insurance as a means to
reduce return loss.
3
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
Regulatory Focus, Return Policy and Consumer Behavior
Lenient return policy (including free returns) increases probability of order, heightens
ratings of the product quality, and reduces overall decision conflict (Wood 2001);
meanwhile, lenient return policy increases the number of buy-now (Bechwati and others,
2005). Lenient return policy can improve customer loyalty, generate positive word of mouth,
and increase long-term profits (Fornell and Wernerfelt 1987, 1988). Easy return policy
makes the consumers be willing to pay a premium price, introduce new consumers to the
retailers (Zeithaml and others, 1996), and increase their post return spending (Bower and
Maxham 2012; Petersen and Kumar 2009).
But in fact the number of the purchased and the returns are positively correlated (Bonifield
and others, 2002). Longo (1995) has found that only a small part of returns are due to
deception, because the company does not charge return shipping fee and handling fee,
which results in higher return rates. Davis and others (1998) hold the same views, who
have found that if a product is easy to return, it is more likely to be returned. So retailers are
motivated to impose non-refundable return charges based on a percentage of the
merchandise value to prevent "inappropriate" returns by consumers (Chu and others, 1998).
But Zimmerman and Mattioli (2011) have found that online retailers are increasingly willing
to offer free (initial) shipping to customers to heighten the possibility of an initial purchase,
resulting in the increase in sales to offset the increase in costs. So, lenient policy will
increase profits only if return rates do not rise significantly with sales increasing. Therefore,
it is important to analyze the change rate of consumer purchases and returns to confirm the
effect of return shipping insurance on online transactions.
Research Assumption 2: For the consumers with a promotion focus, compared with fee
return, return shipping insurance increases their propensity to purchase, but does not
increase their return tendency.
Research Assumption 3: For the consumers with a prevention focus, compared with a fee
return, return shipping insurance improves their propensity to purchase and return
tendency at the same time.
3. Methods
Measures and Variables
To examine regulatory focus, we used the questionnaire taken from Lockwood and others
(2002). Both subscales were reliable (promotion: ɑ=0.81；prevention: ɑ= 0.75), and were
modestly correlated with one another (r= 0.17, p﹤0 .01). All items were rated on a 7-point
scale with endpoints labeled 1 (not at all true of me) and 7 (very true of me). All participants
4
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
were required to fill out both subscales, and then we compared the scores to determine
their regulatory focus.
In order to measure the participants’ perception of return policy at their initial purchase, we
used the measure from Lei Liu and Chenglu Wong (2012), which contained a 2-item scale.
All items were rated on a 7-point scale with endpoints labeled 1 (I totally agree) and 7 (I
totally disagree).
D1: The product quality and seller reputation will be better with the seller return shipping
insurance.
D2: The seller return shipping insurance will reduce the return cost.
We used the questionnaire (Palazon and Ballester, 2009) to measure their purchase
tendency .The scale contained 2 items: ①I will purchase the product; ②I have the tendency
to buy the product. All items were rated on a 7-point scale with endpoints labeled 1 (I totally
agree) and 7 (I totally disagree), and we analyze the consistent reliability of dependent
variables (Cronbach’s alpha=0.87).
The sub-scale to measure return tendency also contained two items: ① I will return this
product; ②I have the tendency to return the product. All items were rated on a 7-point scale
with endpoints labeled 1 (I totally agree) and 7(I totally disagree), and we also analyzed the
consistent reliability of dependent variables (Cronbach’s alpha=0.85. In real transactions,
retailers only pay when the return is their own fault or because of the product quality; and
consumers only pay when it is their own fault. So return shipping insurance only affects the
return tendency because of the consumer fault, for that reason we controlled the returns
caused by retailers fault or by the product quality.
Procedure and Participants
Bower and Maxham (2012) have found that contextual variables will mediate the effect of
return cost. These covariates include product involvement, the dollar amount of shipping
costs to return the product (regardless of fee or free policy), the number of days to resolve
the return, the number of days that passed after receiving the product before the return was
initiated, the length of the customers’ relationship with the retailer (measured at 24 months
pre -return), the dollar amount of the order, and the dollar amount of the returned items, so
we controlled the covariates during the test procedure.
The research method was adapted from wood (2001). 210 questionnaires were sent to
measure regulatory focus. In order to control the income effect, we selected the
respondents whose monthly living cost was 800-1000 Yuan (Chinese Currency). Ultimately
5
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
we collected 191 valid scales, so 191 respondents were recruited; each respondent was
given 20 Yuan in cash as a reward. The average age of the respondents was 21 years old,
among them 98 were male; 84 were female; 110 were graduate students, 72 were
undergraduates. We chose the experimental materials according to the standards as
Palazon and Delgado-Ballester (2009) mentioned (“with everyday life”, “there is no gender
difference for the use of the product”, “no obvious pleasure or utility features” and other
standards). The respondents were asked to imagine that they were considering purchasing
a collegiate T-shirt for an upcoming sporting event, which is the most common college
apparel. We examined the data in the context of a 2 (return shipping policy: return shipping
insur
analysis of variance (ANOVA).
4. Results
We divided the respondents into two groups: promotion-focused and prevention-focused
according to the long-term regulatory focus questionnaire. Firstly, in examining
Assumption 1, we collected 182 valid scales. The analysis of data showed that the score
of promotion-focused about D1 (Means (D1) = 4.48) was higher than that of
prevention-focused (Means (D2) = 3.85), and the difference was significant (t (180) = 2.435,
P <0.05). The score of promotion-focused about D2 (Means (D2) = 4.83) was higher than
that of prevention-focused (Means (D2) = 3.71), and the difference was also significant
(t(180) = 4.511，P﹤0.05). These results suggest that the consumers with different regulatory
focuses will have different understandings about return shipping insurance. The consumers
with a promotion focus preferred to regard return shipping insurance as a signal of
commodity quality and the credibility of the seller; whereas the consumers with a prevention
focus tended to regard return shipping insurance as a means to reduce return loss.
Therefore, the data analysis results validated Assumption 1.
In examining how return shipping insurance would influence their purchase propensity, we
found the results that revealed a main effect of return shipping on the purchase propensity
(F(1,179)=11.682,P＜0.05). Regardless of the respondents’ regulatory focus, compared
with a fee return, return shipping insurance increased the consumers’ propensity to
purchase. In addition, the main effect of regulatory focus on purchase intention was not
significant (F (1,179) = 0.032, P = 0.782); return shipping policy and regulatory focus
interaction was significant, (F(1,179)=2.252，P=0.234). We continued to analyze the simple
effect of the return shipping policy and regulatory focus. For the consumers with prevention
focus, the propensity to purchase was higher with return shipping insurance than with a fee
return shipping policy (Mreturn
shipping insurance=6.47＞Mreturn shipping fee=3.48,F(1,179)=7.268，
6
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
P=0.003）. For the consumers with promotion focus, the difference of the propensity to
purchase also was significant (Mreturn
shipping insurance=6.01
＞ Mreturn
shipping fee=4.51
；
F(1,179)=5.612 ， P=0.008). It can be seen that the seller return shipping insurance
significantly increases consumer propensity to buy regardless of their regulatory focus
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: Influence of Regulatory Focus and Return Shipping Policy on Buying Intention
Similarly, we analyzed the effect of regulatory focus and return shipping policy on return
tendency. Because there were 132 respondents who had ordered, so we recruited them to
take part in the test, and we collected 129 valid scales. A two-way ANOVA revealed return
shipping policy × regulatory focus interaction to be significant, (F(1,125)=11.722,P<0.05); A
2×2 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of return shipping policies, (F(1,125)=6.221,
P=0.015); the main effect of regulatory focus was not significant(F(1,125)=0.023,P=0.882).
We analyzed the simple effect of the return shipping policy and regulatory focus. For the
consumers with prevention focus, the propensity to return was higher with return shipping
insurance than with return shipping fee policy (Mreturn
shipping insurance=4.12＞Mreturn shipping
fee=1.32,
F(1,125)=5.268,P=0.011). Therefore, the experimental results supported
Assumption 2 and Assumption 3. For the consumers with promotion focus, the difference
of the return propensity was not significant (Mreturn shipping insurance=1.89,Mreturn shipping
fee=1.52;F(1,125)=0.012,P=0.089). The results showed that the seller return shipping
7
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
insurance increased the propensity of the consumers to return with prevention focus; but
didn’t lead to a significant change of the propensity to return for the promotion-focused
(Figure 2).
Figure 2: Influence of Regulatory Focus and Return Shipping Policies on Return Intention
In order to verify the effect of the seller return shipping insurance policy, we examined all
the order rates and returns, and found that the rates of the consumers’ ordering and returns
were different under different return shipping policy. The percentage of orders in the return
shipping insurance policy condition was 81%, but only 62% in the return shipping fee policy
2
condition (   3.766 ,   0.05 , two-tailed). The return rate, however, was 13.9% in the return
shipping insurance policy condition and 4.5% in the return shipping fee policy condition
2
(   1.757 ,   0.174 , one-tailed). Compared with return shipping fee, it was interesting to note
that more people ordered and kept the T-shirt in the return shipping insurance policy
condition than in the return shipping fee policy condition, and return shipping insurance
improved the volume of transactions.
8
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
5. Conclusions
Summary and Implications
Product returns are an important part of online shopping; the return shipping cost is a
widespread problem for both online retailers and consumers. To implement a lenient policy,
a third party - the insurance company will bear the return shipping cost, which influences
the possibility of an initial purchase and return for the consumers with different regulatory
focuses. Our findings have indicated that the perception of return shipping insurance was
different for the consumers with different regulatory focuses. Consumers with a promotion
focus preferred to regard return shipping insurance as a signal of commodity quality and
credibility of the seller, which increased their propensity to purchase, but did not increase
their return tendency. Whereas the consumers with a prevention focus tended to regard
return shipping insurance as a means to reduce return loss, so return shipping insurance
improved their propensity to purchase and return tendency at the same time. By analyzing
the ratio of purchase and return, we have found that return shipping insurance improved the
volume of transactions compared with return shipping fees. Therefore online retailers
should take the real volume into account for the effect of return shipping insurance, not just
the return rate changes.
This study has important implications for understanding of the regulatory focus theory and
return shipping policy. Firstly, this study broadens the application of regulatory focus theory.
Scholars have applied the theory to explore other fields, such as consumer choice、
education and public policy, but there are no scholars applying the theory to study the
information transmission of online transactions. Secondly, this study enriches the theory of
return policy. There are few scholars to specifically study the return shipping costs;
moreover, as an innovative return policy in the Chinese e-commerce market, there is no
study available on online return shipping insurance.
This research also has important practical implications for the application and promotion of
return shipping insurance. As an innovative return policy in Chinese specific online settings,
the development of return shipping insurance is quite difficult. Some studies suggest that
the retailers should implement restricted return policy, and the retailers also have concerns
about that free return shipping will increase the returns. However, our study has shown that
implementing restricted return policy is one-sided and short-sighted. Online retailers should
consider the volume of real transactions, not just the return rate changes. Currently return
shipping disputes exist not only in the process of online transactions, but also in other
remote shopping. Return shipping insurance is an effective way to resolve those disputes
about return shipping. This tope of return policy can be applied to other remote shopping,
such as TV shopping and catalog shopping. Our research also offers something of practical
interest for the retailers to take an effective return policy.
9
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
Limitations and Further Research
In this study, we used normal goods as the experimental material, but for other products,
such as luxury goods, cheap goods and consumables, the residual value of products is
very different, and online retailers tend to implement different return policies. Therefore, our
future research will distinguish different products in order to better examine the effect of
return shipping insurance. We have controlled the contextual variables during the test
procedure, but in reality, these environment variables can also interfere with the effect of
return policy. In the future research, we will use actual data and analysis the environment
variables, so that we can fully grasp the valence of return shipping insurance. In addition,
this study only explores the effect of return shipping insurance on the initial purchase and
return, and we have not examined the psychological reactions and post-return repurchase
for different consumers. In the future research we will examine the short and long-term
effect of online return shipping insurance, and analyze how return shipping insurance
affects the consumer psychological reactions and post-return repurchase.
References
Aaker, J and Lee, A Y 2001, I seek pleasures, we avoid pains: the role of self regulatory
goals in information processing and persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol.28, pp. 33-49.
Bechwati, N and Siegal, W 2005,The Impact of the prechoice Process on Product Returns,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 42, No. 3,pp.358- 367.
Bonifield, C, Cole, C and Schultz, R L 2002, Product Returns on the Internet: A Case of
Mixed Signals, Working paper, Marketing Department, University of Vermont.
Bonifield, C, Cole, C and Schultz, R L 2010, Product Returns on the Internet: A Case of
Mixed Signals, Journal of Business Research, Vol.63, No. 9/10, pp.1058-1065.
Bower, A and Maxham, J 2012, Return Shipping Policies of Online Retailers: Normative
Assumptions and the Long-Term Consequences of Fee and Free Returns ,Journal of
Marketing, Vol.76, No. 5, pp.110-124.
Chu, W, Gerstner, E and Hess, J 1998, Managing Dissatisfaction: How to Decrease
Customer Opportunism by Partial Refunds, Journal of Service Research, Vol.1, No. 2,
pp.140-155.
Davis, S, Gerstner, E and Hagerty, M 1995, Money back guarantees in retailing: Matching
products to consumer tastes, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Davis, S, Hagerty, M and Gerstner, E 1998, Return policies and the optimal level of “hassle”,
Journal of Economics and Business, Vol.50, pp.445-460.
Dutta, S, Biswas, A and Grewal, D 2011, Regret from Post purchase Discovery of Lower
Market Prices: Do Price Refunds Help, Journal of Marketing, Vol.75, No.6, pp.124-138.
Fornell, C and Wernerfelt, B 1987, Defensive Marketing Strategy by Customer Complaint
Management: A Theoretical Analysis, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.24,
pp.337-346.
10
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
Fornell, C and Wernerfelt, B 1988, A Model For Customer Complaint Management,
Marketing Science, Vol.7, pp.287-298.
Friedman, R S and Forster, J 2002, The influence of approach and avoidance motor actions
on creative cognition, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 38, No.1
pp.41-55．
Han, Y K, Morgan G A, Kotsiopulos, A and Kang-Park ,J 1991,Impulse buying behavior of
apparel purchasers, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.15-21.
Higgins, E T 1997, Beyond pleasure and pain, American Psychologist, Vol.52, No.12, pp.
1280-1300.
Higgins, E T 2000, Making a good decision: value from fit, American Psychologist, Vol.55,
pp.1217-1230.
Liu, L and Wong, C 2012, The Impact of Regulatory Focus and Promotion Framing on Buy
intention: Examining the Interaction Effect, Journal of Marketing Science, Vol.8 ,No.2,
pp.34-44.
Lockwood, P, Jordan, C H and Kunda, Z 2002, Motivation by Positive or Negative Role
Models: Regulatory Focus Determines Who Will Best Inspire Us, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 854-864.
Longo, T 1995, At stores, many unhappy returns: no longer is the customer always right,
Kiplingerb’s Personal Finance Magazine, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp.103.
Moorthy, S and Srinivasan, K 1995, Signaling Quality with a Money-Back Guarantee: The
Role of Transaction Costs, Marketing Science, Vol.14, No.4, pp.442-446.
Nichols, J, Li F, Roslow, S, Kranendonk, C and Mandakovic, T 2001, Inter-American
perspectives from mall shoppers: Chile-United States, Journal of Global Marketing,
Vol.15, No.1, pp. 87-103.
Palazon, M and Delgado-Ballester, E 2009, Effectiveness of price discounts and premium
promotions, Psychology& Marketing, Vol.26, No. 12, pp.1108-1129.
Petersen, J A and Kumar, V 2009, Are Product Returns a Necessary Evil? Antecedents and
Consequences, Journal of Marketing, Vol.73, No. 5, pp.35-51.
Pham ,M T and Avnet, T 2004, Ideals and oughts and the weighting of affect versus
substance in persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research , Vol.30, No.3, pp.503- 518.
Posselt, T, Gerstner, E and Radic, D 2008, Rating e-tailers' money-back guarantees.
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 207-219.
Puri, R 1996, Measuring and modifying consumer impulsiveness: A cost-benefit
accessibility framework, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.87-113.
Rosenbaum, M and Bitner-Olson, L 1999, An analysis of merchandise return patterns in
determining potential consumer abuses and affects on traditional marketing response
hierarchy models, Western Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Atlantic City, NJ.
Sengupta, J and Zhou, R 2007, Understanding Impulsive Eaters’ Choice Behaviors: The
Motivational Influences of Regulatory Focus, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLIV,
No. 5, pp.297-308.
Shah, J Y, Higgins, E T and Friedman ,R S 1998,Performance incentives and means: How
regulatory focus influences goal attainment, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 74 , No.2, pp. 285-293.
Su, X 2009, Consumer return policies and supply chain performance, Manufacturing and
11
Proceedings of 23rd International Business Research Conference
18 - 20 November, 2013, Marriott Hotel, Melbourne, Australia, ISBN: 978-1-922069-36-8
Service Operations Management, Vol. 4, pp. 595-612.
Underhill, P 1999, Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping--Updated and Revised for the
Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond, Simon & Schuster, NY.
Wachter, K, Vitell, S J, Shelton, R K and Park, K 2012, Exploring consumer orientation
toward returns: unethical dimensions, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol.21, No.
1, pp.115-128.
Wood, S L 2001, Remote Purchase Environments: The Influence of Return Policy Leniency
on Two-Stage Decision Processes , Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.38, No.2, pp.
157-169.
Wu, B and Li, D 2012, The Influence of Product Return on Consumer Purchase Regret in
Remote Purchase Environment, JMS Doctoral Consortium.
Zeithaml, V A, Berry, L and Parasuraman, A 1996, The Behavioral Consequences of
Service Quality, Journal of Marketing, Vol.60, No. 4, pp. 31-46.
Zimmerman, A and Dana, M 2011, Ship Free or Lose Out: More Retailers Absorb Cost of
Sending Packages to Vie with Web-Only Rivals, The Wall Street Journal, (November
25),B1.
12