Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

www.elsevier.com/locate/im

Trust in consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce

Kiku Jones *, Lori N.K. Leonard
The University of Tulsa, School of Accounting and MIS, BAH 313, 600 S. College Avenue, Tulsa, OK 74104-3189, United States
Received 10 November 2006; received in revised form 13 October 2007; accepted 16 December 2007
Available online 15 February 2008

Abstract
We developed a model of consumer-to-consumer (C2C) e-commerce trust and tested it. We expected that two influences: internal (natural
propensity to trust [NPT] and perception of web site quality [PWSQ]) and external (others trust of buyers/sellers [OTBS] and third party
recognition [TPR]) would affect an individuals trust in C2C e-commerce. However contrary to studies of other types of e-commerce, support
was only found for PWSQ and TPR; we therefore discussed possible reasons for this contradiction. Suggestions are made of ways to help ecommerce site developers provide a trustworthy atmosphere and identify trustworthy consumers.
# 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Electronic commerce; C2C; Trust; Electronic markets and auctions

1. Introduction
Consumer-to-consumer (C2C) e-commerce, which
includes the use of online auctions, web forums, chat
rooms, and third party consumer listings, has been found to
be more popular than the business-to-consumer (B2C) ecommerce counterpart [41]. Differences have been found
between C2C e-commerce and B2C e-commerce in previous
research suggesting that B2C e-commerce methods cannot
be utilized in C2C e-commerce [16]. C2C e-commerce has
thus proven to be a distinct area of research, requiring new
models of operation.
Mayer et al. [21] defined trust as the willingness of a
party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based
on the expectation that the other party will perform a
particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the
ability to monitor or control that other party. Trust is
related to competence, responsibility, dependability, likeability, and honesty [36], and is important because it helps
consumers overcome perceptions of uncertainty and risk and
use online transactions. E-commerce is still a relatively new
concept to most people and since trust increases with
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 918 631 2945; fax: +1 918 631 2164.
E-mail address: kiku-jones@utulsa.edu (K. Jones).
0378-7206/$ see front matter # 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2007.12.002

familiarity, it is important to find ways to encourage

consumers to continuously use e-commerce. Understanding
how consumers frame trust of e-commerce and establishing
a trust model can enhance our ability to do this. In C2C ecommerce, trust must be felt by both buyers and sellers; they
must be both trustors and trustees.
This study considered two areas that can influence a
persons trust: internal and external. Internal influences
consist of a persons natural propensity to trust and a
persons perception of the web site quality in past C2C ecommerce transactions. External influences consist of other
peoples trust of the buyer and/or seller and their recognition
by third party institutions. Data was collected from 52
respondents about their experience as either the buyer or
seller in a C2C e-commerce transaction.

2. Background and research model

McKnight et al. [22] have attempted to define trust using
a model. Their model posits that trusting intentions will be
influenced by disposition to trust, institution-based trust, and
trusting beliefs. Disposition to trust is the willingness or
tendency to depend on others; it is composed of faith in
humanity (the belief that others are dependable and well

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

meaning and trusting) and trusting stance (the belief that

better outcomes result when a person assumes that he or she
is dealing with a person who is well meaning and
dependable). Interactions with individuals having different
dispositions to trust may require different trust-building
strategies. Institution-based trust is the belief that structural
conditions exist to increase the likelihood of a successful
activity. Therefore, institution-based trust depends on
structural assurance and situational normality. Structural
assurance is the belief that structures ensure regulations,
guarantees, promises, and legal remedy, and situational
normality is the belief that the environment is in proper order
and success will occur as a result. Institution-based trust can
be important for consumers to ensure mutual security on the
Web. Trusting beliefs is ones confidence in the trustee (i.e.,
the buyer or seller). Trusting beliefs center on competence
(ability to do what is needed), benevolence (motivation and
care to do what is needed), and integrity (honesty). Trusting
intentions is ones willingness to depend on the trustee and
engage in the trust related behavior. Ones willingness to
depend on the buyer/seller and ones probability of
depending on the buyer/seller constitute trusting intentions.
Trust has been found to have an influence on a customers
willingness to purchase online [11], and Mayer et al. offered
it as an influencer of the overall transaction outcome. Gavish
and Tucci [10] studied one form of C2C e-commerce
online auctions in terms of the number of fraudulent
activities occurring. Their results indicated fraudulent
activity levels well above those reported by auction site
operators, providing validity to customers hesitation to trust
in that environment. Dimensions of consumer trust in ecommerce, in general, have also been proposed [3]. Chen
and Dhillon utilized many of the constructs introduced by
McKnight et al. in their assessment of e-commerce trust
dimensions.
Our study focused on C2C e-commerce trust and its
influencers, and proposed that both internal (i.e., natural
propensity to trust (NPT) and perception of web site quality
(PWSQ)) and external ((OTBS) and third party recognition
(TPR)) factors influenced it. The research model is presented
in Fig. 1.

89

2.1. Natural propensity to trustNPT

Base trust, or NPT, is an individuals general willingness
to depend on others [18]. McKnight et al. saw trust in terms
of faith in humanity and trusting stance. Therefore, ones
NPT refers to an individuals faith in humanity and trusting
stance. We therefore looked at trust in general. Consumers
vary in their ability to trust others, which affects their trust in
online shopping [19]. NPT therefore can be affected by the
amount of information that the customer has about the seller
at the time of the purchase as well as any previous
experiences. Many e-commerce studies have considered
NPT in different settingsvirtual teams, entrepreneurial
Internet ventures, Internet banking, etc. These studies
showed that trust propensity was an important variable in
C2C e-commerce trust.
Some consumers exhibit a greater disposition to trust
anything and anybody and are more likely to trust a Web
vendor despite having only a limited set of information
[30]. Jarvenpaa et al. [15] studied antecedents to trust in a
global virtual team setting. They found that a team members
own propensity to trust had a significant effect on the team.
Also, Murphy [25] sought to determine how entrepreneurial
Internet ventures could obtain trust from Web users. He
found that ones NPT would significantly impact perceived
ability and benevolence when an individual had limited
experience online.
Kim and Prabhakar [17] studied NPT in Internet banking
and found that initial trust in an electronic channel was
significantly predicted by propensity to trust, structural
assurance, and word-of-mouth referrals. Gill et al. [12]
examined antecedents of trust intention. They not only found
that trust intention was predicted by perceived ability,
benevolence, and integrity of the trustee, but also that NPT
was correlated with trust intention when trustworthiness
information was ambiguous but not when trustworthiness
information was clear.
However, Hampton-Sosa and Koufaris [14], with a
sample of undergraduate and graduate students, studied the
relationship between NPT and initial trust, and other
variables. The students were told to access a web site to
look for either a laptop or airline ticket (depending on the
site given) and then asked to answer an online questionnaire
regarding trust. They found no significant relationship
between NPT and initial trust.
Based on these studies, we proposed the following:
H1a. A persons natural propensity to trust will influence
that persons trust in C2C e-commerce.
2.2. Perception of web site quality

Fig. 1. C2C trust model.

Experts have speculated that the biggest threat to ecommerce is not the security of personal information but the
perceptions of consumers [31]. McKnight et al. suggested
that an individuals perceptions of the environment would

90

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

affect his or her risk and safety assessment. Even after a

consumer has made a positive transaction with another, any
initial concerns regarding the atmosphere could remain and
prevent further transactions [20]. Therefore, objective trust
could be very important in a C2C e-commerce environment.
Objective trust is the set of social signals that are widely
accepted as bearing trust. An example is an individuals trust
of a police officer based on the fact that he or she wears a
uniform [38]. One signal which can invoke (or waive)
objective trust is the perceived quality of a web site. In order
for e-commerce buyers and sellers to thrive both must alter
their perception of people with whom they transact. One
factor is through the appearance of the web site. Consumers
will view it as a proxy for the owner of the site. Hampton-Sosa
and Koufaris showed that a web site appeared to influence a
persons initial trust of the site owner. In addition, this initial
trust has been shown to impact a persons intention to
purchase. Since, most e-commerce consumers have not met
prior to their transaction, the initial trust developed from the
perceived quality of the web site is very important.
Schlosser et al. performed an experimental study using
two web sites (high- and low-investments). The highinvestment site utilized a sophisticated design including
images and text and an enhanced zoom feature. The lowinvestment site utilized the default gray backgrounds and a
limited zoom feature. While the appearances of the sites
were different, the content of each site was identical. The
results showed that the site affected respondents online
purchase intentions. Presumably the increased level of
online purchase intention indicated that the respondents had
more trust in the web site owner. Thus additional investment
may increase the trust level of consumers.
Everard and Galletta [8] performed an experimental study
to determine whether a consumers perceived quality of an
online store affected his or her trust. Eight different versions of
a web site were provided to reflect flaw factors (style,
incompleteness, and language). The participants were given
tasks to complete and then a series of questions to answer on
completion of their tasks. The study showed that the participants perception of the web site quality affected their trust of
the online store (a B2C environment). A consumers web site
is likely to have been created by the consumer. In this sense,
the flaw factors would reflect directly on the owner of the site.
Therefore, we proposed:
H1b. A persons perception of web site quality will influence a persons trust in C2C e-commerce.
2.3. Others trust of buyer/seller
Reputation is the degree to which the buyer believes in
the sellers honesty [5]. In the online environment,
reputation systems have been developed to allow bidirectional communication feedback, on a large scale. Ha [13]
found that web sites built positive word-of-mouth additions
to help consumers gain higher brand trust, and Einwiller [7]

found that reputation of a vendor in a B2C environment

enhanced consumer trust if the consumer had little or no
prior experience with the vendor. McKnight et al. asserted
that reputation can play a role in categorizing an individual
as trustworthy. Individuals with a common goal tended to
perceive each other positively. Also, an individual could be
perceived as trustworthy and reliable because of his or her
actions or because he or she was a member of a competent
group. Therefore, a good reputation would lead one to
develop trusting beliefs about an individual regardless of any
firsthand knowledge of the individual.
Koufaris and Hampton-Sosa showed that online auction
reputation-feedback systems had been successful in building
reputations in an online environment. Web sites, such as eBay,
allowed both buyers and sellers to rate their transaction
experiences. Reputation of the seller has been found to influence a consumers trust, with higher ratings leading to higher
levels of trust [1], and being a discriminant of where to buy
[35]. In an online auction, seller reputation was found to affect
the auction price and the probability of making a sale, with a
higher seller reputation producing a higher selling price [23].
Most research on reputation involved formal feedback
mechanisms [see 2] and online recommendation agents [see
42]. Wang [40] studied movie ratings given by institutions
and consumers. He found that web users perceived
institution ratings as more credible than those of consumers.
However, if the consumer was already interested in a movie,
positive consumer reviews enhanced the consumers
behavioral intent, whereas expert endorsements did not.
Yamamoto et al. [44] studied the effectiveness of sharing
information concerning buyers and sellers reputations in
online transactions. They tested the effectiveness using
computer simulation instead of human subjects and the
simulation results indicated that a positive reputation could
be more effective than a negative reputation.
Reputation can also be built, or lost, without a traditional
reputation system. It is still a word-of-mouth concept, but in
an electronic world. Online chat rooms, discussion boards,
and emails are a few examples of such feedback
mechanisms. Garbarino and Strahilevitz [9] found that a
site recommended by a friend leads to a reduction in
perceived risk and an increase in willingness to purchase.
Smith et al. [32] also found that peer recommendations
affected decision-making in online shopping, regardless of
the peer recommenders personal characteristics.
Therefore, we propose the hypothesis:
H2a. Others trust of a buyer/seller (i.e., reputation) will
influence a persons trust in C2C e-commerce.
2.4. Third party recognition
Third party institutions can help to reduce some of the
risk of an online transaction and increase overall trust.
McKnight et al. referred to this as institution-based trust. It
is a fundamental requirement in conducting e-commerce.

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

This can reduce a consumers uncertainty when dealing with

new sites or people. Institution-based trust implies that if
something goes wrong, the institution will attempt to
preserve trust and thus reduce the risk to the customer [29];
the institutions signature provides consumers with a
sense of security and accountability.
Third party institutions can play many different roles.
Pavlou and Gefen [27] discussed four ways: feedback mechanism (part of the others trust of the buyer/seller construct);
escrow services (holding payment until parties are satisfied
with the transaction); credit card guarantees; and trust in the
marketplace intermediary provided through belief in the third
party institution). Another structure occurs if a third party
receives the items being exchanged and then forwards them in
an appropriate manner [28]. Thus the consumer can feel sure
of any transactions made via the intermediary.
Many consumers do not know the process of the third
party (such as a seal of approval [24]), but the appearance of
a relationship increases the trust of the consumer [4]. Stewart
[34] performed a study utilizing hypertext links from one
organizations web site to another. Respondents believed
that the two organizations had a business relationship and
this influenced their trust of the linked site. This third party
link may indicate that the owner of the site has met some
standard created by the third party institution.
Third party recognition provides consumers with a sense of
security in Internet shopping. Cheung and Lee administered
questionnaires regarding such trust to undergraduate MIS
students. They found that third party recognition impacted
trust. Additionally, Wakefield and Whitten [39] studied the
effect of third party institution credibility on online users
assurance structures and purchase risk perceptions in B2C ecommerce. They found that third party institution credibility
was positively related to the value users give to assurance
structures and negatively related to purchase risk perceptions,
and that the third party institutions credibility had a strong
association with online users trust of the e-retailer.
Therefore we proposed the hypothesis:
H2b. Recognition of a third party by the buyer/seller will
influence a persons trust in C2C e-commerce.

91

3. Method and sample

Undergraduate students in a Southwestern US university
were used as subjects in our study. They were enrolled in an
introduction to MIS course. Drennan et al. [6] argued that
university students are representative of a dominant cohort
of online users. College students represent the most
connected (online) segment of the US population, shopping
and spending online. They are experienced and frequent
users of the Internet.
Participants were given modified versions of instruments
created for the constructs: (NPT adapted from McKnight
et al.; PWSQ adapted from Everard and Galletta; third
party recognition (TPR) adapted from Lee and Turban; and
C2C trust (C2CT) adapted from Lee and Turban. We
developed the statements used for others trust of buyer/
seller (OTBS) to capture differing levels of relationships
among the respondent and the other person on whose
trust the participant relied the statements can be seen in
Tables 15.
Participants were asked to indicate on a seven-point
Likert scale the degree to which they agreed with the
statements. They were told that the survey was voluntary and
their responses would be kept anonymous, being reported in
the aggregate. They were asked to answer the questions
about their experiences with C2C e-commerce, which was
defined at the top of the survey instrument. In addition,
participants were asked to give some demographics. To
ensure the instruments content validity, the items were first
pilot tested using individuals with varying levels of use of
C2C e-commerce.
After reviewing and analyzing the pilot test results and
making necessary alterations, the survey was administered
to the sample respondents. Out of a total of 60 potential
respondents, 52 chose to participate (87%). A majority of the
respondents (77%) had participated in C2C e-commerce.
Sixty-nine percent had never been the seller of a C2C ecommerce transaction. A majority of the respondents (71%)
had purchased an item more than once using C2C ecommerce. Sixty-five percent of the respondents had
purchased an item using C2C e-commerce within the last

Table 1
NPT construct factor analysis
Natural propensity to trust
In general, people really do care about the well-being of others.
The typical person is sincerely concerned about the problems of others.
Most of the time, people care enough to try to be helpful, rather than just looking out for themselves.
In general, most folks keep their promises
I think people generally try to back-up their words with their actions
Most people are honest in their dealings with others
I usually trust people until they give me a reason not to trust them
I generally give people the benefit of the doubt when I first meet them
My typical approach is to trust new acquaintances until they prove I should not trust them
Cronbachs alpha
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Loadings
.81
.86
.84
.68
.68
.52
.11
.13
.05
.83
3.59
39.9%

.09
.02
.01
.06
.14
.20
.89
.87
.91
.88
2.18
24.3%

92

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

Table 2
PWSQ construct factor analysis
Perception of web site quality
The C2C e-commerce site I use is of
high quality
The likely quality of the C2C e-commerce
site I use is extremely high
The C2C e-commerce site I use must be
of very good quality
The C2C e-commerce site I use appears to
be of very poor quality
Cronbachs alpha
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Table 4
TPR construct factor analysis
Loadings
.93
.81
.80
.81
.86
2.81
70.3%

year. Online auctions were the method of choice for 77% of

the respondents; however, many of the respondents had
conducted C2C e-commerce in multiple venues other than
online auctions. The respondents ages ranged from 19 to 28.
The genders of the respondents were almost equal (52%
males; 48% females).

4. Data analysis and results

4.1. Validity and reliability of measures
Since several variables were collected from the same
source, Harmans single-factor test was used to check for
any common method variance. This test requires that all
variables be entered together. It assumes that, if all variables
load on one factor accounting for all of the variance or one
factor accounts for a majority of the variance, there is a high
level of common method variance present. We used
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and eight factors resulted
with an Eigenvalue greater than 1.0. The variance explained
ranged from 4% to 29% of the total. This provided evidence
that common method variance was not a concern.

Table 3
OTBS construct factor analysis
Others trust of buyer/seller
A friend recommending a seller/buyer in C2C
e-commerce reduces my risk in the transaction
A person from my online community (i.e., groups
with whom I interact online) recommending a
seller/buyer in C2C e-commerce reduces my
risk in the transaction
An online acquaintance (i.e., one with whom I
regularly chat online) recommending a
seller/buyer in C2C e-commerce reduces
my risk in the transaction
Cronbachs alpha
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Third party recognition

I think third party recognition bodies
(e.g., eBay, Verisign, etc.) of C2C
e-commerce are doing a good job
Existing third party recognition bodies
(e.g., eBay, Verisign, etc.) of C2C
e-commerce are adequate for the
protection of C2C e-commerce
buyers/sellers interests
Cronbachs alpha
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Loadings
.93

.93

.84
1.73
86.6%

Discriminant validity was tested using Spearmans

formula:
r p0 q0
r pq p r q0 q0
r p0 p0
where rp0 q0 is the mean of the correlations between each
series of values obtained for p with each series obtained from
q, rp0 p0 the average correlations between one and another of
these several independently obtained series of values for p
and rq0 q0 is the same as regards q and rpq is the required real
correlation between the true objective values of p and q [33].
Using a common cutoff point of 0.85 [43], we found that
all construct pairs were valid. Therefore, we could assume
that discriminant validity did exist among the constructs.
Construct validity and reliability were tested on the multiitem constructs of the model. Principal component analysis
(PCA) was used to extract factors. Those with Eigenvalues
greater than 1.0 were retained. In addition, Varimax rotation
was conducted using a 0.50 cutoff to indicate high item
correlations. Two factors emerged in the NPT construct. A
factor of six items seemed to represent a persons general
natural propensity to trust, while a factor of three
represented a persons trust of new instances. The first
component showed a Cronbachs alpha of 0.83. The percent
of variation explained by this component was 39.9%. The
second component generated a Cronbachs alpha of 0.88
with 24.3% of the variation explained. An NPT variable for
each subject was calculated as the average of the two factors.
Table 1 shows the results of the factor analysis.

Loadings
.78
.88

.83

.77
2.05
68.5%

Table 5
C2C trust construct factor analysis
C2C Trust
C2C e-commerce is unreliable
C2C e-commerce cannot be trusted, there are
just too many uncertainties
In general, I cannot rely on C2C e-commerce
buyers/sellers to keep the promises that they make
Anyone trusting C2C e-commerce is asking for trouble
Cronbachs alpha
Eigenvalue
Variance explained

Loadings
.90
.91
.92
.78
.90
3.08
77.1%

Table 6
Regression on C2C Trust
Independent variable

Parameter estimate

S.E.

VIF

Relevant hypothesis

Dependent Variable: C2CT

NPT
PWSQ
OTBS
TPR

0.05
.54
0.09
0.45

0.20
0.16
0.13
0.16

0.24
3.30
0.67
2.80

0.81
0.002*
0.51
0.007*

1.07
2.01
1.10
1.20

H1a not supported

H1b supported
H2a not supported
H2b supported

Overall model fit: p = 0.014**; R2 = 0.24; *p < .01; **p < 0.05.

The PWSQ construct items loaded on one factor. The

Cronbachs alpha was 0.86. The percent variation explained
was 70.3%. Table 2 shows the results of the factor analysis
for the PQWS construct. A PWSQ variable was calculated
for each subject as the average of the items.
The OTBS construct items loaded on one factor. The
Cronbachs alpha was 0.77. The percent variation explained
was 68.5%. Table 3 shows the results of the factor analysis
for the OTBS construct. An OTBS variable was calculated
for each subject as the average of the items.
The TPR construct items loaded on one factor. The
Cronbachs alpha was 0.84. The percent variation explained
was 86.6%. Table 4 shows the results of the factor analysis
for the TPR construct. A TPR variable was calculated for
each subject as the average of the items.
The multi-item construct for C2C Trust was also tested.
These items were reverse coded. A Cronbachs alpha score
was found to be 0 90 with 77.1% of the variation explained.
Table 5 shows the results of the factor analysis for the C2C
Trust construct. A variable for the C2C trust construct
(C2CT) was calculated as the average of the items. Each of
the constructs in the model well exceeded the recommended
Cronbachs alpha threshold of 0.50 with the lowest at 0.77
[26].

5. Discussion

4.2. Model testing

5.2.1. Others trust of buyer/seller

We did not find a significant relationship between OTBS
and C2CT. This was inconsistent with theories regarding
trust in B2C e-commerce [e.g., 37]. Consumers may feel
transactions between other consumers are still too personal
to be able to take the experiences from others. As discussed
earlier, Wang found that consumers tended to trust
institution feedback more than other consumer feedback.
Perhaps consumers can find ways to have institutions rate
them to provide other consumers with this type of
feedback.

Regression analysis was performed to test the relationships between the construct variables and C2C trust.
Residual plots were reviewed for non-random scatter about
the zero line. No heteroscedasticity was found in the data.
Variance inflation factors (VIF) were examined for each of
the independent variables in the model. All values were
small (below 3) suggesting there is no problem with
multicollinearity in the data.
Table 6 shows the regression results on C2C trust using
the four independent constructs. Support was only found for
H1b and H2b. The R2 value is 0.24, indicating that additional
variables may need to be considered for C2C e-commerce
trust.1
1
In addition, the regression was run excluding the data from the 12
respondents who said they had never participated in C2C e-commerce. The
results were consistent with the above analysis showing PWSQ and TPR to
have a significant impact on C2CT.

5.1. Internal influences

5.1.1. Natural propensity to trust
A persons NPT was expected to predict that persons
trust in C2C e-commerce (H1a). However, we did not find
a significant relationship between them. This may be due
to the specific nature of C2C e-commerce. Consumers
may believe that because this is different from the one
they are using, their base trusting behavior does not
apply.
5.1.2. Perception of web site quality
We found support for hypothesis H1b. When consumers
do not know one another, they take cues from social signals
when dealing with other consumers. Web site quality is one
such social signal. A consumers perceptions of that
quality can result in a feeling of trust about the owner of the
site. Our findings indicated that the perception of quality
might extend to a persons trust of C2C e-commerce in
general.
5.2. External influences

5.2.2. Third party recognition

Support was found for H2b regarding third party
recognition. This was consistent with theories regarding trust in e-commerce. Items such as a seal of
approval can influence C2C e-commerce trust. Consumers may prefer to use structured C2C web sites, such
as eBay, to provide some recognition of standards
being met.

94

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

6. Implications for practice

Both perceived web site quality and third party
recognition were found to influence C2C e-commerce trust.
Therefore, consumers should focus on improving these
aspects when attempting to transact via C2C e-commerce.
The quality of a web site influences C2C e-commerce
trust. Therefore, it is important to continue to update and
seek to establish the highest quality web site. In addition, it
may be a good idea for the consumer to include information
regarding their views and beliefs.
Consumers should seek to gain third party recognition.
After achieving this, it is important that the consumer
explain aspects required in order to receive recognition for
that particular third party. The more information provided to
consumers regarding the standards that are upheld the more
their symbol of affiliation will mean.

7. Limitations
One limitation may be the generalizability of our findings.
Student subjects were considered appropriate in our study; but
a different group may produce different results.
One other limitation is that buyers and sellers of C2C ecommerce were evaluated together in this study. There were
more buyers of C2C e-commerce than sellers in our sample.
It may be that a separation of these two groups would lend
different results.
In addition, the majority of the respondents have used
online auctions, but not the other types of C2C e-commerce
venues. It is possible that these findings reflect more of a trust
of online auctions rather than C2C e-commerce in general.
One final limitation is the small R2 that was produced.
This can be an indication that additional variables were
needed.

8. Conclusion
C2C e-commerce trust is different from B2C e-commerce
trust. We found that only perception of web site quality and
third party recognition influenced C2C e-commerce trust.
Therefore, consumers and C2C web sites should focus on
web site quality and third party institutions in order to
improve trust in them and to potentially improve their
transaction volume to consumers.

References
[1] S. Ba, P.A. Pavlou, Evidence of the effect of trust building technology
in electronic markets: price premiums and buyer behavior, MIS
Quarterly 26, 2002, pp. 243268.
[2] G.E. Bolton, E. Katok, A. Ockenfels, How effective are electronic
reputation mechanisms? An experimental investigation Management
Science 50, 2004, pp. 15871602.

[3] S.C. Chen, G.S. Dhillon, Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in

e-commerce, Information Technology and Management 4, 2003, pp.
303318.
[4] C.M.K. Cheung, M.K.O. Lee, Understanding consumer trust in internet shopping: a multidisciplinary approach, Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology 57, 2006, pp. 479
492.
[5] C. Dellarocas, The digitization of word of mouth: promise and
challenges of online feedback mechanisms, Management Science
49, 2003, pp. 14071424.
[6] J. Drennan, G.S. Mort, J. Previte, Privacy, risk perception, and expert
online behavior: an exploratory study of household end users, Journal
of Organizational and End User Computing 18, 2006, pp. 122.
[7] S. Einwiller, When reputation engenders trust: an empirical investigation in business-to-consumer electronic commerce, Electronic Markets 13, 2003, pp. 196209.
[8] A. Everard, D.F. Galletta, How presentation flaws affect perceived site
quality, trust, and intention to purchase from an online store, Journal of
Management Information Systems 22, 2006, pp. 5595.
[9] E. Garbarino, M. Strahilevitz, Gender differences in the perceived risk
of buying online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation,
Journal of Business Research 57, 2004, pp. 768775.
[10] B. Gavish, C.L. Tucci, Fraudulent auctions on the Internet, Electronic
Commerce Research 6, 2006, pp. 127140.
[11] D. Gefen, E. Karahanna, D. Straub, Trust and TAM in online shopping:
an integrated model, MIS Quarterly 27, 2003, pp. 5190.
[12] H. Gill, K. Boies, J.E. Finegan, J. McNally, Antecedents of trust:
establishing a boundary condition for the relation between propensity
to trust and intention to trust, Journal of Business and Psychology 19,
2005, pp. 287302.
[13] H.-Y. Ha, Factors influencing consumer perceptions of brand trust
online, Journal and Brand Management 13, 2004, pp. 329342.
[14] W. Hampton-Sosa, M. Koufaris, The effect of web site perceptions on
initial trust in the owner company, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 10, 2005, pp. 5581.
[15] S.L. Jarvenpaa, K. Knoll, D.E. Leidner, Is anybody out there? Antecedents of trust in global virtual teams Journal of Management
Information Systems 14, 1998, pp. 2964.
[16] K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard, Consumer-to-consumer electronic commerce: is there a need for specific studies? in: Proceedings of the paper
presented at the 12th Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Acapulco, 2006.
[17] K.K. Kim, B. Prabhakar, Initial trust and the adoption of B2C eCommerce: the case of Internet banking, Database for Advances in
Information Systems 35, 2004, pp. 5064.
[18] M. Koufaris, W. Hampton-Sosa, The development of initial trust in an
online company by new customers, Information and Management 41,
2004, pp. 377397.
[19] M.K.O. Lee, E. Turban, A trust model for consumer internet shopping,
International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 2001, pp. 7591.
[20] G. Long, M.K. Hogg, M. Hartley, S.J. Angold, Relationship marketing
and privacy: exploring the thresholds, Journal of Marketing Practice 5,
1999, pp. 420.
[21] R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman, An integrative model of
organizational trust, Academy of Management Review 20, 1995, pp.
709734.
[22] D.H. McKnight, V. Choudhury, C. Kacmar, Developing and validating
trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology, Information
Systems Research 13, 2002, pp. 334359.
[23] M.I. Melnik, J. Alm, Does a sellers ecommerce reputation matter?
Evidence from eBay auctions The Journal of Industrial Economics 50,
2002, pp. 337349.
[24] T. Moores, Do consumers understand the role of privacy seals in ecommerce? Communications of the ACM 48, 2005, pp. 8691.
[25] G.B. Murphy, Propensity to trust, purchase experience, and trusting
beliefs of unfamiliar e-commerce ventures, New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship 6, 2003, pp. 5364.

K. Jones, L.N.K. Leonard / Information & Management 45 (2008) 8895

[26] J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.
[27] P.A. Pavlou, D. Gefen, Building effective online marketplaces with
institution-based trust, Information Systems Research 15, 2004, pp.
3759.
[28] I. Ray, N. Natarajan, An anonymous and failure resilient fair-exchange
e-commerce protocol, Decision Support Systems 39, 2005, pp. 267
292.
[29] A. Salam, H. Rao, C. Pegels, Consumer-perceived risk in e-commerce
transactions, Communications of the ACM 46, 2003, pp. 325331.
[30] A.F. Salam, L. Iyer, P. Palvia, R. Singh, Trust in e-commerce,
Communications of the ACM 48, 2005, pp. 7377.
[31] A.E. Schlosser, T.B. White, S.M. Lloyd, Converting web site visitors
into buyers: how web site investment increases consumer trusting
beliefs and online purchase intentions, Journal of Marketing 70, 2006,
pp. 133148.
[32] D. Smith, S. Menon, K. Sivakumar, Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in virtual markets, Journal of Interactive
Marketing 19, 2005, pp. 1537.
[33] C. Spearman, The proof and measurement of association between two
things, The American Journal of Psychology 15, 1904, pp. 72101.
[34] K.J. Stewart, Trust transfer on the world wide web, Organization
Science 14, 2003, pp. 517.
[35] T.J. Strader, M.J. Shaw, Consumer cost differences for traditional and
Internet markets, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 9, 1999, pp. 8292.
[36] J.E. Swan, I.F. Trawick Jr., D.R. Rink, J.J. Roberts, Measuring
dimensions of purchaser trust of industrial salespeople, Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management 8, 1988, pp. 19.
[37] Y.-H. Tan, W. Thoen, Toward a generic model of trust for electronic
commerce, International Journal of Electronic Commerce 5, 2001, pp.
6174.
[38] Y.-H. Tan, W. Thoen, Formal aspects of a generic model of trust for
electronic commerce, Decision Support Systems 33, 2002, pp. 233
246.
[39] R.L. Wakefield, D. Whitten, Examining user perceptions of third-party
organization credibility and trust in an e-retailer, Internet Research:
Electronic Networking Applications and Policy 9, 2006, pp. 8292.
[40] A. Wang, The effects of expert and consumer endorsements on
audience response, Journal of Advertising Research 2005, pp. 402
412.

95

[41] K. Wang, E.T.G. Wang, C.-F. Tai, A study of online auction sites in
Taiwan: product, auction rule, and trading type, International Journal
of Information Management 22, 2002, pp. 127142.
[42] W. Wang, I. Benbasat, Trust in and adoption of online recommendations agents, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 6,
2005, pp. 72101.
[43] Wikipedia, Discriminant validity, Retrieved September 18, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminant_validity, 2007.
[44] H. Yamamoto, K. Ishida, T. Ohta, Modeling reputation management
system on online C2C market, Computational and Mathematical
Organization Theory 10, 2004, pp. 165178.
Kiku Jones is an Assistant Professor of Management Information Systems at the University of
Tulsa. Dr. Jones received her Ph.D. from the
University of Kentucky and is a member of the
Association for Information Systems, Decision
Sciences Institute, and Information Resources
Management Association. Her research interests
include knowledge management, electronic commerce, C2C commerce, and IS strategy. Her
publications have appeared in International Journal of Information Management, Journal of Computer Information Systems,
Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, and Knowledge and
Process Management, and various Conference Proceedings.
Lori N.K. Leonard is an Associate Professor of
Management Information Systems at the University of Tulsa. Dr. Leonard received her Ph.D.
from the University of Arkansas and is a member
of the Association for Information Systems and
the Decision Sciences Institute. Her research
interests include electronic commerce, ethics in
computing, C2C commerce, and online trust. Her
publications have appeared in Journal of the
Association for Information Systems, Journal
of Computer Information Systems, Journal of End User Computing, Information and Management, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, as well as in other journals, and Proceedings of various
Conferences.