Luận án Hạnh phúc trong mua sắm trực tuyến dưới tác động của giá trị mua sắm, lòng tin và mua sắm tùy hứng: Một cách tiếp cận kép

i 
ABSTRACT 
How shopping contributes to shoppers’ quality of life has attracted much attention 
from researchers that results in the formation of the shopping well-being concept. In studying 
consumers’ shopping well-being, several factors, contexts, and theoretical frameworks are 
taken into consideration. Given that, there are some significant gaps in this research topic 
that need to be fulfilled. Specifically, although shopping values are the key factors 
influencing consumers’ attitude and behavior, how they impact trust attitude and impulse 
buying behavior in the online shopping context has not been clear. Besides, while online 
shopping well-being has rarely been explained by the dual processes from shopping value, 
trust and impulse buying. In addition, moderating effects of extraversion and self-control 
traits and differences across the online versus the offline shopping contexts are unexplored. 
In addressing these limitations, by adopting the duality approach, this research examines 
cognitive and affective associations between shopping values, trust and impulse buying that, 
in turn, determine consumers’ shopping well-being. In addition, the study also aims to test 
the moderating role of extraversion and self-control trait. Further, the study also compares 
the studied relationships across the online and offline shopping contexts. 
Two studies have been conducted in Ho Chi Minh City – Vietnam by surveying 648 
online consumers (study 1) and 529 online and offline consumers (study 2). The datasets 
were used to validate the measures by employing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and 
test the proposed relationships among studied constructs by using Structural Equation 
Modeling (SEM). The research results validated the dual associations between shopping 
values and trust, and between shopping values and impulse buying. Besides, the findings 
showed that shopping well-being is determined affectively by trust in the online shopping 
ii 
context and positively predicted by both cognitive and affective impulse buying. This helps 
to prove the positive consequence of impulse buying. In addition, moderating effects of 
extraversion and self-control traits were validated. Finally, similarities and differences 
between the online and the offline shopping contexts, in term of the studied associations, 
were clearly found. 
This study contributes to the literature by applying a duality approach to confirm the 
significant role of shopping values in determining trust and impulse buying that, in turn, 
positively predict shopping well-being. As a result, this study provides a deeper 
understanding about if and why online shopping well-being is more affect-based. This 
research also introduces an appropriate theoretical framework for studying impulse buying 
- the duality approach and validates the positive consequence of this shopping motive. In 
addition, the validated moderating role of extraversion and self-control contribute to a better 
understanding of consumers’ personalities. Further, the findings provide a clearer picture 
illustrating similarities and differences across the two shopping contexts. Thus, several 
significant implications can be contributed to academics and practitioners. 
iii 
TÓM TẮT 
Việc mua sắm đóng góp như thế nào vào chất lượng cuộc sống của người tiêu dùng 
như thế nào là chủ đề nghiên cứu đã thu hút sự quan tâm từ các nhà nghiên cứu. Theo đó, 
khái niệm hạnh phúc trong mua sắm được hình thành và các nhà nghiên cứu đã xem xét 
nhiều yếu tố, bối cảnh và khuôn khổ lý thuyết để tìm hiểu về hạnh phúc trong mua sắm. Dù 
vậy, trong nền tảng lý thuyết hiện thời, có một số lỗ hổng đáng kể trong chủ đề nghiên cứu 
này cần được hoàn thiện. Cụ thể, mặc dù giá trị mua sắm là yếu tố chính ảnh hưởng đến thái 
độ và hành vi của người tiêu dùng, nhưng chúng tác động như thế nào đến lòng tin và hành 
vi mua sắm tùy hứng trong bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến vẫn chưa được rõ ràng. Bên cạnh 
đó, mặc dù hạnh phúc trong mua sắm trực tuyến hiếm khi được giải thích bằng quy trình kép 
từ giá trị mua sắm, sự tin tưởng và mua sắm tùy hứng. Ngoài ra, tác động điều tiết của các 
đặc điểm hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát, cũng như sự khác biệt giữa bối cảnh mua sắm trực 
tuyến so với mua tại cửa hàng vẫn chưa được khám phá. Để khắc phục những hạn chế này, 
bằng cách áp dụng cách tiếp cận kép, nghiên cứu này xem xét các mối liên hệ về nhận thức 
và cảm xúc giữa các giá trị mua sắm, lòng tin và mua sắm tùy hứng, từ đó xác định hạnh 
phúc trong mua sắm của người tiêu dùng. Ngoài ra, nghiên cứu cũng nhằm kiểm tra vai trò 
điều tiết của tính hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát. Hơn nữa, nghiên cứu cũng so sánh các mối 
quan hệ trên trong bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến và mua tại cửa hàng. 
Hai nghiên cứu đã được thực hiện tại Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh - Việt Nam bằng cách 
khảo sát 648 người tiêu dùng trực tuyến (nghiên cứu 1) và 529 người tiêu dùng trực tuyến 
và ngoại tuyến (nghiên cứu 2). Các bộ dữ liệu được sử dụng để đánh giá các thang đo bằng 
phương pháp phân tích nhân tố khẳng định (CFA) và kiểm tra các mối quan hệ được đề xuất 
trong các mô hình nghiên cứu bằng cách sử dụng mô hình cấu trúc tuyến tính (SEM). Kết 
quả nghiên cứu đã xác nhận mối liên hệ kép giữa giá trị mua sắm và lòng tin, cũng như giữa 
iv 
giá trị mua sắm và hành vi mua sắm tùy hứng. Bên cạnh đó, các kết quả nghiên cứu cho thấy 
rằng hạnh phúc trong mua sắm chịu ảnh hưởng tích cực bởi lòng tin cảm xúc trong bối cảnh 
mua sắm trực tuyến và đồng biến với cả mua sắm tùy hứng theo nhận thức và mua sắm tùy 
hứng theo cảm xúc. Điều này giúp chứng minh hệ quả tích cực của việc mua sắm tùy hứng. 
Ngoài ra, tác động điều tiết của các đặc điểm hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát đã được xác nhận. 
Cuối cùng, những điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa bối cảnh mua sắm trực tuyến và mua 
tại cửa hàng đối với các mối quan hệ được đề xuất cũng đã được làm rõ. 
Nghiên cứu này đóng góp vào cơ sở lý thuyết thông qua việc vận dụng cách tiếp cận 
kép để xác nhận vai trò quan trọng của giá trị mua sắm trong việc xây dựng lòng tin và thúc 
đẩy mua sắm tùy hứng và, từ đó, tác động tích cực đến hạnh phúc trong mua sắm. Theo đó, 
nghiên cứu này cung cấp một sự hiểu biết sâu sắc hơn về việc nếu và tại sao hạnh phúc trong 
mua sắm trực tuyến thiên về mặt cảm xúc nhiều hơn là nhận thức. Nghiên cứu này cũng giới 
thiệu một khung lý thuyết thích hợp để nghiên cứu hành vi mua sắm tùy hứng - cách tiếp 
cận kép và xác nhận hệ quả tích cực của mua sắm tùy hứng. Ngoài ra, vai trò điều tiết của 
tính hướng ngoại và tự kiểm soát góp phần giúp hiểu rõ hơn về vai trò của tính cách của 
người tiêu dùng. Hơn nữa, những kết quả của nghiên cứu đã cung cấp một bức tranh rõ ràng 
hơn minh họa những điểm tương đồng và khác biệt giữa hai bối cảnh mua sắm. Dựa trên các 
kết quả nghiên cứu, một số hàm ý về cả phương diện lý thuyết và thực tiễn đã được đúc kết. 
v 
STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION 
I certify that any content in this thesis has not previously been submitted for a degree at this 
or any other institutions. 
I also certify that the thesis is prepared by me. Any help that I have received in my research 
has been acknowledged. In addition, I certify that all sources and literature used are 
adequately indicated in the reference. 
Hồ Trọng Nghĩa 
Publications of the research: 
1. Nghia, H.T., & Trang, N.T.M. (2019). The impact of shopping values on impulse buying: 
The duality approach. Proceedings of the International conference on Business and Finance 
2019 - Accounting, Business and Management (ICBF2019), 74-89, ISBN: 978-604-922-764. 
2. Nghia, H.T., Olsen, S.V., & Trang, N.T.M. (2020). Shopping value, trust, and online 
shopping well-being: A duality approach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 38(5), 545-
558. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2019-0411. 
3. Nghia, H.T., Olsen, S.O., & Trang, N.T.M. (2021). A dual process on shopping well-being 
across shopping contexts: the role of shopping values and impulse buying. Asia Pacific 
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-09-2020-0668 
vi 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 
While PhD is obviously an extremely challenging journey, getting the research 
published in ISI journals seems to be an impossible mission, especially for young 
researchers. The mission would not have been successfully completed without the supports 
and contributions of several kind persons and organizations. First and foremost, I would like 
to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisors, Associate professor, Dr. Nguyen Thi Mai 
Trang and Associate professor, Dr. Svein Ottar Olsen. They have played crucial role in 
guiding and supporting me in refining and completing this research. In addition, I also deeply 
appreciate Associate professor, Dr. Nguyen Dinh Tho who is the PhD.ISB coordinator and 
Associate professor, Dr. Tran Ha Minh Quan who is the dean of the International School of 
Business (ISB), University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH). All the discussions with 
them are so encouraging that increases my motivation in doing research. 
I would like to thank my ex-colleagues in the School of Management (SOM), 
especially Dr. Diep Nguyen, Associate professor, Dr. Bui Thi Thanh and Dr. Cao Quoc Viet, 
who have great interests in doing research. In addition, I also would like to give my special 
thanks to Board of Dean of ISB and all the colleagues in Faculty team of ISB for their 
willingness to cover my daily works every when I need to concentrate in doing the research. 
I would like to show my gratitude to UEH, ISB and SOM for all the kind supports I 
have received to overcome several obstacles of a PhD student life. 
Finally, all my family members significantly contribute to the success of my research 
by taking the responsibilities that should be mine and providing great motivations to finish 
the PhD journey. 
vii 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 2.1: Overall conceptual model .................................................................................. 31 
Figure 2.2: Research models of study 1 and study 2 ........................................................... 31 
Figure 3.1: Research model of study 1 ................................................................................ 39 
Figure 4.1: Research model of study 2 ................................................................................ 59 
viii 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 3.1. Standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items ............................................................ 45 
Table 3.2. Correlations (r) between constructs and their Average variance extracted (AVE)
 ............................................................................................................................. 46 
Table 3.3. Structural paths ................................................................................................... 47 
Table 4.1. Participant profile ............................................. ... t duty-free shops: The 
moderating effects of time pressure and shopping involvement. Journal of Travel and 
Tourism Marketing, 34(3), 341-356. 
Sparks, B.A., & Browning, V. (2011). The impact of online reviews on hotel booking 
intentions and perception of trust. Tourism Management, 32(6), 1310–1323. 
Steenkamp, J.B.E., & Van Trijp, H.C. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing 
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283-299. 
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good 
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of 
Personality, 72(2), 271-324. 
Ul Islam, J., Rahman, J., & Hollebeek, L.D. (2017). Personality factors as predictors of 
online consumer engagement: An empirical investigation. Marketing Intelligence & 
Planning, 35(4), 510-528. 
Varshneya, G., Das, G., & Khare, A. (2017). Experiential value: A review and future 
research directions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 35(3), 339-357. 
Verhagen, T., & van Dolen, W. (2011). The influence of online store beliefs on consumer 
online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Information & 
Management, 48(8), 320-327. 
Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. (2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: 
Feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S71–S83. 
Verplanken, B., & Sato, A. (2011). The psychology of impulse buying: An integrative self-
regulation approach. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(2), 197–210. 
100 
Vietnam E-business Index (2018). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2018, available at: 
tu-viet-nam-2018 (accessed February 15, 2019). 
Vietnam E-business Index (2019). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2019, available at: 
 (accessed November 30, 2020). 
Vietnam E-business Index (2020). Vietnam e-business index EBI 2020, available at: 
 (accessed February 09, 2021). 
Vohs, K.D., & Faber, R.J. (2007). Spent resources: Self‐regulatory resource availability 
affects impulse buying. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(4), 537-547. 
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., & Grohmann, B. (2003). Measuring the hedonic and 
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 
310-320. 
Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V.W. (2010). The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word 
of mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 
838–859. 
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Hogan, 
R., Johnson, J. and Briggs, S. (Eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology, Academic 
Press, San Diego, CA, 767-793. 
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief 
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. 
101 
Weinberg, P., & Gottwald, W. (1982). Impulsive consumer buying as a result of emotions. 
Journal of Business Research, 10(1), 43–57. 
Wolfinbarger, M., & Gilly, M. (2000). Consumer motivations for online shopping. AMCIS 
2000 Proceedings, 1362–1366. 
Wu, I.L., Chen, K.W., & Chiu, M.L. (2016). Defining key drivers of online impulse 
purchasing: A perspective of both impulse shoppers and system users. International 
Journal of Information Management, 36(3), 284–296. 
Xiao, S.H., & Nicholson, M. (2013). A multidisciplinary cognitive behavioural framework 
of impulse buying: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of 
Management Reviews, 15(3), 333–356. 
Yi, S., & Jai, T. (2020). Impacts of consumers’ beliefs, desires and emotions on their impulse 
buying behavior: Application of an integrated model of belief-desire theory of 
emotion. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(6), 662-681. 
Yim, M.Y.C. (2017). When shoppers don’t have enough self-control resources: Applying 
the strength model of self-control. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34(4), 328-337. 
Yu, C., & Bastin, M. (2010). Hedonic shopping value and impulse buying behavior in 
transitional economies: A symbiosis in the Mainland China marketplace. Journal of 
Brand Management, 18(2), 105–114. 
Yi, S., & Jai, T. (2020). Impacts of consumers’ beliefs, desires and emotions on their impulse 
buying behavior: Application of an integrated model of belief-desire theory of 
emotion. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(6), 662-681. 
102 
Zafar, A.U., Qiu, J., & Shahzad, M. (2020). Do digital celebrities' relationships and social 
climate matter? Impulse buying in f-commerce. Internet Research, 30(6), 1731-1762. 
Zhou, M., & Tian, D. (2010). An integrated model of influential antecedents of online 
shopping initial trust: Empirical evidence in a low-trust environment. Journal of 
International Consumer Marketing, 22(2), 147-167. 
103 
APPENDICES 
Appendix 3A – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in English) 
104 
105 
Appendix 3B – Survey questionnaire of study 1 (in Vietnamese) 
106 
107 
Appendix 3C – Sample characteristics of study 1 
Characteristics Frequency Percent 
Valid 
Percent 
Cumulative 
Percent 
Gender 
Male 218 33.6 34.3 34.3 
Female 418 64.5 65.7 100.0 
Age 
≤ 25 301 46.5 46.7 46.7 
From over 25 to under 40 329 50.8 51.1 97.8 
≥ 40 14 2.2 2.2 100.0 
Shopping 
frequency 
per month 
1 – 2 301 46.5 46.7 46.7 
3 – 4 329 50.8 51.1 97.8 
> 4 14 2.2 2.2 100.0 
Income per 
month 
(million 
VND) 
Under 5 119 18.4 18.6 18.6 
From 5 to under 10 355 54.8 55.6 74.2 
From 10 to under 15 128 19.8 20.0 94.2 
From 15 37 5.7 5.8 100.0 
108 
Appendix 3D – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 1 
Item M SD λ t-value 
Hedonic value: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.91; Average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.63 
Dull/exciting 4.719 1.462 0.814 - 
Not delightful/delightful 4.785 1.464 0.865 24.860 
Enjoyable/unenjoyable 4.704 1.459 0.896 25.986 
Not playful/playful 4.674 1.462 0.852 24.635 
Amusing/not amusing 4.505 1.533 0.618 15.052 
Not sensuous/sensuous 4.491 1.547 0.678 17.208 
Utilitarian value: CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.63 
Effective/ineffective 4.840 1.469 0.657 - 
Helpful/unhelpful 4.887 1.552 0.844 17.569 
Functional/not functional 5.159 1.821 0.902 14.422 
Handy/not handy 4.835 1.769 0.750 10.909 
Cognitive trust: CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.65 
In my opinion, X is an online retailer that 
Provides accurate information 5.080 1.279 0.763 - 
Keeps the promises 5.242 1.362 0.739 13.631 
Provides consistent services and quality 4.881 1.345 0.807 20.762 
Is very dependable 4.861 1.343 0.859 20.756 
Is sincere 4.836 1.332 0.866 20.954 
Affective trust: CR = 0.83; AVE = 0.49 
In all circumstances, X is ready to offer me assistance 
and support 
4.779 1.315 0.628 - 
When providing products and services, X is concerned 
about my welfare 
4.400 1.200 0.776 15.532 
I trust X because it seems to care about me 4.245 1.259 0.791 14.013 
I can depend on X to buy important things 4.185 1.442 0.689 12.034 
In general, X is willing to serve its customers 4.844 1.228 0.594 11.796 
109 
Shopping well-being: CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.57 
I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to 
my own personal well-being 
3.699 1.441 0.745 - 
I feel that online shopping makes me happy 3.623 1.473 0.794 16.206 
I feel that online shopping contributes significantly to 
my quality of life overall 
4.082 1.569 0.727 15.787 
Extraversion: CR = 0.91; AVE = 0.55 
I see myself as someone who 
Is outgoing, sociable 5.034 1.596 0.782 - 
Is talkative 4.727 1.565 0.673 17.187 
Has an assertive personality 4.787 1.453 0.681 16.535 
Generates a lot of enthusiasm 4.915 1.639 0.746 19.939 
Is full of energy 4.846 1.549 0.802 17.668 
Is reserved 4.492 1.519 0.726 15.813 
Is sometimes shy, inhibited 4.647 1.519 0.774 17.717 
Tends to be quiet 4.603 1.595 0.732 15.822 
Mean (M), Standard deviations (SD) and Standardized CFA loadings (λ) of items 
110 
Appendix 4A – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in English) 
111 
112 
Appendix 4B – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in English) 
113 
114 
Appendix 4C – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (online shopping context - in Vietnamese) 
115 
116 
Appendix 4D – Survey questionnaire of study 2 (offline shopping context - in Vietnamese) 
117 
118 
Appendix 4E – Measurement scales of the studied constructs of study 2 
Item M SD λ t-value 
Hedonic value: Composite reliability (CR) = 0.92; Average variance extracted (AVE) = 0.67 
HV1 Dull/exciting 4.816 1.3528 0.803 - 
HV2 Not delightful/delightful 4.856 1.3917 0.892 22.259 
HV3 Enjoyable/unenjoyable 4.747 1.3490 0.88 21.828 
HV4 Not playful/playful 4.713 1.3514 0.822 19.799 
HV5 Amusing/not amusing 4.629 1.4446 0.703 16.151 
HV6 Not sensuous/sensuous 4.744 1.3412 0.799 19.045 
Utilitarian value: CR = 0.85; AVE = 0.48 
UV1 Effective/ineffective 5.051 1.4375 0.627 - 
UV2 Helpful/unhelpful 5.020 1.3926 0.664 15.658 
UV3 Functional/not functional 5.133 1.4879 0.626 10.838 
UV4 Handy/not handy 4.969 1.5405 0.712 11.931 
UV5 Problem solving/not problem solving 4.747 1.5532 0.773 12.591 
UV6 Reliable/not reliable 4.867 1.6551 0.752 12.384 
Cognitive impulse buying: CR = 0.83; AVE = 0.56 
CI1 I usually think carefully before I buy something (R) 3.524 1.8194 0.655 - 
CI2 It is not my style to just buy thing (R) 3.440 1.8136 0.77 13.213 
CI3 I am used to buy thing on the spot 2.891 1.6400 0.787 13.403 
CI4 I often buy things without thinking 2.569 1.6701 0.765 13.158 
Affective impulse buying: CR = 0.73; AVE = 0.40 
AI1 I sometimes cannot suppress of wanting to buy something 4.527 1.7173 0.554 - 
AI2 If I see something new, I want to buy it 3.678 1.6364 0.619 9.225 
AI3 I am a bit reckless in buying things 3.976 1.7280 0.63 9.323 
AI4 I sometimes buy things because I like buying thing, rather 
than because I need them 4.284 1.7869 0.724 10.005 
Shopping wellbeing: CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.70 
SW1 Thinking about shopping, I feel that my shopping 
contributes significantly to my own personal well-being. 4.789 1.4766 0.804 - 
SW2 Thinking about shopping, my quality of life would 
diminish significantly if I don’t shop. 4.518 1.6459 0.851 20.694 
SW3 Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping makes me 
happy. 4.711 1.5769 0.839 20.304 
SW4 Thinking about shopping, I feel that shopping contributes 
significantly to my quality of life overall. 4.462 1.5393 0.849 20.639 
SW5 The quality of life of my family would diminish 
significantly if I don’t shop. 4.169 1.7023 0.829 19.944 
Self control: CR = 0.78; AVE = 0.43 
SC1 I am good at resisting temptation. 4.998 1.3992 0.503 - 
SC2 People would say that I have iron self- discipline. 4.898 1.3962 0.735 9.55 
SC3 I have trouble concentrating. R 4.980 1.2440 0.826 9.841 
SC4 I often act without thinking through all the alternatives. R 5.173 1.2293 0.657 9.079 
SC5 I am lazy. R 5.158 1.2836 0.513 7.638 
 Note: Mean (M), Standard deviations (SD), Standardized CFA loadings (λ) 
119