NAVIGATING THE 'TACTILE DISCONNECT': E-COMMERCE SHOPPING ORIENTATIONS AND OMNICHANNEL INTENTIONS AMONG GENERATION Y AND GENERATION Z IN MALAYSIA
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35631/IJIREV.826035Keywords:
Consumer Behaviour, E-Commerce Orientations, Generational Cohorts, Multi-Group Analysis (MGA), Omnichannel Retail, Sensory LimitationsAbstract
The purpose of this research is to investigate the impact of digital e-commerce factors on young consumers' intentions to visit physical apparel stores. The hyper-urbanized Klang Valley, Malaysia, is the focus of the paper, which discusses the concept of "digital dissonance," which is the sensory and fit mismatch between the way apparel is presented online and how it fits in the real retail environment, due to high tactile deprivation and the inconsistent regional sizing standards. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model, as well as the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) are combined in this study. Personal style, brand reputation, trends, and ease of use are digital cues, which serve as external stimuli (S). Platform utility from TAM and user attitudes from TPB together drive the internal processing phase (O). Finally, social norms as well as Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) drive the actual decision to travel (R). Data were collected via purposive sampling from 384 young adult respondents aged 18–41 (Generation Y: n=188; Generation Z: n=196) with recent webrooming experience. Empirical evaluation utilizing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) revealed that Personal Style (β = 0.284, p < 0.001), Brand Reputation (β = 0.215, p = 0.002), and Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU) (β = 0.198, p = 0.004) significantly and positively influence Attitude toward physical visitation, whereas Trend was non-significant (β= 0.076, p = 0.182). Attitude strongly predicts physical visitation intention (β = 0.412, p < 0.001). Multi-Group Analysis (MGA) revealed key generational differences: PBC significantly drives physical visitation for Generation Y (β = 0.385, p < 0.001), driven by the need to resolve fit uncertainty, whereas Subjective Norms significantly drives physical visitation for Generation Z (β = 0.421, p < 0.001), driven by social validation. This research provides practical implications for omnichannel retailers navigating the sensory limitations of online apparel shopping.
Downloads
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500.
Buhalis, D., Harwood, T., Bogicevic, V., Viglia, G., Beldona, S., & Hofacker, C. (2019). Technological disruptions in services: Lessons from tourism and hospitality. Journal of Service Management, 30(4), 484–506.
Childers, T. L., Carr, C. L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(4), 511–535.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2026). ICT use and access by individuals and households survey report 2025. Putrajaya: DOSM.
Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online stores: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 177–184.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2020). Combining channels to make smart purchases: The role of webrooming and showrooming. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 52, 101923.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.
Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431–439.
Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, V. W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualizations and models. European Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163–195.
Pantano, E., & Gandini, A. (2017). Exploring the forms of sociality in retail spaces. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(7/8), 787–799.
Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y buying behaviour for consumer goods: Comparison and implications for retail strategy. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 189–199.
Peck, J., & Childers, T. L. (2003). Individual differences in haptic information processing: The "Need for Touch" scale. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 430–442.
Piotrowicz, W., & Cuthbertson, R. (2014). Introduction to the special issue on omnichannel retailing. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 42(11/12), 940–954.
Priporas, C. V., Stylos, N., & Fotiadis, A. K. (2017). Generation Z consumers' expectations of technology in retail stores: A qualitative study. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 374–381.
