SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alanya Akademik Bakış / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3

First Contact and the Moment of Decision in Online Shopping: A Phenomenological Exploration of Consumer Responses

Çevrimiçi Alışverişte İlk Temas ve Karar Anı: Tüketici Bilişsel Refleksleri Üzerine Fenomenolojik Bir İnceleme

Müzeyyen Gelibolu(mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9852-7243
İbrahim Arısal(Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi)0000-0002-9194-5784
Pages
881–895
Publication Date
2026-09-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that visual perception, consumer reviews, and brand trust shape the purchasing experience in a multidimensional manner.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With the advancement of digitalization, purchasing decisions have increasingly transformed into rapid processes that occur on screens without face-to-face interaction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study examines consumers’ visual and cognitive reactions at the initial point of contact with products in online shopping environments from a phenomenological perspective.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that visual perception, consumer reviews, and brand trust shape the purchasing experience in a multidimensional manner.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Çevrimiçi Alışveriş · Tüketici Refleksleri · Fenomenoloji

Abstract

With the advancement of digitalization, purchasing decisions have increasingly transformed into rapid processes that occur on screens without face-to-face interaction. This study examines consumers’ visual and cognitive reactions at the initial point of contact with products in online shopping environments from a phenomenological perspective. Drawing on the behavioral economics approach, the research moves beyond the assumption of fully rational decision-making and analyzes automated responses, visual skepticism, and mental heuristics. The study was conducted with active e-commerce users through semi-structured interviews supported by the “Think-Aloud Protocol.” The collected data were analyzed using the Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) method. The findings were categorized into themes of visual skepticism, cognitive heuristics, negativity bias, institutional trust, and digital fatigue. The results indicate that visual perception, consumer reviews, and brand trust shape the purchasing experience in a multidimensional manner. The study offers recommendations for e-commerce platforms, emphasizing transparent visual presentation, trust-enhancing design elements, and the avoidance of manipulative marketing practices.

Özet

Dijitalleşme ile birlikte satın alma kararları, yüz yüze etkileşim olmaksızın, ekran karşısında hızla gerçekleşen süreçlere dönüşmüştür. Bu çalışma, çevrimiçi alışverişte tüketicilerin ürünle ilk temas anındaki görsel ve bilişsel reflekslerini fenomenolojik bir perspektifle incelemektedir. Davranışsal iktisat yaklaşımı doğrultusunda, rasyonel karar varsayımının ötesine geçilerek otomatikleşmiş tepkiler, görsel şüphecilik ve zihinsel kısayollar analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma, aktif e-ticaret kullanıcılarıyla “Sesli Düşünme Protokolü” destekli yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla yürütülmüş; veriler Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analiz (IPA) yöntemiyle çözümlenmiştir. Bulgular, görsel şüphecilik, bilişsel kısayollar, olumsuzluk yanlılığı, kurumsal güven ve dijital yorgunluk temalarında toplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, görsel algı, yorumlar ve marka güveninin satın alma deneyimini çok boyutlu biçimde şekillendirdiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, e-ticaret platformlarında şeffaf görsel sunum, güven artırıcı tasarım unsurları ve manipülatif pazarlama uygulamalarından kaçınılmasına yönelik öneriler sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gelibolu, M., Arısal, İ. (2026). First Contact and the Moment of Decision in Online Shopping: A Phenomenological Exploration of Consumer Responses. Alanya Akademik Bakış, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 3, 881–895. https://doi.org/10.29023/alanyaakademik.1910919

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (47)

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50022-X
  2. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453-1478.https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2014.0909
  3. Baddeley, M. (2010). Herding, social ınfluence and economic decision-making: Socio-psychological and neuroscientific analyses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1538), 281-290.https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0169
  4. Bozyer, S., & Doğan, S. (2022). E-ticarette bilişsel önyargılar ve tüketici kararlarına etkileri. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(26), 565-594.https://doi.org/10.47129/bartiniibf.1181624
  5. Bulsara, H. P., & Vaghela, P. S. (2023). Trust and online purchase intention: a systematic literature review through meta-analysis. International Journal of Electronic Business, 18(2), 148-164. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEB.2022.10053045
  6. Chen, Z. ve Lurie, N. H. (2013). Temporal Contiguity and Negativity Bias in the Impact of Online Word of Mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 463-476.https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.12.006
  7. Chou, Y. C. (2021). Ethical considerations in digital marketing: The case of urgency and scarcity tactics. Journal of Marketing Ethics, 29(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/23456789.2021.1812682
  8. Christozov, D., Chukova, S., & Mateev, P. (2006). A measure of risk caused by ınformation asymmetry in e-commerce. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3(1), 147-157.
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing among Five Approaches (4th Edition). SAGE Publications.
  10. Dengen, A. (2025). Exploring the Lived Experience of Augmented Reality in Online Fashion Shopping Among Young Consumers: A Phenomenological Study. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Innovation, 1(7), 279-289.
  11. Dimoka, A., Hong, Y., & Pavlou, P. A. (2012). On product uncertainty in online markets: Theory and evidence. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 395-426.https://doi.org/10.2307/41703461
  12. Eroğlu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2001). Atmospheric qualities of online retailing: A conceptual model and implications. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 177-184.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00087-9
  13. Eroğlu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., & Davis, L. M. (2003). Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology & Marketing, 20(2), 139-150. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.10064
  14. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and tam in online shopping: An integrated model1. MIS quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
  15. Gierl, H., & Huettl, V. (2010). Are scarce products always more attractive? The ınteraction of different types of scarcity signals with products' suitability for conspicuous consumption. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(3), 225-235.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.02.002
  16. Grabner-Kraeuter, S. (2002). The role of consumers' trust in online-shopping. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016323815802
  17. Hamilton, R., Thompson, D., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K.,. & Zhu, M. (2019). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0604-7
  18. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When the choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995-1006.psycnet.apa.org
  19. Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1974). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(1), 63-69.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243774011001
  20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  21. Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. G. (2010). The determinants of consumers’ online shopping cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 240-250.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0141-5
  22. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2008). Economics: Homo Economicus Evolves. Science, 319, 909-910.https://doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1153640
  23. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage.
  24. Mehrabian, A., and Russel, J.A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambrige, Mass: MIT press.
  25. Moumen, H., & Abaaoukide, K. (2025). Exploring the role of website attributes in satisfaction and online impulse buying behavior. Revue Internationale des Sciences de Gestion, 8(3), 475-498. https://revue-isg.com/index.php/home/article/view/2056
  26. Mo, R., & Wang, S. (2025). E-commerce research in the past decade: A bibliometric analysis. Sage Open, 15(3).https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251381152
  27. Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.2003.11044275
  28. Peña-García, N., Losada-Otálora, M., Auza, D. P., & Cruz, M. P. (2024). Reviews, trust, and customer experience in online marketplaces: The case of Mercado Libre Colombia. Frontiers in Communication, 9, 1460321.https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1460321
  29. Pignatiello, G. A., Martin, R. J., & Hickman, R. L. (2018). Decision fatigue: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Health Psychology, 25(1), 123–135.https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053187635
  30. Polathan Küsbeçi, & Urgan, S. (2022). Çalışanlardaki bilişim sistemleri okuryazarlığının belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük etkisine yönelik ampirik bir araştırma. Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi Dergisi, 57(3), 1875–1889.https://doi.org/10.15659/3.sektor-sosyal-ekonomi.22.08.1865
  31. Saibaba, S. (2021). Bibliometric analysis and visualization of online consumer behavior–past, present and future. Saudi Journal of Business and Management Studies, 6(8), 268-291.https://doi.org/10.36348/sjbms.2021.v06i08.001
  32. Schneider, C., Weinmann, M., & Vom Brocke, J. (2018). Digital Nudging: Guiding Online User Choices Through Interface Design. Communications of the ACM, 61(7), 67-73.https://doi.org/10.1145/3213765
  33. Sharma, P., & Jindal, A. (2024). Marketing fatigue in the age of personalization: When more is less. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 41(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-08-2023-5356
  34. Simon, H. A. (1955). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99-118.https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
  35. Singh, K., & Basu, R. (2023). Online consumer shopping behaviour: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(3), 815–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12899
  36. Singh, N., Misra, R., Quan, W., Radic, A., Lee, S. M., & Han, H. (2024). An analysis of consumer’s trusting beliefs towards the use of e-commerce platforms. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-18.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03395-6
  37. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. SAGE Publications.
  38. Sthapit, E., Kozak, M., & Coudounaris, D. (2019). What am I going to do now? Examining choice overload in vacation activities using the familiarity concept. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(3), 232-258.https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2017.1405844
  39. Taş, H., & Boyacıoğlu, E. Z. (2024). Shrinkflasyonun tüketici kararlarına etkisinin davranışsal iktisat Çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 46(2), 1-428.https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.1478148
  40. Temel, E. (2023). Kafam çok karıştı! sonra bakarız… sanal alışveriş sepetini terk etmenin psikolojik nedenlerine yönelik s-o-r paradigması temelinde bir inceleme. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yönetim Dergisi, 14(2), 27-56.https://doi.org/10.34231/iuyd.1331374
  41. Temel, E., & Anbarcı, M. (2025). Yoksa rasyonel tüketici eğilimleri de esasında hedonik mi? Tüketicilerin rasyonel satın alma eğilimleri ve haz üzerine fenomenolojik bir çözümleme. Kapadokya Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 9(1), 38-70.https://doi.org/10.69851/car.1660721
  42. Temel, E., & Armağan, E. (2022). Online alışverişte tüketiciler neden anlık satın alma dürtüsü gösterir? Sanal mağaza uyaranları ve akış deneyiminin rolleri. Trakya Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi e-Dergi, 11(2), 122-140.https://doi.org/10.47934/tife.11.02.03
  43. Wang, Y., Mo, D. Y., & Ho, G. T. S. (2023). How choice fatigue affects consumer decision making in online shopping. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), 0128-0132.10.1109/IEEM58616.2023.10406866
  44. Weinmann, M., Schneider, C., & Brocke, J. V. (2016). Digital nudging. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 58(6), 433-436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-016-0453-1
  45. Weinstein, E., & Selman, R. (2022). Digital fatigue and algorithmic pressure: A psychological framework. Journal of Media Psychology, 34(2), 78–91.
  46. Yu, C. (2022). Relationship Between the Use of Cognitive Heuristic and Customers' Digital Shopping Behavior in China During Online Shopping Festivals. Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022), 1063-1069. Atlantis Press.https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-052-7_119
  47. Hamilton, R., Thompson, D., Bone, S., Chaplin, L. N., Griskevicius, V., Goldsmith, K.,. & Zhu, M. (2019). The effects of scarcity on consumer decision journeys. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 532-550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0604-7