This study provides an exhaustive empirical investigation into the determinants of consumer trust within the business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce sector of Vietnam, a rapidly evolving digital economy characterized by "institutional voids" and a persistent "trust deficit. " Despite the sector's exponential growth, with market valuation surpassing US31 billion in 2024, the ecosystem remains constrained by the overwhelming dominance of Cash on Delivery (COD) as a rational risk-mitigation mechanism. To deconstruct this phenomenon, the research integrates the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) framework with the DeLone & McLean Information Systems Success Model to propose a five-factor structural model. Data were collected via a structured survey from 474 experienced online shoppers across major Vietnamese urban centers and analyzed using rigorous quantitative methodology, including Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression. The empirical results reveal that the proposed model explains 61. 1% of the variance in consumer trust, confirming the positive influence of Perceived Security, Information Quality, Vendor Reputation, System Quality, and Perceived Privacy. However, a distinct hierarchy emerges: Vendor Reputation and Perceived Security stand out as the paramount antecedents, reflecting the market's reliance on "social policing" and tangible security cues rather than systemic guarantees. Notably, the study identifies a "Privacy Paradox" where Perceived Privacy, despite being a moderate concern, exerts the weakest influence on trust formation compared to immediate financial and product risks. These findings offer critical theoretical insights for low-trust institutional environments and provide actionable managerial implications, suggesting that platform operators must strategically "digitize the logic of COD" through enhanced social proof mechanisms and escrow-based payment protections to facilitate a shift toward seamless digital transactions.
Thân Thị Huyền (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: