shopping cart theory essay

What is 'Shopping Cart Theory'? The test can tell if you are a good or a bad person

What is the making of a "good person?" Different people use different scales to determine who is good and who is not. Over the years, there have been many factors that have been used to categorize people. And the internet keeps providing more updated benchmarks for us to measure people by. The latest theory that has been making rounds on the internet is the "Shopping Cart Theory" and it can perfectly define a person's character. It is a modern-day take on the trolley problem with a more real-life application and implication.

Depending on how you answer the following question, you are either a good or a terrible person. Would you return a shopping cart to its designated spot after use or would you simply leave it wherever you want? Of course, this is provided that there is no dire emergency. The theory was picked up from a Reddit forum and was posted by a Twitter user for further discourse. Now, let's see what it indicates.

"The shopping cart is the ultimate litmus test for whether a person is capable of self-governing," the post explains. "To return the shopping cart is an easy, convenient task and one which we all recognize as the correct, appropriate thing to do. To return the shopping cart is objectively right. There are no situations other than dire emergencies in which a person is not able to return their cart. Simultaneously, it is not illegal to abandon your shopping cart. Therefore the shopping cart presents itself as the apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it." So if you chose to return the cart, then you are a good person. At least according to this theory.

Reading this made me think of this alignment chart. pic.twitter.com/NnKbcZNmGD — Vorasi (@Orctits) May 9, 2020

pic.twitter.com/EZhllwYd7S — Rob #TeamGodzilla (@GunpowderPIot) May 15, 2020

The theory further states: "No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you, or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart. You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct." The theory then goes on to make some extreme declarations. It reads, "A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with a law and the force that stands behind it."

Someone from my country is based pic.twitter.com/AM5momA06g — Goose (@Fujyno) May 8, 2020

The theory then concludes by stating, "The Shopping Cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society." While the original trolley problem was also an exercise to determine a person's ethics, the modern version is less violent while also being more apparent. Especially when many retail workers had a lot to say about this based on their personal experiences. One person wrote : This is true. I'm the cart guy at a grocery store and I can confirm that I look down at you when I see you abandon the carts. Please for the love of God and man and all that is right with the world RETURN YOUR CART. YOU'RE NOT HELPING ANYTHING BY DITCHING IT! PLEASE!

I do return carts when the weather ain't nice in any direction. If it's a nice, balmy, sunshiney day, them shits stay loose. — AM-Android (@android_am) May 9, 2020

Another retail worker said this to make their case: Idk I just feel like as someone who once worked a retail job, I might not be required to put it back but the guy working would really appreciate it so I might as well make someone else’s day easier?? Idk it’s more about respect for the worker and not the unspoken societal law . There were many arguments and counter-arguments, for and against the theory. Here are some of the reactions of the people.

I agree SO HARD with this guy — BJ (@KogashiwaKai) May 8, 2020

Im sure this would qualify as “extreme circumstances” don’t want to give no kiddie snatchers a chance to swipe your kids because you were returning a cart to a stall that was far away — Darthode (@_Efe) November 21, 2020

They should be the president — Mayor of Lucky Boy, NV (@NumbaOneBastard) May 8, 2020

I'll admit sometimes I don't when i'm really in a rush or having a really shitty day. — MajoraZ (@Majora__Z) May 9, 2020

What if you take the shopping trolley across town away from the store and to your neighbourhood? — 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿DanceR🍒 (@DanceR1660) May 8, 2020

My shopping carts hold a quarter hostage until I return it to its home and I'll be damned if I lose a quarter — Combat Maid Shy'la (@ShylaNesthorn) May 8, 2020

Actually, for some of us returning the cart is a big deal. I have a couple of neurological conditions that make walking quite painful. But guess what; I STILL DO IT. In fact, my mom makes fun of me because if I pass a loose cart in a parking lot, I'll snag it and return it! — karinj58 (@karinj58) December 17, 2020

I purposely park near a cart return for two reasons: easier to find my car and easier to return my cart. — FranksFriend (@friend_franks) December 19, 2020

The Shopping Cart Theory Explained

It was in 1937 when American supermarket chain owner Sylvan Goldman desired to replace shopping baskets with wheeled carts that would encourage people to buy more groceries in his store. The shopping cart was invented and it now has become the symbol of the entire retail industry and modern consumerism. However, it can also reveal about the character of a person or his or her morality based on what he or she does with his or her cart after a trip to the store. This is the main idea behind the Shopping Cart Theory.

What is the Shopping Cart Theory? What Does Returning Your Shopping Cart Say About You?

Shopping carts can be problematic. Storeowners and even legislators and community leaders have struggled to prevent them from being left in parking areas, discarded on sidewalks, abandoned in public spaces, and stolen from stores. This struggle stems from human behavior and it became a focal point for conceptualizing the Shopping Cart Theory.

The exact origin of the theory remains unknown but it has been taught in classrooms and books or discussed in newspapers and magazines as part of explaining how people behave in public.

It gained massive popularity in recent years due to the advent of social media. Users on platforms ranging from YouTube and Facebook to Twitter and Reddit have shared the premise of the theory and ventured into lengthy exchanges to discuss its merits.

What exactly is the main premise of the Shopping Cart Theory? What does it say about the character or specific moral inclination of men and women?

The theory proposes that the character of an individual can be determined by whether he or she chooses to return the shopping cart to its designated spot or not. In other words, whether this particular individual places the cart back in its rack or proper area rather than leaving it in a parking lot or wherever he or she pleases determines his or her goodness.

Several social experiments have been conducted to observe the theory and understand further how shoppers use their carts once they are done shopping.

Most people would agree that returning carts and even baskets to designated areas is a task that is both appropriate and convenient. It is appropriate because it demonstrates courtesy and is also convenient because it does not take too much effort to return these objects to their racks.

Why then shoppers should return their carts or baskets voluntarily? Instances of lost or stolen carts and baskets provide a reasonable answer to this question. Furthermore, when shoppers use these objects, they are simply borrowing them from the stores. Basic courtesy tells that it is appropriate to return what has been borrowed.

However, there are people who would refrain from doing so because it is not illegal to abandon their shopping baskets and carts. Most stores and areas do not have relevant policies.

Others think that exerting an effort to return their used baskets and carts is an inconvenience Some believe that they do not have the responsibility over these baskets and carts. The task of returning them falls under the responsibilities of store attendants.

The Shopping Cart Theory enters into the picture to argue that how people use their carts or baskets once they are done shopping can determine whether they are capable of doing good without being forced to do so. Its premise is interesting because it provides a simplified and observable example of how people follow norms and laws.

It has also been used as a model for understanding the reason why some people commit crimes or are predisposed toward breaking laws.

The theory has helped in understanding crime prevalence in a particular area, developing crime prevention strategies, determining new policies or loopholes in regulations, and evaluating the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Passion doesn’t always come easily. Discover your inner drive and find your true purpose in life.

From learning how to be your best self to navigating life’s everyday challenges.

Discover peace within today’s chaos. Take a moment to notice what’s happening now.

Gain inspiration from the lives of celebrities. Explore their stories for motivation and insight into achieving your dreams.

Where ordinary people become extraordinary, inspiring us all to make a difference.

Take a break with the most inspirational movies, TV shows, and books we have come across.

From being a better partner to interacting with a coworker, learn how to deepen your connections.

Take a look at the latest diet and exercise trends coming out. So while you're working hard, you're also working smart.

Sleep may be the most powerful tool in our well-being arsenal. So why is it so difficult?

Challenges can stem from distractions, lack of focus, or unclear goals. These strategies can help overcome daily obstacles.

Unlocking your creativity can help every aspect of your life, from innovation to problem-solving to personal growth.

How do you view wealth? Learn new insights, tools and strategies for a better relationship with your money.

Are You A Good Person? This Theory Might Reveal The Truth

What's your next move after loading the car with groceries.

Philosophers have been debating about human nature since the dawn of history. Some have argued that people are inherently good, others say we’re basically selfish. 

Still others say whether you’re a good person comes down to your choices.

Enter the shopping cart theory, the everyday ultimate litmus test of morality.

Breaking Down the Shopping Cart Theory

The shopping cart theory presents the idea that a person’s moral character can be determined by whether they willingly return their shopping cart after unloading their groceries. 

The civilian who brings the cart back to its proper resting place is a selfless person, the theory goes, whereas the person who chooses to abandon the cart in the parking lot is not. 

Origin of the shopping cart theory

While Socrates once sat in the agora, or marketplace, of Athens, challenging the views of politicians and aristocrats, it may come as no surprise that the modern forum for philosophical debate is none other than the Twittersphere. 

It’s there that the shopping cart theory first emerged. 

The shopping cart theory apparently made its debut circa May 2020 when a Twitter user referred to it as “apex example of whether a person will do what is right without being forced to do it."

He argued that this test alone is the ultimate way to determine the quality of someone’s values or moral character .

RELATED: How to (Actually) Finish A Creative Project

The author of the Twitter post goes on to say, “A person who is unable to do this is no better than an animal, an absolute savage who can only be made to do what is right by threatening them with a law and the force that stands behind it."

While this is a pretty strong statement, the reasoning is that there are no real obstacles preventing someone from returning a shopping cart, yet there are no laws enforcing it. At the same time, returning the cart offers no reward, so the only real motive for doing it is to abide by a subtle social contract.

“No one will punish you for not returning the shopping cart, no one will fine you, or kill you for not returning the shopping cart, you gain nothing by returning the shopping cart,” says the Twitter post. “You must return the shopping cart out of the goodness of your own heart. You must return the shopping cart because it is the right thing to do. Because it is correct."

Because there’s no reward or ulterior motive to avoid punishment, the theory goes, this test shows whether someone will do what is right just because , thus providing the perfect backdrop for examining moral character.

Twitter’s response to the shopping car theory

“The Shopping Cart is what determines whether a person is a good or bad member of society,” the Twitter post concludes. 

Much of Twitter seems to agree.

For instance, user @bekahbooooo_ says “​​Idk I just feel like as someone who once worked a retail job, I might not be required to put it back but the guy working would really appreciate it so I might as well make someone else’s day easier?? Idk it’s more about respect for the worker and not the unspoken societal law.”

In a reply to the above, user @nyahoarder says, “I mean yeah that’s the idea. having that level of respect and consideration for a stranger is what makes you a ‘good member of society.’”

Still, there were a few scattered posts on the other side of the argument.

One user, @thedxman, felt especially strongly about it:

“It's a shitty theory, ignoring disabled people and others who may not be able to return a trolley, putting them in a "extreme emergency" vs "not even human" comparison. It's shitty analysis on every level,” the user says. “Yeah, return your shopping cart. Also appreciate reasons ppl don't.”

What is self-governance?

According to the shopping cart theory, whether or not you return your cart after your shopping trip determines whether you’re capable of self-governance .

But what exactly does that mean?

Self-governance is the ability of an individual or group to regulate themselves without the management of an outside force or authority. 

RELATED:  Open-Mindedness: 5 Practical Steps To Open Your Mind

In the case of the shopping cart theory, self-governing refers to personal conduct that demonstrates self-control, self-discipline, and respect for the collective.

Shopping cart theory test

Want to test out the shopping car theory for yourself? All you have to do is pay attention the next time you’re at the store. 

Do you have the impulse to leave the cart behind, but put it away anyway? To some, this indicates you’re a decent human being.

There are plenty of other scenarios you can apply this logic to aside from the shopping cart test. Simply observe what you do in those moments when no one is watching and you have the choice to act or not to act in a selfless way without consequence. 

In this situation, do you choose kindness —or not?

Real Life Shopping Cart Theory Examples

Several users shared reasons that they choose to leave their shopping carts at times, or at least possible reasons why we should be understanding of those who do. 

“A good reason not to return it is if you are alone, with young children, and you are too far from the return to leave your kids alone in the car,” says user @UrbanPat . 

User @Ryan_Secord argues that “leaving carts for employees to gather is job security, and therefore a good deed.”

“Only times I haven’t done this has been in situations at night when I felt unsafe in the parking lot,” says user @MellisaJPeltier . “Rare times, but as a survivor of violent crime, it’s a choice I believe is right for me. Otherwise, I’m a very good citizen, apparently.”

RELATED:  7 Habits of Successful People You Need to Know

User @runawaywithme points out that the shopping cart test doesn’t work in countries that require payment to use carts:

“This is so flawed, because in the netherlands (and other countries as well for sure) you actually have to put a coin in the cart to be able to take it with you, so if you want that coin back, you need to put the cart back where it belongs. seems to work for most people.”

Limitations to the Shopping Cart Theory

As these users point out, the shopping cart theory has some serious limitations as to how much it reveals someone's moral character.

It’s location-specific

First of all, it can only apply to shoppers in countries or locations where shopping carts aren’t regulated by pay-to-use systems, and returning it to a designated spot isn't compulsory. 

It’s ableist

As several users pointed out, it may also be ableist. Ableism is discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

For instance, a shopping cart user who walks with a cane, cast, or other mobility device may find it to be a hardship to return a shopping cart. 

Concluding that they’re “no better than an animal” or “an absolute savage” because of that isn’t quite fair.

It doesn’t consider extenuating factors

The same may be true of the parent with small children secured safely in the car with the cart return too far away to be considered safe, or other dire emergencies that get in the way.

Too black and white

Another major flaw in the theory, some say, is that it’s too black and white. 

What of the person who returns their cart most of the time, but on a particularly rough day decides to leave it behind? What if a person spent most of their life abandoning the cart but has recently decided to change their ways?

RELATED:  Don’t Work Hard, Work Smart With These Life Hacks

One thing that can be said of human nature is that we crave certainty, and this is especially true when we try to define right and wrong. Having rules and answers for life’s tough questions gives us a sense of comfort and stability, even when those questions can’t really be answered.

In the end, defining good and bad isn’t as easy as one simple test that can be applied as a blanket-theory to all of humanity. Nor are people so simple that we can sort them neatly into those categories. 

The vast majority of us have nuanced personalities with a whole slew of qualities, idiosyncrasies, and outright quirks that play a major role in how we interact with the world. 

In the midst of all that, I’ve yet to meet a single person who’s never done something others might deem as “bad.” 

Perhaps as we muse about human nature, the very first thing to realize is that we’re neither good nor bad—but we all contain the potential for both. 

That said, while human nature may be a little bit of everything, there’s still no doubt that choice plays a major role.

Based on the Shopping Cart Theory… Are You a Bad Person? 

In the end, the shopping cart theory may not be the definitive test for whether or not you’re a bad person.

Still, it presents some interesting things to consider. 

What do you do when no one is looking? When you know a good deed doesn’t benefit you directly, do you still choose to do it?

And now that you’ve come across the shopping cart theory, might those answers be different? 

Whatever your answers might have been now or in the past, you still have the choice to define what they’ll be in the future. 

Therein lies your answer.

KEEP READING: Train Your Brain to Shed Distracting Habits and Concentrate Better

Hot stories, kevin costner wishes he could tell whitney houston this...

Kevin Costner and Whitney Houston forged a strong connection while collaborating on the iconic romantic thriller "The Bodyguard." However, Costner carries a poignant regret: he never shared a particular secret with Houston, leaving her unaware of this undisclosed truth.

Snoop Dogg Wouldn't Choose Sides, Tupac Called Him Out

The real reason why cameron diaz left hollywood for good, antonio banderas chose dakota johnson, his marriage blew up, high school crushes meet again at 50th reunion - then, a phone call leads to them getting married, liam neeson left his son after losing wife natasha richardson, how tiffany haddish finally found the love she deserved, lamar odom regrets choosing khloe kardashian over taraji p henson, did all the break ups lead jennifer lopez to her true love, subscribe to our newsletter, the great takedown of nickelodeon’s dan schneider - how even small voices have the power for impact, chris gardner beyond the pursuit of happyness: the work begins, 100 powerful motivational quotes to help you rise above, wim hof: the iceman’s heroic journey to warming the hearts of millions, keith urban's dark secret forced nicole kidman to make a difficult choice.

Nicole Kidman's world shattered when she faced heartbreak from a renowned movie star. However, Keith Urban's romantic gestures offered hope, though he harbored a troubling secret. Did Nicole, while seeking love, fail to save Keith?

Copyright © 2024 Goalcast

Get stories worth sharing delivered to your inbox

The Shopping Cart Theory – A Test of Moral Character

The Shopping Cart Theory – A Test of Moral Character

Congratulations, you made it through the holidays!  I hope you enjoyed yourself too much, laughed too hard, ate too many treats, and had another wonderful holiday season with friends and family.  And, I trust you are now as thrilled as I am to have it behind us.  Whew!

With January arriving, we are now poised to experience non-stop weight-loss ads, gym membership discount pricing, and the latest healthy meal-planning program launched.  You see, January is the time of the year when society tries to “help us” by pointing out room for improvement in our lives.  While you evaluate areas where you might want to get healthier in 2024, check your moral compass and ensure it’s in good shape, too.  You can purchase no app, widget, or membership that will bring you as much core satisfaction as keeping your moral character healthy.

When I speak of morals, let me be clear I am not speaking of ethics.  Ethics are external rules that vary depending on the environment.  For example, it’s ethically acceptable to tip a delivery person for bringing my lunch, but it’s not ethically acceptable to tip my US postal carrier for delivering my mail.  While I appreciate both sets of hard-working professionals, the ethics of tipping are not the same in each environment.  Morals differ from ethics, however, because they are personal principles that rarely change.  Telling the truth and avoiding deception should not change depending on the environment.  Neither should having integrity nor taking responsibility for our actions.  What’s right is right, and what’s not right should make the needle on our moral compass twitch.

Enter, “The Shopping Cart Theory.”  If you haven’t heard of this, let me bring you up to speed.  A few years ago, this theory went viral on social media stating it was the ultimate litmus test for someone’s moral compass.  Returning a shopping cart to the store or cart corral is relatively easy and convenient, and is what most of us recognize (absent a true emergency) as the right thing to do.  But, abandoning your cart in a parking lot is not illegal.  No one will punish you or fine you if you leave it next to your car instead.  And, you will gain nothing tangible by doing the good deed of returning the cart to its home.  So, why do it when there’s no credit and no repercussion?  Because you can.  You’re a good person who chooses to do good things.

Our moral compass directs us to be good members of our community who are capable of doing good things when there is no reward and no punishment either way.  An upstanding member of a community is morally right, good, and honest.  While no one is holding you accountable for leaving your cart to the mercy of a gale-force wind that is going to whip it around until it smashes into my car, your moral compass was probably twitching as you drove away from your abandoned cart.  You knew better.

As January kicks off society’s season of “you can do better” and bombards you with ads for self-improvement, I hope you take time to improve something that matters.  Knock the dust off your moral compass, and make sure it’s still giving you strong guidance for being a good person with integrity, forgiveness, and compassion, and one who takes responsibility.  Let your moral compass guide you to do what’s right on behalf of yourself, your family, and your community each time.  Pass the shopping cart test!

If you have questions regarding HOA law, contact any of our attorneys at 303.432.9999.  For more information on the shopping cart litmus test or any other operational and human resource trends, contact Missy Hirst, MSLA, Altitude Community Law’s Chief Operating Officer  at [email protected] .

Keep In Touch

Sign up for our Newsletter and Blog today.

I'm Ready to Gain Some Altitude

Schedule a Consultation

If you’re looking for legal consultation, schedule one today .

April 26, 2017

Why Don't People Return Their Shopping Carts?

Pulling up to a parking spot and finding a shopping cart there can be pretty frustrating. Why do people ignore the receptacle?

By Krystal D'Costa

Daniel Blume  Flickr   (CC BY-SA 2.0)

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

While some supermarkets are better than others, it's probably not unusual to find a few stray shopping carts littering the parking lot to the dismay of shoppers who may think that a parking spot is open, only to find that it's actually being used by a shopping cart. It seems like a basic courtesy to others: you get a cart at the supermarket, you use it to get your groceries and bring them to your vehicle, and then you return it for others to use. And yet, it's not uncommon for many people to ignore the cart receptacle entirely and leave their carts next to their cars or parked haphazardly on medians. During peak hours, it can mean bedlam. Where does this disregard come from?

Some supermarkets have tried to make this relatively easy: they have cart receptacles throughout the parking lot, a cart attendant to bring the carts back to the store, and some may even rely on a cart "rental" system where you pay for the cart and are reimbursed when it's returned. In the instances where there is no rental system, people may leave their carts stranded for some of the following reasons:

The receptacle is too far from where they've parked their car.

They have a child whom they do not want to leave unattended.

The weather is bad. 

They have a disability that prohibitive to easy movement.

The perception that it's someone else's job to collect the carts.

They're leaving the carts for someone else to easily pick up and use.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Similarly, there are five categories of cart users:

Returners. These people always return their carts to the receptacle regardless of how far away they've parked or what the weather is like. They feel a sense of obligation and/or feel badly for the people responsible for collecting the carts.

Never Returners. People who never return their carts. They believe it's someone else's job to get the carts or the supermarket's responsibility, and show little regard for where the carts are left.

Convenience Returners. People who will return their carts if they parked close to the receptacle, or if they see a cart attendant.

Pressure Returners. People who will return their carts only if the cart attendant is present or if the adjacent car's owner is present, which means they don't have an easy avenue for abandoning their carts.

Child-Driven Returners. These are people with children who view it as a game to return carts, often riding them back to the receptacle or pushing them into the stacked lines.

Social norms fall into two general categories. There are injunctive norms, which drive our responses based on our perception of how others will interpret our actions. This means that we're inclined to act in certain ways if we think people will think well or think poorly of us. And there are descriptive norms, where our responses are driven by contextual clues. This means we're apt to mimic behaviors of others—so what we see or hear or smell suggests the appropriate/accepted response or behavior that we should display.

Supermarkets can try and guide our behavior with receptacles or cart attendants, but they’re competing with our own self-serving goals, which in this case may be staying dry, keeping an eye on our children, or simply getting home as quickly as possible, and we’re being guided by the ways others behave on top of that. These goals can override the norm because the support provided by the supermarket—ironically—resets the situation before complete chaos is unleashed with carts running rampant in the parking lot. An attendant will most likely step in before that happens. So if we apply this definition of norms to our classification of cart returners, the injunctive norm applies the greatest pressure to Returners and Pressure Returners. These folks are concerned by what others will think of them on some level, and want to adhere to social rule mandating that the carts are returned. Descriptive norms are at play for Convenience Returners and Pressure Returners who are more inclined to act if there is precedent. These folks are more likely to return a cart if there are no carts parked haphazardly. The Never Returners and the Child-Driven Returners are two example of goal-driven actors, which means that they’re responding to a more individual need. These two are interesting as they’re on opposing ends of the spectrum but still demonstrate the ways an individual goal can work for or against a norm.

A 2008 study published in Science  tested behavioral responses against the manipulation of injunctive and descriptive norms to see if a violation of one norm would lead people to violations of other, unrelated norms. In the first test, researchers targeted participants who parked their bicycles in two alleys. On the walls of the alleys were signs that indicated graffiti was not permitted. One alley had no graffiti, while the other did, despite the signs. Researchers attached a flyer to the handles of bicycles in both alleys so that the owners needed to physically remove the flyers. In the alley with graffiti on the wall, 69% threw the flyer on the ground or hung the flyer on another bicycle compared with 33% in the alley with no graffiti. The researchers reported that the anti-graffiti signs were readily visible and all entrants to the alleys glanced at the signs. The appearance of graffiti on the walls in defiance of the signs suggested that it was appropriate to break another norm: littering.

They replicated these results in two additional tests. For example, they set up temporary fences along two parking lots and posted No Trespassing signs and No Bicycle signs. While the temporary fences did have a gap that a person could use to get to their vehicle, the No Trespassing signs were intended to make people walk to another entrance. The No Bicycles sign were intended to signify that people could not lock their bicycles to the fences. At one parking lot, bicycles were left nearby; they were not chained or locked to the fence. At the other parking lot, bicycles were chained to the fence. The results were significant: 82% of participants used the gap if the bicycles were chained to the fence compared with 27% when there were no bicycles chained to the fence. 

In the final test, researchers went to a parking garage that served a supermarket and a gym. In one scenario, four carts were strewn about the garage, and in another all carts were in the receptacles. The researchers left flyers on the windows of the cars in the garage and—you guessed it—58% of participants littered (i.e., threw their flyers on the ground) when there were unmanaged shopping carts compared with 30% when all carts were in the receptacle.

While there are always outliers—people who behave contrary to the norm for the sake of doing so—these scenarios are fairly illustrative of the ebb and flow of the social order. There are norms that are intended to provide overall governance for the benefit of society at large but as individuals we have goals that intersect with these norms and can create conflicts. Yes, we want to generally behave like others of our choosing because we want to be accepted, but we also have goals that serve ourselves or provide us with immediate satisfaction. The data above suggests that as a situation broaches on deviance, more people will trend toward disorder; once we have permission to pursue an alternative action, we will do so if it suits us. Not returning our shopping carts opens the door to throwing our circulars on the ground to parking haphazardly or in reserved spaces to other items that impact the quality of our experience at that establishment.

The world will likely not end because we aren’t returning our shopping carts—that would be an amazing butterfly effect—but it’s an example of a quality of life issue we can control. That guy who didn’t return his cart may not be a complete jerk. He may just be using the example set by others so he can get home a little more quickly. But if everyone does that, then we’re shifting the balance of what is acceptable, which may have greater ramifications to the social order. We have a greater influence over seemingly mundane situations than we realize.

Do you return your cart? Comments have been disabled on Anthropology in Practice, but you can always join the community on Facebook .

You may also want to view the Follow-Up: Reasons People Don't Return Their Shopping Cart

Referenced:

Keizer, Kees, Siegwart Lindenberg, and Linda Steg. "The Spreading of Disorder.” Science (33) 12 Dec. 2008: 1681-685. doi: 10.1126/science.1161405

You might also like:

Why do we fight for free t-shirts at sporting events?

What are the costs of lending a helping hand?

Why do we say “I’m not sick” when we really are?

The Science of Social Pressure

Image credit: Daniel Blume

April 23, 2024

Random thoughts, anecdotes and specks of whimsy. In 180 words.

The shopping cart wars

Supermarkets and mass merchandisers can be hazardous to your health. On any store visit you have a 50-percent chance of being run over by a recklessly driven shopping cart.

Zombie-like shoppers and screaming urchins push carts with reckless abandon. They crash into one another and bystanders without the slightest concern, and they almost never apologize or accept culpability.

I saw one woman reading box labels. Her cart was parked in the middle of the aisle. Another woman deliberately rammed it instead of asking the lady to move it. The parked cart rudely careened into the backside of the oblivious label-reader. Not a guilty glance or a spoken word.

On another occasion I witnessed a young girl pushing a cart, running at a full gallop. She crashed into an employee stocking shelves, nearly knocking him down. The only uttered word was “Whoops.” The injured employee limped off.

I was once injured while holding onto the outside of the cart. An absent-minded jerk smashed his cart into my fingers. It drew blood. The guy said, “S-o-o-o sorry.”

Supermarkets should offer cart-driving courses.

More on shopping, loosely

Shopping bonanza

Hoarding nuts

Curses for you, Mary Anderson

A fixidiot succeeds, with difficulty

Earth to chefs

Listen and decide: whom am I?

We'll come to you!

Sign up to receive an email when each new 30-Second Read is published.

Check spam folder for confirmation email.

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Published in Life

More posts from George Cranford

One Comment

Thanks! Nice essay. I love the video. I agree with the shopping cart theory. However, what’s up with stores that offer no corrals in the parking lot and require folks to return their carts to the point of origin, for example, Hi Neighbor on Airline? Have they given up on us? For the record, I continue to shop there and return my carts, ensuring my status as a worthy member of society.

Comments are closed.

• Why BioCatch

Identify application fraud and protect genuine user information from being exploited.

• New Account Fraud

Bot Detection

Identify money laundering activity and proactively detect the mule accounts before funds are moved.

Sold Accounts

Voluntary Mule

Good Faith Fraud

Money Laundering Networks

Monitor web and mobile banking sessions to expose risky actions indicative of fraud.

Remote Access Attacks

Credential Stuffing

Phishing Site Detection

SIM Swapping and Stolen Devices

Mobile Malware

Detect and stop authorized payment fraud before funds leave the customer’s account.

Impersonation Scams

Peer to Peer Fraud

Romance Scams

Investment Scams

Purchase Scams

Enhance your existing compliant solution by adding security without unnecessary friction.

Card Not Present Fraud

Solutions by Role

Fraud Strategy

Fraud Analyst

Digital Channels

Fraud Fusion

BioCatch Connect

Account Opening Protection

Account Takeover Protection

Social Engineering Scams Detection

Mules Account Detection

Strong Customer Authentication

• Analyst Reports
• Case Studies
• Data Sheets
• Solution Briefs
• White Papers
• Meet the Team
• News & Press
• Client Innovation Board

BioCatch Blog Channel

• social engineering scams
• Money Mules
• Mule Accounts
• Authorized Push Payment Scams
• Behavioral Biometrics
• Account Takeover
• Fraud Prevention
• Social Engineering
• Authentication
• Banking / Financial Services
• BioCatch Team
• Continuous Authentication
• authorised push payment scams
• Continuous Protection
• Cybersecurity
• Identity Proofing
• account opening experience

Get the latest blog posts in your inbox.

Money mules and the shopping cart theory.

Written by:

Lately, there has been a lot of media focused on what is the called the shopping cart theory . In a nutshell, it essentially states that an individual’s capacity to self-govern depends on whether they are the type to return the shopping cart or leave it next to their car. The behavior is a testament to someone’s moral character. While the theory is debatable, it does raise an interesting question. What scenario is going on that would cause a person to leave the cart in the first place? What’s their story?

I start this blog sharing the shopping cart theory and raising the point that decisions are not often made without a history...without a reason why. Different scenarios can alter a person’s behavior, or willingness to do something, or in the case of the shopping cart, do nothing. Behaviors change based on the situation. In some instances, certain situations can influence a behavior that tests a person’s moral character and perhaps even break the law. Money mules would be a perfect example of this.

A money mule is someone who illegally transfers or moves money on behalf of someone else. By definition, being a money mule is illegal. But the question that needs to be asked is, what motivates someone to do it? The reasons are many and range from being complicit in the action and knowing exactly what is happening to being completely unaware that you are part of a money mule transaction.

Money mules are a significant problem for financial institutions. As more consumers take advantage of the ability to move funds to and from their accounts online, identifying fraudulent activity, specifically money mules, becomes more challenging. Some transactions can quickly be identified as fraudulent based on known information such as an unproven mobile device or improper use of personal information. However, identifying money mules is tricky because in many cases, it involves a genuine account and a genuine account holder’s actions. So again, I go back to the point that certain situations can influence behavior. Behavioral biometrics can help identify user behaviors that are abnormal for a genuine account holder and identify transactions that are at a much higher risk of being fraudulent.

BioCatch has recently announced the launch of a Mule Account Detection solution . The solution is designed to protect financial institutions from money laundering tacticsusing genuine accounts and genuine account holders as a part of their scheme. BioCatch Mule Account Detection is unique in that it maps behaviors against five money mule personas to determine if the action is fraudulent.

These personas range from complicit to unaware and are mapped to unique behavioral traits that can help financial institutions identify money laundering tactics and prevent a money mule transaction from happening. In future blogs, we will take a deeper look at each persona and behaviors associated with each. We will also look at a couple examples and share some background behind the money mule to add context and understanding as to why a genuine account holder may have actively participated in the transaction...and perhaps answer the question as to whether they are the type to return the shopping cart or not.

BioCatch continues to push the boundaries of human behavior analysis to protect financial institutions and their customers from the dangers of fraud. The BioCatch Mule Account Detection solution helps by running continuously in the background of every digital session, monitoring for anomalies that can suggest suspicious money mule activity. Help spread awareness by using #DontBeAMule and educate yourself on the different measures your financial institution is taking to protect you and prevent money laundering.

To learn more about mule accounts and how to stay protected, check out the latest DigitalTells podcast , “Are You A Mule?” or register for the upcoming webinar, Stop Muling Around: Best Practices for Mule Account Detection , taking place on December 16 in partnership with American Banker.

Recent Posts

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Archaeology
• Browse content in Art
• History of Art
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Literature
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Philosophy of Religion
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Technology and Society
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Environmental Geography
• Palaeontology
• Environmental Science
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Browse content in Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Browse content in Education
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Browse content in Environment
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Browse content in Politics
• Political Sociology
• US Politics
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

How the Shopping Cart Explains Global Consumerism

• Cite Icon Cite

The book argues that the invention and popularization of the shopping cart from the 1940s onward provided the final link in the chain for the new system of industrialized food flow. First in the United States and then around the world, these carts enabled supermarkets to move their goods even faster off their shelves—in a sense, completing the revolution in mechanized farming, electric refrigeration, and road distribution that had occurred during the 1930s. Yet the cart, a basic machine among modernity’s new systems, also recast the work of food shopping in ways that attracted ambivalence and unease. In urging customers to buy all their groceries at once, it radically accelerated the consumerist experience of self-service, creating a new mode of accelerated shopping on impulse that often felt, ironically, far from “convenient.” Above all, as a host of U.S. cultural responses have suggested, the sheer uniformity of the shopping cart has unsettled the individualistic rhetoric of the supermarket industry. Increasingly omnipresent in online shopping, its basic form, defined as a void waiting to be filled, uncomfortably reveals the parallels that exist between human and nonhuman participants in the modern circuit of food flow.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Share full article

Ask NYT Climate

Is Online Shopping Bad for the Planet?

In theory, getting deliveries can be more efficient than driving to the store. But you may still want to think before you add to cart.

Credit... Naomi Anderson-Subryan

Supported by

By Dionne Searcey

Dionne Searcey is part of a rotating cast of Climate reporters and special guest writers who will answer your burning climate questions.

• April 22, 2024

Q: How much do I need to worry about the impact of my online shopping?

The convenience of online shopping is hard to beat. But it uses a lot of energy and resources and can lead to more waste.

Transportation needed for online shopping spews greenhouse emissions. Three billion trees are cut down every year to produce packaging for all kinds of things, e-commerce included, according to some estimates . The data centers needed to store and retrieve orders consume about 10 times the amount of energy of a typical home and gulp precious groundwater for cooling.

Sounds bad, right? Read on.

Online shopping isn’t always the worst choice. Efficiency is a big factor.

Think of it like this: A single truck delivering orders to several homes could be less of a drain on the environment than several shoppers hopping in cars to drive to stores. That’s especially true if people group their purchases into less-frequent deliveries.

One study from M.I.T . even found that online shopping could be more sustainable than traditional shopping in more than 75 percent of scenarios that researchers came up with. Those scenarios imagined things like an online shopping experience with all-electric shipping and reduced packaging.

Online retailers and delivery companies have been trying to make online shopping more climate friendly. Some have embraced electric vehicles.

Amazon.com, for instance, has pledged to have 100,000 electric delivery vehicles on the road by 2030, a move that it says will prevent millions of metric tons of planet-warming carbon from being released into the atmosphere. UPS has plans for updating its fleet with electric vehicles, but those plans hit a snag when the company it had contracted to provide the new trucks ran into financial problems . FedEx plans to convert its entire parcel pickup and delivery fleet to E.V.s by 2040, with plans for half of its fleet to be electrified by next year.

Some companies are also experimenting with robot and drone deliveries . But there are other things to consider.

Packaging and waste are also important.

Companies like Amazon have also started to cut back on packaging, which in the early days of online shopping produced laughable mountains of boxes, Bubble Wrap and other padding for tiny items. It still happens from time to time now , even with the effort to reduce. Some companies have begun using more reusable, recyclable and even biodegradable packaging. But millions of pounds of plastic from packaging still end up in rivers, oceans and landfills.

Maybe the biggest thing: How much stuff we buy.

So, it’s complicated. But there’s one foolproof thing you can do for the planet and for your bank account: Buy less stuff.

The production and use of household goods and services are responsible for 60 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, one 2015 study found . In the United States, more than 20 percent of emissions are directly attributed to household consumption, according to researchers at the University of Michigan .

Many of those lamps, toasters, sweaters and other items are imported, arriving in the United States on carbon-emitting cargo ships or airplanes. The shipping industry alone accounts for 3 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Things to try: Buying in bulk, slow shopping and bundling orders.

Climate organizations encourage buying secondhand items or fixing the broken things you already own. An increasing number of companies offer repair services, sometimes for free. YouTube videos offer step-by-step guides for fixing a surprising number of items. Local meet-ups for mending clothing or repairing appliances are becoming a thing.

If you are going to buy stuff online, there are many ways you can make your online shopping more sustainable.

Take a minute to look at size charts and read reviews to cut back on returns. Many studies say online shoppers are five times more likely to return an item, which means a lot more transportation emissions.

If you’re ordering several items, try to group your orders into one shipment. Many companies will ask if you want to do so; don’t forget to seek out that option. The Better Business Bureau suggests buying in bulk to cut down on packaging for individual items and taking advantage of delivery to pickup locations.

Practice slow shopping . Pause and think about whether you need an item. It’s easy to get a rush from buying something new, but environmentalists suggest getting your dopamine fix from something entirely different: Try taking a walk instead.

Have a question for reporters covering climate and the environment?

We might answer your question in a future column. We won’t publish your submission without contacting you, and may use your contact information to follow up with you.

Dionne Searcey is a Times reporter who writes about how the choices made by people and corporations affect the future of the planet. More about Dionne Searcey

Advertisement

A model of online shopping cart abandonment: evidence from e-tail clickstream data

• Original Empirical Research
• Published: 22 March 2022
• Volume 50 , pages 961–980, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Monika Kukar-Kinney   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7254-1429 1 ,
• Angeline Close Scheinbaum 2 ,
• Larry Olanrewaju Orimoloye 3 ,
• Jeffrey R. Carlson 1 &
• Heping He 4  

3833 Accesses

13 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This research investigates online consumer behavior in an e-commerce context with a focus on consumer online shopping cart use and subsequent cart abandonment. A model rooted in the Uses and Gratifications Theory, the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, and the concept of the purchase funnel is developed to explain the predicted relationships. Empirical findings based on clickstream data show that returning to an existing cart increases the subsequent cart use and decreases cart abandonment. Conversely, viewing clearance pages and viewing a large number of product reviews increases both cart use and cart abandonment. Browsing product pages decreases cart use, and increases cart abandonment. The moderating role of smartphone-based shopping is also examined, with the moderating effects primarily occurring early in the purchase funnel affecting cart use, and influencing cart abandonment to a smaller degree. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications for digital marketers are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The psychology of online shopping cart abandonment: a scrutiny of the current research framework and building an improved model of the online shopper journey

Banwari Mittal

Motivations Behind Consumer Online Shopping Cart Use and Abandonment: An Abstract

Electronic shopping cart abandonment: What do we know and where should we be heading?

Ishani Patharia Chopra, Charles Jebarajakirthy, … Haroon Iqbal Maseeh

CMP analysis was conducted as a robustness check. The CMP model fit was substantially worse (BIC = 20,333; log-likelihood = −9383) than the fit of the ZIP and CLGT models. While a majority of the coefficients was consistent, there were some changes. For cart use, a previously significant interaction between existing cart and device type became non-significant, while the main effect of clearance page became negative. For cart abandonment, visiting clearance page, cart removal, and number of products seen had a significant and negative effect. A possible reason for the changes is simultaneous, rather than sequential estimation. We argue that based on cart use being a condition that has to occur before cart can be abandoned, sequential modeling is more appropriate. Heteroskedasticity could also render CMP results to be inconsistent.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression testing and interpreting interactions . Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Anupindi, R., Dada, M., & Gupta, S. (1998). Estimation of consumer demand with stock-out based substitution: An application to vending machine products. Marketing Science, 17 (4), 406–423.

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkins, D. C., & Gallop, R. J. (2007). Rethinking how family researchers model infrequent outcomes: A tutorial on count regression and zero-inflated models. Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (4), 726–735.

Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Wang, J. (2010). Superstar extinction. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (2), 549–589.

Batra, R., & Keller, K. L. (2016). Integrating marketing communications: New findings, new lessons, and new ideas. Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 122–145.

Bell, D. R., Corsten, D., & Knox, G. (2011). From point of purchase to path to purchase: How preshopping factors drive unplanned buying. Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 31–45.

Bhatnagar, A., & Papatla, P. (2019). Do habits influence the types of information that smartphone shoppers seek? Journal of Business Research, 94 (1), 89–98.

Blumler, J. G. (1979). The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6 (1), 9–36.

Breugelmans, E., Campo, K., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2006). Opportunities for active stock-out management in online stores: The impact of the stock-out policy on online stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 82 (3), 215–228.

Bucklin, R. E., & Sismeiro, C. (2003). A model of web site browsing behavior estimated on clickstream data. Journal of Marketing Research, 40 (3), 249–267.

Bucklin, R. E., & Sismeiro, C. (2009). Click here for internet insight: Advances in clickstream data analysis in marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (1), 35–48.

Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2000). Towards understanding consumer response t stock-outs. Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 219–242.

Campo, K., Gijsbrechts, E., & Nisol, P. (2004). Dynamics in consumer response to product unavailability: Do stock-out reactions signal response to permanent assortment reductions? Journal of Business Research, 57 (8), 834–843.

Castro, I. A., Morales, A. C., & Nowlis, S. M. (2013). The influence of disorganized shelf displays and limited product quantity on consumer purchase. Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 118–133.

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice . Allyn & Bacon.

Chatterjee, P., Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (2003). Modeling the clickstream: Implications for web-based advertising efforts. Marketing Science, 22 (4), 520–541.

Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54 (3), 477–491.

Cho, C.-H., Kang, J., & Cheon, H. (2006). Online shopping hesitation. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 9 (3), 261–274.

Close, A., & Kukar-Kinney, M. (2010). Beyond buying: Motivations behind consumers' online shopping cart use. Journal of Business Research, 63 (9–10), 986–992.

Close, A., Kukar-Kinney, M., & Benusa, T. K. (2012). Toward a theory of consumer electronic shopping cart behavior: Motivations of e-cart use and abandonment. In A. G. Close (Ed.), Online consumer behavior: Theory and research in social media, advertising and e-tail (pp. 323–343). Routledge.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Danaher, P., Mullarkey, G., & Essegaier, S. (2006). Factors affecting web site visit duration: A cross-domain analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (2), 182–194.

De Haan, E., Kannan, P. K., Verhoef, P. C., & Wiesel, T. (2018). Device switching in online purchasing: Examining the strategic contingencies. Journal of Marketing, 82 (5), 1–19.

Eisend, M. (2008). Explaining the impact of scarcity appeals in advertising: The mediating role of perceptions of susceptibility. Journal of Advertising, 37 (3), 33–40.

Evanschitzky, H., Gopalkrishnan, R., Iyer, J. H., & Dieter, A. (2004). E-satisfaction: A re-examination. Journal of Retailing, 80 (3), 239–247.

Garnefeld, I., Eggert, A., Helm, S. V., & Tax, S. S. (2013). Growing existing customers’ revenue streams through customer referral programs. Journal of Marketing, 77 (4), 17–32.

Germann, F., Ebbes, P., & Grewal, R. (2015). The chief marketing officer matters! Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22.

Haider, S. W., Zhuang, G., Ikram, A., & Anwar, B. (2020). Consumers' device choice in e-retail: Do regulatory focus and chronotype matter? KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems, 14 (1), 148–167.

Huang, G.-H., Korfiatis, N., & Chang, C.-T. (2018). Mobile shopping cart abandonment: The roles of conflicts, ambivalence, and hesitation. Journal of Business Research, 85 (1), 165–174.

Huang, P., Lurie, N., & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: An empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journal of Marketing, 73 (2), 55–69.

Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Backhaus, C., & Eberhardt, T. (2017). Acceptance of smartphone-based Mobile shopping: Mobile benefits, customer characteristics, perceived risks, and the impact of application context. Psychology & Marketing, 34 (2), 175–194.

Inman, J. J., & Nikolova, H. (2017). Shopper-facing retail technology: A retailer adoption decision framework incorporating shopper attitudes and privacy concerns. Journal of Retailing, 93 (1), 7–28.

Inman, J. J., Peter, A. C., & Raghubir, P. (1997). Framing the deal: The role of restrictions in accentuating deal value. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 68–79.

Jang, S., Prasad, A., & Ratchford, B. T. (2012). How consumers use product reviews in the purchase decision process. Marketing Letters, 23 (3), 825–838.

Jessup, R. K., Veinott, E. S., Todd, P. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). Leaving the store empty-handed: Testing explanations for the too-much-choice effect using decision field theory. Psychology & Marketing, 26 (3), 299–320.

Johnson, G. A., Lewis, R. A., & Nubbemeyer, E. A. (2017). Ghost ads: Improving the economics of measuring online ad effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (6), 867–884.

Kaatz, C., Brock, C., & Figura, L. (2019). Are you still online or are you already mobile?–predicting the path to successful conversions across different devices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50 (1), 10–21.

Ko, H., Cho, C. H., & Roberts, M. S. (2005). Internet uses and gratifications: A structural equation model of interactive advertising. Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 57–70.

Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. (2010). The determinants of shopping cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (2), 240–250.

Kukar-Kinney, M., Scheinbaum, A. C., & Schaefers, T. (2016). Compulsive buying in online daily deal settings: An investigation of motivations and contextual elements. Journal of Business Research, 69 (2), 691–699.

Kukar-Kinney, M., & Xia, L. (2017). The effectiveness of number of deals purchased in influencing consumer response to daily deal promotions: A cue utilization approach. Journal of Business Research, 79 (10), 189–197.

Lambert, D. (1992). Zero-inflated Poisson regression with an application to defects in manufacturing. Technometrics, 34 (1), 1–14.

Li, H., & Kannan, P. K. (2014). Attributing conversions in a multichannel online marketing environment: An empirical model and a field experiment. Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (1), 40–56.

Li, J., Abbasi, A., Cheema, A., & Abraham, L. B. (2020). Path to purpose? How online customer journeys differ for hedonic versus utilitarian purchases. Journal of Marketing, 84 (4), 127–146.

Li, J., Luo, X., Lu, X., & Moriguchi, T. (2021). The double-edged effects of e-commerce cart retargeting: Does retargeting too early backfire? Journal of Marketing, 85 (4), 123–140.

Mallapragada, G., Chandukala, S. R., & Liu, Q. (2016). Exploring the effects of “what” (product) and “where” (website) characteristics on online shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 21–38.

Maslowska, E., Malthouse, E. C., & Bernritter, S. F. (2017). Too good to be true: The role of online reviews’ features in probability to buy. International Journal of Advertising, 36 (1), 142–163.

McQuail, D. (1987). Mass communication theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). Sage.

Meola, A. (2020). Rise of m-commerce: Mobile-commerce shopping stats & trends in 2021. Retrieved April 8, 2021 from https://www.businessinsider.com/mobile-commerce-shopping-trends-stats

Miyazaki, A. D., Grewal, D., & Goodstein, R. C. (2005). The effect of multiple extrinsic cues on quality perceptions: A matter of consistency. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (1), 146–153.

Moore, S., & Mathews, S. (2008). An exploration of online shopping cart abandonment syndrome–a matter of risk and reputation. Journal of Website Promotion, 2 (1–2), 71–88.

Moe, W. W. (2003). Buying, searching, or browsing: Differentiating between online shoppers using in-store navigational clickstream. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (1–2), 29–39.

Moe, W. W. (2006). An empirical two-stage choice model with varying decision rules applied to internet clickstream data. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (4), 680–692.

Natarajan, T., Balasubramanian, S., & Kasilingam, D. (2018). The moderating role of device type and age of users on the intention to use mobile shopping applications. Technology in Society, 53 , 79–90.

O’Donohoe, S. (1994). Advertising uses and gratifications. European Journal of Marketing, 28 (8/9), 52–75.

Oliver, R. L., & Shor, M. (2003). Digital redemption of coupons: Satisfying and dissatisfying effects of promotion codes. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (2), 121–134.

Rajamma, R., Paswan, A., & Hossain, M. (2009). Why do shoppers abandon shopping cart? Perceived waiting time, risk, and transaction inconvenience. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18 (3), 188–197.

Roggeveen, A. L., Grewal, D., Townsend, C., & Krishnan, R. (2015). The impact of dynamic presentation format on consumer preferences for hedonic products and services. Journal of Marketing, 79 (6), 34–49.

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70 (1), 41–55.

Rubin, D., Martins, C., Ilyuk, V., & Hildebrand, D. (2020). Online shopping cart abandonment: A consumer mindset perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37 (5), 487–499.

Rutz, O. J., & Watson, G. F. (2019). Endogeneity and marketing strategy research: An overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 479–498.

Sahni, N., Narayanan, S., & Kalyanam, K. (2019). An experimental investigation of the effects of retargeted advertising: The role of frequency and timing. Journal of Marketing Research, 56 (3), 401–418.

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2010). Can there ever be too many options? A meta-analytic review of choice overload. Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (3), 409–425.

Shi, S. W., & Zhang, J. (2014). Usage experience with decision aids and evolution of online purchase behavior. Marketing Science, 33 (6), 871–882.

Sismeiro, C., & Bucklin, R. E. (2004). Modeling purchase behavior at an e-commerce web site: A task-completion approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (3), 306–323.

Sloot, L. M., Verhoef, P. C., & Franses, P. H. (2005). The impact of brand equity and the hedonic level of products on consumer stock-out reactions. Journal of Retailing, 81 (1), 15–34.

Smith, S. A., & Achabal, D. D. (1998). Clearance pricing and inventory policies for retail chains. Management Science, 44 (3), 285–300.

Song, J.-D. (2019). A study on online shopping cart abandonment: A product category perspective. Journal of Internet Commerce, 18 (4), 337–368.

Statista. (2020). Online shopping cart abandonment rate in selected industries. Retrieved March 2020 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/457078/category-cart-abandonment-rate-worldwide/

Steinhart, Y., Mazursky, D., & Kamins, M. (2013). The process by which product availability triggers purchase. Marketing Letters, 24 (3), 217–228.

Szymanski, D. M., & Hise, R. T. (2000). E-satisfaction: An initial examination. Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 309–322.

Tang, H., & Lin, X. (2019). Curbing shopping cart abandonment in c2c markets—An uncertainty reduction approach. Electronic Markets, 29 (3), 533–552.

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36 (1), 157–178.

Wagner, G., Schramm-Klein, H., & Steinmann, S. (2020). Online retailing across e-channels and e-channel touchpoints: Empirical studies of consumer behavior in the multichannel e-commerce environment. Journal of Business Research, 107 , 256–270.

Wang, R., Malthouse, E. C., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2015). On the go: How mobile shopping affects customer purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing, 91 (2), 217–234.

Wolin, L. D., & Korgaonkar, P. (2003). Web advertising: Gender differences in beliefs, attitudes and behavior. Internet Research, 13 (5), 375–385.

Xu, Y., & Huang, J.-S. (2015). Factors influencing cart abandonment in the online shopping process. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43 (10), 1617–1627.

Yli-Renko, H., & Janakiraman, R. (2008). How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72 (5), 131–148.

Zhang, L., & Zhang, W. (2013). Real-time internet news browsing: Information vs. experience-related gratifications and behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (6), 2712–2721.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Scott Baier, Jason Duan and Ryan Mullins for their advice and guidance regarding this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, 102 UR Drive, Richmond, VA, 23173, USA

Monika Kukar-Kinney & Jeffrey R. Carlson

Department of Marketing Sirrine Hall Clemson, Clemson University, College of Business, Clemson, SC, USA

Angeline Close Scheinbaum

Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK

Larry Olanrewaju Orimoloye

College of Management, Shenzhen University, 1066 Xueyuan Avenue, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Kukar-Kinney .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

All authors importantly contributed to this research.

Marnik Dekimpe served as Area Editor for this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kukar-Kinney, M., Scheinbaum, A.C., Orimoloye, L.O. et al. A model of online shopping cart abandonment: evidence from e-tail clickstream data. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 50 , 961–980 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00857-8

Download citation

Received : 20 May 2021

Accepted : 04 March 2022

Published : 22 March 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00857-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Online consumer behavior
• Shopping cart use
• Shopping cart abandonment
• Clickstream data
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research