J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 DOI 10.

1007/s11747-011-0284-z

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

How consumer shopping orientation influences perceived crowding, excitement, and stress at the mall
Julie Baker & Kirk L. Wakefield

Received: 5 June 2009 / Accepted: 19 August 2011 / Published online: 10 September 2011 # Academy of Marketing Science 2011

Abstract While a few researchers have started to chip away at the notion that retail density is always negative, extant studies do not empirically address the question of why some shoppers respond negatively to a specific level of density while others respond positively. We examine this issue by drawing upon field theory (Lewin 1939) to shed light on how shoppers vary in terms of deeper motives (McClelland 1953) to seek control or intimacy with others in retail mall settings, and whether these motives influence shopping orientations. Shopping orientation is then hypothesized to affect perceptions of crowding, and, in turn, subsequent affective responses to the mall shopping experience. Moreover, we examine whether individual differences (gender and age) can help retailers segment those with different shopping orientations and the motives that influence these orientations. We found that task and social shopping orientations were influenced by deeper motives for control and intimacy. The causal relationships between shopping motive, shopping orientation, and consumers affective responses of stress and excitement were also discovered. Finally, we address theoretical and managerial implications of our results. Keywords Excitement . Stress . Shopping orientation .
J. Baker (*) Department of Marketing, Neeley School of Business, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA e-mail: j.baker@tcu.edu K. L. Wakefield Department of Marketing, Hankamer School of Business, Baylor University, PO Box 98007, Waco, TX 76798, USA e-mail: kirk_wakefield@baylor.edu

Shopping motivation . Crowding All actions are based on the ground the person happens to stand upon. Kurt Lewin (1935) Retail crowding is a complex phenomenon, in which consumer response to human density (for brevity we will refer to density throughout the paper) is influenced by many factors, including personal factors, expectations, tolerance for crowding, and shopping motivation (viz., Eroglu et al. 2005). Thus, within the retail setting, when two individuals view exactly the same physical cues, one may decide its too crowded and another decide its just right. Why? What kinds of shoppers are excited while others are stressed to be in a mall setting where others are shopping? By definition, perceived crowding is described in negative terms (confined, constrained, restricted) and as a negative psychological reaction to the physical density in a setting (Stokols 1972). As such, prior investigations of retail crowding caused by perceptions of density have largely focused on negative affective and behavioral outcomes (e.g., Eroglu and Harrell 1986; Eroglu et al. 2005; Bateson and Hui 1992). Beginning with Harrell and Hutt (1976), research on retail crowding has examined consumer responses under varying density conditions, finding that relatively higher human density results in stimulus overload and negative responses (Grewal et al. 2003; Grossbart et al. 1990; Harrell et al. 1980; Machleit et al. 2000; Menz and Mullen 1981). Hence, positive effects of retail density have rarely been examined in the marketing literature. Nevertheless, a few studies suggest positive effects may occur with certain types of people. In a conceptual paper, Eroglu and Harrell (1986) posit that when a particular

792

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

amount of personal intimacy is desired, shoppers tend to seek high-density environments. Experimentally, Eroglu and Machleit (1990) find that shoppers placed in a taskoriented shopping scenario perceive the setting with the highest density as being more crowded compared to those shoppers not placed in a task-shopping context. Research by Eroglu et al. (2005) indicates a positive effect of human crowding on shopping satisfaction when otherwise accounting for the negative affective response from human and spatial crowding effects. Other studies suggest the retail context may determine how people perceive density. For example, Hui and Bateson (1992) find that density has a more positive effect on perceived control in a hedonic setting (bar) than in a utilitarian setting (bank). Similarly, using a hypothetical disco setting, Pons et al. (2006) find a positive impact of crowds on subjects evaluations of their experience. On the other hand, the negative effects of density (i.e., crowding) have been found in more utilitarian settings (e.g., Eroglu et al. 2005; Harrell et al. 1980; Machleit et al. 1994). While these studies have started to chip away at the notion that retail density is always negative, they do not empirically address the question of why some shoppers respond negatively to density while others respond positively. More specifically, how and why can shoppers view exactly the same store setting with some interpreting the place as too crowded and stressful while others see the same place as inviting and exciting? One important key to understanding this difference may lie in how consumers approach the retail experience. In our study, we propose that people differ in their general orientations to a mall shopping experience: some view it as utilitarian while others view it as hedonic. We also draw upon field theory with respect to life space, social space, and personal space (Lewin 1939) to shed light on how shoppers vary in terms of deeper motives (McClelland 1953) to seek control or interaction with others in retail mall settings, and whether these motives influence shopping orientations. Moreover, we examine whether individual differences (gender and age) can help retailers segment those with different shopping orientations and the motives that influence these orientations. The results of this research should provide deeper insights for academics into the factors that determine when human density is a positive or negative experience for consumers. From a retail organizations perspective, understanding factors driving some to avoid malls while others seek them out can help management tailor marketing strategies to address the needs of both groups. Our research offers several important contributions to the marketing literature. First, whereas malls are designed to attract crowds to a central shopping location, elements of this design have served to alienate certain shoppers now opting to shop elsewhere, such as lifestyle centers and the

Internet (see Nanney 2009; Smith and Rupp 2003). Understanding the motivations and resulting shopping orientations of those who avoid the mall is one goal of our study. Second, past research has focused almost entirely on the negative effects associated with human density in retail settings. We offer theoretical and empirical evidence demonstrating that some individuals perceive the presence of others in their social space at the mall as acceptable and subsequently respond favorably. Third, understanding the contrasting social-shopping and task-shopping orientations allows retailers to recognize individual shopping motives and types and to adjust marketing activities to fit each. In particular, our research finds that age and gender differences help us characterize those who seek control in the shopping experience and those seeking affiliation and social bonding in the mall shopping experience. Finally, prior crowding work has focused almost entirely on the store level, although perceived crowding at the mall is apt to predicate patronage of all stores in that mall.

Theoretical background and hypotheses Our central hypothesis is that perceptions of and affective responses to the same density level in a setting will vary depending on whether shoppers are task oriented or socially oriented, and that these orientations are motivated by basic needs associated with power and affiliation. Field theory (Lewin 1939) and motivational theory (McClelland 1953) suggest that individuals see personal space as a boundary regulation mechanism to achieve desired privacy levels within a social space, such as a mall (Altman 1975). Field theory suggests subjective views of personal and social space may induce an individual to view others as either a help or hindrance in obtaining ones goals. This view may then influence whether shoppers tend to be stressed or excited at the mall and their subsequent patronage intentions. Figure 1 illustrates the expected relationships. Affective responses to the physical environment Various measures of affect have been used in past retail crowding studies. Researchers have investigated the relationships between perceived crowding and pleasure (Hui and Bateson 1991), satisfaction (Eroglu and Machleit 1990), several facets of emotion (Eroglu et al. 2005), and affective evaluation (Pons and Laroche 2007; Pons et al. 2006). For this study we draw on research by Russell and his colleagues (Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell et al. 1981) specifically designed to measure affective responses to the physical environment (including the number of people within a space; Baker 1987), focusing on consumers primary affective states of pleasure and

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Fig. 1 Proposed model

793

arousal. Scholars have noted that crowding results in high levels of arousal (e.g., Eroglu and Harrell 1986; Worchel and Yohai 1979). Accordingly, we draw on the circumplex model of affect (Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell et al. 1981) to investigate two different levels of pleasure combined with high levels of arousal. In this model, high levels of arousal combined with high levels of pleasure reflect feelings of excitement. In contrast, high levels of arousal combined with low levels of pleasure equate to feelings of stress. Regarding the latter, we focus on psychological stress, which Lazarus and Folkman (1984) define as a relationship between a person and an environment that is perceived by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources. Psychologists have long been interested in measuring psychological levels of stress and excitement (c.f., Boggs 1904), given their physiological and behavioral consequences. This emphasis continues today in hopes of finding effective means of stress management (e.g., Diehl and Hay 2010), emotion regulation (Tamir, Chiu and Gross 2007), and assessing co-morbidity of excitementseeking behaviors and pathological behaviors such as gambling (e.g., Vachon and Bagby 2009). Excitement and stress also capture relatively extreme levels of affect compared to affective measures in some previous crowding studies. This is important for scholars and managers because it tests important boundaries of affect that expressly elicit approach/avoidance behaviors, compared to more moderate affective states characterized by milder levels of arousal. Surprisingly, few studies have investigated excitement or stress related to retail shopping (see dAstous 2000; Wakefield and Baker 1998).

Shopping orientations, life-space, personal space, and needs-based motives We first define social- and task-oriented shopping orientations, followed by the theoretical underpinnings explaining who the individuals are that may adopt either of these orientations, and why they may adopt one or the other. We also include hypothesized paths in our model explaining affective response and behavioral intentions. Shopping orientation is defined as a persons mental framework of responses designed to navigate the shopping environment to achieve personal goals. As such, the shoppers orientation includes learned and innate responses typifying the persons approach to the mall, consistent with the notion of an enduring shopping predisposition (Babin et al. 1994). Shopping orientation is different from a consumer motivation defined by the situation (i.e., I have to buy a gift by tomorrow). There is also a difference between situational motives and the tendency for someone to be more of a social or a task shopper (e.g., someone could typically be a social shopper, but for a specific shopping trip exhibit task shopping behaviors). Prior studies have found two fundamental consumer orientations relevant to retail shopping. Hedonic orientations include shopping for fun and enjoyment, and shopping to satisfy needs unrelated to the purchase of products (e.g., Babin et al. 1994; Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980; Westbrook and Black 1985). In this study, the hedonic orientation we are specifically interested in is socially-based (referred to herein as social shopping), which is a subset of hedonic shopping motivations (Arnold and Reynolds 2003). Social shoppers prefer to shop in the

794

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

presence of other people because it adds to their enjoyment of the experience. In contrast, task-based orientations (task shopping) involve the economic and utilitarian reasons people shop, with no inherent pleasure derived from the shopping experienceother than completing the shopping trip itself. The main goal of these shoppers is to purchase the needed products rather than to necessarily enjoy the shopping trip (e.g., Babin et al. 1994; Dawson et al. 1990). While individuals may exhibit either, or both, hedonic and utilitarian characteristics during any given shopping trip, research has consistently shown that a shoppers predisposition will primarily reflect one or the other (Bloch et al. 1994; Leondari and Gonida 2007; Midgley et al. 1995; Westbrook and Black 1985). Evidence from studies related to goal theory indicates people tend to be task or socially oriented and that task orientation declines as social goals increase (Leondari and Gonida 2007; Midgley et al. 1995). In the management field, a task-oriented management approach is theoretically and empirically opposed to a relationship-oriented approach (e.g., Guthrie et al. 1998). Therefore, we propose: H1: Social shopping orientation has a negative association with task shopping orientation. Why might some individuals approach malls with a social shopping orientation while others approach malls with a task orientation? When there are other people at the mall, why do some shoppers perceive that a mall is crowded, while others do not? Also, why might some shoppers react with excitement and others with stress to the same setting? We begin this section by summarizing pertinent elements of Lewins (1935, 1939) work in field theory and life-space applied to the fields of social psychology and then turn our attention to issues related to personal space and needs-based motivational theory to explain differences in responses to mall environments that are perceived to be crowded. Lewins field theory (1939) holds that ones behavior is a function of the person and the environment (Be=F [P, E]) and that this interdependency between person-environment forms ones life-space. When an individual has a welldefined mental framework about a place or environment and a course of actions within that place, that particular aspect of ones life-space is well-established. Time also influences ones current life-space, since an individual must plan to organize time such that his or her goals are achieved given the immediate physical environment and mental constructions about that space. Some individuals develop relatively wide life-spaces in terms of geography (e.g., worldwide traveling, nature hiking, metropolitan shopping) and social surroundings (exposure to various political, occupational, or other social groups), while the scope of

others remains limited. Instability is introduced as uncertainty occurs in any of the life-space elements (environment, person, time), and stress can arise from shifts or changes in the environment or from the person (or both). Hence, all actions are based on the ground the person happens to stand upon (Lewin 1935). Based on what we know about personal space, the ground one stands upon can be viewed from the perspective of how individuals manage the distance between self and others to maintain desired comfort levels (Sommer 1959). In dealing with social settings, people develop schemata to structure situations involving other humans (Kuethe 1962), and they differ in their response to others regarding comfortable interpersonal distance and interaction (Hall 1964). A persons needs, traits, and social learning dictate the form of the schemata against which an occasion is compared. Relative to ones personal space associated with ones life-space, we can expect individuals to differ with respect to schemata for coping with social settings, including those encountered in a mall. Considerable research has been devoted to studying differences in social schemata for spacing persons. As Pedersen and Shears (1973) report across a wide variety of experiments, encountering others in a social setting activates a persons efforts to deal with the perceived stimulus to modulate, enhance, reduce, or discharge the emotional arousal. According to Sommer (1965, 1967), due to these differences in social schemata, persons will seek to interact or avoid interaction with others. Returning to field theory, we can expect some persons to view the presence of others in a shopping setting as fitting. At the same time, we might also expect some to view the presence of others as being in conflict with their goals. The questions we seek to answer with this study revolve around why some people develop schemata or orientations that more positively perceive the presence of others in the shopping setting, while others follow schemata intended to avoid interaction, and who these people are. Our understanding of life-space and personal space, coupled with needs-based motivational theory (McClelland 1953) allows us to theorize why some persons approach shopping centers with a social shopping orientation versus a task shopping orientation. We now turn to a brief review of two basic needs likely to motivate behavior in the mall shopping context: the need for power and the need for affiliation. McClelland (1953) identified the three basic needs for achievement, power, and affiliation in motivating individual approaches to goal attainment. In the present study, we focus on the latter two to explain why individuals may approach shopping occasions with either more of a task versus a social shopping orientation. The need for power is primarily concerned with influencing and controlling interactions with others. The need for affiliation focuses

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

795

on maintaining social relationships and enjoying intimacy, understanding, and friendly interaction with others. In the mall shopping context that is the focus of this study, we represent these needs as shopping control and shopping intimacy. Influences on task and social shopping orientations We propose that shopping intimacy and shopping control affect social and task shopping. In addition, because research has shown that gender and age may moderate the relationships between shopping orientation and control/ intimacy, we include hypotheses for these demographics as well. Shopping control and task-shopping We define the need for shopping control as the need to influence or control interactions with others in order to achieve shopping goals (McClelland and Burnham 1976). Individuals tend to have the need for personal control, to manipulate the surrounding environment. Furthermore, the need intensity varies based on the event or surroundings (see Langer 1983). In short, when a person feels out of control, the individual reacts to restore control (Greenberger et al. 1988). Since individuals have been shown to differ in the need for control and because the physical and social stimuli within the context of shopping centers are apt to lead some (not) perceiving a lack of control, we expect some persons to have a high (low) need for control during the shopping trip. At a theoretical level, this need is founded in the social schemata learned to maintain ones personal space in the context of ones life-space. Those possessing schemata that include controlling interactions with others in the shopping setting are likely to be oriented toward completing the task of shopping. The relationship between the need for power/control and a task orientation is well-established (c.f., Fiedler 1967; Stewart and Manz 1995). Further, within a work context, males tend to exhibit more need for power and to control via a taskoriented approach than do women (for a review, see Duehr and Bono 2006). In a retailing context, scholars have found that men tend to perceive shopping trips as a distasteful task best carried out as quickly and efficiently as possible (Dittmar et al. 2004). Men are more likely to desire control and to complete the goal inherent in the shopping task (e.g., Otnes and McGrath 2001), which typically means getting into a store quickly, making a purchase, and getting out. Therefore: H2: Need for shopping control is positively associated with task shopping orientation. H3: Compared to females, males will have higher (a) need for shopping control, and (b) task shopping orientation.

Individuals whose approach to the shopping mall is essentially to avoid the place, or at least to minimize the time spent in the setting, are expected to be less frequent mall shoppers. Individuals who associate a task with stress are apt to avoid the task (Matthews and Campbell 2009). Thus, in general, we expect individuals who frequently shop at the mall are unlikely to be task shoppers. H4: Frequency of mall shopping is negatively associated with task shopping orientation. Intimacy and social shopping Affiliation and intimacy (physical distance, interpersonal interaction, and nonverbal communication) are closely related (Argyle and Dean 1965). Theriault (1998) indicates intimacy between friends includes the extent to which exchanges between individuals clarify ideas communicated, express feelings, and result in understanding, listening, and endless talking. Within the shopping context, we define shopping intimacy as the need for dyadic relationships to discuss, listen, and offer support in the buying decision process. Individuals with social schemata placing high value on intimate interactions in terms of interpersonal distance and verbal/ nonverbal communications in the shopping milieu are expected to adopt a social shopping orientation. An individual with a social shopping orientation has developed a response set or mental framework that includes the presence of others while shopping. This may or may not include intimate discussion of the details of the shopping trip or that others support ones shopping decisions. However, it does follow that if one seeks intimacy in the shopping process, one is likely to have a social shopping orientation. The tenant mix for shopping malls (clothing, cosmetics, gifts) is predominantly aimed at females, suggesting women will have more well-defined life-spaces incorporating shopping mall interactions. In many ways, women are on their home turf and men are likely to learn to be more circumspect in navigating the shopping center environment. Furthermore, in keeping with the previously cited research regarding male tendencies toward control and task orientation, prior empirical studies in management and psychology confirm the tendency of females to express higher need for affiliation and intimacy and to be more relationship oriented (i.e., less task oriented) in achieving their goals (Duehr and Bono 2006; Mansfield et al. 2005; van Wagner and Swanson 1979). Prior research has also found that women are higher in hedonic motivations than are men (e.g., Arnold and Reynolds 2003; Wesley et al. 2006). Josephs et al. (1992) argue that women base self-esteem on levels of social connectedness. Therefore, women may see retail settings

796

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

as a social venue in which social interaction is a secondary, if not the primary, goal. Hence: H5: Need for shopping intimacy is positively associated with social shopping orientation. H6: Compared to males, females will have a higher (a) need for shopping intimacy, and (b) social shopping orientation. Shoppers who approach the setting as a place to socialize and interact with others are likely to frequently patronize malls as a form of entertainment or enjoyment. Hence: H7: Frequency of mall shopping is positively related with social shopping orientation. Age and shopping motives Ones life-space becomes more well-defined and less ambiguous or uncertain with age. In general, more mature individuals feel less out of control than do younger individuals, meaning they have less need to control to regain balance. Accordingly, research has shown that as individuals grow older, they have less of a need for control (Maroda 2004). Older individuals tend to reduce intimate relationships to a select few (Carr 2004). In general, studies have found that need for intimacy tends to decrease with age (e.g., Brown et al. 1986). Conversely, younger individuals have fewer experiences and exposure to various environments with less well-defined life-spaces and appropriate social schemata to manage the context. Within the shopping mall setting, we expect these tendencies to persist. H8: Age decreases the need for shopping control. H9: Age decreases the need for shopping intimacy.

mall shopping stressful. Consistent with this reasoning, Babin et al. (1994) find that the correlation between pleasure and arousal and utilitarian shopping value is substantially less than the magnitude of the correlations between these two emotions and hedonic shopping value. Despite the implications of previous research, the influence of task shopping on stress has not been empirically examined. Based on the extant evidence, we hypothesize: H10: Task shopping increases feelings of stress. The need for control is typically associated with stress. When approaching problem-solving contexts, those who are more flexible experience less stress and those more constricted in their approach feel more stressed (Hardison and Purcell 1959). Further, those who feel out of control or controlled by external circumstances are more likely to be anxious or stressed (Donovan et al. 1975). When they are facing the prospect of shopping, we expect those seeking control to feel more stress than those not seeking control. H11: Shopping control increases feelings of stress. Individuals predisposed to shop for social reasons should be more excited about shopping at the mall. Affiliation theories of human motivation (McGuire 1974), which suggest that people are cohesive and affection- and acceptanceseeking in interpersonal relationships, support social shopping as a primary orientation. Prior research in marketing has recognized the importance of social shopping motives (e.g., Reynolds and Beatty 1999; Tauber 1972). However, neither the influence of a social shopping orientation as a driver of excitement nor how social shoppers react to crowding has been examined in marketing. Studies have shown that heightened positive arousal and the seeking of high sensory stimulation are associated with recreational shopping (e.g., Prus and Dawson 1991), of which social shopping is a component. Similarly, Bloch et al. (1994) found a positive correlation between mall enthusiasts and people who shopped for social benefits. Feinberg et al. (1989) note that social motives may be particularly strong in the context of mall shopping. Together, the evidence suggests: H12: Social shopping orientation increases feelings of excitement. Intimacy in relationships is inherently associated with excitement (Livingston 1999). We expect it to be no different when shopping at the mall. H13: Shopping intimacy increases feelings of excitement. Shopping orientation and crowding The tenets of field theory and personal space research suggest perceptions of crowding result from the belief that

Shopping orientation and affect Arousal theory suggests that people desire a certain level of arousal in certain circumstances or settings (Berlyne 1960). We propose that social shoppers will experience excitement when shopping at the mall, whereas task shoppers will experience stress. A task orientation reflects a work rather than a play mentality (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Prus and Dawson (1991) find that when people described shopping as work, they used words that typically also describe stress, such as difficult, rushed, and frustrating. Task shoppers have characteristics in common with individuals that Bloch et al. (1994) classify as reluctant mall shoppers who engage in few activities while there. Many consumers who are time pressed try to avoid malls (Wakefield and Baker 1998), but this may be hard to do if the mall is the only place in which they can complete their tasks. Task shoppers may thus find

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

797

task performance is limited. Prior empirical research has found that under high density conditions, task-oriented shoppers perceive increased crowding compared to non-taskoriented shoppers (Eroglu and Machleit 1990). Similarly, individuals seeking social interaction have been found to experience less perceived crowding than do those who are not seeking interaction with others (Baum and Davis 1976; Peay and Peay 1983). Consistent with this research, we hypothesize: H14: Task shopping orientation increases perceived crowding. H15: Social shopping orientation decreases perceived crowding. Arousal due to perceptions of crowding tends to heighten the emotions of shoppers (Gaumer and LaFief 2005; Saegert et al. 1975). Thus: H16: Perceived crowding (a) increases feelings of stress and (b) reduces feelings of excitement. Patronage intentions The relationship between positive and negative affect on behavioral intentions in retail settings is well established (Szymanski and Henard 2001; Wakefield and Baker 1998; Wakefield and Blodgett 1999). Consistent with this literature we hypothesize: H17a: Stress decreases patronage intentions. H17b: Excitement increases patronage intentions.

The scenario was accompanied by pictures of the inside and outside (including the parking lot) of an unidentified shopping mall (cf., Hui and Bateson 1991), taken during a time when a moderate number of shoppers was present (see Fig. 2). After viewing the pictures and reading the scenario, respondents answered questions about perceived crowding, affective responses, and patronage intentions. In keeping with Hair et al. (2011), we analyzed the measurement model and structural model using a partial least squares approach, employing smartPLS (Ringle et al. 2005). Sample Study respondents were 300 adults from a national sample nearly evenly split according to gender (52.7% female), with median age of 39 (range 1879) and median household income of $50,00074,999. Most were married (53.3%), while 30.7% were single, and 16.0% divorced or widowed. Respondents resided in large cities of over 500,000 (34.0%), small cities under 50,000 (29.7%), and

Method Design To test the hypotheses, we implemented a quasiexperimental approach using an online survey method. The selected panel research firm maintains a database of 1.6 million adult consumers and rewards participation in surveys using drawings and cash payments. Panel members mirror national demographics, albeit skewed slightly lower in age and higher in income. Before presenting subjects with a mall shopping scenario, we measured demographics, shopping frequency, need for shopping control, need for shopping intimacy, social shopping, and task shopping orientations. The scenario instructions were: You are going shopping on a Saturday morning at 11:00 am. You are at the shopping center you are viewing. Your plan is to shop and get something to eat. Please view the scenes imagining you are there.

Fig. 2 Exterior and interior depiction of shopping center

798

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

were otherwise distributed across city sizes in-between (36.3%). Similar to other studies (e.g., Nicholls et al. 2002), our measure of shopping frequency revealed that relatively few respondents patronized shopping centers on a weekly basis (23.3%). The remaining respondents visit once (20.3%), twice (18.3%), three times (12.7%), or less than once a month (25.3%). None of the constructs measured differed significantly according to city size, income, or marital status. Measures Table 1 contains all of the items (7-point scales) used in this study. Excitement (a=.94) and stress (a=.95) were drawn from Russell and Pratts (1980) work on environmentrelated affect. Perceived crowding (a=.95) was measured with items based on Hui and Bateson (1991). Arnold and Reynolds (2003) measure of social shopping (a=.85) was adapted to focus on the experience with shopping companions. Patronage intention (a=.92) was measured with scales common to retailing and services (cf., Stafford 1996). Based upon Mehrabian and Russells (1974) assessment of dominance, we developed a scale measuring the need for shopping control emphasizing control, influence, dominance, autonomy, and being in charge within the shopping setting (a=.82). Need for shopping intimacy was based on an overview of the intimacy literature in social psychology, adapted for the context of shopping. Similar to LevyTossman et al. (2007) assessment of friendship intimacy, we focused on the importance the subject placed on listening, discussing, talking, supporting, and offering opinions, specifically regarding purchases and shopping (a=.93). Researchers have shown interest in assessing psychological traits of employees with respect to task versus interaction orientations. Drawing from this field of study, work conducted by Ray (1973) provides the basis for our task shopping scale. Rays 27-item scale captures the breadth of characteristics of an individual who is task-oriented across a variety of contexts. Following a pretest including the other scales used in this study, we selected six items amenable to adaptation to a mall shopping context. The resulting scale was reliable (a=.85). In addition to the Cronbach alpha scores, Table 1 contains the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) and descriptive data for each construct. Demonstrating reliability, all values for CR are acceptable (ranging from .89 to .96), as are the AVE values (ranging from .58 to .84). Furthermore, evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981) is shown in Table 2, in that the square root of the AVE for each construct is greater than the squared correlations with the other constructs. Table 3 provides the factor loadings and cross loadings. Each item loads higher on its respective

construct than on any other, offering further support for the measurement model.

Results A bootstrapping procedure using 500 re-samples of the dataset (N=300) was applied prior to running the PLS algorithm and estimating the structural model. Gender was coded as a dummy variable, and the results reflect the appropriate sign or direction of the gender effects. The results of the model estimation are shown in Table 4. Overall, the model explains 42.4% of the variance in patronage intentions, 68.6% of stress, 25.5% of excitement, 12.8% of perceived crowding, 30.9% of social shopping, and 27.0% of task shopping. The demographics (gender and age) alone explain 5.2% of the variance in shopping control and 7.5% of the variance in shopping intimacy. The results of the structural model largely support our hypotheses, with exceptions as noted. As expected, social shopping orientation is negatively related to task shopping orientation (H1, .309, t=5.61) support H1. Those feeling a greater need to control the shopping experience were prone to be task shoppers, supporting H2 (.304, t=3.84). Furthermore, males tended to seek shopping control (H3a, .138, t=2.26) and were more likely to be oriented toward task shopping (H3b, .196, t=3.67). Less frequent mall shoppers were also prone to be task shoppers (H4, .130, t=2.34). In contrast, we expected females to be prone to seek shopping intimacy, but this effect was not significant (H6a, .074, t=1.35). However, females were more likely to be social shoppers (H6b, .150, t=3.13), and shopping intimacy strongly influenced social shopping orientation (H5, .513, t=10.53). As expected, those who more frequently shop at malls were more likely to have a social shopping orientation (H7, .094, t=1.78). Age was inversely related to the need for shopping control (H8, .193, 2.21) and shopping intimacy (H9, .259, t=4.71). We expected the general relationships between task orientation and the need for control with feelings of stress to have direct effects within the shopping environment. This was not the case, as increased task shopping orientation had a positive, but not significant, relationship with stress (H10, .066, t=1.39). The need for shopping control had no significant relationship with feelings of stress associated with the mall scenario (H11, .015, t=0.42). Within the data, shopping control is correlated with stress (r=.113, p=.05), as is task shopping (r=.307, p<.01). However, as we see shortly, the effects of perceived crowding are so strong on feelings of stress (H16a) that these factors do not explain any additional variance in the structural model.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Table 1 Constructs, descriptives, and reliabilities
Item Mean(Std) Cronbach Alpha Shopping Control (When I shop with others:) con1 I like to be in charge. con2 I like to influence what we do. con3 I like to dominate. con4 I like to be in control. con5 I like to be autonomous. Shopping Intimacy (When or while you shop, how important is it to you:) si1 si2 si3 si4 si5 si6 ss1 ss2 ss3 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 p1 p2 p3 p4 To listen to what friends or family say as they discuss each purchase? That friends or family listen to your feelings about what you buy? That friends or family are supportive of what you buy or where you want to shop? That friends or family are there to offer their opinions about what youre thinking about buying? That friends or family care what you think about products, brands, or stores? Social Shopping Orientation I enjoy interacting with others when I shop. Shopping with others is a bonding experience. When I shop, I really enjoy the social interaction that I experience with others. Task-Shopping Orientation The first task of shopping for me is to get done. 4.54 (1.95) You should concentrate on getting the shopping done rather than looking around at whatever 3.56 (1.88) else catches your fancy. I am happiest when I get done shopping. 4.71 (1.90) What gets done is more important than how pleasantly it gets done when you shop. My primary aim in shopping is to complete the trip as planned. The best people to shop with are people who help you get done. Perceived Crowding Stuffy Cramped Crowded Restricted Confined Excitement Exhilarating Sensational Stimulating Exciting Interesting Stress Frenzied Tense Hectic Panicky Rushed Patronage Intention Not at allVery frequent Not at all likelyVery likely Not probableVery probable ImpossibleVery possible 4.08 (1.52) 4.30 (1.66) 4.43 (1.63) 4.51 (1.78) 3.22 (1.94) 3.05 (1.88) 3.45 (1.96) 2.57 (1.72) 3.16 (1.95) .920 .806 .934 3.18 (1.62) 3.06 (1.56) 3.53 (1.63) 3.51 (1.68) 4.21 (1.69) .951 .838 .963 2.81 (1.83) 3.01 (1.92) 3.91 (2.07) 2.92 (1.81) 2.85 (1.87) .945 .821 .956 3.40 (1.81) 4.79 (1.75) 4.72 (1.72) .949 .834 .962 4.07 (1.76) 3.95 (1.74) 4.07 (1.69) .852 .579 .891 3.63 (1.67) 3.60 (1.69) 3.73 (1.73 3.62 (1.70) 3.59 (1.66) .854 .775 .911 3.28 (1.81) 3.87 (1.58) 3.32 (1.77) 3.63 (1.71) 2.94 (1.66) .931 .745 .946 .829 AVE Composite Reliability .604 .882

799

To be able to talk through decisions about products, brands or stores with friends or family? 3.90 (1.64)

800

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

Table 2 Discriminant validity: comparison of AVE with squared correlations with other latent constructs Shopping Control Shopping Control Perceived Crowding Excitement Shopping Intimacy Patronage Intention Social Shopping Stress Task Shopping .604 .018 .008 .050 .002 .001 .015 .085 Perceived Crowding Excitement Shopping Intimacy Patronage Intention Social Shopping Stress Task Shopping

.834 .039 .003 .148 .077 .695 .101 .821 .165 .351 .191 .029 .069

.744 .070 .270 .004 .056 .806 .175 .135 .084 .774 .080 .126

.837 .111

.579

As anticipated, a persons shopping orientation influenced perceived crowding and feelings toward the mall. Social shopping was positively related to excitement (H12, .286, t= 4.33), as was shopping intimacy (H13, .263, t=4.18). Those with greater task shopping tendencies perceived the slides as depicting a more crowded shopping environment (H14, .258, t=4.48), while those with more of a social shopping orientation viewed the setting as less crowded (H15, .179, t=2.96). Perceived crowding strongly increased feelings of stress (H16a, .807, t=29.00) and dampened feelings of excitement (H16b, .093, t=1.78). In turn, stress reduced patronage intentions (H17a, .273, t=5.73), while excitement strongly influenced intentions to patronize the mall (H17b, .550, t=13.39). In summary, the findings support the linkages associated with a positive life-space including shopping intimacy, social shopping, (less) perceived crowding, excitement, and patronage at the mall for some. Along parallel lines, but from a negative life-space perspective, the results confirm that the path from shopping control, to task shopping, to perceived crowding leads to stress and a desire to avoid the mall for others. Further, the path to excitement at the mall is apt to be walked by younger females while stress comes to those younger males more likely to seek shopping control and approach their infrequent trips to the mall as a set of tasks to be completed.

control tend to perceive density as crowding, and in turn feel stressed. Social shoppers, who tend to have a higher need for intimacy, perceive density positively, and feel excited. We also show that age and gender differences help characterize those who seek control in the shopping experience in order to complete the shopping task and those seeking affiliation in the mall shopping experience. Further, frequent mall shoppers tend to be socially oriented, while infrequent patrons are prone to be task oriented. Theoretical implications Researchers in marketing have established the existence of task and recreational shoppers (e.g., Arnold and Reynolds 2003; Babin et al. 1994). Our study extends this research in two ways. First, we focused on the social shopper, a type of recreational shopper not previously examined in depth. Because shopping for frequent mall customers is a social activity (Darden and Dorsch 1990) this shopper type should receive more attention in retail models. Second, integrating tenets of field theory, motivational theory and personal space theory allowed us to identify the deeper motivations of shopping control and shopping intimacy that appear to influence the tendency of consumers to be either a task or social shopper. In particular, research on personal space theory has been limited in marketing, but it appears to have potential to add insight to our discipline. We found social shopping and task shopping tendencies run counter to each other. Further analysis revealed that 30.3% of the sample identify themselves as highly motivated social shoppers (5.0 average on the 7-point scales). Slightly larger is the number (34.3%) who identify themselves as having high task-shopping tendencies (5.0 on the 7-point scales). As we would expect from the negative relationship between the variables, very few (3.3%) identify themselves as both social and task shoppers. Hence, these shopping tendencies represent distinct

Discussion and future research directions Our results contribute valuable insights to the shopping orientation and retail crowding literatures. The finding that task and social shopping orientations are influenced by deeper motives for control and intimacy help to explain why two individuals in a retail setting view the same density differently. Task shoppers with a higher need for

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Table 3 Loadings and cross loadings Shopping Control con1 con2 con3 con4 con5 si1 si2 si3 si4 si5 si6 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 ss1 ss2 ss3 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 p1 p2 p3 p4 .851 .711 .849 .876 .551 .135 .216 .198 .235 .157 .217 .172 .261 .144 .292 .172 .266 .034 .038 .025 .105 .132 .103 .156 .117 .114 .106 .098 .120 .123 .102 .079 .071 .095 .055 .038 .041 .037 .041 Shopping Intimacy .176 .378 .284 .216 .073 .816 .854 .889 .870 .862 .884 .246 .211 .187 .130 .244 .054 .428 .480 .462 .047 .020 .127 .037 .040 .039 .046 .095 .022 .084 .339 .343 .393 .394 .361 .262 .210 .271 .196 Task Shopping .199 .059 .137 .207 .425 .296 .204 .215 .193 .196 .122 .818 .803 .795 .659 .799 .676 .285 .330 .321 .288 .248 .311 .332 .275 .288 .337 .305 .285 .305 .211 .184 .291 .284 .205 .317 .240 .284 .183 Social Shopping .042 .254 .031 .063 .126 .440 .434 .486 .461 .445 .421 .307 .301 .270 .296 .307 .118 .854 .866 .919 .262 .251 .251 .262 .245 .267 .277 .282 .222 .249 .388 .373 .421 .405 .384 .403 .361 .415 .310 Perceived Crowding .076 .103 .142 .071 .126 .085 .050 .083 .075 .004 .004 .240 .264 .239 .235 .203 .264 .281 .241 .216 .923 .939 .823 .938 .938 .730 .773 .761 .746 .803 .146 .114 .149 .181 .283 .329 .370 .378 .295 Stress Excitement

801

Patronage .027 .076 .077 .040 .043 .251 .219 .283 .227 .187 .199 .255 .258 .255 .213 .243 .084 .399 .350 .358 .388 .332 .283 .371 .376 .340 .364 .329 .339 .311 .467 .495 .571 .528 .600 .848 .938 .930 .873

.060 .091 .169 .070 .081 .090 .035 .102 .055 .033 .010 .250 .274 .254 .278 .201 .248 .289 .247 .215 .771 .778 .690 .802 .760 .900 .946 .922 .888 .920 .116 .097 .129 .163 .248 .280 .378 .363 .294

.039 .241 .179 .045 .069 .304 .375 .338 .372 .360 .348 .274 .215 .149 .132 .255 .166 .337 .412 .400 .187 .135 .187 .188 .201 .119 .201 .160 .153 .143 .916 .905 .915 .952 .840 .613 .545 .528 .412

segments with distinguishing responses to the shopping setting. These findings are consistent with studies in developmental psychology finding that individuals prone to social comparison and social goals are less task oriented (Leondari and Gonida 2007; Midgley et al. 1995). Furthermore, while completing a task can result in positive affect (Kish et al. 1977), we have shown that shoppers with

a task shopping orientation can be stressed and under what conditions the stress might be exacerbated. Our results provide evidence to support the few studies that have found positive aspects of human density by showing that it can lead to excitement among a specific group of shoppers. This has theoretical implications for crowding research because prior studies have emphasized

802 Table 4 Results Hyp H1 H2 H3a H3b H4 H5 H6a H6b H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16a H16b H17a H17b Path Social shopping Shopping control Males Males Shopping frequency Shopping intimacy Females Females Shopping frequency Age Age Task shopping Shopping control Social shopping Shopping intimacy Task shopping Social shopping Perceived crowding Perceived crowding Stress Excitement

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

Coeff Task shopping Task shopping Shopping control Task shopping Task shopping Social shopping Shopping intimacy Social shopping Social shopping Shopping control Shopping intimacy Stress Stress Excitement Excitement Perceived crowding Perceived crowding Stress Excitement Patronage intentions Patronage intentions .309 .304 .138 .196 .130 .513 .074 .150 .094 .193 .259 .066 .015 .286 .263 .258 .179 .807 .093 .273 .550

t-value 5.61 3.84 2.26 3.67 2.34 10.53 1.35 3.13 1.78 2.21 4.71 1.39 0.42 4.33 4.18 4.48 2.96 29.00 1.78 5.73 13.39

individuals negative affective responses to densely populated physical environments (e.g., Eroglu and Machleit 1990; Hui and Bateson 1991; Noone and Mattila 2009; Stokols 1972). Future research should continue to explore the factors that lead people to view human density as positive, and perhaps as desirable. Finally, affective response is often studied on a displeasurepleasure continuum. We examined two relative extremes of (dis)pleasure in the presence of high arousal in the forms of stress and excitement. While affect has been an important part of any number of marketing models, there has been little research related to different levels of pleasure tied to high levels of arousal. Future work may find that stress and excitement are more predictive of consumer behaviors than relatively moderate levels of pleasure absent arousal. Managerial implications Beasty (2005) notes that retailers need to be more creative in designing experiences that attract both task-oriented buyers and those shopping for social reasons. For managers, building excitement for social shoppers while minimizing stress felt by task shoppers, particularly in a crowded venue, is a challenging proposition. Being able to identify the who and why associated with task and social shoppers should help managers develop strategies to meet this challenge.

Task shoppers In our study, males, particularly young men, tended to seek control and characterize themselves as task shoppers. We found that due to a need for control, these shoppers perceive a given level of density as crowded, consequently feel stressed, and are less likely to patronize the mall. The basic strategy for marketing to this group would be to give more actual or perceived control to the customer in the retail setting. This has implications for marketing activities such as advertising, mall design, and the use of technology. In order to attract task-oriented shoppers, retailers could utilize advertising to suggest how shoppers might control the mall experience, thereby decreasing stress. For example, ads could focus on shopping during less crowded times and specifically mention when those times are (e.g., to attract males, place an ad in the newspapers sports section suggesting Shop from 6:00 pm until 9:00 pm weekdays to avoid crowds). It would also be important for ads targeting this group to focus on decreasing stress as opposed to increasing enjoyment in the shopping experience. Access control may be an important issue for task shoppers because it could help them to complete their goals more easily. For example, some department stores at malls locate their mens departments at street level entrances, which can facilitate the goals of task shoppers who can park, enter, and exit quicklyrather than being forced to walk through the womens lingerie or shoe department to

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806

803

the escalator to the upper or lower floors, as happens in other stores. Similarly, lifestyle shopping centers that mirror main streets can increase the perception of shopping control. This venue might be more effective for retailers in attracting male shoppers than being located in a mall. North American malls and tenants have been slow to react to the pressures of Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Target that facilitate task-oriented shopping with self check-out and online order and pick-up services (cf., Van Riper 2009). These strategies could speed up the shopping process, increase control, and limit social interaction for task shoppers. In addition, malls and/or retailers could install kiosks (similar to the ones most airlines now use) for finding items or providing helpful product information for this group. Social shoppers Our research also highlights the importance of the social side of shopping for some customers. In our study, these shoppers tended to be female and young. Social shoppers tend to enjoy shopping and thus should be relatively easier than task shoppers for malls to attract. However, in many markets competition is strong because shoppers have access to multiple malls. Therefore, strategies for increasing share of wallet are critical. Implications for attracting and keeping this group include tenant mix and advertising. Paying attention to the social context of a retail encounter should help malls more effectively plan and manage tenant mix. The typical tenant mix and the structural layout of food courts in malls, for instance, do little to facilitate an intimate social interchange ( la Starbucks) that would appeal to social shoppers who want to combine a leisurely lunch with shopping. Further, while food courts allow task shoppers to quickly obtain food, they must do so in what are often cramped spaces and with no privacy from others. These dual drawbacks may in part explain the popularity of shopping centers with a healthy mix of sit-down restaurants, coffee shops, and cafes in addition to fast food. An approach used outside of North America aimed at appealing to social shoppers is to more purposefully make the mall a place to shop and play. While the worlds ten largest malls in 2004 included five U.S. malls, the 2009 top ten list included only one and featured new malls in the Middle East and Asia that include hotels, windmills, swimming pools, aquariums, roller coasters, and theme parks that make for more of an attraction destination (see Van Riper 2009). Whether certain economic (e.g., prevalence of mass transit) or cultural (family structure) issues make this approach more viable outside of North America is an issue for further research. Our findings suggest that advertising to social shoppers should highlight the opportunities for social interaction and the presence of others at the mall. For example, ads placed in young womens magazines could use text and pictures to play

up the social aspects of shopping, such as enjoying social intimacy within a crowded setting, or interacting with friends or salespeople. Aspects of task shopping, such as convenience, may not be as effective in attracting social shoppers. A risk is that individuals from either shopping camp may respond negatively to appeals targeted to the opposing shopper segment. However, a mall or individual store could simultaneously implement strategies for both groups without detracting from either through effective promotion strategies and appropriate shopping center design. For example, retailers might target social shoppers with a brick-and-mortar store sale to generate crowds, but they could also offer a simultaneous online promotion aimed at task shoppers (i.e., Best Buy has offered an additional 5% discount to buy online during the holiday sales) so they can avoid the mall. With respect to design and tenant layout, another example might be the case in which a mall has a food court in addition to sit-down restaurants. The mall could locate the food court near stores where men shop to be convenient and quick for these likely to be task shoppers and locate the sit-down restaurants near department stores, or stores targeted toward women, who tend to focus on social aspects of shopping.

Limitations and future research First, we acknowledge several limitations inherent in our research. The virtual method we used to place shoppers in the mall setting allowed us to control density and experimental noise. However, this method may limit the generalizability of our findings to actual settings. Future research would benefit from observing or recording reactions to perceived density at the point of approach or exit of shopping centers and could provide a more accurate picture of reactions to perceived density. Furthermore, different shopping contexts (discount versus upscale tenant mix) or other individual factors that we did not examine (e.g., culture) may interact to alter reactions to the presence of others during a shopping trip. Future research might explore other conditions that may affect customers responses to density to verify the veracity of the effects found in this study. Other tenant mix situations (e.g., clothing-dominated malls versus hardware/electronics-dominated shopping centers), individual differences (e.g., susceptibility to interpersonal influence) and retail/service type (goodsbased versus service-based; including shopping at grocery stores or health care services). Finally, the type of people or clientele that make up a crowd may determine how customers respond to density. For example, individuals may react differently to crowds perceived to consist of individuals similar to self (e.g., fans at a sporting event) compared to crowds perceived as dissimilar (cf., Bryne, London and Reeves 1968).

804

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Bloch, P. H., Ridgway, N. M., & Dawson, S. A. (1994). The shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 2342. Boggs, L. P. (1904). An experimental study of physiological accompaniments of feeling. Psychological Review, 11, 223248. Brown, B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group (crowd) affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9, 7396. Bryne, D., London, O. & Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex, and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality, 36, 259271. Carr, D. (2004). The desire to date and remarry among older widows and widowers. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 10511068. dAstous, A. (2000). Irritating aspects of the shopping environment. Journal of Business Research, 49, 149156. Darden, W. R., & Dorsch, M. J. (1990). An action strategy approach to examining shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 21, 289308. Dawson, S., Bloch, P. H., & Ridgway, N. M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66(4), 408427. Diehl, M., & Hay, E. L. (2010). Risk and resilience factors in coping with daily stress in adulthood: the role of age, self-concept incoherence, and personal control. Developmental Psychology, 46, 11321146. Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the internet: gender differences in on-line and conventional buying motivations. Sex Roles, 50(5/6), 423444. Donovan, D. M., Smyth, L., Paige, A. B., & OLeary, M. R. (1975). Relationships among locus of control, self-concept, and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(4), 682684. Duehr, E. E., & Bono, J. E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: are stereotypes finally changing. Personnel Psychology, 59, 815 846. Eroglu, S., & Harrell, G. D. (1986). Retail crowding: theoretical and strategic implications. Journal of Retailing, 62, 346364. Eroglu, S., & Machleit, K. A. (1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 66, 201222. Eroglu, S., Machleit, K. A., & Barr, T. F. (2005). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: the role of shopping value. Journal of Business Research, 58, 11461153. Feinberg, R. A., Sheffler, B., Meoli, J., & Rummel, A. (1989). Theres something social happening at the mall. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(1), 4963. Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950. Gaumer, C. J., & LaFief, W. C. (2005). Social facilitation: affect and application in consumer buying situations. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 11(1), 7582. Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., & Lee, S. (1988). Personal control as a mediator between perceptions of supervisory behaviors and employee reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 405417. Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M., & Voss, G. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores. Journal of Retailing, 79(4), 259268. Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., & Lapidus, R. S. (1990). Environmental dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of Business Research, 21(3), 225241. Guthrie, J. P., Coate, C. J., & Schwoerer, C. E. (1998). Career management strategies: the role of personality. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13(5/6), 371386.

Future studies in consumption environments should take into account the likelihood of both positive and negative consequences of perceived human density, particularly in venues where a high level of social interaction is expected or sought by patrons. The lack of empirical research attention to the positive aspects of retail density suggests that this perspective offers an important and interesting avenue to pursue in the future. Other retailers, such as discounters, need to better understand the antecedents to and consequences of positive responses to density. Theoretically, perceived crowding has been cast as a negative psychological response to human density in a setting. Consequently, measures contain a negative valence (cramped, crowded, restricted, etc.) strongly associated with negative affect (stress), as demonstrated in this study. While perceived crowding and stress are conceptually distinct (Stokols 1972), future research may benefit from focusing more on the effects of human density (the disparity between space available and space demanded or deemed adequate) on stress in shopping settings. The shopping motivations of control and intimacy could be investigated further. Future studies might investigate the role of these motivations outside the realm of crowding. For example, how might knowledge of these consumer motivations be used to develop sales strategies for sales associates? What other retail outcomes might be influenced by these motivations (e.g., value, commitment)?

References
Altman, G. (1975). The environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye-contact, distance and affiliation. Sociometry, 28, 289304. Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing, 79, 7795. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 644656. Baker, J. (1987). The role of the environment in marketing services: The consumer perspective. In J. Czepiel, C. Congram, & J. Shanahan (Eds.), The services challenge: Integrating for competitive advantage (pp. 7984). Chicago: American Marketing Association proceedings series. Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 271282. Baum, A. R., & Davis, G. E. (1976). Spatial and social aspects of crowding perception. Environment and Behavior, 8, 527544. Beasty, C. (2005), The Ideal Shopping Experience, www.destina tioncrm.com, January 24. Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 58, 5881. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139151. Hall, E. T. (1964). Silent assumptions in social communication. Disorders of Communication, 42, 4155. Hardison, J., & Purcell, K. (1959). The effects of psychological stress as a function of need and cognitive control. Journal of Personality, 27(2), 250258. Harrell, G. D., & Hutt, M. D. (1976). Crowding in retail stores. MSU Business Topics, 24, 3339. Harrell, G. D., Hutt, M. D., & Anderson, J. C. (1980). Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 4551. Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46, 92101. Hui, M. K., & Bateson, J. E. G. (1991). Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174185. Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992). Gender and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 391402. Kish, G. B., Woody, M. M., & Frankel, A. (1977). The development of a scale to measure task completion motivation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(1), 133138. Kuethe, J. L. (1962). Social schemas and the reconstruction of social object displays from memory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 71742. Langer, E. J. (1983). The psychology of control. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer. Leondari, A., & Gonida, E. (2007). Predicting academic selfhandicapping in different age groups: the role of personal achievement goals and social goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 595611. Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles and friendship among early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231252. Lewin, K. (1935). Psycho-sociological Problems of a Minority Group. Character and Personality, III, I75187. 2I. Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: concepts and methods. The American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868896. Livingston, J. A. (1999). Something old and something new: love, creativity, and the enduring relationship. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 99(63), 4052. Machleit, K. A., Kellaris, J. J., & Eroglu, S. A. (1994). Human vs. spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: a note on their measurement and effect on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 5(2), 183194. Machleit, K. A., Eroglu, S. A., & Mantel, S. P. (2000). Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: what modifies this relationship? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 2942. Mansfield, A. K., Addis, M. E., & Courtenay, W. (2005). Measurement of mens help seeking: development and evaluation of the barriers to help seeking scale. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 95108. Maroda, K. J. (2004). A relational perspective on women and power. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 21, 428435. Matthews, G., & Campbell, S. E. (2009). Sustained performance under overload: personality and individual differences in stress and coping. Theoretical issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(5), 417442. McClelland, D. C. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton. McClelland, D. C., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the Great Motivator. Harvard Business Review (1976), 101108.

805 McGuire, W. J. (1974). Psychological motives and communication gratification. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 167196). Beverly Hills: Sage. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT. Menz, F. C., & Mullen, J. K. (1981). Expected encounters and willingness to pay for outdoor recreation. Land Economics, 57 (1), 3340. Midgley, C., Anderman, E. M., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90113. Nanney, R. C. (2009). Dead Malls: Suburban Planning Nightmare or Opportunity? www.buildingplace.com, May 25. Nicholls, J. A. F., Li, F., Kranendonk, C. J., & Roslow, S. (2002). The seven year itch? Mall shoppers across time. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 149165. Noone, B. M., & Mattila, A. S. (2009). Consumer reaction to crowding for extended service encounters. Managing Service Quality, 19(1), 3141. Otnes, C., & McGrath, M. A. (2001). Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77, 111137. Peay, M. Y., & Peay, E. R. (1983). The effects of density, group size, and crowding on behavior in an unstructured situation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 1318. Pedersen, D. M., & Shears, L. M. (1973). A review of personal space research in the framework of general systems theory. Psychological Bulletin, 80(5), 367388. Pons, F., & Laroche, M. M. (2007). Cross-cultural differences in crowd assessment. Journal of Business Research, 60(3), 269276. Pons, F., Laroche, M. M., & Mourali, M. (2006). Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: cross-cultural differences between North American and the Middle East. Psychology and Marketing, 23(7), 555572. Prus, R., & Dawson, L. (1991). Shop til you drop: shopping as recreational and laborious activity. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 16(2), 145164. Ray, J. J. (1973). Task orientation and interaction orientation scales. Personnel Psychology, 26, 6173. Reynolds, K. E., & Beatty, S. E. (1999). A relationship customer typology. Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 509523. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0, Hamburg, http://www.smartpls.de. Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality attributed to environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 311322. Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality attributed to environments. Environment and Behavior, 13(3), 259288. Saegert, S., Mackintosh, E., & West, S. (1975). Two studies of crowding in urban public space. Environment and Behavior, 7, 159184. Smith, A. D., & Rupp, W. T. (2003). Strategic online customer decision making: leveraging the transformational power of the internet. Online Information Review, 27(6), 418432. Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry, 22, 247 260. Sommer, R. (1965). Further studies in small group ecology. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 145152. Sommer, R. (1967). Small group ecology. Sociometry, 28, 337348. Stafford, M. R. (1996). Tangibility in services advertising: an investigation of verbal versus visual cues. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1328. Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. (1995). Leadership for self-managing work teams: a typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 747770.

806 Stokols, D. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79, 275277. Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 1635. Tamir, M., Chiu, C.-Y., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Business or pleasure? Utilitarian versus hedonic considerations in emotion regulation. Emotion, 7, 546554. Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 4659. Thriault, J. (1998). Assessing intimacy with the best friend and the sexual partner during adolescence: the PAIR-M inventory. The Journal of Psychology, 132(5), 493506. Vachon, D. D., & Bagby, M. R. (2009). Pathological gambling subtypes. Psychological Assessment, 21, 608615. Van Riper, T. (2009). The Worlds Largest Malls, Forbes.com, (January 15).

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2012) 40:791806 Van Wagner, K., & Swanson, C. (1979). From Machiavelli to Ms: differences in male-female power styles. Public Administration Review, 39, 6672. Wakefield, K. L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74, 515539. Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1999). Customer response to intangible and tangible service factors. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 5168. Wesley, S. C., LeHew, M. A., & Woodside, A. (2006). Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping behavior: building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method. Journal of Business Research, 59(5), 535548. Westbrook, R. A., & Black, W. C. (1985). A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 61, 78103. Worchel, S., & Yohai, S. M. L. (1979). The role of attribution in the experience of crowding. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 91104.