Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Marketing, John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Department of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Abstract
Given the increasing importance of entertainment as a retailing strategy, this study identifies a comprehensive inventory of consumers
hedonic shopping motivations. Based on exploratory qualitative and quantitative studies, a six-factor scale is developed that consists of
adventure, gratification, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations. Using the six-factor hedonic shopping motivation profiles, a cluster
analysis of adult consumers reveals five shopper segments, called here the Minimalists, the Gatherers, the Providers, the Enthusiasts, and the
Traditionalists. The utility of the proposed scale is discussed both for future research and retail strategy.
2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hedonic shopping; Scale development; Shopping motivations; Hedonic consumption; Retail strategy; Shopper segments
Over the years, retailers have been buffeted by a number of macro-environmental forces that have changed the
landscape of the industry. These include the spread of mass
discounters, the proliferation of suburban power centers
and lifestyle retailing formats, and the recent arrival of the
Internet as an alternative retail platform offering consumers
unparalleled convenience. For example, the July 1998 cover
of Time magazine predicted the demise of the shopping
mall: Kiss Your Mall Good-Bye: Online Shopping is
Cheaper, Quicker and Better.
In this environment it is no longer enough for a retailer to
operate in a conventional manner by enticing customers with
broad assortments, low pricing, and extended store hours.
The entertainment aspect of retailing, or entertailing, is increasingly being recognized as a key competitive tool. Many
retailers are responding to the threat of Internet-based shopping by leveraging the brick-and-mortar advantages that
virtual retailers cannot match: higher levels of service, highly
trained staff, and an entertaining and fun retail environment
(Burke, 1997; Cope, 1996; Wakefield & Baker, 1998). Retailers from supermarkets to video stores are sporting new
and exciting ideas, such as animatronic farm animals, butter
churning contests, and roaming face painters and childrens
performers (Buss, 1997). In fact, in this evolving retail
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-314-977-3612 (Office)/3868 (Department); fax: +1-314-977-1481.
E-mail address: arnoldm2@slu.edu (M.J. Arnold).
0022-4359/03/$ see front matter 2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1
78
79
80
disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two marketing faculty members familiar with the topic area evaluated
the motivations (accompanied by illustrative quotes from
the data) and the corresponding conceptual definitions for
content validity.
Qualitative results and domain definitions
Six broad categories of hedonic shopping motivations
emerged from the data. Appendix A illustrates sample comments from informants for each of the six categories which
we have labeled as the following: adventure shopping, social shopping, gratification shopping, idea shopping,
role shopping, and value shopping. Each of these motivations is briefly defined and discussed in light of theoretical explanations of human motivation and prior research
findings.
Adventure shopping
The first category is labeled adventure shopping, which
refers to shopping for stimulation, adventure, and the feeling
of being in another world. A significant number of respondents reported that they go shopping for the sheer excitement and adventure of the shopping trip. These informants
often described the shopping experience in terms of adventure, thrills, stimulation, excitement, and entering a different
universe of exciting sights, smells, and sounds.
Adventure shopping is grounded in stimulation theories (e.g., Berlyne, 1969) and expressive theories (e.g.,
Huizinga, 1970; see also Sherry, 1990) of human motivation as described by McGuire (1974). These theories
are externally oriented, and stress the need for stimulation and self-expression through play and creativity among
human organisms. Adventure shopping is also similar to
prior findings which show that shoppers often seek sensory
stimulation while shopping. For example, Tauber (1972),
Westbrook and Black (1985) uncovered the personal shopping motive of sensory stimulation, Babin et al. (1994)
refer to adventurous aspects of shopping as a factor that
may produce hedonic shopping value, and Jarboe and
McDaniel (1987) identified shoppers (labeled browsers)
who enjoyed exploring and window shopping.
Social shopping
A second category is labeled social shopping, which
refers to the enjoyment of shopping with friends and family, socializing while shopping, and bonding with others
while shopping. Respondents mentioned quite frequently
that shopping is a way to spend time with friends and/or
family members. Some respondents stated that they just enjoy socializing with others while shopping and that shopping
gives them a chance to bond with other shoppers.
Social shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of affiliation theories of human motivation (e.g.,
Sorokin, 1950), which collectively focus on people being
altruistic, cohesive, and seeking acceptance and affection in
interpersonal relationships. A significant amount of prior research has uncovered social aspects of shopping motivation.
Stone (1954) first identified a personalizing shopper, one
who seeks personal relationships while shopping, whereas
Moschis (1976) acknowledged a psychosocializing shopper. Tauber (1972) also recognized that shoppers desire
social interaction outside the home, communicating with
others having similar interests, and affiliating with reference
groups. In addition, Westbrook and Black (1985) identified
affiliation as a shopping motivation, and Reynolds and
Beatty (1999) discuss social motivations for shopping.
Gratification shopping
A third category is labeled gratification shopping, which
involves shopping for stress relief, shopping to alleviate a
negative mood, and shopping as a special treat to oneself.
Several respondents admitted that they go shopping to relieve stress or to forget about their problems. Other informants view the shopping experience as a way to wind down,
relax, improve a negative mood, or just treat themselves.
Gratification shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974)
collection of tension-reduction theories of human motivation
(e.g., Freud, 1933), which suggests that humans are motivated to act is such a way as to reduce tension, thereby maintaining inner equilibrium and returning the self to a state
of homeostasis. Babin et al. (1994) recognized the value
of shopping as a self-gratifying, escapist, and therapeutic
activity, describing respondents who view shopping as a
pick-me-up and a lift when they feel depressed. Tauber
(1972) also identified the self-gratifying benefits of shopping, such that the process of shopping to make the shopper
feel better. Finally, shopping has been acknowledged in the
literature as a form of emotion-focused coping in response
to stressful events or simply to get ones mind off a problem
(Lee, Moschis, & Mathur, 2001).
Idea shopping
A fourth category we label idea shopping, which refers
to shopping to keep up with trends and new fashions, and to
see new products and innovations. A significant number of
both females and males reported that they shop to keep up
with the latest trends and fashions. Other informants describe
shopping as a way to keep abreast with new products and
innovations that are available.
Idea shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection
of categorization theories, which collectively attempt to explain the human need for structure, order, and knowledge, as
well as objectification theories (e.g., Festinger, 1954), which
view the human as needing external guidelines and information in an attempt to make sense of himself. This motivation
corresponds with Taubers (1972) personal shopping motive
of learning about new trends and keeping informed about the
latest trends in fashion, styling, or innovations. Some consumers may enjoy browsing to obtain information as an end
in itself, not to make a particular purchase (Bloch, Ridgway,
& Sherrell, 1989). Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway (1986)
describe pleasure and recreationhaving fun and experiencing positive affectas a motive for ongoing search (information gathering independent of a specific purchase need or
decision). Thus, for these consumers, ongoing search represents a leisure pursuit as an end goal (Punj & Staelin,
1983).
Role shopping
A fifth category of shopping motivations is labeled role
shopping, which reflects the enjoyment that shoppers derive
from shopping for others, the influence that this activity has
on the shoppers feelings and moods, and the excitement and
intrinsic joy felt by shoppers when finding the perfect gift
for others. Many respondents talked about the enjoyment
they obtain from shopping for other people, explaining that
shopping for their friends and family is very important to
them and that it makes them feel good. Some respondents
described the positive feelings they get from finding the
perfect gift for someone.
Role shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of identification theories of human motivation (e.g.,
Goffman, 1959), whereby people are motivated by the perceived roles they may be playing at any given time. In
essence, people seek ego enhancement to their self-concepts
through the addition of satisfying roles and acting out the
roles responsibilities. This motive is related to Taubers
(1972) personal motive of role playing, in which the process of shopping produces positive effects for people who
view it as part of their social role. It also closely corresponds to Westbrook and Blacks (1985) role enactment,
which describes the drive to fulfill culturally prescribed
roles regarding shopping. Babin et al. (1994) explain how
some consumers can view shopping as a duty, but enjoy
the experience and obtain hedonic value from the process.
Further, other researchers have discussed how, for some
consumers (especially women), shopping is an expression
of love (cf. Miller, 1998; Otnes & McGrath, 2001).
Value shopping
The final category is labeled value shopping, which
refers to shopping for sales, looking for discounts, and hunting for bargains. Many of our respondents talked about how
they enjoyed hunting for bargains, looking for sales, and
finding discounts or low prices, almost as if shopping is a
challenge to be conquered or a game to be won.
Value shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of assertion theories (e.g., McClelland, 1961), which
view the human as a competitive achiever, seeking success
and admiration, and striving to develop his potentials in order to enhance his self-esteem. Consumers may obtain hedonic benefits through bargain perceptions, which provide
increased sensory involvement and excitement (Babin et al.,
1994). Value shopping may also be related to the choice
optimization dimension identified by Westbrook and Black
(1985), given that finding a discount or bargain may lead to
satisfaction from personal achievement.
81
Item generation
Based on the findings of the qualitative study, as well as
instruction from theory and ideas from prior research, items
were constructed to tap each of the six categories of shopping
motivations. The initial item-generation process produced
140 items: 29 items for adventure shopping, 28 items for
gratification shopping, 25 items for social shopping, 11 items
for role shopping, 21 items for value shopping, and 26 items
for idea shopping.
Several marketing faculty members then evaluated the
items for content and face validity. The faculty members
were given the conceptual definitions of the motivations,
along with illustrative quotes from the data, and instructed
to retain items based on their representation of the motivational domain and clarity of wording. Candidates for deletion were items that were not clear, not representative of the
domain, or that were possibly open to misinterpretation (e.g.,
Babin et al., 1994). In addition, a substantial number of redundant items were eliminated. The authors then reviewed
the list of candidates for elimination and any inconsistencies were resolved by discussion. The resulting item pool
contained 48 items: 9 items for adventure shopping, 6 items
for gratification shopping, 12 items for social shopping, 4
items for role shopping, 8 items for value shopping, and 9
items for idea shopping. The item pool was then submitted
to a multi-sample scale purification and validation process,
which is described next.
Scale purification
Substantive (e.g., breadth of theoretical content coverage
by an item) as well as empirical considerations were employed throughout the scale purification process (cf., Chin
& Todd, 1995). Scale purification is concerned with detailed
item analyses, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory
factor analyses, and an initial assessment of scale reliability,
unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity.
Here, standard (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Churchill,
1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1998), as well as emerging guidance
(e.g., Peterson, 2000) in the literature is employed in item
reduction and assessment of the resulting factor structure.
A questionnaire was constructed that contained the 48
hedonic motivation items (7-point agreedisagree response
format), interspersed throughout the questionnaire, as well
as age, income and gender items. Respondents were instructed to think about shopping in stores and malls, and not
consider on-line/television shopping or convenience formats
such as grocery stores or drug stores. As used successfully in
prior research (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Gwinner,
Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991),
marketing research students were recruited and trained as
data collectors for the calibration sample. Respondents were
contacted face-to-face or by telephone, and subsequently
82
Item analysis
First, corrected item-total subscale correlations were examined for each set of items representing a hedonic motivation dimension. Items not having a corrected item-total
correlation above .50 were candidates for deletion (cf., Tian,
Bearden, & Hunter, 2001; Zaichowsky, 1985). After careful inspection of item content for domain representation, 12
items having corrected item-total correlations of .50 and below were subsequently deleted (7 items representing social
shopping, 4 items representing value shopping, and 1 item
representing idea shopping).
Second, the correlations for items with their hypothesized
dimension were then compared with their correlations with
the remaining dimensions (cf., Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel,
1989; Tian et al., 2001). Items that did not have statistically
higher correlations (cf., Bruning & Kintz, 1977) with the
dimensions to which they were hypothesized to belong in
comparison to other dimensions were subsequently deleted.
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis results sample 1a
Items
Adventure
shopping
Value
shopping
Role
shopping
Idea
shopping
Social
shopping
Relaxation
shopping
.86
.67
.59
.57
.03
.01
.05
.03
.05
.06
.12
.08
.02
.08
.06
.14
.09
.13
.08
.03
.05
.04
.19
.19
.04
.05
.05
.04
.86
.83
.74
.73
.07
.06
.01
.19
.03
.01
.04
.17
.01
.01
.02
.05
.11
.05
.07
.04
I
I
I
I
like shopping for others because when they feel good I feel good
feel good when I buy things for the special people in my life
enjoy shopping for my friends and family
enjoy shopping around to find the perfect gift for someone
.15
.05
.02
.07
.04
.03
.05
.07
.83
.81
.80
.57
.03
.05
.02
.06
.01
.05
.10
.04
.02
.02
.03
.15
I
I
I
I
go
go
go
go
.07
.01
.06
.17
.04
.03
.05
.09
.05
.10
.01
.09
.87
.84
.70
.66
.07
.08
.05
.05
.01
.03
.05
.02
.01
.02
.06
.18
.01
.01
.09
.07
.02
.06
.02
.02
.04
.02
.02
.01
.85
.76
.71
.71
.01
.06
.20
.05
.23
.13
.08
.04
.10
.04
.07
.07
.11
.05
.03
.11
.04
.15
.14
.69
.67
.50
shopping
shopping
shopping
shopping
to
to
to
to
Pattern matrix shown. Principal axis factoring, oblique rotation. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = .90. Cumulative variance extracted = 67%.
83
Scale validation
The purpose of scale validation activities is fourfold. First,
it is desirable to replicate the confirmatory factor structure
on an independent sample, thereby reducing error due to
capitalization on chance (Chin & Todd, 1995; MacCallum,
Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). Not only should the model
replicate, but we must also show the extent to which our
measurement model is stable across independent samples.
Second, the hedonic constructs are then correlated with theoretically related constructs, thereby establishing evidence
of nomological validity. Third, to demonstrate the usefulness of the scale, some degree of predictive validity of the
hedonic measures must be shown. Finally, we use the data
to cluster respondents into meaningful shopper segments,
thereby providing additional practical utility of the scale for
retailers.
A two-part questionnaire was constructed that contained
the 18 hedonic motivation items in the first part, and a variety of variables used for nomological and predictive validity
84
tests, and age, income and gender items in the second part.
The data collection procedures employed for the calibration
sample were replicated here for the validation sample, only
students were instructed to administer the two parts of the
questionnaire approximately 2 weeks apart. Administering
the hedonic motivation items separately reduces the common methods bias that might explain correlations between
the hedonic constructs and other related variables. Both the
sampling procedures and instructions for respondents employed for the calibration sample were also employed here.
A total of 253 completed surveys were returned, and two
questionnaires were judged unusable, leaving a final sample
size of n = 251. Respondent names and contact information were recorded, and a random subsample of 25 respondents was contacted to verify the research procedures they
followed. No issues or abnormalities were noted. The demographic profile of the validation sample was highly consistent with that of the calibration sample: all age and income
categories were represented with approximately 32% of the
respondents male and 68% female.
Factor structure stability
A measurement model was then estimated using the 18
items developed in scale purification. The results indicated
2
good fit ((120)
= 254.15, p = .000; GFI = .88; AGFI =
.83; CFI = .94; NNFI = .92; standardized RMR = .048;
RMSEA = .073). Several modification indices were significant but predominantly low (ranging from 8.24 to 17.65),
and item squared multiple correlations ranged from 0.37
to 0.91. No modifications were made to the measurement
model because (a) no theoretical or conceptual basis justifies making further modifications, (b) the model fits the data
well and replicates across independent samples.
To assess the factorial stability of the hedonic motivations, a multi-group analysis procedure was performed in
LISREL 8.1 that allows for the independent estimation of
factor loadings, factor correlations, and error variances on
the two samples (Byrne, 1998; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993;
Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Six multi-group tests
revealed substantial measurement equality across the calibration and validation samples. When compared to the base2
line model ((263)
= 614.81), successive models showed no
significant change in chi-square: equal factor loadings only
2
2
((273)
= 623.13); equal factor correlations only ((286)
=
2
625.89); equal error variances only ((286) = 622.40); equal
2
= 621.04);
factor loadings and factor correlations ((268)
and equal factor loadings, factor correlations, and error
2
variances ((291)
= 628.59). Therefore, we have evidence
of the factorial stability of the hedonic motivations scale
across independent samples.
Reliability and validity
Unidimensionality, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were then evaluated. Given the results of the
model estimation, we again have evidence of unidimen-
Adventure shopping
Gratification shopping
Social shopping
Role shopping
Value shopping
Idea shopping
Flow
Time distortion
Aesthetic appeal
Product innovativeness
Non-generosity
Personal shopper
a
b
Adventure
shopping
Gratification
shopping
Social
shopping
Role
shopping
Value
shopping
Idea
shopping
1.00
.71
.63
.38
.34
.48
.55
.62
.45
.26
.13
.26
1.00
.58
.46
.42
.52
.46
.59
.39
.28
.17
.21
1.00
.42
.32
.46
.38
.49
.40
.17
.30
.28
1.00
.37
.31
.32
.39
.29
.20
.43
.05b
1.00
.17
.24
.31
.30
.09b
.31
.19
1.00
.33
.36
.33
.42
.07b
.16
Flow
1.00
.60
.33
.15
.15
.11b
Time
distortion
Aesthetic
appeal
Product
innovativeness
1.00
.42
.28
.18
.17
1.00
.28
.21
.19
1.00
.11b
.07b
Non-generosity
1.00
.03b
Personal
shopper
1.00
Table 2
Nomological validity assessmenta
85
86
87
88
Table 3
Results of non-hierarchical cluster analysis and validationa
Shopping motivation
Demographics
Cluster size
Percentage of respondentsd
Male (%)
Femaleg (%)
Ageg
<25 years old (%)
2549 years old (%)
Related constructs
Flow
Time distortion
Aesthetic appeal
Innovativeness
Non-generosity
Personalizing shopper
Browsing behavior
Cluster 1, Minimalists
Cluster 2, Gatherers
Cluster 3, Providers
Cluster 4, Enthusiasts
Cluster 5, Traditionalists
Specified
seedsb
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Random
seeds
F value
Significant F
106.94
112.67
83.66
63.96
68.26
50.08
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
19.74
29.87
15.13
6.27
8.40
3.95
20.37
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Random
seedsc
Random
seeds
Random
seeds
Random
seeds
4.14e
5.71
7.07
11.46
4.64
4.46
4.23
5.71
7.29
10.87
4.77
4.65
5.38e
7.82
12.15e
6.65
7.74e
10.44
5.98
8.45
13.12
7.88
8.00
10.45
6.60
9.69
17.16f
17.15e
8.51e
8.31
6.61
9.73
16.50
17.95
8.93
9.14
14.42
16.84
17.98f
16.94e
15.08
14.39
14.63
17.00
18.33
17.46
16.29
14.79
9.80
13.36
13.05e
14.73
10.73
12.29
11.36
14.90
14.29
14.80
11.02
12.36
28
12
57
43
31
13
34
15
70
30
42
18
55
23
17
83
56
24
64
27
10
90
42
20
55
23
42
58
59
25
21
54
1.56h
6.36
8.32h
7.64h
22.48h,i
7.43h
5.96
47
41
2.18h
9.35h
10.09h,i
8.82h,i
21.55h
7.97h
8.38h
22
63
2.46h,i
10.65h
11.66i,j
8.44i
26.05j
9.04
9.33h
43
36
4.08
16.51
14.95
9.68j
26.90j
10.85i
13.31
43
46
2.48i
12.31
12.70j
9.48j
23.09j
10.05j
11.78
Hedonic motivation
Adventure shopping
Gratification shopping
Role shopping
Value shopping
Social shopping
Idea shopping
Cluster means
89
90
91
Illustrative comments
Adventure
shopping
It gets me all excited! So its kind of like exploring, only in a shoppers world? In a shoppers world.
Right ... Whats out there since Id last been there? Okay. Well, thats a type of adventure. Mm hm. Its
an adventure for me.
I enjoy shopping. It brings me great excitement and sometimes suspense as to what I am going to find.
Oh yeah, I always think about other things when I am shopping. Being in a different place helps me
get away from my everyday life. With clothes, I visualize where I would wear things. I think about
where I will wear things and imagine how everyone will think I am really pretty.
When I go to a store or mall, I am kind of in my own little shopping world. I dont try to think of
anything but what I like, what would I look good in, and what is eye catching enough for me to spend
my money on.
Social
shopping
Well, I shop because it gives me a chance to spend time with my friends and family. I do not always
go shopping to buy things. I do a lot of shopping with my mom and my aunt and I feel its an excuse to
spend the day together.
I go with my mom, we use shopping as a bonding time together.
92
Appendix A. (Continued )
Motivation
Illustrative comments
The experience itself is kind of secondary unless I am out shopping with a friend or something. If
you are with a friend then it is more like a social atmosphere where you are going shopping as just an
excuse to hang out together and if you see something you want then you buy it.
Shopping for fun to me means more of socialization, if I had to pick one. But mostly socialization with
other people. I dont like to shop for fun by myself; I have to go with someone else for it to be any fun.
I usually dont shop alone, so I socialize with the people Im with, and sometimes I run into people I
know while Im shopping.
Gratification
shopping
Idea shopping
Sometimes I go to look just to get an idea. If I feel like or see a style in a magazine I might go to a store
and try it out just to see how it looks. Its something new and something different and I just want to try it.
I like to shop because I like to see what the latest fashions are. Sometimes its so hard to keep up
with the latest fashions are. I try my best and hope I stay as hip as possible.
I want to see the new things that come out on the market. Its a way of staying in style. It also tells
me if the clothes I have are out of date or not.
Yes, I thrive on being up on the latest fashions. I always have to make a fashion statement so I am
continuously shopping to buy the new trends.
I like new gadgets, new technology and see the new toys that are out there. It is kind of a hobby.
Role shopping
Shopping for others I find to be much more pleasurable. The pleasure I find is trying to determine the
needs of the person Im buying for and then determining a gift that tailors to that persons needs.
I love giving gifts, especially if it something different and unique. Its not just something that you can
get at any other store. I think people know when you spend extra time getting them something that you
know that they really want. This is what I love to do, is give something to someone that you know they
wouldnt purchase for themselves.
I shop more for others than for myself. I especially shop more for my grandchildren and my three sons.
Having my oldest son married and on his own with two daughters, I love to help in anyway possible.
Shopping for others makes me feel good. It makes me feel good to see how I can help make them
happy. To give someone happiness or to give them something they might not usually get for themselves
make me feel really good.
I love to buy gifts for other people. It makes me feel good to buy something for someone that I know
they are going to like. It is a satisfaction to me. I like to go shopping when it is for other people. I love that.
Value
shopping
I like to turn it into a game, how cheap can I get it. My favorite thing to do is to find something I really
like in the mall, like wet seal or something, that costs $50, and then see how cheap I can find it somewhere
else. I almost always find it for $15 or so. What a feeling when that happens. I live for those days.
I look at sales and when I go shopping for fun I look at all the sale racks. I like to see whats on sale
and I dig through things.
And it is just like pushing or stretching my money to the boundaries or right to the edge is exciting. It
is exciting to see how much I can buy with what I have.
How is this experience exciting? Its exciting, because you feel like your winning. You feel like I
have control over my money, because I can buy 5 items for $20, rather than 2 items for $20. Thats like
the competitive part of shopping.
Its really fun when you come back with a bunch of goodies for a lot less money than you planned on
spending. Two for ones.
Adventure
shopping
Coefficient
Composite
reliabilityb
EFA Item
loading
S1
S1c
S2d
S1
S2
.86
.86
.88
.92
.77
.83
.83
.84
.86
.85
.87
.88
.85
.83
.89
.84
.87
.88
a
b
d
S2
.79
.74
.67
.74
.81
.68
.89
.88
.77
.89
.94
.82
.79
.78
.59
.79
.89
.67
9.12
3.17
3.27
2.69
.69
.69
.72
.87
.84
.76
.71
11.92
3.56
11.87
3.50
.67
.66
.60
.83
.82
.68
.67
3.78
3.75
.50
.55
.50
.66
.61
.44
.37
4.58
4.63
.83
.72
.73
.83
.90
.69
.81
14.79
5.09
14.63
4.96
.80
.74
.75
.91
.89
.83
.80
5.04
5.06
.57
.62
.64
.71
.73
.50
.53
4.66
4.61
.86
.68
.71
.78
.80
.61
.65
14.32
4.58
14.39
4.61
.83
.77
.80
.93
.93
.87
.86
4.99
5.06
.74
.71
.73
.81
.87
.66
.76
4.74
4.72
.85
.76
.74
.89
.90
.80
.81
10.47
3.47
10.30
3.34
.76
.68
.63
.75
.74
.56
.54
3.76
3.71
.71
.75
.71
.91
.89
.83
.80
3.23
3.26
.87
.74
.83
.93
.95
.86
.91
10.87
3.36
10.86
3.37
.84
.74
.81
.86
.93
.74
.87
3.65
3.52
.70
.62
.65
.72
.69
.52
.47
3.86
3.97
93
Measurement based on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
See Fornell and Larcker (1981) for details on the composite reliability calculation.
S1 = sample 1, calibration sample (n = 266).
S2 = sample 2, validation sample (n = 251).
S1
.86
.67
.57
.90
Scale/item
mean
9.09
3.12
3.14
2.83
.88
S2
.90
S1
Squared
multiple
correlation
S1
S2
.88
CFA item
loading
.80
Role shopping
Corrected
item-total
correlation
S1
S2
Gratification
shopping
Itemsa
94
References
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1982). Some methods for
respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct
measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453461.
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., & Griffin, Mitch. (1994). Work
and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal
of Consumer Research, 20(March), 644656.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York:
Wiley.
Batra, Rajeev, & Ahtola, Olli. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(April), 159
170.
Bearden, William O., Netemeyer, Richard G., & Teel, Jesse E. (1989).
Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 473481.
Beatty, Sharon E., & Ferrell, M. Elizabeth. (1998). Impulse buying:
Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(Summer), 169192.
Belk, Russell W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. In Thomas Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol.
11, pp. 291297). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Belk, Russell W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material
world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 265280.
Bellenger, Danny N., & Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. (1980). Profiling the
recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(Fall), 7792.
Bellenger, Danny N., Robertson, Dan H., & Greenberg, Barnett. (1977).
Shopping center patronage motives. Journal of Retailing, 53(Summer),
2938.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, Douglas G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88(3), 588606.
Berlyne, Daniel. (1969). Laughter, humor and play. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 291297).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Booms, Bernard H., & Tetrault, Mary Stanfield. (1990).
The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 7184.
Bloch, Peter H., & Richins, Marsha L. (1983). Shopping without purchase: An investigation of consumer browsing behavior. Advances in
Consumer Research, 10, 389393.
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Dawson, Scott A. (1994). The
shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 23
42.
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Sherrell, Daniel L. (1989).
Extending the concept of shopping: An investigation of browsing
activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(1), 13
21.
Bloch, Peter H., Sherrell, Daniel L., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1986). Consumer search: An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(June), 119126.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: Wiley.
Brady, Diane. (2000). Why service stinks. Business Week, 3704(October
23), 118128.
Bruning, James L., & Kintz, B. L. (1977). Computational handbook of
statistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Burke, Raymond. (1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual
shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 352
361.
Buss, Dale D. (1997). Entertailing. Nations Business, 85(12), 1218.
Byrne, Barbara. (1998). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chin, Wynne, & Todd, Peter A. (1995). On the use, usefulness and ease
of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of
caution. MIS Quarterly, (June) 237246.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16(February), 6473.
Cope, Nigel. (1996). Retail in the digital age. London: Bowerdean.
Cronbach, Lee J., & Meehl, Paul E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(July), 281302.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Dardin, William R., & Ashton, Dub. (1974). Psychographic profiles of
patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing, 50(Winter), 99102.
Dardin, William R., & Reynolds, Fred D. (1971). Shopping orientations
and product usage roles. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(November),
505508.
Dawson, Scott, Bloch, Peter H., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1990). Shopping
motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing,
66(4), 408427.
Donovan, Robert J., & Rossiter, John R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An
environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(Spring),
3457.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7(1), 117140.
Fischer, Eileen, & Arnold, Stephen J. (1990). More than a labor of love:
Gender roles and Christmas shopping. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(December), 333345.
Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(February), 3950.
Fournier, Susan. (1996). Land Rover North America, Harvard Business
School Case 9-596-036. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Freud, Sigmund. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Gerbing, David W., & Anderson, James C. (1988). An updated paradigm
for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186192.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday and Company.
Gwinner, Kevin P., Gremler, Dwayne D., & Bitner, Mary Jo. (1998).
Relational benefits in service industries: The customers perspective.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(Spring), 101114.
Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., & Black,
William C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hawes, Jon, & Lumpkin, James R. (1984). Understanding the outshopper.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(4), 200218.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking and
consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283291.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts. Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer),
92101.
Hoffman, Donna L., & Novak, Thomas P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia
computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of
Marketing, 60(July), 5068.
Holbrook, Morris B., & Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982). The experiential
aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal
of Consumer Research, 9(March), 132140.
Hudson, Laurel A., & Ozanne, Julie L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking
knowledge in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(March), 508522.
Huizinga, Johan. (1970). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in
culture. New York: Harper and Row.
Jarboe, Glen R., & McDaniel, Caral D. (1987). A profile of browsers
in regional shopping malls. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 15(1), 4653.
95