ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409

Shopping trip value: Do stores and products matter?

Vien Chau Stephanie Diep, Jillian C. Sweeney
M261, UWA Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia

Abstract

Previous research indicates the importance of shopping trip value but recognises that consumers do not shop independent of the
environment; both products and stores contribute to overall shopping trip value. This study identifies the impact of product and store
value on overall shopping trip value and investigates the interrelationship among their utilitarian and hedonic components. In addition,
it proposes a store value scale. The authors find empirically that utilitarian store value and performance-related product value have
significant effects on utilitarian shopping trip value, whereas hedonic shopping trip value is influenced most by hedonic store value and
emotional product value. In addition, women appear more prone to hedonic shopping trip value yet also utilitarian store value, while
men were more attentive to utilitarian product value.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hedonic; Utilitarian; Store value; Product value; Shopping trip value; Scale; Retail store; Retailing; Shopping

1. Introduction constitute an overall shopping experience. During a

Value-conscious consumers proliferate in today’s chan-
ging society (Naumann, 1995), forcing managers of retail
outlets to realise that emphasising product and service
quality is not sufficient to sustain a competitive advantage
(Hightower et al., 2002; Woodruff, 1997). In the past, value
generally has been perceived simply as quality merchandise
at a fair price (May, 1989), but more recent arguments
suggest value also may be derived from the consumption
experiences associated with an object (Richins, 1994).
Therefore, the value concept demands a broader definition
that includes experiential outcomes associated with con-
sumption. Furthermore, value must be extended beyond
the traditional concept of product value (PV) to incorpo-
rate other components that contribute value in a retail
setting.
This study proposes that product and store value (SV)
contribute significantly to shopping trip value, because
they represent the tangible and intangible components that
Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 6488 1438; fax: +61 8 6488 1055.
E-mail address: jsweeney@biz.uwa.edu.au (J.C. Sweeney).
shopping trip, customers form value perceptions on the
basis of their interaction with the products and various
aspects of the store (e.g., location, staff, environment)
(Albrecht, 1995). For example, Babin (2000) highlights
the importance of understanding the total value of the
shopping trip (i.e., overall shopping experience), which
includes evaluations of the product and store during the
shopping trip that can increase or decrease utilitarian and
hedonic shopping trip value. Correspondingly, Holbrook
(1999) argues that consumer value reflects an experience, in
that it does not reside solely in the product purchased, the
brand chosen, or the object possessed but rather in the
derived consumption experience.
This study therefore explores the experiential and
instrumental outcomes associated with stores visited and
products sold in terms of shopping trip value. Accordingly,
we develop a model that incorporates interrelationships
among three types of value (product, store and shopping
trip) and their effects on outcomes. We also develop a
parsimonious scale to measure utilitarian and hedonic SV.
Given the increased emphasis on managers including
retailers in recognising and measuring value (e.g. Lin
et al., 2005; Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Woodall, 2003) this

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2007.10.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
400 V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
research on value measures and their interrelationships is
timely.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Importance of the value concept
Value has become an important concept among con-
sumers, retailers, and producers, and for many organisa-
tions, it represents the ‘‘litmus test of business success’’
(Albrecht, 1995, p. 2) because ‘‘creating outstanding
customer value is the only secure route to achieving
sustainable financial and market success’’ (Sweeney et al.,
1999, p. 78; see also Coopers and Lybrand, 1998).
Researchers such as Vantrappen (1992) and Woodruff
(1997) forecast that perceived value will continue to
represent an important marketing element well into the
twenty-first century.
From a retailing perspective, Harnett (1998, p. 21)
emphasises that ‘‘when retailers satisfy people-based needs,
they are delivering value, which puts them in a much
stronger position in the long term.’’ The recent move
toward treating the retail environment as a stage for
delivering memorable, relevant, and valued experiences on
the Internet and through multi-channel retail systems
(Mathwick et al., 2001) is spreading globally; as Treadgold
(1999, p. 45) notes, ‘‘the most compelling Asian retail
opportunities are at the value end of the market[,] given
that consumers in Asia today are much more value
conscious than they were in the mid-1990s.’’ Therefore,
understanding and implementing strategies to deliver and
sustain value is crucial for retailers seeking to achieve a
competitive advantage. Kotler (1973, p. 48) was one of first
to recognise diversity in the retail bundle, rather than the
product alone, when he stated, ‘‘One of the most significant
features of the total product is the place where it is bought
or consumed. In some cases, the place . . . is more
influential than the product itself in the purchase decision.’’
Retail researchers correspondingly have examined the
simultaneous impact of the product or brand and service
or store components on consumer evaluations of quality,
value and purchase intentions (e.g., Dodds et al., 1991;
Grewal et al., 2002).
However, no researchers have examined the interrela-
tionship of these concepts in terms of value creation. Both
shopping (trip) value (Babin and Attway, 2000; Babin
et al., 1994), which describes the shopping (trip) experience,
and consumer perceptions of product value, which
emphasise the utility of the product to the shopper on a
variety of dimensions (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001), are
required for retailers to achieve sustainable financial and
market success. In light of these findings, we expect that the
value of the store to the consumer, as well as the value of
the product/brand, contribute to shopping trip value.
Therefore, we examine the impact of product and store
components on shopping trip evaluations by investigating
the value contributed by each.
2.2. Shopping trip value (STV)
Research into consumer behaviour indicates that the
consumption of goods and services depends on two
important value dimensions, utilitarian and hedonic (Batra
and Ahtola, 1990; Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000). Babin
et al. (1994), in focussing on the importance of STV per se
(which they term ‘‘shopping value’’), argue that utilitarian
and hedonic value dimensions also exist in a shopping
context, such that STV includes ‘‘all factors, both
qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective, that
make up the complete shopping experience’’ (Schechter,
1984, p. 12). Using Schechter’s (1984) definition, Babin
et al. (1994) find that a shopping experience can evoke
value by successfully accomplishing its intended goal
(utilitarian value) or providing enjoyment and fun (hedonic
value). Both components enhance outcomes, such as
purchase behaviour, satisfaction, word of mouth, and
customer share (Babin and Attway, 2000; Babin et al.,
1994, 2005). Babin (2000) thus defines utilitarian STV as
the value generated when the consumer accomplishes his or
her intended purpose in an effective and efficient manner
and states that hedonic STV ‘‘reflects shopping’s potential
entertainment and emotional worth’’ (Babin et al., 1994,
p. 646). That is, consumers shop not only to acquire goods
and services but also for experiential and emotional
reasons (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and
Hirschman, 1982). However, based on earlier discussions,
we argue that STV also derives partially from evaluations
of the products examined and the stores visited. Despite
considerable work addressing STV, relatively little atten-
tion has been paid to how PV and SV affect overall STV.
2.3. Product value (PV)
An alternative stream of research investigates PV and
how value dimensions influence consumer choices among
goods (Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Dhar and Wertenbroch,
2000; Sheth et al., 1991). Sheth et al. (1991) propose a
theory of consumption values that attempts to explain why
consumers choose to buy a specific product, one type over
another, or one brand over another. They identify five
dimensions of consumption value: functional, emotional,
epistemic, social, and conditional, of which functional
value is the main driver of consumer choice. These five
value dimensions make differential contributions to choice
behaviour (Sheth et al., 1991), in that their values are
independent of one another and contribute incrementally
to choice. Thus, consumers may be influenced by all five
values and may be willing to trade off less salient values to
maximise their benefits or obtain more value from another
dimension (Sheth et al., 1991). More recently, Sweeney and
Soutar (2001) investigated the components of PV to
develop a parsimonious scale to assess customers’ percep-
tions of the value of a consumer good at the brand
level. They identify four value dimensions: emotional,
social, functional (price/value for money), and functional
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
(performance) PV. They distinguish between the latter two
because price and performance have separate influences on
perceived value. In this study, we investigate how these
perceived PVs may affect overall STV.
2.4. Store value (SV)
Compared with the considerable research on PV and
STV, relatively little empirical research considers the value
of the retail store itself. Because consumers now face a
broad variety of store choices and competition continues to
increase among retail outlets and services (May, 1989),
(SV has become an even more important issue. Consumers
prefer to shop where they believe they will receive the most
satisfaction and value from the store and the merchandise
acquired (May, 1989). Kotler (1973) argues that, in their
purchase decisions, people respond to more than just the
tangible product or service and that elements of the store,
such as store atmospherics, may be more influential than
the product itself. Therefore, retailers must seek ways to
not only meet the consumer’s objective and functional
needs but also to enhance the purchase experience by
making the store a more enjoyable place to be. Many
retailers such as Barnes & Noble and Recreational
Equipment Incorporated concentrate on developing a
pleasant destination that provides a fantasy atmosphere
in which consumers can socialise, obtain some entertain-
ment, and enjoy themselves even without purchasing
(Recreation Equipment Incorporated, 2007; Time, 1998).
These organisations recognise the imperative to provide
value to consumers through the store itself, as more and
more consumers become increasingly value conscious. In
response to the growing recognition that store aspects can
evoke experiential and instrumental outcomes (Kotler,
1973; May, 1989), as well as the lack of a specific
conceptual or operational definition of SV, we begin by
developing a parsimonious scale to measure SV in terms of
utilitarian and hedonic themes.
2.5. Interrelationship of utilitarian and hedonic components
of value constructs
Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) argue that utilitarian
considerations drive consumer choices and are themselves
cognitively driven, whereas hedonic considerations inte-
grate affective responses. Furthermore, Batra and Ahtola
(1990) suggest that though both dimensions may be
present, consumers characterise their choices as driven by
primarily one or the other. Therefore, utilitarian compo-
nents of concepts such as PV and STV likely are more
strongly interrelated than a hedonic component of one
concept and a utilitarian component of the other. The same
applies to hedonic components. For example, Babin et al.
(1994) find that compulsiveness, as demonstrated by
consumers who shop to enhance their emotional state,
relates significantly to hedonic STV and is unrelated to
utilitarian STV. That is, compulsive consumers engage in
401
shopping activities even though they have little or no
physical need for a product (O’Guinn and Faber, 1989),
which implies they also are driven by hedonic product and
store components. Furthermore, research into store en-
vironments suggests that an environment infused with a
mild citrus odour prompts higher reported hedonic STV
than utilitarian STV (Chebat et al., 1999). In this case,
shopping-related affect generated by the store environment
links more strongly to hedonic than utilitarian STV (Babin
and Darden, 1995; Griffin et al., 2000).
In turn, we expect that the hedonically oriented product
components of emotional PV and social PV as well as
hedonic SV relate more significantly to hedonic STV than
to utilitarian STV, whereas utilitarian SV and functional
PV should relate more to utilitarian than to hedonic STV.
3. Conceptual model
We present our model in Fig. 1. Essentially, it posits that
both PV, or the perceived value of the focal product, and
Store value –
0.41**
utilitarian
0.17*
Product value - Shopping trip
performance value - utilitarian
0.05ns
Product value –
value for money
Product value -
emotional 0.15*
0.06ns Shopping trip
Product value - value - hedonic
social
0.62***
Store value –
hedonic
Fig. 1. Structural path diagram (standardised parameters). Notes: In this
model, we free the correlations between antecedent constructs because it
would be a strong theoretical statement to assume that all such variables
are perfectly uncorrelated. Because all represent aspects of value, it is more
appropriate to free the correlations between the various forms of product
value, the two forms of SV, the various utilitarian aspects, and the various
hedonic aspects. The latter, for example, represents various antecedents
not included in the model that may influence hedonic aspects, such as store
atmosphere and the manner in which front-line employees deliver service
(Sweeney et al., 1999).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
402 V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
SV, or the perceptions generated by the store itself,
contribute to overall STV. We also theorise that the social
(i.e., derived from enhancement of social self-concepts) and
emotional (derived from affective states) values of the
product influence the hedonic STV related to fun and
pleasure rather than utilitarian STV, which pertains to
task-related, rational evaluations. Similarly, we expect that
the store’s hedonic value, that is, the pleasure generated by
the store specifically, relates more closely to hedonic than
utilitarian STV. In parallel, rational evaluations of product
performance and price should enhance utilitarian STV,
rather than hedonic STV, while utilitarian SV, which
involves convenience, layout, and so forth, likely affects
utilitarian STV rather than hedonic STV. However, we also
acknowledge the potential of crossover effects; for exam-
ple, the ease of navigating the store (utilitarian SV) may
enhance a sense of adventure and fun about the trip
(hedonic STV) as well as utilitarian STV. Similarly, the
emotional value derived from finding a product may create
a sense of accomplishment (utilitarian STV). Nonetheless,
we believe our parsimonious model captures the main
impacts of PV and SV.
4. Gender and STV
Gender differences influence consumer evaluations; as
Dittmar (1989) finds, personal material possessions tend to
be more important to men for functional reasons but more
important to women for symbolic reasons. Rich and Jain
(1968) similarly argue that women, regardless of their
social class, enjoy aspects such as a pleasant store atmo-
sphere, seeing new things and generating new ideas,
acquiring new clothes or household items, bargain hunting,
and comparing merchandise.
Furthermore, we found through focus group research
that men are more utilitarian in their value responses than
women, that is, men are more likely to give a utilitarian
evaluation. Female respondents generated more hedonic
responses with respect to the store and the store environ-
ment, whereas male subjects evinced greater concern with
the store’s ability to meet their utilitarian needs. Moreover,
women often held an emotional attachment to stores they
described; most of the associated hedonic responses were
positive.
Therefore, we propose that the utilitarian outcomes
associated with PV, SV, and STV are perceived as greater
among men than among women, whereas the hedonic
value components are perceived as greater among women.
Hence,
H1a. Utilitarian value components (performance-related
PV, price-related PV, utilitarian SV, utilitarian STV) are
more significant for men than for women.
H1b. Hedonic value components (social PV, emotional
PV, hedonic SV, hedonic STV) are more significant for
women than for men.
5. Data collection
5.1. SV scale development
Because no established scale of SV exists, the first
objective of our data collection was to develop a
parsimonious scale for this construct. Thus, we conducted
a series of focus groups to explore the ideas people had
about SV. In line with the suggestions that using
‘‘qualitative research as a springboard for further inquiry
treats reality as it is understood by the consumer and
juxtaposes it against the everyday experiences of the
consumer’’ (Percy, 1982, p. 58), these focus groups help
us explore consumer behaviour issues because they elicit
realistic ideas and opinions about the concept from the
consumer’s perspective. In addition, previous research has
used focus groups effectively to generate ideas for deve-
loping scale items, such as service quality (Parasuraman
et al., 1988), STV (Babin et al., 1994), and cognitive
dissonance (Sweeney et al., 2000).
In three focus groups, we surveyed a convenience sample
of 28 students from a large metropolitan university.
Respondents were evenly distributed between men and
women and came from various disciplines, levels of study,
cultural backgrounds, and age groups. The focus group
sessions each lasted approximately an hour, and respon-
dents received chocolate bars at the end of the sessions as a
token of appreciation for their participation.
The aim of the focus group sessions was to elicit
responses about SV, so we investigated both utilitarian
and hedonic aspects. At this stage of the study, we defined
utilitarian SV as the utility a customer derives in terms of a
store’s capacity to meet his or her functional needs, and
hedonic SV represented the utility a customer derives in
terms of a store’s capacity to generate fun and excitement
or arouse feelings. We used various questions to generate
discussion about the SV topic, such as: Why did you
choose to shop at that particular store rather than other
stores? What aspects of the store do you value? and Why
was it worth purchasing or intending to purchase a product
at that store? One author moderated the group discussion
and asked respondents to describe a recent situation in
which they went to a physical (i.e. bricks-and-mortar) store
and intended to or actually purchased a durable item from
the store during a shopping trip.
We identified and selected several items associated with
SV on the basis of a content analysis technique that
categorises key themes or key factors, using the theme or
item as the unit of analysis (Kassarjian, 1977). Responses
relating to utilitarian SV largely focussed on convenience
aspects, such as ‘‘I knew the store offered a wide range of
products,’’ ‘‘it was convenient for me to travel to that store.
I didn’t want to travel very far so I just went to the nearest
store,’’ ‘‘It was easy for me to get in and out of that store,’’
and ‘‘I valued the store’s opening hours because I am very
busy and it was open on Sundays so I could go there and
get what I needed’’. In contrast, comments related to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
hedonic SV tended to describe the store as offering
‘‘excitement,’’ ‘‘fun,’’ or ‘‘fantasy’’ through its environ-
ment: ‘‘I value the fact that it was more than just simply
going to the store to purchase what I was looking fory I
enjoyed being involved in all the activities of the store so I
felt excited about going to that store in the first place,’’
‘‘I could stand in the store and fantasise about having this
large TV at home,’’ and ‘‘the store was fun to be in.’’
On the basis of these comments, we developed more
specific definitions of utilitarian and hedonic SV (Table 1).
Eight academic experts assessed the content validity of the
SV items according to these new definitions, following the
guidelines of Zaichowsky (1985), who recommends this
procedure to test the face validity of an involvement scale.
Babin and Burns (1998) and Sweeney and Soutar (2001)
similarly have used this procedure to establish the content
validity of scales of mental imagery and perceived product
value. The purification process identified 21 of the original
27 items that best represented distinct utilitarian and
hedonic SV dimensions. We provide the constructs used in
the study in Table 1.
5.2. Quantitative stage
We distributed a questionnaire incorporating the three
value scales (STV, PV, and SV) to a convenience sample of
500 students. A student sample is appropriate for this
exploratory research, similar to its usage in studies
investigating the commitment–loyalty link in services
(Pritchard et al., 1999), impressions of merchandise and
Table 1
Definitions of constructs
Product value— The utility derived from the feelings or
emotional affective states that a product generates
(Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)
Product value—social The utility derived from the product’s
(enhancement of social ability to enhance social self-concepts
self-concept) (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)
Product value— The utility derived from the product due to
functional (price/value the reduction of its perceived short- and
for money) long-term costs (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)
Product value— The utility derived from the perceived
functional (performance/ quality and expected performance of the
quality) product (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001)
Store value—utilitarian The utility derived from the store in terms
of functional factors such as ease of access,
opening hours, convenience, and wide range
of products
Store value—hedonic The utility derived from the store itself in
terms of emotive factors such as pleasure,
excitement, fun, and fantasy
Shopping trip value— The utility derived from a consumer
utilitarian accomplishing the intended purpose of the
shopping trip in an efficient and effective
manner (Babin et al., 1994; Babin, 2000)
Shopping trip value— The utility derived from a consumer
hedonic experiencing fun, novelty, and playfulness
on the shopping trip, such as feelings of
escape or spontaneity (Babin et al., 1994)
403
service quality (Mazursky and Jacoby, 1985), and the
development of an involvement scale (Zaichowsky, 1985)
and a STV scale (Babin et al., 1994).
Similar to the qualitative stage in which we elicited
perceptions of SV, we asked respondents to think of a
situation in which they had purchased or intended to
purchase a single durable item (i.e., a planned purchase) on
a shopping trip during which they visited only one store.
With this restriction, we eliminate any potential influence
of visits to other stores on STV, which is beyond the scope
of this study. Respondents rated their perceptions of the
value of the product, the store, and the shopping trip on
interval scales ranging from strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (7). The total sample, 304 returned surveys,
is sufficient for this statistical analysis stage of the study. In
addition, the sample is relatively evenly split across men
(48%) and women (52%), approximately 40% of whom
were in their first or second year of school. Furthermore,
the sample includes people of diverse ethnic origins,
primarily European and Asian.
6. Results
We examine the proposed model in four stages.
Specifically, we (1) develop a scale of SV, (2) establish the
reliability and validity of the various measures, (3) test the
study model for fit, and (4) assess the standardised path
coefficients representing relationships among constructs.
We derived the PV and STV scales from established
research but given that the SV scale was developed for the
present study subjected the 21 SV items to exploratory
factor analysis and reliability and validity tests to examine
their structure. Principal axis factoring with oblique
rotation offers strong evidence of two factors, the first of
which is clearly hedonic value and represents the pleasure
and excitement generated by the store, particularly with
respect to the store environment. This factor explains
33.4% of the variance, and the eight-item scale is highly
reliable (alpha ¼ 0.90). The second factor, comprising
seven items, represents utilitarian value and pertains to
the convenience of the store, such as ease of navigation
(alpha ¼ 0.78). Thus, the exploratory analysis supports our
conceptualisation of two SV factors. In addition, we
iteratively delete any items with high cross-loadings or
particularly low loadings (o0.40) and repeat the analysis
until we achieve a clear solution. After this procedure,
15 SV items remained (eight hedonic, seven utilitarian)
(Table 2). For added confidence, we also assess the
structures of the PV and STV scales using exploratory
factor analysis. One STV item had an excessively low item-
to-total correlation (0.23) and loaded on the wrong factor,
so we exclude it; notably, this item is the only negatively
worded hedonic item: ‘‘This shopping trip was not a very
nice time out.’’ Thus, we analyse the remaining 14 items
for STV.
To test the structural model, we follow Anderson and
Gerbing’s (1988) two-step approach to structural equation
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
404 V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
Table 2
Final factor analysis for store value scale
Factor name Store value items
Hedonic SV I felt excited about walking into that store
I felt a sense of joy to look at the merchandise in that store
The store was fun to be in
I felt excited about going to that store
I felt happy going to that store because of the store
environment
I felt good about myself when I went to that store
I could stand in that store and fantasise
It was a joy to see new things at that store
Utilitarian SV The store was in a good location
It was convenient for me to travel to that store
It was easy to get in and out of that store
The store had convenient opening hours
I was able to find my way around the store
I could get what I wanted at that store
I could find what I wanted at that store
Notes: Cumulative percentage of variance ¼ 45.5%, reliability of store value scale ¼ 0.89.
modelling. In this approach, confirmatory factor analysis
serves to specify and evaluate the measurement model, and
assuming validation, we may estimate the structural
relationships in the model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988;
Garver and Mentzer, 1999). We use AMOS 6.0 (Arbuckle,
2005) for both these stages and base the analysis of the
measurement and structural models on a partial disaggre-
gation approach, which offers a compromise between an
aggregate approach, in which all items are summed to form
a single composite indicator of a construct, and a
disaggregate approach, in which each item is treated as
an individual indicator of the relevant factor (Bagozzi and
Foxall, 1996; Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994; Sweeney
et al., 1999). This approach overcomes the difficulties
inherent to a disaggregate model by reducing the random
error and producing more stable estimates but still
maintaining a multiple indicator approach to structural
equation modelling (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994;
Dabholkar et al., 1996; Garver and Mentzer, 1999;
Sweeney et al., 1999). We use the ‘‘item-to-construct
balance’’ approach suggested by Little et al. (2002) to
allocate items into the item-parcels used in the partial
disaggregation approach.
Next, we examine the reliability and structure of the
three value scales using confirmatory factor analysis. The
results support an eight-factor structure: four dimensions
of PV (performance, value for money, emotional, and
social) and two each for SV and STV (hedonic and
utilitarian) (w2 ¼ 380.11, df ¼ 142, confirmatory fit index
[CFI] ¼ 0.93, Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] ¼ 0.90, root mean
square error of approximation [RMSEA] ¼ 0.074).1 The
chi-square statistic, known for its sensitivity to large
1
We report various types of fit criteria, in line with the recommendations
of Hoyle and Panter (1995) and Garver and Mentzer (1999).
Factor loadings % Of variance Cronbach’s alpha
0.83 33.4 0.90
0.83
0.82
0.77
0.68
0.65
0.62
0.56
0.68 12.1 0.78
0.64
0.63
0.59
0.53
0.49
0.43
samples (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1982), provides a sig-
nificant value, but the ratio of the chi-square value to the
degrees of freedom (2.67) is acceptable (Carmines and
McIver, 1981). All other fit statistics are above the
recommended levels (Browne and Cudeck, 1993; Carmines
and McIver, 1981; Garver and Mentzer, 1999; Hoyle and
Panter, 1995), which indicates acceptable fit. Furthermore,
all average variances extracted are greater than 0.50, in
support of the convergent validity of the constructs
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and the reliabilities are 0.75
or higher. We find evidence of discriminant validity with
Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) stringent tests, in which the
maximum correlation between any pair of constructs is
0.75 (hedonic SV and hedonic STV) (Table 4). The average
variance extracted for both these constructs is at least 0.74
(Table 3), well above the squared correlation between
constructs (0.56), so they are distinct. That is, respondents
view the concept that the store environment offers a sense
of pleasure and excitement as distinct from their overall
hedonic evaluations of the shopping trip. All other
correlations are 0.55 or less, and the squared value is
well below the corresponding average variance extracted
(Table 4). These findings again support the distinctiveness
of all constructs, including the two factors developed for
this study, hedonic and utilitarian SV.
The study model fits the data well (w2 ¼ 416.66,
df ¼ 150, CFI ¼ 0.92, TLI ¼ 0.90, RMSEA ¼ 0.077), and
despite a significant chi-square value, the ratio of the chi-
square to degrees of freedom again supports the good fit.
The standardised path coefficients indicate that the impact
of the store on the shopping trip dominates the impact of
the product. In addition, the impact of both utilitarian and
hedonic SV on STV are considerably greater than the effect
of the PV components, which suggests the value of the
environment, rather than the focal product, has the
greatest impact on overall STV. Furthermore, though
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409 405

Table 3
Details of scales used to represent constructs

Scale No. of items Source of measure Example item Reliability Average variance
extracted

Store value— 8 Focus groups See Table 2 0.90 0.55

utilitarian
Store value—hedonic 7 Focus groups See Table 2 0.78 0.75
Product value— 6 Sweeney and Soutar This product has an acceptable 0.75 0.52
performance (2001) standard of quality
Product value—value 4 Sweeney and Soutar This product offers value for 0.84 0.72
for money (2001) money
Product value— 5 Sweeney and Soutar This product is one that I would 0.82 0.67
emotional (2001) enjoy
Product value—social 4 Sweeney and Soutar This product would improve the 0.91 0.79
(2001) way I am perceived
Shopping trip 4 Babin et al. (1994) I accomplished just what I wanted 0.76 0.54
value—utilitarian to on this shopping trip
Shopping trip 9 Babin et al. (1994) While shopping I felt a sense of 0.90 0.74
value—hedonic adventure

Table 4
Correlation matrix

Store— Store— Product— Product— Product— Product— ST—

utilitarian hedonic performance VFM emotional social utilitarian

Store—utilitarian
Store—hedonic 0.39***
Product—performance 0.46*** 0.16**
Product—VFM 0.27*** 0.10 0.45***
Product—emotional 0.43*** 0.54*** 0.49*** 0.32***
Product—social 0.08 0.40*** 0.07 0.01 0.42***
ST—utilitarian 0.47*** 0.01 0.38*** 0.23*** 0.19** 0.13*
ST—hedonic 0.24*** 0.75*** 0.13* 0.08 0.35** 0.38*** 0.18*

***po0.01, **po0.05, *po0.10.

utilitarian SV has a dominant effect on utilitarian STV Table 5

(0.41), performance-related PV also has an effect (0.17), Gender differences in product, store, and shopping trip value (means)
whereas PV associated with value for money does not. Male Female F-value
Similarly, with regard to hedonic STV, emotional PV has a
small impact (0.15), and hedonic SV has a greater influence Utilitarian SV 5.30 5.52 5.73**
(0.62). Functional PV (performance) 5.70 5.52 3.80**
Functional PV (price) 4.95 4.97 0.02
Finally, we investigate whether any product or store
Utilitarian ST value 5.24 5.35 0.65
utilitarian (hedonic) values influence the shopping trip Hedonic SV 4.33 4.44 0.79
hedonic (utilitarian) component; that is, whether cross- Social PV 3.99 4.11 0.47
influences exist. As suggested by Babin et al. (1994), a Emotional PV 5.47 5.44 0.06
product at an exceptionally low price (price-related PV) Hedonic ST value 3.85 4.24 9.18***
may generate both hedonic and utilitarian value, because it Notes: Multivariate ANOVA Wilk’s Lamda for utilitarian (hedonic)
provides a sense of accomplishment as well as excitement constructs across gender is 3.81(***) or 3.04(**). Scale: 1 ¼ strongly
by enabling consumers to achieve a bargain in the course of disagree, 7 ¼ strongly agree.
the ‘‘hunt.’’ Alternatively, increased excitement associated ***po0.01, **po0.05.
with the store (hedonic SV) may extend the shopping trip
in terms of time and/or expenditures (Babin and Darden, which is significant and negative when included in the
1995; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Donovan et al., 1994) model (0.17, po0.01).
or impede task performance (Dion, 2004; Eroglu and To test our gender-related hypotheses, we employ a
Harrell, 1986), which could reduce utilitarian STV. Our multivariate analysis of variance to determine the mean
examination of these effects through the modification differences between the two gender groups across several
indices suggests only one such structural relationship, value dimensions simultaneously (Hair et al., 1998). As
namely, the impact of hedonic SV on utilitarian STV, we show in Table 5, significant differences exist between
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
406 V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
men and women across the utilitarian components
(F-value ¼ 3.81, po0.01). To identify which specific
utilitarian value components account for this difference,
we conduct a univariate analysis of variance and find that,
as we depict in Table 5, only utilitarian SV (F-value ¼ 5.73,
po0.05) and performance-related PV (F-value ¼ 3.80,
po0.10) differ significantly by gender. In particular, men
exhibit higher perceptions of performance-related PV, as
we expected, but utilitarian SV ranks higher among women
than men, in contrast with our expectations. Thus, we
derive mixed support for H1a. The multivariate analysis of
variance results also indicate gender differences across the
hedonic value components (F-value ¼ 3.04, po0.05); the
univariate analysis of variance results show that hedonic
STV differs significantly, such that women consider
hedonic STV more than do men (F-value ¼ 9.18,
po0.01), in partial support of H1b.
As a corollary of our research into gender effects we
also investigated the possible differences in paths across
gender, to identify whether consumers of different genders
construct STV differently. Thus we conducted multiple
group analysis according to gender. Since factor loading
invariance is a necessary first step to testing structural
invariance, we first tested the invariance of the measure-
ment model, by comparing a model in which the models for
the two groups were both unconstrained to a model in
which all factor loadings were considered equivalent across
the two groups (Byrne, 2004). Results supported model
equivalence in terms of the measurement model
(w2diff ¼ 9.78, df ¼ 12, p40.10). Thus, we then tested the
invariance of the structural paths, comparing a model in
which the measurement and structural parameters were
considered the same to one in which the structural paths
were freed. Again no significant differences were found
(w2diff ¼ 12.74, df ¼ 6, p40.10) suggesting men and women
constructed their STV evaluations in the same kind of way.
7. Conclusions
Previous research supports the concept that shopping
trips provide both hedonic and utilitarian value (e.g., Babin
et al., 1994; Jones et al., 2006). This study incorporates trip
components, specifically the product examined or pur-
chased and the store visited, to investigate the value
contributed by each element to STV. Taken together, the
results indicate strong interrelationships among the value
attributed to the store, the product, and the shopping
trip. Because retail environments are highly experiential
(Hightower et al., 2002) and because of the importance of
positive customer experiences, understanding how product
and SVs generate STV clearly is critical for modern
retailers, as we discuss in greater detail next. Furthermore,
we specify gender differences across the utilitarian and
hedonic components of these constructs.
The results showed that while men were significantly
more likely to perceive functional PV (i.e. performance) of
the durable good, consistent with H1, women were more
prone to attribute higher hedonic STV, in line with H2.
However, there was also contrary evidence for H2, since
women reported a significantly higher utilitarian SV than
men. Overall these findings imply that in our sample and
context, females are more attuned to elements of the store
environment when shopping, while men are more tuned to
utilitarian aspects. Nonetheless we also found that there
were no differences in the way that men and women
developed utilitarian and hedonic STV, that is the impact
of utilitarian SV on utilitarian STV was no different for
men and women, even though the levels of the former was
significantly greater in the case of women.
7.1. Theoretical and managerial implications
In extending Babin et al.’s (1994) work, we clarify the
effect of the product purchased and the store on utilitarian
and hedonic STV. Product and SV contribute significantly
to STV as tangible and intangible components that
constitute the overall shopping experience; therefore,
customers form value perceptions on the basis of their
interactions with the product and various aspects of the
store (e.g., location, staff, environment) during a shopping
trip (Albrecht, 1995). Babin (2000) similarly argues that it
is important to understand how consumers evaluate both
the product and the store during a shopping trip, because
both can either increase or decrease utilitarian and hedonic
STV.
This study offers the further contribution of a SV scale
that consists of two components, hedonic and utilitarian.
Utilitarian SV pertains mostly to operational aspects, such
as convenience, opening hours, and ease of navigation
around the store; discriminant validity tests also show that
utilitarian SV differs from utilitarian STV, which instead
summarises trip outcomes, such as a sense of accomplish-
ment. Hedonic SV also differs from hedonic STV,
according to discriminant validity tests, in that the former
describes consumer responses to the store environment,
whereas the latter involves summary affective outcomes
that transcend the store environment. Thus, a store can
provide value that goes beyond meeting the functional
needs of consumers. In addition, the proposed SV scale
provides academics with a foundation for further research
into shopping-related consumption experiences.
Our results have additional managerial implications for
retailers operating in today’s competitive and rapidly
changing society as well. First, the study results offer
managers of retail stores a greater understanding of
consumers’ perceived values in terms of products, stores,
and the shopping experience and thus suggest new ways to
make an overall shopping experience more experiential and
exciting for customers—a strategy many stores such as
Levi’s, the Mall of America, Barnes & Noble, and Sephora
have already implemented (New Straits Times, 2006;
Seattle Times, 2006; Time, 1998; Waskom, 2000). Specifi-
cally, our findings indicate that utilitarian SV and
performance-related PV significantly influence utilitarian
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
STV, and hedonic SV and emotional PV have the most
significant effect on hedonic STV. Thus, retailers can focus
on specific product and SV components to enhance their
utilitarian or hedonic STV. However, the modification
indices also indicate an additional path in the model that
suggests hedonic SV has a significantly negative effect on
utilitarian STV. In other words, store environments that
provide pleasure and excitement may detract goal-directed
consumers (e.g., Hoffman and Novak, 1996) from achiev-
ing their utilitarian outcomes.
Finally, results related to gender differences with respect
to product, store, and STV indicate that men and women
perceive value differently. For example, and contrary to
our expectations, utilitarian SV earns higher perceptual
rankings among women. This is likely to be due to the
increasingly busy lifestyle of many women, who need and
also recognise a store’s efforts to provide essentially a
convenient store with easy access, layout and range. Yet
consistent with our expectations, perceptions of perfor-
mance-related PV are significantly higher among men,
whereas hedonic STV, with regard to the overall hedonic
experience, is significantly higher among women. Retailers
therefore should recognise that perceptions of product,
store, and STV differ across segments, and for example
offer and promote both utilitarian and hedonic store
attributes in their segmentation strategies accordingly.
7.2. Limitations and further research
This study contains several potential limitations and
offers several routes for further research. First, the scale we
develop for SV is limited to a physical store context and the
purchase of a single durable item; therefore, it may not
generalise to SV generated in online stores, supermarkets,
or stores that sell fast moving consumer goods. Although
the proposed SV scale likely will be appropriate for a
variety of bricks-and-mortar store contexts, additional
research is needed to develop scales of perceived value in
alternative contexts, as well as for more complex shopping
trips, such as those that include visits to multiple stores or
examine combinations of products. Further other factors
may affect our dependent variable, shopping trip value,
including the size and composition of the travel party, the
purpose of the trip (e.g. for a gift for a close friend or for an
appliance for an office), and cost factors such as
psychological and monetary costs. Such explanatory
factors may be addressed in future research; however our
focus is on the inter-relationship between value compo-
nents.
Second, for the scale development, we used student
samples in both the focus groups to generate SV items and
the survey stage. However, as we noted previously,
students have been used extensively to develop consumer
scales and therefore are widely accepted as a respondent
population (Babin et al., 1994; Zaichowsky, 1985).
Third, further research should validate the relationships
among PV, SV, and STV in other contexts and examine
407
their relationships with other important outcomes, such
as postpurchase evaluations (e.g., satisfaction, loyalty,
switching behaviours), which we do not examine in this
study. Additional research also might consider whether
consumers trade off different components of PV and
SV to form their impressions of STV or if they use
noncompensatory decision-making rules. For example,
must performance-related PV reach a certain level before
high perceptions of utilitarian STV are possible? Do the
components compensate for one another in some way? For
example, customers may tend to neglect the utilitarian
aspects associated with a store, such as higher prices, when
the store’s environment provides sufficient hedonic value.
Fourth, we find that women perceive utilitarian SV more
highly than do men, which runs contrary to our expecta-
tions but may be consistent with recent demographic and
social changes in society. This potential explanation also
requires further investigation.
Overall, our findings provide useful information that
retailers may use to understand and develop strategies that
create value for consumers, as well as a solid foundation
for further research into the value components of
consumption experiences in different contexts.
References
Albrecht, K., 1995. Delivering Customer Value: Its Everyone’s Job, vol. 9.
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.
Arbuckle, J.L., 2005. AmosTM 6.0 User’s Guide. SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL.
Babin, B.J., 2000. April 4, personal correspondence.
Babin, B.J., Attway, J.S., 2000. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating
value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research 49
(2), 91–99.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., 1995. Consumer self-regulation in a retail
environment. Journal of Retailing 71 (1), 47–70.
Babin, L.A., Burns, A.C., 1998. A modified scale for the measurement of
communication-evoked mental imagery. Psychology and Marketing 15
(3), 261–278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun:
measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of
Consumer Research 20 (March), 644–656.
Babin, B.J., Lee, Y.-K., Kim, E.-J., Griffin, M., 2005. Modeling consumer
satisfaction and word-of-mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea.
Journal of Services Marketing 19 (3), 133–139.
Bagozzi, R., Heatherton, T.F., 1994. A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: application to state self-esteem.
Structural Equation Modeling 1 (1), 35–67.
Bagozzi, R.P., Foxall, G.R., 1996. Construct validation of a measure of
adaptive-innovative cognitive styles in consumption. International
Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (July), 201–213.
Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1990. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian
sources of consumer attitude. Marketing Letters 2 (2), 159–170.
Browne, M.W., Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
In: Bollen, K.A., Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation
Models. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 136–162.
Byrne, B.M., 2004. Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS
graphics: a road less travelled. Structural Equation Modeling 11 (2),
272–300.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
408 V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409
Carmines, E.G., McIver, J.P., 1981. Analysing models with unobserved
variables. In: Bohrnstedt, G.W., Borgatta, E.F. (Eds.), Social
Measurement: Current Issues. Sage, London, pp. 65–115.
Chebat, J.C., Gomboa, A., Michon, R., 1999. The role of odors in the
shopping process. In: American Marketing Association Winter
Educators Conference, St. Petersburg, FL.
Coopers, Lybrand, 1998. Efficient consumer response study conclusions.
Retrieved January 12, 2000, from /http://www/uk.coopers.com/
managementconsulting/ecr/conclusions.htmlS.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., Rentz, J.O., 1996. A measure of service
quality for retail stores: scale development and validation. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (1), 3–16.
Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and
utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 37 (February),
60–71.
Dion, D., 2004. Personal control and coping with retail crowding.
International Journal of Service Industry Management 15 (3/4),
250–263.
Dittmar, H., 1989. Gender identity-related meanings of personal
possessions. British Journal of Social Psychology 28 (June),
159–171.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand,
and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of
Marketing Research 28 (August), 307–319.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental
psychology approach. Journal of Retailing 58 (Spring), 34–57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store
atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing 70 (3),
283–294.
Eroglu, S., Harrell, G.D., 1986. Retail crowding: theoretical and strategic
implications. Journal of Retailing 62 (Winter), 346–363.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research 18 (February), 39–50.
Garver, M.S., Mentzer, J.T., 1999. Logistics research methods: employing
structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of
Business Logistics 20 (1), 33–57.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 2002. The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and
purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352.
Griffin, M., Babin, B.J., Modianos, D., 2000. Shopping values of Russian
consumers: the impact of habituation in a developing economy.
Journal of Retailing 76 (1), 33–52.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multi-
variate Data Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice-Hall International Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs.
Harnett, M., 1998. Shopper needs must be priority. Discount Store News
37 (May), 21–22.
Hightower, R., Brady, M.K., Baker, T.L., 2002. Investigating the role of
the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: an
exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research
55 (9), 697–707.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging
concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46
(Summer), 92–101.
Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P., 1996. Marketing in hypermedia computer-
mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing
60 (3), 50–68.
Holbrook, M.B., 1999. Introduction to consumer value. In: Holbrook,
M.B. (Ed.), Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and
Research. Routledge, New York, pp. 1–29.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of
consumption: consumption fantasies, feelings and fun. Journal of
Consumer Research 9 (September), 132–140.
Hoyle, R.H., Panter, A.T., 1995. Writing about structural equation
models. In: Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), Structural Equation Modeling:
Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 158–176.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Arnold, M.J., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes.
Journal of Business Research 59, 974–981.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 1982. Recent developments in structural
equation modeling. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (November),
404–416.
Kassarjian, H.H., 1977. Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of
Consumer Research 4 (June), 8–18.
Kotler, P., 1973. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing
49, 48–64.
Lin, C-H., Sher, P.J., Shih, H-Y., 2005. Past progress and future directions
in conceptualizing customer perceived value. International Journal of
Service Industry Management 16 (3/4), 318–336.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., Widaman, K.F., 2002. To
parcel or not to parcel: exploring the question, weighing the merits.
Structural Equation Modeling 9 (2), 151–173.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K., Rigdon, E., 2001. Experiential value:
conceptualization, measurement and application in the catalogue
and internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing 77 (1),
39–56.
May, E.G., 1989. A retail odyssey. Journal of Retailing 65 (3), 357–367.
Mazursky, D., Jacoby, J., 1985. Forming impressions of merchandise and
service quality. In: Jacoby, J., Olson, J. (Eds.), Perceived Quality: How
Consumers View Stores and Merchandise. Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA, pp. 139–154.
Naumann, E., 1995. Creating Customer Value: The Path to Sustainable
Competitive Advantage. Thomson Executive Press, Cincinnati, OH.
New Straits Times, 2006. Mending the malls, November 18, p. 13.
O’Guinn, T.C., Faber, R.J., 1989. Compulsive buying: a phenomenolo-
gical approach. Journal of Consumer Research 16 (September),
147–157.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. Servqual: a multiple-
item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality.
Journal of Retailing 64 (Spring), 12–40.
Percy, L., 1982. Using qualitative focus groups in generating hypotheses
for subsequent quantitative validation and strategy development.
Advances in Consumer Research 9, 57–61.
Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E., Howard, D.R., 1999. Analyzing the
commitment–loyalty link in service contexts. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science 27 (3), 333–348.
Recreation Equipment Incorporated, 2007. Retrieved January 11 2007,
from /http://www.insiderpages.com/b/3723329133S.
Rich, S.U., Jain, S.C., 1968. Social class and life cycle as predictors of
shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 5 (February),
41–49.
Richins, M., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of
possessions. Journal of Consumer Research 21 (December), 504–521.
Schechter, L., 1984. A normative conception of value. Progressive Grocer,
Executive Report, pp. 12–14.
Seattle Times, 2006. Starbucks adding books to retail offerings, August 8,
p. E.1.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L., 1991. Why we buy what we buy: a
theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research 22
(March), 159–170.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the
development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing 77 (2),
203–220.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., Johnson, L.W., 1999. The role of perceived
risk in the quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment.
Journal of Retailing 75 (1), 77–105.
Sweeney, J.C., Hausknecht, D., Soutar, G.N., 2000. Measuring cognitive
dissonance: a multidimensional scale. Psychology and Marketing 17
(5), 369–386.
Time, 1998. That’s retail-tainment, December 7, pp. 40–41.
Treadgold, A., 1999. The outlook for Asian retailing. Discount
Merchandiser 39 (May), 45–46.
Vantrappen, H., 1992. Creating customer value by streamlining business
processes. Long Range Planning 25 (February), 53–62.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
V.C.S. Diep, J.C. Sweeney / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (2008) 399–409 409

Waskom, K., 2000. Destination retail is on its way. Marketing News,
March 13.
Woodall, T., 2003. Conceptualising ‘value for the customer’: An
attributional, structural and dispositional analysis. Academy of
Management Review 12. Available at: /http://www.amsreview.org/
articles/woodall12-2003.pdfS.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: the next source for competitive
advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (2),
139–153.
Zaichowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of
Consumer Research 12 (December), 341–352.