Shopping patterns of the rural consumer: Exploring the relationship between shopping orientations and outshopping

J BUSN RES 1986: 14:63-X1

63

Shopping Patterns of the Rural Consumer: Exploring the Relationship between Shopping Orientations and Outshopping James R. Lumpkin

Jon M. Hawes

William R. Darden

Baylor llniversity

University of Akron

University of Arkansas

Much attention has been devoted to the taxonomic analysis of the shopping orientations, behavior, and other characteristics of urban and suburban consumers. To a great extent, however, rural consumers have escaped the attention of researchers. Research focusing on this sector is needed because recent studies of outshopping suggest that rural consumers represent a significant force in some retail markets. This article examines rural consumers by developing a taxonomy of shopping-orientation groups. Differences among these groups are analyzed with respect to outshopping behavior, and the strategic implications of the research are discussed. Several studies have advanced and refined the notion of shopping orientations since Stone’s [41] seminal work. The major thrust of these studies has been that shopping behavior is not simply economic in nature. People shop for a variety of reasons, among them enjoyment and socializing. This fact has important implications because it suggests that retailing strategy should encompass more than just tangible product and economic variables. Previous research has identified shopping-orientation profiles and has examined the relationship to product usage rates [ 131, as well as to various aspects of patronage behavior, including store loyalty [35, 361, in-home shopping [8, 10, 18, 32, 34, 401, and outshopping [14, 201. Each of these shopping-orientation typologies and profiles, however, has been based on a convenience sample or a sample of housewives from urban areas. Seldom have researchers investigated shopping orientations of rural consumers and the relationship of these orientations to other aspects of shopping behavior. This article begins to fill this research void by examining the shopping-orientation profiles of rural consumers. If retailers are to effectively meet the needs of this important segment of population, a greater understanding of the shopping orientations of rural consumers and the attendant relationships to patronage behavior is required.

Address correspondence Waco. TX 76798.

to James

Journal of Business Research 14, 63-81 (1986) 0 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1986 52 Vanderbilt Ave., New York, NY 10017

R. Lumpkin,

Hankamer

School

of Business,

Baylor

University,

0148-2963/86/$3.50

64

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-X1

J. Lumpkin et al.

Background Shopping

Orientations

Stone’s [41] examination of city shoppers and urban identification in Chicago provides a useful comparative base for studying the shopping orientations of rural consumers. Stone suggested that consumers engage in the shopping process for a variety of reasons and identified four types of shoppers: 1) economic, 2) personalizing, 3) ethical, and 4) apathetic. The economic shopper views shopping as solely an economic activity that is necessary in order to obtain products. The price, quality, and variety of merchandise, as well as the efficiency of the procurement process are important factors for economic shoppers. The personalizing shopper, however, tends to individualize the shopping experience and appreciates a close, friendly relationship with store personnel. These consumers prefer to shop at local stores because they have developed personal, often even social, relationships with local merchants. The ethical shopper feels a moral obligation to patronize specific stores. This sentiment often necessitates purchasing products from local independent merchants, rather than from large chain stores. The apathetic shopper has little interest in the shopping process and attempts to minimize the buying effort. The character and atmosphere of stores are not very important, because convenience and ease of procurement are more salient attributes for apathetic shoppers. Darden and Reynolds [14] examined the relevance of Stone’s theory as an explanation for the shopping behavior of consumers in Athens, Georgia, a small Southern city. Whereas Stone’s typology was based largely on the subjective analysis of shopping behavior, Darden and Reynolds conducted a more objective and statistically sophisticated psychographic analysis. To a great extent, the results confirmed Stone’s propositions. Tauber [42] also conducted research in this field. He investigated the determinants of shopping behavior and identified a set of personal and social motives that further suggest that some consumers gain satisfaction from the activities associated with shopping, as well as with the consumption process. Williams, Painter, and Nicholas [47], in developing a typology of grocery shoppers, classified consumers as apathetic, convenience, price, or involved shoppers and found significant differences across these groups in demographics and media usage. Similarly, Anderson [l] found a convenience orientation to be positively related to stage in life cycle and socioeconomic status. These studies provide ample support for the notion that the several reasons explaining consumer motives for shopping are not restricted to economic factors [ 111. In order for retailers to effectively develop strategies consistent with consumer needs, it is necessary to determine the linkage between various shopping orientations and patronage behavior. With respect to the rural consumer, certain aspects of patronage behavior are of particular interest. In comparison to the retail offerings available in urban areas, retail outlets in rural areas generally offer a relatively limited assortment of goods and services. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that a rural consumer would necessarily be more likely to shop outside the home-

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

65

town (outshop) or to use other buying methods, such as catalog shopping. Furthermore, the reasons for these patronage behaviors are of interest, because they may differ from those expressed by suburban and urban consumers. Outshopping The outshopping literature may also provide a useful perspective for analyzing the shopping patterns of rural consumers. This important subset of retailing theory has developed from the early “macroanalytic” gravitation models [e.g., 7, 21, 331 to the “microanalytic” approach that emphasizes the examination of various demographic and attitudinal predictors of intermarket patronage. A coalescent demographic profile of the frequent outshopping has not emerged from these studies. For example, although several researchers suggest that income is positively related to outshopping [14,20,30,35,43], others indicate that outshopping have lower incomes [39]. Furthermore, Mason and Moore [23] found no significant relationship between income and outshopping. In addition, other factors such as length of time in the community, education, and number of children have been found to be related to outshopping in some studies [20,39], but not in others [14,22,23,43]. More consistent findings have emerged from psychographic analyses of intermarket patronage groups. For example, the frequent outshopping does appear to have an unfavorable attitude toward local shopping conditions and a favorable attitude toward shopping in urban areas [27, 30, 35, 361. This dissatisfaction with local shopping has also been shown to hold true for cross-national outshopping [15]. Specific aspects inherent in this attitude include preferences for the selection [20, 22, 30, 39, 431, quality, convenient hours, decor or appearance, and sales personnel of stores in urban areas [22, 39, 431. Outshoppers also tend to be less price conscious, which is consistent with the higher incomes posited for this group [20,23,39,43], and tend to expose themselves to more sources of information [12] than those who do not outshop. In-home shopping via catalogs can be thought of as another form of outshopping. Reynolds and Darden [35] and Reynolds [34] found that frequent outshoppers also shop more often by mail. Others researchers, however, have found that the relationship is product specific [38] and that in-store outshopping and in-home catalog shopping are used to purchase different types of merchandise [20,43]. This suggests that outshopping is not just a dichotomy of inshopper/outshopper. Instead, consumers are likely to differ on these dimensions in degree only [36,39]. This further indicates that both outshopping and in-home catalog shopping should be considered in patronage studies. Catalog Shopping In recent years, non-store retailing through catalogs has become a very important patronage option [25]. With recent technological advances making it easier for consumers to utilize this form of retailing [24, 26, 461, its importance should continue to increase. In order for retailers to capitalize on this trend, they must develop an understanding of the consumers who utilize catalogs and others forms of nonstore shopping.

66

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-X1

J. Lumpkin et al.

A number of segmentation studies have been conducted in this area, and excellent reviews have been provided by Gillett [19] and by Berkowitz, Walton, and Walker [4]. These and other studies have provided demographic profiles of consumers in a number of in-home purchasing situations. In general, the research indicates that the catalog shopper is an “upscale consumer.” Research indicates that the catalog-prone shopper is a younger consumer with a higher income, more education, and a more prestigious occupation than is the store-prone counterpart [8, 10, 16, 18, 34, 401. In addition to a demographic analysis of catalog shoppers, Reynolds [34] investigated a number of shopping orientations. He found that while the frequent catalog shopper has an unfavorable attitude toward local shopping conditions, favorable attitudes toward shopping in large cities and toward shopping centers are prevalent. In addition, frequent catalog shoppers are more self-confident and venturesome but not more involved in community activities. Riecken, Yavas, and Samli [37] compared consumers who had recently shopped by catalog to those who had not. The importance of various attributes in the selection of a shopping area, the perceptions of local shopping conditions, and demographics were analyzed. Significant differences between the patronage groups were determined for only three variables: age, home ownership, and involvement in community activities. The latter conclusion is inconsistent with the results of Reynolds’ [34] study. Other insights into the characteristics of catalog shoppers have been provided by Cunningham and Cunningham [lo]. These researchers concluded that active inhome shoppers hold less conservative views, possess a more positive attitude toward the use of credit, and are more cosmopolitan than inactive in-home shoppers. Berkowitz, Walton, and Walker [4] also conducted research in this area and found that in-home shoppers place a higher value on convenience, hold negative attitudes toward in-store shopping activities, are less price conscious, and are more flexible and venturesome than traditional store shoppers. Another study of female in-home shoppers concluded that they are convenience oriented and perceive less risk in shopping by mail or by phone than do consumers who avoid these patronage modes [18]. In the same study, it was concluded that active in-home shoppers also shop in stores frequently. In fact, the research determined that in-home shoppers do not differ from their store-prone counterparts in terms of perceptions regarding the relative difficulty or the pleasure obtained from shopping in stores. A review of these studies suggests that the optimal classification of patronage behavior may not consist of the in-home/in-store dichotomy. Instead, this behavior more likely consists of a multifaceted spectrum arrayed along a behavior continuum. Therefore, the conflicting findings and the indistinct profiles of past research may have resulted from arbitrarily classifying consumers as in-home shoppers or as nonin-home shoppers when a more complex behavioral taxonomy was needed. Objectives

and Study Approach

Past studies of outshopping and in-home shopping have made important contributions to the development of the marketing discipline. Confidence in the ability

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

67

to draw generalizations from this research may be restricted, however, by several concerns. In studying in-home shopping, the respondents have generally been chosen from a single community; only two multicommunity studies have been reported [27, 431. The geographic scope of previous research may be a serious limitation, because attitudes toward local shopping conditions have been found to be related to outshopping and in-home shopping [27, 34, 35, 361. This suggests that research that focuses on a single community sample might not be generalizable beyond that (or a similar) community. A related concern is the absence of research that focuses on respondents from rural locations. Most of the studies have included only urban respondents in the sample. Bolfing, Hills, and Barnaby [6] found that consumers from rural and urban areas exhibited significant differences in terms of perceived risk, attitudes toward local shopping conditions, satisfaction with consumer non-durables and services, and the frequency of catalog shopping. This suggests the need for further examination of the rural consumer. One of the tenets of the “microanalytic” approach to studying in-home or outshopping behavior is that households that have comparable socioeconomic characteristics do not necessarily exhibit similar patronage behavior. The limited success in describing the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the in-home shopper and the outshopper lends credence to this notion and suggests that other factors, such as shopping orientations and perceived importance of shopping-related attributes, should be investigated. Samli, Riecken, and Yavas [38] found no demographic differences between rural inshoppers and outshoppers but did find outshoppers to be less satisfied with several aspects of local shopping conditions. The unidimensional approach of this research, however, dismissed the possibility that the outshopper may differ on other dimensions. An alternative perspective was taken by Moore and Mason [27], who suggested that because outshoppers are not necessarily “economic men,” it may be inferred that psychological or attitudinal differences are perhaps more important in explaining patronage behavior. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not there exist segments of rural consumers that have unique shopping orientations. Further, an answer is sought to the question, Do these shopping-orientation segments differ with respect to patronage behavior? Specifically, the extent of outshopping and in-home catalog shopping, the places in which the consumers tend to outshop, and the perceived importance of shopping-area attributes are compared across the shopping-orientation groups identified. The study replicates and extends previous research with respect to the variables included and focuses on rural consumers. The ten rural communities included in the sample should allow considerably more generalization of the results than was possible with previous single-community studies. This research also extends previous work by studying several, rather than a single, type of outshopping. Urban outshopping, medium-sized city outshopping, outshopping at another location, local shopping, and catalog shopping are analyzed. Previous research has either not identified the places in which the outshopping occurs or has only investigated outshopping to relatively large urban centers. It is hypothesized here that rural consumers might be segmented by the type of outshopping they exhibit.

68

Research

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

J. Lumpkin et al.

Methodology The shopping orientatons analyzed in the study are largely based on previous research. These include various aspects of attitudes toward local shopping, urban shopping, and in-home shopping [27, 34, 35, 361; price consciousness as measured by propensity to shop for price [20, 39, 431; self-confidence [34]; innovativeness and opinion leadership [4]; and attitude toward credit [lo]. Also included are variables relating to active community involvement [34, 371, time-pressure orientations, and orientations toward in-store personalizing. In addition to the psychographic scales, demographic and socioeconomic measures are examined to develop a more complete profile of the various segments of rural consumers. The importance of various attributes of shopping areas [3] are also analyzed, because this may suggest the reasons that one retail center is preferred over another. Research has demonstrated that outshopping is product specific [e.g., 14, 30, 381. However, based on the premise that rural shoppers must outshop to a greater degree than their urban counterparts, the purpose of this research is, in part, to determine where these consumers tend to outshop. Thus, this study investigates shopping-area attributes rather than product-specific attributes.

Sample The sample for this research consists of households from ten rural communities in one Southwestern state. Half of these communities have populations in the range of 2,000 to 4,000. The five remaining communities each have populations of less than 1,000. The ten rural communities in the sample are within one hour’s driving time to medium-sized communities of 30,000 to 50,000 people, each having regional shopping malls and other retailing facilities. In addition, each rural community is within one-and-one-half hour’s driving time of a large (2.5 million people) metropolitan area that offers extensive retail facilities. The communities chosen encompassed the trade area of both the medium-sized and metropolitan areas. The households included in the study were selected on a proportionate random basis stratified according to the population of each community. Phone directories were used as the sample frame for each community. The overall rate of response to the mail survey was 30.6 percent, with 234 questionnaires usable for this analysis. No follow-ups or incentives for completion of the questionnaire were offered, which undoubtedly reduced the overall response rate. In order to address possible nonresponse bias, the demographics of the sample was compared to the rural population of the state. This comparison, which is shown in Appendix B, indicates that the respondents are quite representative with respect to age, education, and income. The sample, however, contained a somewhat higher proportion of married consumers. The distribution of respondents by community is also very close to the actual population distribution within the communities. This comparison is provided in Appendix C. Although nonresponse bias cannot be ruled out completely, the sample does appear to be representative of the rural population of the state as well as of the counties in which the communities are located. Thus, it seems likely that the responses from this sample can be generalized to other rural consumers-especially married consumers.

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

69

The Questionnaire The data were collected through a self-administered mail questionnaire from the member of the household most responsible for the family’s shopping. Each respondent indicated the frequency of shopping for the household over the preceding 12 months in stores in the metropolitan areas, stores in the medium-sized communities, stores in the hometown, and other stores outside the hometown, and the frequency of in-home catalog shopping utilizing mail or phone orders. The study was administered during the early spring, and the researchers felt that the twelvemonth time frame would be more representative than a shorter period (e.g., one to three months) that might be confounded due to the Christmas season. If item response can be used as a gauge, there was no indication of a recall problem with the twelve-month period. Of course, there might be some inaccuracy in the absolute frequency of shopping, although the relative frequency across respondents for comparison purposes is judged to be valid. The importance attributed to various features of a shopping area was measured (5). Demoon a five-point scale ranging from “Important” (1) “Unimportant” graphic data collected included sex of the respondent; marital status; number of children in the household; total annual income for the household; and the number of years of forma1 education, the age, and the occupation of each spouse. The shopping orientations of the respondents were obtained from 49 Likerttype statements on a six-point scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (6). As noted earlier, many of these statements were adopted from previous research, whereas other statements were developed specifically for this study. Fifteen constructs were identified through principal-components factor analysis with varimax rotation and using the minimum eigenvalue of one criterion to control the number of factors extracted. These factors accounted for 67.4% of the total variance. Only items loading more than .50 on a single factor were included. The fifteen constructs were used in this study via summated scores based on the raw data. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was calculated for each construct as a measure of reliability [9]. Each of the Alpha coefficients was greater than .60, and many were greater than .70. In addition, the interitem correlations were relatively high (.50 to .70), indicating acceptable reliability. The constructs were judged to have content (face) validity, because many had been used previously and the remaining scales included statements that had some theoretical justification. The scale names, example statements, factor loadings, and Alpha coefficients are presented in Appendix A. Analysis Techniques The first step in the analysis was the establishment of a taxonomy of rural consumers based on their shopping orientations. Ward’s minimum-variance cluster analysis was used to group the respondents [5, 29, 44, 451. In order to determine whether or not the shopping-orientation groups of rural consumers identified by the cluster analysis differ with respect to patronage behavior, the importance ascribed to shopping-area attributes, and demographics, stepwise Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) was employed. MDA provides

70

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-X1

J. Lumpkin et al.

an overall test for significant differences among the groups and the relative importance of each predictor variable in discriminating among the groups. The discriminant functions are validated by estimating the functions on half of the sample and then applying the function to the hold-out sample [17]. Because the actual group memberships are known, the percentage of correct classification can be computed. In order to determine whether or not individual predictor variables differ across the groups, a technique suggested by Morrison [28] and demonstrated by Behrman and Perreault [2] was used. This procedure develops simultaneous confidence intervals that account for multigroup, multivariable comparisons and thus offers an advantage over the traditional F ratio analysis. Results

of the Research

Shopping

Orientation

Groups

The cluster analysis of shopping orientations of rural consumers generated three groups. The mean value for each of the three groups on the shopping-orientation scales are presented in Table 1 along with the number of respondents classified into each of the groups. Group 1: “Inactive Inshoppers. ” Slightly more than 37% of the respondents were classified into Group 1. These respondents have the lowest average values on the active-consumer, leisure-time orientation, and generalized/shopping opinion-leadership scales. Furthermore, respondents in Group 1 indicated high levels of loyalty to local merchants and expressed favorable attitudes toward local shopping (although they were not significantly different from other groups on these) with commensurately unfavorable attitudes toward large-city shopping. They do not tend to shop as much as Group 3 consumers and have less shopping selfconfidence and also indicated lower levels of shopping innovativeness. This group might be named “Inactive Inshoppers.” Group 2: “Active Outshoppers. ” Approximately 32% of the respondents were included in Group 2. These consumers are quite active and leisure-time oriented compared to Group 1 but produced low scores on the time-management statements. They exhibit high levels of generalized/shopping opinion-leadership and are somewhat innovative and self-confident. They tend not to shop at several stores in search of lower prices. The average value for the personalizing scale is approximately the same for all three groups. For consumers in Group 1, personalizing might be explained by their interactions with well-known local merchants. Consumers in Group 2, however, expressed slightly lower levels of loyalty to local merchants and unfavorable attitudes toward local shopping conditions. In addition, these respondents have favorable attitudes toward large-city outshopping. Therefore, it seems that the nature of the personalizing characteristics of consumers in Group 2 differs from those in Group 1. Respondents in Group 2 also indicated lower levels of in-home shopping ori-

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

Table 1.

Profiles of the Shopping-Orientation Groups Developed from the Cluster

Analvsis Mean Values

Shopping Active

1 (Inactive Inshoppers)

Orientations

consumer

Leisure-time

oriented

Generalized/shopping leader

Credit

propensity

user

Personalizing Loyalty

shopper

to local merchants

Nonavailability shopping In-home

2 (Active Outshoppers)

Group”

3 (Thrifty Innovators)

Multivariate Confidence Interval Differing Group?

2.66

3.83

3.45

1 from 2

2.99

4.44

4.12

1 from 2, 3

3.17

4.17

3.80

3.24

2.97

4.46

opinion

Time manager Shopping/low-price

for Each Cluster

1 from 2 1,2from3

3.88

3.66

4.48

2 from 3

3.17

3.63

3.54

NS

4.16

4.18

3.97

NS

4.34

3.59

4.24

NS

1.67

1.56

2.12

NS

of alternative

shopping

Generalized/shopping confidence Negative attitude shopping

orientation

3.50

2.79

3.80

2 from 3, 1 from 3

3.86

4.48

4.66

NS

2.87

3.48

3.30

1 from 2 2 from 3

selftoward

Negative attitude toward city outshopping

local large4.12

3.14

4.03

Mall oriented

4.30

4.05

4.53

NS

Shopping

3.32

3.83

4.13

1 from 3

Group

innovator

size (378:%)

“Ranges from “Strongly Disagree” bSignificant at the .05 level.

(1) to “Strongly

(31764%) Agree”

-

(31Z%)

(6).

entations than did Group 3 and are (surprisingly) slightly less mall oriented. spondents in Group 2 are identified as “Active Outshoppers.”

Re-

Group 3: “Thrifty Innovators.” Slightly more than 31% of the respondents were classified into Group 3. Consumers in this group tend to manage their time to a great extent and are more oriented toward in-home shopping, but not any more toward large-city outshopping than are Group 1 consumers. Because these consumers have the most self-confidence and are shopping innovators, they would be likely candidates for new shopping methods and in-home shopping, especially if it would increase shopping efficiency or economy. The members of this group appear to be economic shoppers, because they tend to shop around to get the lowest price. These consumers are characterized as “Thrifty Innovators.”

or

,164 ,048

,041

of male (years)

,046

.335

,419

.422

Education

- ,008

,132

-.I23

- ,435

,017

Other outshopping frequency’

Importance of variety of store&

Income ($35,000 more = 1)

of children

,025

Number

- ,041

or

12.083

2.354

1.333

0.312

1.291

0.395

2.895

7.666

,143

- ,222

Income ($20,000 less = I)

child

3.760

12.291

2.750

0.916

2.145

- ,035

- ,075

- ,156

-.195

,089

II

1 (Inactive Inshoppers)

12.621

2.540

1.405

0.486

1.189

0.351

2.783

4.864

4.202

14.054

3.648

0.702

3.202

2 (Active Outshoppers)

12.052

2.184

1.078

0.184

0.763

0.605

2.815

5.236

4.000

13.394

3.473

0.894

2.500

3 (Thrifty Innovators)

for Each Group

Grouus

Mean Values

Shopuinrr-Orientation

.226

,258

,280

Importance of entertainmenP

Age of youngest

city frequency’

of female

(years) Medium-sized outshopping

Education

Hometown shopping frequency’

- .293

,439

Large-city outshopping frequency’

Marital status (married = I)

Across

Rotated Canonical Loadings

of Differences

I

Results

Variables”

Table 2. MDA

Groups’

NS

NS

NS

2 from 3

1 from 3

1, 2 from 3

NS

NS

1 from 2

1 from 2

1 from 2, 3

1, 3 from 2

1,3from2

Differing

Multivariate Confidence Interval

II

Function

69 31

.oOO ,016

79.9

Percent Explained Variance

24.61

Significance Level

“Variables not loading in the final discriminant model: Outshopping mode: Catalog shoppers; Shopping-area attributes: Convenient events promotions, Ease of access, Services, Attractive decor, Cleanliness; Demographics: Age of male and female head of household, status and retirement for male and female heads, Sex of respondent. ‘Significant at the .05 level. ‘Frequencies range from “Never” (1) to “More Than 12 Times Last Year” (5). dRanges from “Important” (1) to “Unimportant” (5).

I

Function

Multivariate Chi Square

location, Special Employment

74

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

J. Lumpkin et al.

Group Differences The three shopping-orientation groups of rural consumers were further analyzed by means of Multiple Discriminant Analysis to determine any significant group differences with respect to patronage behavior, importance ascribed to shoppingarea attributes, and demographics. This analysis provided a more complete profile of the three groups. The stepwise MDA produced two significant discriminant functions, which, when applied to the hold-out sample, correctly classified 69.1% of the respondents compared to the proportional-chance criterion of 33.8% and the maximum-chance criterion. of 39%. Of the five types of outshopping, eight shopping-area attributes, and thirteen demographic measures included, four outshopping modes, two attribates, and seven demographic measures entered the discriminant model based on the full sample. The variables included in the stepwise function, the rotated canonical loadings for each variable on each function [31], the cluster group mean values, and the results of the multivariate confidence interval tests for group differences are presented in Table 2. The variables not loading are also listed. The canonical loadings for the first function indicate that large-city outshopping and medium-city outshopping are important variables, as are marital status and education. In addition, hometown shopping frequency also has a relatively high value. For the second function, income, number of children, and the importance of variety in a shopping area are most prominent. Differences in the three shopping-orientation groups can be visualized by portraying the groups on the canonical axes formed by the two significant functions. Figure 1 depicts the plot of centroids of the three shopping-orientation groups in the discriminant space. Based on the canonical loadings and the position of the plot of each shoppingorientation group, the first function (shown horizontally in Figure 1) seems to represent “Active Shopping and Outshopping.” Analysis of the second function (shown vertically in Figure 1) suggests a description of “Needs and Resources.” Discussion Based on the canonical loadings and the multivariate confidence interval tests for differences, the first function tends to distinguish Group 2 from the other groups, especially Group 1. The rural consumers in Group 2 are more frequent outshoppers in large cities as well as in medium-sized cities. They also tend to shop more frequently in their hometowns than do members of Group 1. This is consistent with the characterization of the group as “Active Outshoppers.” These consumers are more likely to be single, to have more education than Group 1 consumers, and to have higher income than those in Group 3. This finding is consistent with the outshopper profile suggested by some of the previous research [14, 20, 351 but not by others [27, 38, 431. To a great extent, the second function distinguishes Group 3 from the other two groups. Members of this group, described as “Thrifty Innovators,” have the lowest incomes, and, although they are more likely to be married than the “Active Outshoppers,” they have fewer children. The results of the MDA support, in part, the description of rural consumers in

Shopping

Patterns

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

of Rural Consumers

Needs

and Resources II

1 .o

Group

l

.5

Group 0

1-“Inactive Inshoppers”

Active

I -1 .o

2-“Active Outshoppers”

-.5

I

I

.5

1 .o

I

-2

D

Group

3--“Thrifty

Innovators”

1 .o

Group

1 2 3

Figure 1. A Graphic

Canonical

Axes.

Profile of the Three

Centroids I

II

-.815 1.038 ,018

,191 ,508 -.737

Shopping-Orientation

Groups

on the Two

Shopping and Outshopping

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

J. Lumpkin et al.

Table 3. Importance

of Shopping-Area

Attributes

by Shopping-Orientation Mean Values

Shopping

Area

1 (Inactive Whoppers)

Attribute

Group

for Each Group”

2 (Active Outshoppers)

3 (Thrifty Innovators)

Cleanliness

1.12

1.18

Variety

1.33

1.40

1.07

1.39

1.45

1.21

1.33

1.48

1.28

2.89

2.78

2.81

2.41

2.37

2.52

3.18

3.29

3.42

3.66

3.70

3.73

of stores

Convenient

location

Ease of access Restaurants, theatres, entertainment Attractive

other

decor

Sepcial

events

Beauty

salon/barber

1.15

and promotions shop,

“Ranges from “Important”

other

services

(1) lo “Unimportant”

(5)

Group 1 as “Inactive Inshoppers” with generally low levels of shopping activity. They shop less than do members of the other groups, regardless of whether or not their shopping takes the form of outshopping or local shopping. These rural consumers tend to be married, to have older children, and to have higher incomes than do consumers in Group 3, but lower incomes than have the members of Group 2. The “Active Outshoppers” (Group 2) shop frequently and are not highly concerned about price or convenience. The rural consumers in Group 1, the “Inactive Inshoppers,” appear to hold nearly the opposite attitudes on these attributes. The “Thrifty Innovators” (Group 3), however, hold attitudes toward the price and convenience attributes that are more consistent with the “Active Outshoppers,” because they are also somewhat active shoppers. The frequency of in-home shopping does not significantly discriminate among the groups. Thus, active outshoppers do not use in-home shopping to a greater extent than do other consumers. This finding differs from that reported in previous research [34,35]. Further, the results indicate that catalog shopping is not essentially used as a substitute for outshopping. As previously noted, however, in-home catalog shopping may be product specific. Consequently, the generalized, rather than the product-specific, patronage behavior studied in this research may confound the relationships. Additional research is needed to clarify these findings. The results of this study do confirm previous research indicating that outshoppers hold negative attitudes toward local shopping conditions [20, 27, 35, 36, 38, 431. have favorable attitudes toward urban outAlthough rhe “Active Outshoppers” shopping, it can be seen from Table 2 that relatively more outshopping is done in the medium-sized cities than in the large city or the hometown. This is also true for the other two groups. The question remains, Is this due to the more proximate location of the medium-sized cities in comparison to the large city or to other factors (such as urban traffic) influencing the patronage decision? Further research should address this question. Table 3 presents the mean importance of each shopping-area attribute by group. There is no significant difference across groups for any of the variables. The at-

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-M

77

tributes can, however, be ranked from most to least important and compared on an aggregate basis to the preferences of urban consumers, which have been determined by previous research. For rural consumers, cleanliness seems to be the most important factor in deciding where to shop. The next three factors are convenience-related attributes, followed by attractive decor and entertainment facilities. This suggests that the rural consumer seems especially interested in shopping in a clean and convenient retail environment. Of relatively less importance are decor, entertainment, and service facilities. This preference pattern differs considerably from that found for urban outshoppers. Darden and Perreault [14] suggested that outshoppers placed a strong emphasis on entertainment and recreational facilities, although the researchers did not specifically investigate this. However, Papadopoulos [30] did find entertainment to be a primary reason for traveling out of town. Conclusions Although each of the three shopping-orientation groups of rural consumers represents a market segment, the “Active Outshoppers” and “Thrifty Innovators” (Groups 2 and 3, respectively) seem to be the more viable segments for urban retailers attempting to attract outshoppers from rural areas. Quite different strategies would be required, however, to reach each of these segments. For example, strategies designed to encourage consumers in Group 1, the “Inactive Inshoppers,” to travel to a major metropolitan area to shop in a novel type of retailing facility (e.g., a catalog warehouse showroom or a limited-assortment grocery store) are not likely to meet with much success. These consumers prefer to shop close to home and to avoid new types of shopping activities. Rural retailers that offer convenient location, ease of procurement, and a rather traditional environment are more likely to retain the patronage of the “Inactive Inshopper.” On the other hand, rural consumers in Group 2, the “Active Outshoppers” have higher incomes and may be willing to spend it on products they want. All of these consumers have relatively active lifestyles and are willing to devote considerable effort, including travel, to find products that they want. It is likely that these shoppers exhibit little store or brand loyalty. Retailers should provide a contemporary shopping environment that generates excitement as well as convenience to attract the patronage of “Active Outshoppers.” These rural consumers are prime candidates for outshopping. A retailing strategy that features novelty at a lower price would be particularly salient to the rural consumers in Group 3. These “Thrifty Innovators” have lower incomes and spend more time searching for better values. Most of the consumer research that has been conducted during the past 20 years has focused on urban or suburban consumers. Rural consumers, however, are a significant force in the market. They account for most of the sales by rural retailers and recent research concerning outshopping indicates that rural consumers purchase a significant volume of the nonconvenience goods offered by urban and suburban retailers. Results of the analysis indicate that there are shopping-orientation segments that are relatively unique with respect to attitudes toward various shopping-area attributes and patronage behavior. This suggests that additional research to further refine this exploratory typology of the rural shopper should be of value to retailers.

78

.I BUSN RES

J. Lumpkin

19X6:14:63-81

Appendix

A. Shopping

Orientations

Scale Name

Example

Active

I like to work on community projects.

consumer

et al.

Statement

Number

Example Statement Factor

Cronbach’s

of Items

Loading

Alpha

,791

.6SO

Leisure-time oriented

I take time off for leisure .74Y

,670

Generalized/shopping opinion leader

My friends and neighbors often come to me for advice.

,788

.68h

Time manager

I like to plan my activities by the clock

.88Y

,794

Shopping/low-price propensity

I make it a rule to shop at ,684

,728

Credit

I buy many things with a credit card.

,845

.6SS

,883

,826

,742

,764

user

activities

a number I buy.

every day.

of stores

before

Personalizing shopper

I like to shop where people

Loyalty to local merchant

I owe it to my community to shop at local stores.

Nonavailability of alternative shopping

I don’t shop in other towns because I don’t have transportation to get there

1

,711

In-home shopping orientation

Mail or phone ordering at home is more convenient than going to the store.

7

.XOY

.7ss

Generalized/ shopping selfconfidence

I think I have more selfconfidence than most people.

3

,726

.670

Negative attitude toward local shopping

Local prices are out of line with other towns. 5

.724

,711

Negative attitude toward large-city outshopping

It takes too much time to shop out of town. ,726

,777

Mall oriented

Shopping malls are the best place to shop.

.X2Y

,759

Shopping innovator

I like to try new and different places to shop.

.664

.6OY

know me.

Shopping

Patterns

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

of Rural Consumers

Appendix B. Demographic

Comparison

of Sample

79

to the Population” Sample (%)

Population (%) Education-males

53.7% 12.9

50.8%

High school graduates @ or more years of college

10.0

Education-females 51.4 7.3

High school graduates @Ior more years of college

50.0 11.0

Marital status Single Married Widowed Divorced Median age-males Median age-females over)

(18 and over) (18 and

Family income

19.1

9.4

68.3 7.0 4.4

81.5

42.0 43.7

40.0 37.0

$18,713 (mean)

$15,000 to $19,000 (median category)

3.0 5.6

“1980 census for rural areas of the state. Based on several comparable demographics. towns are located are very similar to the rural areas of the state as a whole.

Appendix C. Comparison

of Population

Size to Sample

Town

in which the

Size by Town

Percent of Population

Percent of Sample

10.7

13.5

9.8 4.6 4.6

The town names can be obtained

the counties

8.6

2.8

4.8 4.7 2.9

2.9 1.7

1.6 1.2

1.o

1.6

2.9

2.1

by writing to James Lumpkin

References 1. Anderson, W. Thomas, Jr., Identifying Marketing Res. 8 (May 1971): 179-183.

the Convenience-Oriented

Consumer,

2. Behrman, Douglass N., and Perreault, William D., Isolating Predictor Variable in Marketing Research Applications of Discriminant Analysis, in Proceedings.

J. of Effects Robert

80

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

J. Lumpkin

S. Franz, Robert M. Hopkins, New Orleans, 1978, pp. 41-44. 3. Bellenger, Patronage

and Al Toma,

eds.,

Southern

Marketing

Danny N., Robertson, Dan H., and Greenberg, Barnett Motives, J. of Retailing 53(Summer 1977): 29-38.

Association,

A., Shopping

4. Berkowitz, Eric N., Walton, John R., and Walker, Orville C., In-Home Market for Innovative Distribution Systems, J. of Retailing %(Summer

et al.

Center

Shoppers: The 1979): 15-33.

5. Blashfield, Roger K., Mixture Model Tests of Cluster Analysis: Accuracy Agglomerative Hierarchial Methods, Psy. Bulletin 83 (May 1976): 377-388.

of Four

6. Bolfing, Claire P., Hills, Gerald E., and Barnaby, David J., Differentiation of Urban and Rural Shoppers Using Selected In-Home Shopping Dimensions, in Proceedings. Ronald D. Taylor, John H. Summey, Blaise J. Bergiel, eds., Southern Marketing Association, New Orleans, 1981, pp. 87-90. 7. Converse, 379-384.

J. ofMarket@

Paul D., New Laws of Retail Gravitation,

14 (October

1949):

8. Cox, Donald F., and Rich, Stuart U., Perceived Risk and Consumer Decision MakingThe Case of Telephone Shopping, J. of Marketing Res. l(November 1964): 32-39. 9. Cronbach, Lee, J., Coefficient 16(September 1951):297-334.

Alpha and the Internal

of Tests, Psychometrika

Structure

10. Cunningham, Isabella C. M., and Cunningham, William H., The Urban In-Home Shopper: Socio-Economic and Attitudinal Characteristics, J. of Retailing 49 (Fall 1973): 42-50. 11. Darden, William R., A Patronage Model of Consumer Behavior, in Competitive Structure in Retail Markets: The Department Store Perspective. Ronald W. Stampfl and Elizabeth Hirschman, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1980, pp. 43-52. 12. Darden, William R., Lennon, John J., and Darden, Donna Interurban Shoppers, J. of Retailing 54(Spring 1978): 51-64. William R., and Perreault, William D., 13. Darden, Multiproduct Purchase Patterns and Segmentation 13(February 1976): 51-60. 14. Darden, William R., and Reynolds, Rates, J. of Marketing 8(November

K., Communicating

Identifying Profiles,

Fred D., Shopping 1971): 505-508.

with

Interurban Shoppers: J. of Marketing Res.

Orientations

and Product

Usage

Paradigm to 15. Dawson, Scott, and Garland, Barbara, An Extension of the Outshopping a Cross-National Context: Mexican Nationals Outshopping in the United States, in Proceedings. Patrick E. Murphy, Gene R. Laczniak, Paul F. Anderson, and Russell W. Belk, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1983, pp. 63-67. 16. Feldman, Laurence P., and Star, Alvin D., Racial Factors in Shopping Behavior, New Measure of Responsibility for Marketing. Keith K. Cox and Ben M. Enis, American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1968, pp. 216-226.

in A eds.,

Donald G., Bias in Multiple 17. Frank, Ronald E., Massey, William F., and Morrison, Discriminant Analysis, J. of Marketing Res. Z(August 1965): 250-258. 18. Gillett, 40-45.

Peter L., A Profile of Urban

19. Gillett, 81-88.

Peter L., In-Home

In-Home

Shoppers-An

Shoppers,

Overview,

J.

J. ofMarketing of Marketing

Robert O., and Beik, Leland L., Shoppers’ Movements 20. Herrmann, Retail Area, J. of Marketing 32(0ctober 1968): 45-51. 21. Huff, David L., Defining 34-38.

and Estimating

a Trading

34(July 1970):

40(0ctober Outside

1976):

Their Local

Area, J. of Marketing 28(July 1964):

22. Lillis, Charles M., and Hawkins, Delbert I., Retail Expenditure Trade Areas, J. of Retailing SO(Summer 1974): 30-42, 101.

Flows in Contiguous

Shopping Patterns of Rural Consumers

J BUSN RES 1986:14:63-81

81

23. Mason, J. Barry, and Moore, Charles T., An Empirical Reappraisal of Behavioristic Assumptions in Trading Area Studies, J. of Retailing 46(Winter 1970): 31-37. 24. Mayer, Martin, Coming Fast: Services Through the TV Set, Fortune 108 (November 14, 1983): 50-56. 25. McNair, Malcolm P., and May, Eleanor R., The Next Revolution of the Retailing Wheel, Harvard Business Review 56(September 1978): 81-91. 26. McQuade, Walter, There’s a Lot of Satisfaction (Guaranteed) in Direct Marketing, Fortune lOO(April21, 1980): 110-124. 27. Moore, Charles T., and Mason, J. Barry, A Research Note on Major Retail Center Patronage, J. of Marketing 33(July 1969): 61-63. 28. Morrison, Donald, Multivariate Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967. 29. Neidell, Lester A., Procedure and Pitfalls in Cluster Analysis: A paper presented at the Fall Educators’ Conference of the American Marketing Association, Boston, 1970. 30. Papadopoulos, N. G., Consumer Outshopping Research: Review and Extension, J. of Retailing 56 (Winter 1980): 41-58. 31. Perreauh, William D., Behrman, Douglas N., and Armstrong, Gary M., Alternative Approaches for Interpretation of Multiple Discriminant Analysis in Marketing Research, J. of Business Res. 2(1979): 151-173. 32. Peters, William H., and Ford, Neil M., A Profile of Urban In-Home Shoppers: The Other Half, J. of Marketing 36(January 1972): 62-64. 33. Reilly, William J., The Law of Retail Gravitation. W. J. Reilly Co., New York, 1953. 34. Reynolds, Fred D., An Analysis of Catalog Buying Behavior, J. of Marketing 38 (July 1974): 47-51. 35. Reynolds, Fred D., and Darden, William R., Intermarket Patronage: A Psychographic Study of Consumer Outshoppers, J. of Marketing 36(0ctober 1972): 50-54. 36. Reynolds, Fred D., and Martin, Warren S., A Multivariate Analysis of Intermarket Patronage: Some Empirical Findings, 1. of Business Res. 2(April 1974): 193-200. 37. Riecken, Glen, Yavas, Ugar, and Samli, A Coskun, Catalog Shopping: Problems and Prospects for Small Communities, in Proceedings. V. V. Bellur. ed., Academy of Marketing Science, Reno 1980, pp. 204-207. 38. Samli, A. Coskun, Riecken, Glen, and Yavas, Ugar, Intermarket Shopping Behavior and the Small Community: Problems and Prospects of a Widespread Phenomenon, J. of the Acad. of Marketing Science ll(Winter 1983): 1-13. 39. Samli, A. Coskun, and Uhr, Ernest B., The Outshopping Spectrum: Key For Analyzing Intermarket Leakages, J. of Retailing SO(Summer 1974): 70-78. 40. Spence, Homer E., Engel, James F., and Blackwell, Roger D., Perceived Risk in MailOrder and Retail Store Buying, .I. of Marketing Res. 7(August 1970): 364-369. 41. Stone, Gregory P., City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the Psychology of City Life, The American Journal of Sociology 6O(July 1954): 36-45. 42. Tauber, Edward M., Why Do People Shop ?, J. of Marketing 36 (October 1972): 4649. 43. Thompson, John R., Characteristics and Behavior of Outshopping Consumers, J. of Retailing 47(Spring 1967): 70-80. 44. Veldman, Donald J., Fortran Programming for the Behavioral Sciences. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1967. 45. Ward, J. H., Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function, J. of the Am. Stat. Assoc. 58(March 1963): 236-244. 46. Weiner, Steve, Sears Beams Life into Summer Catalog for Video Shopping, Wall Street Journal (May 1, 1981): 10. 47. Williams, Robert H., Painter, John J., and Nicholas, Herbert R., A Policy-Oriented Typology of Grocery Shoppers, J. of Retailing 54(Spring 1978): 27-42.