An action strategy approach to examining shopping behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

289

An Action Strategy Approach to Examining Shopping Behavior William R. Darden Louisiana State Universiry

Michael J. Dorsch Iowa State University

The theory of planned behavior posits that individuals formulate intentions and action plans prior to performance of the act. Although research addresses the formation of intentions, marketers focus less attention on understanding how individuals create action strategies. The purpose of this article is to introduce a theory of action and action strategies to marketers and apply the theory to shopping behavior. Introduction Shopping behavior refers to activities people engage in while examining or purchasing merchandise or services. Like many other types of behaviors, shopping appears to be volitional-implying that the individual chooses to shop from a set of alternative shopping strategies. Each alternative shopping strategy, in turn, is an action strategy that outlines a set of integrated individual (i.e., unit) acts. Implementation of the set of interrelated unit acts results in the performance of a complete shopping behavior. The outcome of the shopping behavior may generate positive or negative benefits for the individual. While marketers have examined consumer choice behavior (e.g., Corstjens and Gautsch, 1983), marketers have given much less effort toward gaining an understanding of how individuals formulate action strategies. When applied to shopping, a comprehension of how action strategies (e.g., shopping strategies) are created can provide useful insight into the development of retail strategies as well as enabling marketers to gain a more complete understanding of shopping behavior. The purpose of this article is to introduce a theory of action and action strategies. The proposed theory is then applied to shopping behavior and propositions for directing future research are presented.

Address correspondence to Professor William R. Darden, Piccadilly Distinguished Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, 3124 CEBA, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Journal of Business Research 21.289-308 (1990) 8 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

014&2%3I9Q’S3.50

290

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

Theory of Action and Action Strategy The notion of action strategies is implicit in the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and its extension, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985). For example, the theory of planned behavior asserts that social behavior tends to follow a set of fairly well developed plans, and the success of the attempt to execute the behavioral plan depends not only on the effort invested (the strength of the attempt) but also on the person’s control over personal and external factors (Ajzen, 1985). While every intended behavior implies a goal whose attainment is subject to some degree of uncertainty, the question of control over an action is often tied with the development of an adequate plan that will enable performance of the behavior (Ajzen, 1985). The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior both use the behavioral intentions construct to represent the individual’s chosen action strategy-as described in the Expectancy-Value models proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) and Ajzen (1985)-represents one of a number of action strategies formulated and considered by the individual for a particular scenario. In order to understand fully how individuals create action strategies, to first establish the domain of action is important. Next, a description of action strategies and their formation is provided. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed theory of action and action strategies as applied to shopping behavior. The figure also indicates the components of action emphasized in the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1985), and the means-end chain model (Gutman, 1982). Domain of Action The study of action has received quite a bit of attention in nonmarketing literature (e.g., Brenner, 1980; Clark, 1980; Nowakowski, 1973,198l; Parsons, 1937, Parsons et al., 1954; von Wright, 1970). Most investigations into action and its structure are based on similar conceptualizations. Therefore, we choose to describe action using Parson’s (1937) framework as a guide. According to Parsons et al. (1954), a theory of action refers to a conceptual scheme for analyzing the behavior of living organisms. The theory is based on the belief that behavior is directed toward the attainment of ends in situations, by means of the normatively regulated expenditures of energy (Parsons et al., 1954). In the presentation of a theory of action, several assumptions appear to be utilized. These assumptions are explicitly stated in previous marketing related studies that reflect an activity perspective. The first three assumptions, for example, form the basis for a theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) and its extension, the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985). The remaining two assumptions are employed by Gutman (1982) in developing his means-end chain model. The five fundamental assumptions we utilize in presenting an activity framework are the following: 1) people are rational and make systematic use of available information, 2) people consider the implications of their actions before they decide to behave, 3) a person’s intention to perform (or not perform) a behavior is the immediate determinant of the action, 4) all consumer actions have consequences that accrue directly or indirectly to the

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

Examining Shopping Behavior

291

Shopping Behavior 2 Shopping Behavior 1 TIME Socialization History/ Life Experiences

V Shopping Orientation

--__ \

---_.__

---_

Shopping Strategy 1

,

Unit Act,, t Unit Act,2 t .. . t Unit Act,”

i I

V

Theory of Reasoned Action Means-End Chain Model

and

Selection of --)’

;kXf Behavior

Unit Act2, t Unit Act22 t .. . t Unit Act2,

.

I

$!X~~~’

V --)I,

Shopping Strategy 2

I I I I I

Implementation of Shopping Strategy (Performance of Actlon)

.

I I I

. Shopping Strategy m

I I Jnit Act,,

t Unit Actm2 t .. . t Unft Act,,

L

Figure 1. A model of action and action strategies.

consumer from his or her behavior, and 5) people learn to associate particular consequences with particular actions. Once the domain *for action is determined, an examination of the structure of the action requires that an appropriate frame of reference be established. The frame of reference serves to set the particular boundaries for specifying the framework of the action. Accordingly, an action can often times be separated into a set of interrelated individual acts. Each individual act is referred to as a unit act, and it is the smallest useful component of an action (Parsons 1937; Parsons et al., 1954).

292

J BUSN RES 199021289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

More specifically, a single-unit act can be considered to be an event that represents a change or transition from one state of affairs to another (see von Wright, 1970). In some situations, a unit act may refer to the act as a whole, while under other circumstances it may be important to investigate the structure of an action. In these instances, the action of interest is separated into a set of unit acts that are performed one after another in a specified order (Nowakowski, 1973, 1981). Nowakowski (1973, 1981), Brenner (1980), and Clarke (1980) refer to the sequence of steps ( i.e., unit acts) that an individual follows to bring about a series of changes from state of affairs to another (i.e., to complete a “complex” action) as the syntax of action. While there is no limit to the extent to which an action is reducible, a limit is set by the frame of reference with which the action researcher is working (Parsons 1937). When one is considering shopping, for example, the act of shopping can be considered as a single act or a set of interrelated unit acts. As a single act, shopping could be described as an event in which the transition from state of affairs to another may be characterized by the acquisition of a product. The purchase of shoes, for example, would represent a single shopping behavior when it is represented as a transition from not having shoes to the acquisition of shoes. Alternatively, shopping can be decomposed into a set of interrelated unit acts, each requiring some sort of transition. Each transition (or event), in turn, is associated with a single decision. When the purchase of shoes is considered to be a string of actions, the syntax of the shopping behavior may begin with a decision to visit a number of stores for the purpose of acquiring information, the next unit act may require a decision on which shoes to consider at each store type, a third unit act may involve a decision on where to purchase the shoes and a subsequent trip to that store, and a fourth unit act may require a decision on the method for purchasing the shoes. This sequence of events is likely to reflect one individual’s strategy of actions. Other individuals are likely to have other specialized action plans. Accordingly, identification of the major shopping components can provide insights into the types of decisions (conditionals) that need to be made in order to accomplish the complete shopping behavior. In any case, the appropriate frame of reference for investigating a shopping behavior is at the discretion of the researcher. Formation of Action Strategies Kuhl (1982) argues that individuals have at least two general tendencies or orientations toward action: an action orientation or a state orientation. A state orientation is described as a motivational tendency that instigates cognitive activity for its own sake and without perceiving it as instrumental to future action. Action orientation, on the other hand, is said to exist when the individual’s action is simultaneously focused on 1) some aspect of the present state (e.g., current lifestyle or standard of living), 2) some aspect of a future state (e.g., anticipate lifestyle or standard of living, or a desired life-style or standard of living), 3) a discrepancy between the present and the future state (e.g., an incongruence between a desired stated and an actual or anticipated state that the individual decides to resolve), and 4) at least one action alternative that might remove the discrepancy. Shopping behavior and its alternative forms can reflect the set of feasible action alternatives available to an individual who desires to resolve a current or anticipated

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21x289-308

293

discrepancy in his or her life-style or standard of living. Once the alternative shopping strategies are formulated, the individual selects one and attempts to implement it. Adjustments to the original shopping strategy are made whenever situational influences act as barriers to the successful accomplishment of the intended behavior. The outcome of the chosen shopping strategy will then either result in either a positive benefit (i.e., the identified discrepancy is reduced) or negative benefit (e.g., the identified discrepancy is not reduced or it becomes larger). An action strategy can be defined as a plan for the exertion of energy for the purpose of achieving some goal. Accordingly, when an individual 1) selects a goal to achieve, 2) establishes the structure of an activity to achieve the goal, and 3) decides the form of each specified unit act (i.e., how each unit act, within the activity structure, is to be performed), that individual is creating an action strategy. A shopping strategy, in turn, can be defined as a plan for the exertion of energy for the performance of a shopping behavior-implying that individuals visit store for a number of reasons including the acquisition of information or merchandise. Once the purpose(s) for shopping is(are) determined, the individual can then plan for the accomplishment of the shopping goal(s). Decisions regarding the form of each unit act appear to be made with consideration to other unit acts. More specifically, it is hypothesized that the interrelationships among the individual events (i.e., individual unit acts) of an action serve to limit the number of acceptable alternative forms for each successive unit act in a complex action (see, e.g., Nowakowski, 1973, 1981). Thus, when one unit act decision is made, that choice can help to constrain the set of feasible alternatives for the remaining unit act decisions. Consequently, formation of an action strategy requires a set of interrelated decisions such that each preceding decision constrains the choice set for each succeeding decision. Given the previous contention, the formation of each action strategy can be considered to be an interrelated set of consumption decisions. While consumption normally refers to the use of an acquired product, in a shopping context, consumption can be used to connote the use of resources to carry out the planned behavior (e.g., shopping). Typically, an individual will consume time, energy, and materials during the performance of an action. According to Schary (1971) each consumption decision (e.g., shopping decision) can be decomposed into two separate but interrelated decisions. One of the elemental consumption decisions determines the nature of the activity to be performed (e.g., what is the overall goal of shopping?). The second elemental decision determines the form of the action alternative (e.g., what specific resources are needed to accomplish the shopping activity?). Schary notes, however, that while two distinct consumption decisions are made, individuals appear to make both of these decisions simultaneously. With respect to the possible forms of an action strategy, Kruglanski and Klar (1985) consider it somewhat futile to attempt to enumerate or catalog the various types of action schemata that people may employ. Depending on their unique socialization histories, or life experiences, different persons could derive their behavioral intentions from vastly different schemata. Accordingly, Kruglanski and Klar (1985) hypothesize that an action schema is a premise-a conditional statement-whose consequent term is an intention. As such, an action schema may

294

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

function as a set of decision rules guiding the person on how to act on various occasions. While this perspective addresses one basic action plan with built-in contingencies, there is no reason to restrict this discussion to the complete shopping behavior. If a shopping behavior is considered to be a set of interrelated unit acts, each unit act can also have a plan of action with built-in contingencies. Consequently, a shopping strategy may possess a set of interrelated contingencies that helps to direct one’s behavior, given situational influences. Thus, it appears that individuals, by definition, have multiple shopping strategies, since a single plan for the achievement of a shopping goal contains a set of contingencies to account for situational factors that can affect the outcomes of each unit shopping act. in attempting to explain the intention-behavior link (i.e., the ability to implement an action strategy to achieve some goal), Kruglanski and Klar (1985) posit that intentions may fluctuate depending on the circumstances in which the action schema is to be implemented. They also note that intentions are likely to be stable under conditions known as effect freezing. Under these circumstances, intentions may crystallize quickly and without many fluctuations. If intentions cannot be stabilized, Kruglanski and Klar argue that the individual will not be able to control motivation, that is, stick with the intention until it is carried out. The ability to create a stable action schema may be influenced by the extent to which there is 1) a need for cognitive structure (e.g., the need to avoid uncertainty and ambiguity that may block immediate action), 2) a fear of invalidity (e.g., a need to refrain from expensive mistakes), and 3) a need for specific conclusions (e.g., a need to prevent a desirable intention from being skipped). For example, in the case of an action-relevant cognition, doubt concerning the choice of an appropriate shopping strategy may result in no shopping behavior or shopping behavior that is performed hesitantly. These criteria may help to explain how framing affects an individual’s evaluations of alternative decision alternatives-such as the value associated with each alternative shopping strategy (e.g., Puto, 1987; Thaler, 1985; Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Sometimes the selection and implementation of a shopping strategy appears to reflect an automatic response behavior (i.e., a habit). Triandis (1977, 1980) for example, demonstrates that past behaviors can directly impact future behaviors to the point that these behaviors appear to become automatic (i.e., habits). In such instances, a person learns that if a particular shopping goal is to be realized, a particular shopping strategy needs to be executed. This means-end (i.e., activitygoal) link may then be committed to memory so that the next time the person intends the action, he or she knows how to produce it, knows what component activities are needed to realize the intention, and knows how to produce those component activities. In general, action strategies and their formation are described in the context of a single behavior. However, by utilizing the analogy of unit acts, it is possible to link several independent action strategies together; we will refer to this set of integrated action strategies as a multiple-action strategy. Individuals are likely to integrate several action strategies in order to make more efficient use of their resources or to take advantage of a current set of conditions. A multiple-action strategy can be thought of as defining a string of complete actions, as opposed to unit acts, in order to accomplish multiple behaviors. Whenever individuals integrate plans for the performance of a multiple-action strategy, it appears that one of the action strategies will dominate. In other words,

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

295

when a multiple-action strategy is to be completed within a specified block of time, it appears that the individual rank orders the importance of each individual action strategy of the set. The dominant action strategy within a multiple-action strategy represents the most important behavior as determined by the individual; this behavior and its associated action strategy is referred to as the primary action or action strategy. The secondary and lower-order action and action strategies are called secondary and tertiary actions/action strategies, respectively. Accordingly, the planning of these secondary- and tertiary-action strategies depends on the decisions made with respect to the primary-action strategy (i.e., decisions for each lower-order-action strategy are constrained by decisions made for higher-orderaction strategies). For example, consider a shopping trip that extends over several hours. If the primary purpose for making the shopping trip is to acquire information about personal computers, the action strategy developed to accomplish this act would constitute the primary behavior to be accomplished. However, if during the course of the shopping trip, the individual becomes hungry, a secondary-action strategy would be developed to satisfy one’s hunger. In addition, as the individual travels from one computer retailer to another, he or she may decide to take advantage of an opportunity to shop for other noncomputer related items as well. A tertiary shopping strategy, in turn, would be formed to accomplish this act. Together these acts constitute a multiple-action strategy. While the previous example provides an instance when a multiple-action strategy is formulated during the implementation of primary-action strategy, that is not to say that all the preparation of all three action strategies cannot occur simultaneously. For example, prior to beginning the shopping trip, the individual can simultaneously plan for 1) the acquisition of information about personal computers, 2) the purchase of a meal during the shopping trip, and 3) the acquisition of noncomputer-related information or merchandise. In these instances, it appears that individuals are using time as a resource that must be managed. As such a person’s life-style may be reflected by the manner in which his or her life-style is managed. The consideration of time as a resource to be managed is consistent with previous research on time (e.g., Berry, 1979; Feldman and Hornik, 1981; Holbrook and Lehmann, 1981; Jacoby et al., 1976; Lee and Ferber, 1977).

Operationalization

of a Theory of Action and Action Strategies

In order to operationalize the theory of action and action strategies, the researcher must first specify the domain of the action--decide upon the referent action of interest. Second, each of the set of interrelated unit acts forming the structure of the behavior of interest must be specified in terms of its particular event and associated decisions for the satisfactory completion of each unit event. Third, relevant measures must be taken on each unit act. Operationalization of the theory of action and action strategies is not unlike that for investigating how individuals make decisions. For example, the referent action is the action of making a decision. It is generally accepted by marketers that the decision-making process can be separated into a set of interrelated unit acts: problem recognition, information search, alternative evaluation, choice, and outcomes. Finally, measures relevant to each unit act are developed and administered. Parsons (1937) argues that a unit act can be specified as it possesses several identifiable characteristics. He notes that the minimum identifiable characteristics

296

J BUSN RES 1990:X:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

of a unit act are the following: 1) A unit act has an agency, an actor, who expends energy; 2) the unit act has an end. An end represents a future reference to a desired state that is either not yet in existence and that would not come into existence if something were not done about it by the actor, or, if already existent, would not remain unchanged. As such, an act is always a process of time. 3) The unit act takes place in a situation. Part of the situation is uncontrollable by the actor and represents the conditions under which the act is performed. Another part of the situation is controllable by the actor and is called the means for performing the act. Since the means of the act are controllable by the actor, this suggests that she has a choice of methods in which to perform the act. Furthermore, the range of choice open to the actor extends to choice of ends as well as choice of means. 4) Finally, a unit act is normatively regulated. In other words, the actor makes use of a set of rules when deciding on both ends and means of an act. The normative orientation toward action combined with the range of choice open to the actor implies that a possibility of “error” exists-failure to attain ends or to make the “right” choice of means.

Shopping Has an Actor People who engage in shopping related behaviors are known as shoppers, browsers, customers, or buyers. Shoppers are responsible for examining or purchasing a store’s merchandise, browsers examine merchandise on an ongoing basis that is independent of specific purchase needs or decisions (Bloch et al., 1989), while customers and buyers are responsible for purchasing the merchandise. Current shopping theories (Darden, 1979; Sheth, 1983) imply that the roles of shopper and customer are played by the same individual. However, in many situations these shopping roles are performed by different people. In some instances, the shopper or customer acts as an agent for someone else. Furthermore, since shopping behavior may result in multiple visits to a store, different actors may be used for each visit regardless of whether the store visit is to acquire information or merchandise. For example, individuals may utilize a shopping strategy in which they perform information search and choice behaviors themselves while delegating the purchase act to shopping services. Shopping services are agents who exert their energies for the purpose of purchasing merchandise for their clients (i.e., the agents play the role of customer). In other circumstances, the individual may employ a shopping strategy in which he or she delegates information search activities to an agent while performing the purchase act him- or herself. The information a shopping agent can provide a patron can take a variety of forms such as verbal report or product brochures. A recent conceptualization of shopping agents and their roles is provided by Solomon (1986). In Solomon’s conceptualization, shopping agents are called surrogate consumers.

Shopping Has an End Shopping has a purpose. People engage in shopping related behaviors for both social and personal reasons (Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Downs, 1961; Stone, 1954; Tauber 1972; Westbrook and Black 1985). Two primary reasons for visiting

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

a store, however, are to acquire 1) information about stores and their offerings or 2) needed merchandise. These ends, in turn, serve as inputs to other activities designed to move the individual closer to an ideal state. Different shopping strategies would be created to achieve the various shopping goals of an individual. For example, when a person acquires information about a store and its offerings, this information may help reduce future search time when a need to make a purchase arises. In this instance, a shopping strategy would be created to obtain information necessary to reduce the amount of time spent shopping in the future. The acquisition of products, on the other hand, enables the individual to obtain resources to be used in the performance of particular activities. As such, shopping strategies would be created to acquire needed merchandise. When an individual improves his or her condition as a result of some type of activity, this improvement is called a benefit. Hence, a benefit can be one output of an activity. In characterizing benefits, Haley (1968) argues that benefits are the basic reasons consumers use products. Gutman (1982), in turn, extends Haley’s conceptualization to activities when he states that benefits are desired consequences of some activity. As such, when shopping-related activities enable a shopper to achieve the goal for which shopping took place, the individual can be said to realize shopping benefits or purchase benefits. Shopping benefits refer to improvements a patron realizes with respect to obtaining information about a store or its offerings. Purchase benefits are those improvements a patron achieves in the acquisition of a store’s merchandise. These types of benefits appear to be related to Thaler’s (1985) notion of transaction utility and acquisition utility, respectively. Whether a benefit is defined as a shopping or a purchase benefit depends upon the frame of reference taken when the unit shopping act is defined. For example, if shopping is partitioned into buying and nonbuying activities, some types of shopping benefits are associated with nonbuying activities, while other types of shopping benefits are associated with buying activities. Haley (1984), for example, categorizes benefits as being either cognitive, sensory, emotional, or affiliative. Other researchers suggest that emotion is associated with consumption experience (e.g., Havlena and Holbrook, 1986; Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982); thus, there appears to be support for a category reflecting experiential benefits. Even though it is possible for shoppers to acquire a single benefit from the performance of an activity, more than likely multiple benefits are realized from a completed activity. A set of multiple benefits can be referred to as either a bundle or package of benefits. Each bundle of benefits (e.g., shopping benefits) is hierarchically arranged. The benefit ordering, in turn, can depend on the primary intentions associated with the performance of the act. For example, when an individual engages in shopping-related activities, these activities take a secondary or primary role. As a secondary role, shopping-related activities become the vehicles for bringing individuals together for the purpose of social interaction. Thus, the primary benefit of shopping in this instance is social interaction, while the acquisition of information or merchandise from a store represent secondary or tertiary benefits. The bringing of individuals together for the purpose of social interaction may be predetermined such as friends engaged in “group shopping.” Social interaction can occur also in the shopping context, such as reflected in a shopper/seller dyad.

298

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

When the primary shopping intentions of an individual are to acquire information or merchandise, these intentions represent the primary shopping benefits sought by the individual. Other realized benefits represent the secondary and tertiary shopping benefits. In any case, the hierarchical ordering of shopping benefits, purchase benefits, and other benefits depends on the rank ordering of the actor’s shopping intentions. An individual’s desire to realize selected shopping benefits serves as a justification for engaging in shopping activities. The desired shopping benefits help to frame the nature of the shopping activity. Once the nature of the shopping act is determined, the individual then develops an action strategy (i.e., the form of the action) whose execution is expected to result in the realization of the desired benefits. In planning the form of the shopping activity, the theory of consumer efficiency (Downs, 1961) proposes that shoppers seek to minimize the net costs of shopping. More specifically, the theory suggests that formulation of shopping strategies are constructed such that the costs of shopping-which include money, time, and energy-are minimized relative to the benefits received from the act of shopping. Thus, in assessing the particular benefits associated with a shopping trip, it appears that shoppers consider net benefits (i.e., improvements in a person’s condition less the resource costs required to realize the improvement).

Shopping Occurs in Situations Shopping occurs in a number of contexts and in a variety of ways. Each context consists of a set of uncontrollable conditions within which shopping takes place. These conditions, called inhibitors (Darden, 1979) or unexpected events (Sheth, 1983) help shape the form of shopping behavior as well as the probability of control over the intended behavior (Ajzen, 1985). Examples in which uncontrollable conditions can influence an individual’s shopping activity include the following situations: 1) When individuals experience a temporary shortage of money, they may engage in shopping trips for the purpose of examining merchandise for future purchase. 2) The environment (e.g., weather or a retailer’s use of sales promotions) can also impact the type of shopping in which a person engages. 3) Shopping may be required to purchase merchandise for special occasions, such as gift giving or emergencies. An emergency can arise, for example, when, during the performance of an activity, a key product becomes depleted, breaks down, or is not part of the individual’s current product assortment. The impact of uncontrollable conditions on consumer choice behavior was demonstrated by Belk (1974, 1975) in his investigation of situational influences. In specifying uncontrollable shopping conditions, individuals are likely to evaluate a number of variables, including 1) the time frame available to complete the act, 2) the assortment of activities that must be performed within that time frame, 3) the resource needs necessary for performance of the assortment of activities, 4) the current resource assortment available for completing the set of activities, and 5) the type and amount of currently available resources (e.g., money) to be used during the implementation of a shopping strategy in order to achieve a desired outcome (e.g., store merchandise, product information, pleasurable experience). Once the parameters of the conditions are determined, alternative feasible shopping strategies can be formulated. The creation of alternative shopping strategies and

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:28!9-308

the ultimate choice of a particular shopping strategy are controlled by the individual. The individual is likely to make use of a decision heuristic to help him or her make the strategy choice. The selected shopping strategy, then, becomes the individual’s intended shopping behavior that outlines the means for accomplishing the shopping act. For those situations in which the individual has less control over the completion of an intended shopping behavior (i.e., the successful performance of a shopping behavior is highly dependent on uncontrollable conditions), the individual is likely to have 1) contingent shopping strategies or 2) less-well-developed shopping strategies (see Ajzen, 1985). Less-well-developed shopping strategies are likely to be planned on a one-unit-act-at-a-time basis. Once the first sequential unit shopping act is completed, then a strategy for the successful performance of the next sequential unit shopping act is prepared. In this manner, planning for each successive unit shopping act is not likely to be performed until the previous unit shopping act is completed. When individuals intend to engage in shopping behaviors, the development of shopping strategies requires that they make several decisions. By definition, each shopping strategy decision requires a choice among several feasible alternatives. While patronage research considers most, if not all, of an individual’s basic shopping decisions, a complete review of this literature is beyond the scope of this article. Rather, the intent of the article is to summarize systematically the basic questions shoppers appear to make address when developing shopping strategies. The basic shopping-related decisions, which help to specify shopping strategies, include the following: 1) Why shop for merchandise? This question addresses shoppers motivations for performing shopping-related activities. Shoppers can visit stores for a number of reasons, such as social interaction, information acquisition, or acquisition of merchandise. 2) What merchandise should be shopped for? This question specifies the type of shopping goal to be achieved through shopping-related behaviors. Shoppers must decide whether to shop for information or merchandise associated with either individual resources--called products or goods-that the individual will utilize in performing a needed consumption task, or resource packages (including labor)called services-that the individual can make use of to complete the consumption activity. 3) Who is going to shop for the merchandise? Individuals must decide whether they or their agents are to perform all or part of the shopping task. If an agent is to perform some aspect of the shopping task, then the shopper must decide on a) the time frame for performance of the delegated shopping related act, b) the agent’s role (i.e., responsibilities), c) the desired agent characteristics for performing the specified role, and d) the identity (i.e., name) of the agent for the designated shopping task. 4) When should shopping occur? Individuals must decide on the timing of the shopping behavior. Many individuals establish regular shopping trips that coincide with the need to replenish a predetermined number of resources (e.g., grocery shopping). The need to replenish one’s product assortment depends, in part, on the quantity of merchandise normally shopped and the frequency of product usage. Other shopping trips, in turn, are inserted into a preexisting activity assortment

300

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

for a specified time frame in order to handle emergency situations. An individual’s activity assortment refers to the set of all activities to be performed, during a specified time frame, by or for the individual. Still other shopping trips are planned to take advantage of favorable shopping conditions (e.g., clearance sales or other sales promotions efforts). 5) Where should shopping take place? Shoppers must decide on the shopping context (i.e., the form of shopping). Shoppers can choose from a number of alternative forms of shopping, including actual store visits, catalog shopping, computer shopping, television shopping, direct mail shopping, and so on. Selection of the specific shopping form (e.g., store versus nonstore shopping), in turn, depends on such factors as the nature of the shopping, the availability of the shopping alternative, the perceived risk associated with each alternative, the awareness of alternative shopping forms, and current shopping practices. In those instances where shoppers are actually visiting store locations, decisions regarding the choice of location must be made. Some shoppers prefer stores that are conveniently located (e.g., inshopping), while others prefer outshopping (Darden and Perreault, 1976; Herrman and Beik, 1963; Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Samli and Uhr, 1974; Thompson, 1971). In addition, some shoppers prefer shopping at malls, while others visit freestanding stores. The preferred form of shopping is likely to be tied to a specific set of anticipated conditions. 6) How should shopping be conducted? Individuals must decide on the method as well as the duration of the shopping activity. Method of shopping refers to the type of merchandise or information shopped for by an individual during a specified time period. Some shoppers, for example, plan their shopping trips around one type of merchandise such as groceries, clothing, or gifts (e.g., Darden, 1979). Other individuals are likely to shop/purchase across merchandise categories in order to reduce the amount of shopping they perform during a given time period. Still other shoppers plan their shopping trips to acquire one or more types of merchandise and acquire information on other types of merchandise. The duration of shopping depends on many factors. These factors may be categorized into 1) shopping conditions (i.e., uncontrollable shopping factors), 2) merchandise factors (e.g., the amount and type of merchandise shopped for, variety of available merchandise, quality of merchandise, etc.), 3) store factors (e.g., the location of and distance between stores to be shopped, store layout, etc.), 4) person factors (e.g., personality factors, life-style orientation, amount of time that can be allocated to shopping activities, etc), and 5) activity assortment factors (e.g., how many activities are to be performed in the specified time frame, the relative importance of each activity, the time necessary to perform each activity, etc). When alternative shopping strategies are being developed, each of the six questions listed above are consciously or subconsciously considered to determine the syntax of the shopping behavior. Consequently, when one shopping-related decision is made, that choice can help to frame (i.e., constrain) the set of feasible alternatives for the remaining shopping-related decisions. Shopping Is Regulated Shopping strategies are based on a set of interrelated shopping decisions. Shoppingrelated decisions, in turn, are made according to a set of rules. These rules, in

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-3x3

301

conjunction with the set of conditions in which shopping is to occur, are often referred to as the individual’s shopping orientation (Darden, 1979). An individual’s shopping orientation appears to be formed through past shopping experience, personal-value system, and past retail experience, among other things (Darden, 1979). These shopping orientations help to frame the choice set for each decision to be made in the formation of a shopping strategy. The importance of shopping orientations on shopping behavior is demonstrated in a number of shopping studies (Darden and Ashton, 1974-1975; Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954).

Propositions One probable reason for the dearth of research, in marketing, on the formation of shopping strategies pertains to the lack of a conceptual framework for guiding research in this area. Accordingly, since one use of a theory is to provide a blueprint for future research, a theory of action and action strategy is offered as an attempt to stimulate research on shopping strategies. The proposed theory asserts that shopping is a regulated activity that people perform in situations for the purpose of achieving some predetermined end. As such, once an individual intends to engage in shopping behavior, shopping strategies are designed to accomplish shopping goals (i.e., information acquisition or merchandise acquisition). In addition, multiple-action strategies (e.g., several shopping strategies designed to achieve different shopping goals) are likely to be integrated together to take advantage of current conditions and resources. Given the previous discussion of activity strategies, their formulation, and operationalization of the theory of action and action strategies, the following propositions are offered. While these propositions are specified in a shopping context, they can be readily applied to other types of volitional behaviors. The propositions are placed into three groups, and although each set of propositions are not exhaustive, they should help to provide direction for researching shopping behavior.

Motivation to Shop Individuals engage in shopping behavior to improve or maintain some aspect of their lives. As a volitional behavior, shopping is considered to be goal oriented. In performing these goal-oriented tasks, Kuhl (1982) argues that the individual engages in action to remove a felt or anticipated discrepancy. For example, shopping may be performed to acquire needed information or merchandise. This notion is consistent with Haley’s (1968) argument that individuals engage in consumption activities to acquire benefits. A single shopping behavior enables individuals to acquire a set of hierarchically arranged benefits which can include cognitive, emotional, experiential, sensory, affiliative, and material benefits. Haley (1968) argues that individuals seek to acquire a bundle of benefits through goal-oriented behavior. Each benefit bundle, in turn, may be composed of different types of benefits, which Haley (1984) classifies into cognitive, emotional, sensory, and affiliative. In addition, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), Hirschman and Holbrook (1982), and Havlena and Holbrook (1986) propose that many behaviors are performed for the experiences or pleasure they provide the actor during the performance of the act. Consequently, another

302

J BUSN RES 1!490:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

benefit category may be called experiential. Finally, an individual may achieve material benefits by acquiring needed resources. Shopping can result in the acquisition of several benefit types. For example, shopping may bring about an improvement in an individual’s current product assortment via a purchase act. Shopping can also bring about an improvement in an individual’s knowledge about a retailer’s merchandise as a result of the shopping experience. Congenial shopping behaviors are performed by the individual himself or herself. Holbrook and Hirschman (1982), Hirschman and Holbrook (1982), and Havlena and Holbrook (1986) propose that individuals performed some behaviors themselves in order to acquire the pleasure experiences they receive from performing the behavior. Behaviors that individuals perform for personal gratification are called congenial behaviors (Alderson, 1965). In some instances, shopping behavior may be considered to be a form of entertainment by the individual. As such, it allows the person to experience a social situation or to engage in fantasy (e.g., the shopper can dream about making particular purchases). Recognizing that congenial shopping exists, Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) attempt to profile the recreational shopper. Individuals may transfer the responsibility for the performance of some aspects of a shopping behavior to one or more designated agent(s). If an individual is more concerned with benefiting from the outcome of an activity rather than from the experiences acquired during the performance of the act, he or she is likely to transfer the responsibility for performance of the act to an agent. Behaviors that are considered to be a means to an end are called instrumental behaviors (Alderson, 1965). Accordingly, if shopping is considered to be an instrumental behavior, then the shopper may be more willing to allocate a portion of the shopping activity to an agent. For example, if during the preparation of a family meal, a house spouse requires an item from the supermarket, he or she may send another family member to the store to purchase the item. In this case, the family member sent to the supermarket is acting as an agent for the house spouse. Designation of an agent to perform a particular shopping task is related to the requirements for the achievement of a satisfactory performance of the shopping activity under consideration. The outcome of a shopping behavior is expected to meet a predetermined level of excellence (i.e., quality). If the individual chooses an agent to perform a particular shopping act, the selection of the agent is evaluated in terms of his or her ability to complete the assigned shopping task such that its outcome meets the individual’s predetermined standards for excellence. An individual assesses a shopping activity’s net benefits when deciding whether to perform that behavior. While Haley (1968) argues that consumers consume resources in order to achieve benefits, Thaler (1985) and Downs (1961) contend that individuals consider transaction costs when deciding to perform an activity. Both positions are incorporated into the concept of net benefit. Net benefit refers to the difference between the cost of using current resources to achieve an improvement in a persons condition. A reasonable perspective suggests that an individual will choose to perform those shopping behaviors that provide the greatest levels of net benefit. Anticipated net benefits serve as a basis for assessing the successful completion of a particular shopping behavior. In order to determine whether an individual was

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

303

satisfied with the performance of a shopping behavior, the outcome of that behavior must be compared with a standard. Such a standard is created when an individual’s intended shopping behavior is based on the level of net benefit they expect to receive upon completion of that behavior. Development of Shopping Strategies To achieve a particular goal, individuals develop a set of feasible shopping strategies

from which one is selected to become an intended behavior. Ajzen (1985) and Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that an intention is a plan for the performance of a behavior. While the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) are constrained to a single-action strategy (the intended behavior), Kruglanski and Klar (1985) posit that the intended behavior represents one of a number of action plans for the accomplishment of a goal. Thus, in some instances, an individual may formulate and consider one or more shopping strategies before deciding on a particular course of action. The development of a shopping strategy depends on the individual’s socialization history or life experiences. Many shopping behaviors are influenced by an individual’s perceptions of the shopping situation. These perceptions are thought to be formed as a consequence of how individuals organize select environmental stimuli. This process of organizing and interpreting stimuli can be referred to as framing (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that an individual’s framing process is influenced by his or her socialization history or life experiences. Consequently, it is reasonable to assert that an individual’s formulation and selection of an intended shopping strategy is influenced by his or her socialization history or life experiences (see, e.g., Darden, 1979). Shopping strategies are developed with consideration to a number of factors including the number of other behaviors to be performed within a specified time period, the anticipated environmental conditions for that time period, and the amount of resources available during that time period. Consistent with the new theory of consumption (Becker, 1965; Gronau, 1973; Lancaster, 1966; Ratchford, 1975) the performance of a shopping behavior occurs in real time and requires the consumption of resources to produce utility. Berry (1979) argues that individuals consider time a resource and attempt to engage in time-saving activities. Thus, it appears that individuals plan to accomplish a predetermined number of activities, including shopping behavior, within a given time period. Since the implementation of a planned behavior, by definition, will occur during a future time period, it is reasonable to assert that anticipated environmental conditions (including an assessment of available resource and the need to perform particular tasks) are taken into account when one is determining the number and type of activities to perform during a given block of time. Furthermore, since a certain degree of uncertainty is associated with forecasting future conditions, individuals are likely to plan for these uncertainties by incorporating slack time within their planning horizon. Individuals tend to separate complex shopping behaviors into a set of interrelated individual events in order to simplifying the process of creating a shopping strategy. Nowakowski (1973,1982), Brenner (1980), and Clark (1980) argue that a behavior can be represented by a syntax (string) of individual events (i.e., unit acts). Von Wright (1973) in addition, argues that an event has a beginning, a transition, and

304

J BUSN Rf3S 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

an end. This transition represents a change in the state of affairs. Since we are concerned with volitional shopping behaviors, by definition, the individual planning a shopping strategy chooses the direction and magnitude of change to be realized through the act of shopping. As such, the performance of each individual shopping event requires a decision on the part of the shopper. Each completed or planned unit shopping act within a string of unit shopping acts constrains the choice set for each remaining unit shopping act in the string. Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that a action plan is composed of a set ‘of conditionals that provide direction for the performance of an activity. Since a complex shopping behavior can be represented as a string or syntax of unit shopping acts, it is reasonable to assert that the set of conditionals are interrelated and, thus, establish a specified order for the performance of each unit shopping act (Brenner 1980; Clark, 1980; Nowakowski, 1973,198l). Ideally, the performance of each unit shopping act within a string of shopping acts moves the individual closer to a desired state of affairs. Consequently, decisions of previous unit shopping acts should constrain the range of alternative courses of action for each succeeding unit shopping act in the string. Each shopping strategy contains a set of contingencies to account for situational influences. Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that an action plan (e.g., a shopping strategy) is composed of a set of rules or conditionals (if-then statements). Such decision rules are used to direct shopping behavior if certain conditions are met. Since a shopping strategy represents a blueprint for the allocation of resources and the performance of a shopping behavior during some future time period, there is a certain amount of uncertainty associated with the ability to predict future conditions accurately. Consequently, contingency shopping plans are prepared. Within a single shopping strategy, contingencies are taken into account through the use of conditionals. A shopping strategy may be combined with two or more other action strategies to create a multiple-action strategy. A multiple-action strategy is developed in order to take advantage of current/anticipated environmental conditions or resource efficiencies. Research on time suggests that individuals seek to manage time as a resource. Feldman and Hornik (1981), for example, develop a time-allocation paradigm to help explain time’s influence on life-style. In this paradigm,.it is argued that an individual’s allocation of time is constrained by the availability of one’s resources (i.e., time, money, and space). Further, since time is a characteristic of an activity (Parsons, 1937; Parsons et al., 1954), allocation of time also implies an allocation of activities. Accordingly, Feldman and Hornik (1981) suggest that activity choices are constrained by, among other things, the time available relative to the minimum time needed to engage in that activity. Thus, if more time is available than is required to perform a particular task, such as shopping, other activities will be planned to use the remaining “free” (i.e., discretionary) time. The more important (higher order) action strategies of a multiple-action strategy are planned first; these decisions then serve to constrain the form of lower-orderaction strategies. Given a fixed block of time to complete a multiple-action strategy, motivation theory stipulates that behaviors will be performed in order of importance. Therefore, once the primary-action strategy is determined, lower-order action plans will be formulated to reflect these “new” conditions (e.g., less available time to perform a given behavior). Consequently, shopping should take precedence,

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

305

within a multiple-action strategy, when it is considered to be the most important behavior to be completed during a specified time period. Alternatively, shopping should be relegated to a lower-priority level when its performance is not deemed to be critical during the period of time specified in the multiple-action strategy. Selection and Implementation of a Shopping Strategy An individual’s activity orientation serves as a basis for evaluating alternative shopping strategies. Activity strategies are determined according to a set of rules (Kruglanski and Klar, 1985). These rules, in conjunction with the set of conditions in which the activity is to occur, can be referred to as the individual’s orientation toward the behavior (e.g., Darden, 1979; Kruglanski and Klar 1985). Since an action orientation summarizes the individual’s decision-making framework within a particular situation, it appears to represent a standard for comparing alternative shopping plans. An individual’s action orientation depends on the primary goal to be achieved by a particular shopping behavior. A volitional shopping behavior, by definition, is goal oriented. In addition, the individual has a choice among alternative shopping methods. In choosing among these alternative forms of shopping behavior, the individual establishes a set of decision rules (i.e., conditionals) that will direct his or her choices to achieve the desired end state within the context of anticipated conditions. These decision rules, in turn, may be implicitly or explicitly determined by the individual. Subsequently, if a shopping behavior is separated into a string of unit shopping acts, it is conceivable that the individual’s action orientation can change as he or she completes one unit shopping act and begins to perform the next sequential unit shopping act. Activity orientations are formed through the individual’s past life experiences or socialization histories. An individual’s activity orientation refers to a process of adjusting to one’s surroundings in order to achieve some desired state. Often an individual can anticipate the types of adjustments he or she can expect to make to obtain a desired state. The process of anticipating future states implies that the individual is relying on his or her perceptions in order to establish appropriate decision rules. Consequently, these perceptions are thought to be formed as a consequence of how individuals organize select environmental stimuli. This process of organizing and interpreting stimuli can be referred to as framing (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that an individual’s framing process is influenced by his or her socialization history or life experiences. Darden (1979), for example, argues that an individual’s shopping orientation (a specific kind of activity strategy) appears to be formed through past shopping experience, personal value system, and past retail experience, among other things. Implementation and completion of an intended shopping strategy depends on the stability of the intended plan. Ajzen (1985) argues that intentions represent plans to attempt to perform a behavior. The ability to complete an intended shopping behavior depends on the degree of control the individual has (or believes he or she has) over the intended shopping activity. This idea appears to be consistent with the argument of Kruglanski and Klar (1985) that if individuals can stabilize their intentions as a consequence of effect freezing, then a higher probability exists for the performance of an intended behavior.

306

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

A stable shopping strategy depends on the individual’s a) need for cognitive structure, b) fear of invalidity, or c) need for specific conclusions. Kruglanski and Klar (1985) argue that an individual’s ability to create a stable action plan may be influenced by the extent to which he or she has a need to avoid ambiguity or uncertainty in terms of decision making (cognitive structure), the need to avoid costly mistakes (fear of invalidity), and the need to consider all viable options (need for specific conclusions). Accordingly, the development of a stable shopping strategy appears to be determined by the individual’s need to avoid shopping risks. The nature and magnitude of these shopping risks, in turn, are directly related to how the individual frames his or her shopping situation. Some shopping strategies are so ingrained (and stable) that their selection and implementation become automatic response behaviors (i.e., habits) for the individual. Triandis (1977, 1980) demonstrates that past experience can directly impact future behaviors to the point that these behaviors become automatic (i.e., habits). Kruglanski and Klar (1985), in addition, appear to support this contention when they suggest that life experiences can affect the creation and selection of action plans. Consequently, shopping may be routinized to the extent to which it is considered to be a habit. References Alderson, Wroe, Dynamic Marketing Behavior, 1965.

Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood,

Ill.,

Ajzen, Icek, From Intentions

to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior, in Action Control: Julius Kuhl and Jurgen Beckmann, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, F. D. R., 1985, p. 11. From Cognition to Behavior.

Ajzen, Icek, and Fishbein, Martin, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1980. Becker, Gary S., A Theory of the Allocation (1965): 493-517.

of Time,

Belk, Russell W., An Exploratory

of Situational

Journal of Marketing

Assessment

LXXV

Journal,

Effects in Buyer Behavior,

Research 11 (May 1974): 156-163.

Belk, Russell W., Situational Variables and Consumer Research 2 (December 1975): 157-164. Bellenger,

The Economic

Danny N., and Korgaonkar,

Behavior,

Journal

of Consumer

Pradeep K., Profiling the Recreational

Shopper.

Journal of Retailing 56 (Fall 1980): 77-92.

Berry, Leonard L., The Time-Buying

Consumer, Journal of Retailing 55 (1979): 58-69.

Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., and Sherrell, Daniel L., Extending the Concept of Shopping: An Investigation of Browsing Activity, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (Winter 1989): 13-21. Brenner, Michael, The Structure of Action: Introduction, in The Structure of Action, Michael Brenner, ed., Basil Blackwell Publisher, Oxford, England, 1980, pp. l-27. Clark, David D., Developments in the Syntax of Action, in The Structure of Action, Michael Brenner, ed., Basil Blackwell Publisher, Oxford, England, 1980, pp. 264-286. Corstjens,

Marcel A., and Gautsch, David A., Formal Choice Models in Marketing, 1983): 19-56.

Mar-

keting Science 2 (Winter

Darden, William R., A Patronage Model of Consumer Behavior, in Competitive Structure in Retail Markets: The Department Store Perspective. Ronald Stampfl and Elizabeth Hirschman, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, 1979, pp. 43-52.

Examining Shopping Behavior

J BUSN RES 1990:21:289-308

Darden, William R., and Ashton, Dub, Psychographic Profiles of Patronage Preference Groups, Journal of Retailing 50 (Winter 1974-1975): 99-112. Darden, William R., and Perreault, William D., Jr., Identifying Interurban Shoppers: Multiproduct Purchase Patterns and Segmentation Profiles, Journal of Marketing Research 13 (February 1976): 51-60. Darden, William R., and Reynolds, Fred R., Shopping Orientations and Product Usage Rates, Journal of Marketing Research VIII (November 1971): 505-508. Downs, Anthony, A Theory of Consumer Efficiency, Journal of Retailing 37 (Spring 1961): 6-12,50+. Feldman, Laurence P., and Homik, Jacob, The Use of Time: An Integrated Model, Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (1981): 407-419.

Conceptual

Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, Icek, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1975. Gronau, Reuben, The Intrafamily Allocation of Time: The Value of the Housewives’ Time, The American Economic Review 63 (1973): 634-651. Gutman, Jonathon, A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes, Journal of Marketing 46 (1982): 60-72. Haley, Russell I., Benefit Segmentation: A Decision-Oriented Research Tool, Journal of Marketing 32 (July 1968): 30-35. Haley, Russell I., Benefit Segmentation-20 Years Later, Journal of Consumer Marketing 1 (1984): 5-13. Havlena, William J., and Holbrook, Morris B., The Varieties of consumption Experience: Comparing Two Typologies of Emotion in Consumer Behavior, Journal of Consumer Research 13 (December 1986): 394-404. Herrman, Robert O., and Beik, Leland L., Shoppers’ Movements Outside Their Local Retail Area, Journal of Marketing 32 (October 1963): 45-51. Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Holbrook, Morris B., Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions, Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer 1982): 92-101. Holbrook, Morris B., and Hirschman, Elizabeth C., The Experiential Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun, Journal of Consumer Research 9 (September 1982): 132-140. Holbrook, Morris B., and Lehmann, Donald R., Allocating Discretionary Time: Complementarity Among Activities, Journal of Consumer Research 7 (1981): 395-406. Jacoby, Jacob, Szybillo, George J., and Beming, Carol Kohn, Time and Consumer Behavior Interdisciplinary Overview, Journal of Consumer Research 2 (1976): 320-339. Kruglanski, Arie W., and Klar, Yechiel, Knowing What to Do: On the Epistemology of Actions, in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Julius Kuhl and Jurgen Beckmann, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, F. D. R., 1985. Kuhl, J., Action vs State Orientation as a Mediator Between Motivation and Action, in Cognitive and Motivational Aspects of Action. W. Hacker, W. Volper, and M. von Cranach, eds., North Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982. Lancaster, Kelvin, A New Approach to Consumer Theory, Journal of Political Economy 74 (1966): 132-157. Lee, Lucy Chao, and Ferber, Robert, Use of Time as a Determinant of Family Market Behavior, Journal of Business Research 5 (March 1977): 75-91. Nowakowski, Maria, A Formal Theory of Actions, Behavioral Science 18 (1973): 393-416. Nowakowski, Maria, Structure of Situation and Action: Some Remarks on Formal Theory of Actions, in Toward a Psychology of Situations: An Znteractional Perspective. David Magnusson, ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1981, pp. 211-227. Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1937. Parsons, Talcott, Shils, Edward A., Allport, Gordon W., Kluckhohn, Clyde, Murray, Henry

J BUSN RES 1990:21:28!9-308

W. R. Darden and M. J. Dorsch

A., Sears, Robert R., Sheldon, Richard C., Stouffer, Samuel A., and Tolman, Edward C., Some Fundamental Categories of the Theory of Action: A General Statement, in Toward a General Theory of Action. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, eds., Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1954. Puto, Christopher P., The Framing of Buying Decisions, Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December 1987): 301-315. Ratchford, Brian T., The New Economic Theory of Consumer Essay, Journal of Consumer Research 2 (1975): 65-75.

Behavior: An Interpretive

Reynolds, Fred R., and Darden, William R., Intermarket Patronage: A Psychographic Study of Consumer Outshoppers, Journal of Marketing 36 (October 1972): 50-54. Samli, A. Coskun, and Uhr, Ernest B., The Outshopping Spectrum: Key for Analyzing Intermarket Leakages, Journal of Retailing 50 (Strmmer 1974): 72. Schary, Philip B., Consumption and the Problem of Time, Journal of Marketing 35 (1971): 50-55.

Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior, in PaWilliam R. Darden and Robert F. Lusch, eds., North-Holland, New York, 1983. Solomon, Michael R., The Missing Link: Surrogate Consumers in the Marketing Chain, Journal of Marketing 50 (October 1986): 208-218.

Sheth, Jagdish N., An Integrative

tronage Behavior and Retail Management.

Stone, Gregory P., City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the Social Psychology of City Life, American Journal of Sociology 60 (July 1954): 48-53. Dauber, Edward M., Why do People Shop? Journal of Marketing 36 (October 1972): 46-59. Thaler, Richard, Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice, Marketing Science4 (Summer 1985): 199-214. Thompson, John R., Characteristics and Behavior of Outshopping Consumers, Journal of Retailing 47 (Spring 1971): 70-80. Triandis, T. C., Interpersonal Behavior, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, Calif., 1977. Triandis, T. C., Values, Attitudes, and Interpersonal Behavior, in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. H. Howe and M. Page, eds., University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1980, Vol. 27. Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel, The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science 211 (January 1981): 453-458. von Wright, George Henrick, The Event Approach: The Logic of Change and Action, in The Nature of Human Action. Myles Brand, ed., Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenville, Ill., 1970, pp. 302-342. Westbrook,

Robert A., and Black, William C., A Motivation-Based

Journal of Retailing 61 (Spring 1985): 78-103.

Shopper Typology,