Factors affecting couples' decisions to jointly shop

Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Factors affecting couples' decisions to jointly shop Junsang Lim a,1, Sharon E. Beatty b,⁎ a b

School of Business, Virginia State University, Box 9209, Petersburg, VA 23806, USA Culverhouse College of Commerce & Business Administration, University of Alabama, Box 870225, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0225, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 4 December 2009 Accepted 8 July 2010 Available online 8 August 2010 Keywords: Couple shopping Hedonic shopping Utilitarian shopping Social shopping Joint shopping Expected shopping pleasure

a b s t r a c t This paper explores the factors that influence individuals' decisions to jointly shop. Drawing from qualitative interviews and relevant theories, the researchers present a model of couple's likelihood of joint shopping. The model includes utilitarian motives (product purchase relevance and perceived financial risk), hedonic motives (expected shopping pleasure with one's partner), and a situational motive (time availability), along with two moderators (gender and relationship length). Online survey respondents answer questions relative to an experimental scenario involving the purchase of furniture or electronics. Results indicate that while all variables studied are influential, expected shopping pleasure and relevance of the purchase to both parties are the most influential aspects in the decision to shop together. Additionally, for males perceived financial risk has a stronger effect on their decision to jointly shop than it does for females. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The act of shopping is frequently a social activity, performed with others (Haytko and Baker, 2004) for both utilitarian purposes and/or hedonic or recreational purposes (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003). One important social shopping group is the couple, which is the focus of this research. Unfortunately, academic researchers pay minimal attention to the topic of social shopping, and virtually none to couple shopping, with most shopping research focusing on the individual. Existing, but peripherally related, research provides only partially useful explanations of couples' shopping behaviors. For instance, psychology researchers explore how shared activities influence marital relationships, while marketing researchers study the taskrelated aspects of joint decision-making or dyad shopping (Corfman and Lehmann, 1987; Kiecker and Hartman, 1994), ignoring the relationship building and hedonic aspects of couple shopping. Couple shopping is an important topic, given that couples, through their shopping efforts and joint decision making, have a huge impact on retail success (e.g., families in the U.S. spent $133.6 billion during the 2008 holidays; Packaged Facts, 2008). Retailers, by understanding the factors affecting couples' likelihood to jointly shop, could facilitate greater and more satisfying joint shopping trips. Thus, this paper addresses when and why couples shop with their partners, an area in urgent need of research. This paper focuses on members of an opposite-gender couple, currently living together (married or not). A joint-shopping trip refers ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 348 6184; fax: +1 205 348 6695. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Lim), [email protected] (S.E. Beatty). 1 Tel.: +1 804 524 5361; fax: +1 804 524 6845. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.07.002

to a shopping trip in which a couple visits a retail area together, either separately or jointly browsing and/or buying items to achieve their shopping goals. The first objective of this paper is to ascertain the main factors that influence couples in their decision to shop together. Secondly, two aspects that may produce differential effects of these factors on joint shopping—gender and length of time living together (relationship length)—receive attention. Additionally, several research questions are of interest—which factors are most important and how do they interact. Findings from this study suggest that product purchase relevance (as a utilitarian motive) and expected shopping pleasure with one's partner (as a hedonic motive) are the most influential motivational factors affecting likelihood to shop together. Additionally, financial risk is a stronger motivator for males than females in this decision. In the following sections, this paper first presents the exploratory qualitative research, conceptual model, hypotheses and rationales, followed by a description of data collection, involving several prestudies and an online survey of 1284 individuals, responding to an experimental scenario focusing on a hypothetical purchase. Then, this paper presents the analysis and results relative to the proposed model and hypotheses, and discusses the findings, implications, limitations and directions for future research. 2. Model and hypothesis development Findings from past research on family-decision making and purchase pals suggest that accomplishment of the task and the utilitarian aspects of the purchase are critical factors in a dyad's decision to shop together (Kiecker and Hartman, 1994). On the other hand, studies on individual shoppers find that the positive emotions

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

experienced by shoppers during shopping also influence their shopping behaviors (Arnold et al., 2005; Yoo et al., 1998). Additionally, researchers of marital relationships stress how couples engage in joint recreational activities to build and maintain relationships with their partners (Aron et al., 2000). Although existing studies provide useful insights, each area focuses on different priorities, with none offering understanding of the diverse motives involved in couples' decisions to jointly shop. Thus, the researchers employ in-depth interviews to explore this underexplored topic. The primary researcher and six graduate students in a Southern university trained by the researchers purposively recruited participants, living with an opposite gender partner, dispersed across age and relationship length. Researchers interviewed both members of the couple together to generate greater interaction. The researchers interviewed fifteen couples and used theory-generation guidelines to analyze the interview data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). The researchers independently analyzed the data and then jointly discussed themes. They distinguished the properties of the important concepts affecting likelihood of joint shopping during the open coding phase and categorized the concepts (i.e., shopping motivations and moderators) in the axial coding phase. Finally, in the selective phase, they identified relationships among and between the identified concepts and likelihood of joint shopping. Based on this assessment, a view of the motivational factors affecting likelihood of joint shopping emerged. Fig. 1 provides the derived conceptual framework. The qualitative findings coincide with shopping motivation theory, at least in regards to utilitarian and hedonic motivations driving shopping behaviors. Thus, shopping motivation theory serves as an underlying theory for this conceptualization. This theory suggests that individuals are motivated to engage in goal-directed behaviors (such as shopping together) to acquire a set of benefits anticipated from a shopping trip, which are either utilitarian or hedonic benefits or both (Darden and Dorsch, 1990; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Individuals' perceptions of the utilitarian and/or hedonic shopping elements of a shopping trip propel them forward to shop together (Wagner, 2007). That is, the journey (the shopping trip), as well as the task (to make the purchase), motivates them (Babin et al., 1994). Additionally, a situational factor, time availability, also affects the decision to shop as a couple. Drawing from the literature and qualitative work, the primary motivations (or factors) for a couple's likelihood to jointly shop,

775

include—utilitarian motives, including product purchase relevance and perceived financial risk; hedonic motives, including expected shopping pleasure; and time availability. Two potentially relevant moderators (gender and relationship length) are included in the model. 2.1. Utilitarian motivations Shopping research finds that utilitarian motivations, which are task-related and rational, motivate shoppers to focus on purchase related elements and accomplish product acquisition tasks in an efficient manner (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Babin et al., 1994). The two major utilitarian motivations relevant to the joint shopping decision, which draw from the literature review and qualitative themes, include (1) product purchase relevancy to both parties and (2) the financial risk (or high ticket price) of the product category. 2.1.1. Product purchase relevance Involvement, defined as the perceived personal relevance or importance of the object, act, or situation (based on inherent needs, values, and interests), motivates individuals to engage in various actions or to move towards various objects or situations (Celsi and Olson, 1988). For instance, individual shoppers with higher purchase involvement spend more time and effort searching for information related to that purchase (Beatty and Smith, 1987) and visit more stores than those with lower purchase involvement (Ohanian and Tashchian, 1992). In a couple-shopping situation, relevance of the product also plays an important role because it motivates an individual to be more or less engaged in a particular shopping trip or process (Babin et al., 1994; Wagner, 2007). When a member of the dyad perceives that a product purchase is highly relevant to only him/her, s/he may take the primary shopping responsibility for the item. However, when s/ he feels that the purchase is relevant to both parties, then both parties may be motivated to shop together for the item. Thus, consistent with the qualitative findings, past findings, and theory, the product purchase relevance (for both parties combined) should positively influence their likelihood of joint shopping. I don't think either one of us cares that much about what the other one is shopping for unless it has something to do with our house,

Fig. 1. Model of couples' shopping motivation of joint shopping likelihood.

776

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

which would be furniture or appliances. If it's his clothes, his vehicles, his tools I don't care. (female, age 27)

usually shop for groceries together and clothes if we like the same department store. (male, age 26)

Hypothesis 1. Product purchase relevance by both members of the dyad is positively associated with likelihood of joint shopping.

Hypothesis 3. Expected shopping pleasure with a partner is positively associated with likelihood of joint shopping.

2.1.2. Perceived financial risk The potential uncertainty and/or negative consequences related to purchases of greater risk motivate individuals to minimize that risk (Mitchell, 1992). For instance, high-perceived risk puts individuals in a distressed and anxious state (Dowling and Richard, 1994), which motivates them to engage in greater information search (Beatty and Smith, 1987). When searching for information, individuals feeling greater perceived risk tend to rely more on personal information sources than impersonal sources (Mitra et al., 1999). Purchase-pal studies also suggest that individuals' perceived risk is a primary factor motivating them to seek advice from others and to shop with others (Furse et al., 1984). These findings and ideas, along with the qualitative findings, suggest that when members of a dyad feel greater financial risk for a purchase (often a high-ticket item) they are more likely to shop together.

2.3. Situational motivation

Big items, expensive items, we shop together and influence each other a lot. (male, age 38)The few times that we do shop together are for big item purchases such as cars, TVs, a boat or wave runner and occasionally for his clothes. (female, age 39)

In this study, time availability refers to the perceived time available for an individual to perform a particular task and is the opposite of time pressure. Belk (1975) notes that time as an important situational variable. Researchers consistently find that if individuals have time pressure they search less, while with greater time availability, they will search or shop more, not feeling the pressure or urgency of the decision (cf. Beatty and Smith, 1987). Further, the interviewed couples frequently noted that time availability influences their joint shopping decisions. Time is always a factor. I think the only thing that keeps us from shopping together is our time. We shop together unless time does not allow us. That would be the only reason. (female, age 25)

Hypothesis 4. Time availability to shop is positively associated with likelihood of joint shopping.

2.4. Moderating roles of gender and relationship length Hypothesis 2. Perceived financial risk is positively associated with likelihood of joint shopping. 2.2. Hedonic motivations Much retail work explores the hedonic elements of shopping, exploring the impact of experienced emotions on shopping outcomes (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006; Machleit and Mantel, 2001), but this work does not explore how expected emotions (i.e., anticipated hedonic shopping benefits) might affect shopping behaviors. However, recent studies show that expected emotions influence a consumer's willingness to evaluate alternatives in the choice process. According to Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006), during goal-directed behaviors, individuals tend to estimate the possibility of both the success of achieving the goal and the failure to do so, which in turn elicits emotional reactions. Thus, individuals imagine the emotional consequences of goal achievement or failure before participating in the behavior, and their anticipated emotions influence their willingness to participate in individual or group activities (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). Thus, couples may choose to shop together if they anticipate that the trip will be pleasurable, since spending time together is an important relationship maintenance strategy and pleasurable interactions during joint activities is positively associated with relationship quality (Aron et al., 2000). Thus, in line with research and theory on anticipated emotions and romantic relationship development, as well as the qualitative findings, an individual's expected shopping pleasure with their partner is likely to affect the likelihood of shopping together. This variable receives little attention in shopping research, although Hunter (2006) finds that an individual's positive anticipated emotions intervenes between perceptions of the shopping center's image and her desire to shop at the center. Expected shopping pleasure with a partner is the extent to which an individual positively evaluates the anticipated experience of a specific shopping trip with their partner. We shop together to make use of the time we have together. I don't mind shopping, so it's fun sometimes to go together. We

2.4.1. Gender Marketing researchers employ social role theory to explain observed gender differences (Gentry et al., 2003). According to social role theory, males and females develop different personalities during their socialization process. This leads to traits, such as affiliation and desire for harmony in relationships in females, while males tend to possess traits focused on task orientation, self-assertion, and mastery (Meyers-Levy, 1989). Thus, males are more analytic and task oriented, while females tend to be more relationship oriented and cooperative (Fisher and Gregoire, 2006). Social role theory and research on gender differences suggest that males and females may attach different relevancies to the factors of the joint shopping decision. Females, being more sensitive to their partner's emotions and behaviors, may focus more on how enjoyable the joint shopping trip will be while males may focus more on the utilitarian aspects of the trip (e.g., how important and risky the purchase of a product is). I think when you shop, you should have your mind made up before hand, or else you are going to fall into the trap and spend a lot of extra money and end up with a lot of useless, extra, superfluous, items. (male, age 23)Well, part of shopping is looking for things. You buy stuff. You don't shop. (female, age 23)

Hypothesis 5a. Product purchase relevance and likelihood of joint shopping are more highly associated for males than females. Hypothesis 5b. Financial risk and likelihood of joint shopping are more highly associated for males than females. Hypothesis 5c. Expected shopping pleasure with partner and likelihood of joint shopping are more highly associated for females than males. 2.4.2. Relationship length Studies on romantic relationship development note that couples' interaction patterns differ according to the level of relationship

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

development (Tucker and Aron, 1993). According to self-expansion theory, when couples first enter a romantic relationship, the relationship expands at a rapid rate due to more intensive engagement (such as more intense conversations and more joint activities). During this period, couples tend to perceive this shared participation positively (Aron et al., 1998). As they get to know each other better, however, the rate of self-expansion tends to decrease, along with less intensive interaction during joint activities (Aron et al., 1998). Communication patterns also differ according to the level of relationship development (Aune et al., 1996). During the early stage of a romantic relationship (i.e., the honeymoon period), people tend to behave consistently with the ideal image they have of each other, expressing positive, harmony-producing emotions and withholding negative emotions (Aune et al., 1996). However, over time partners tend to exchange a wider range of emotions and express true feelings (Noller, 1985). Studies on relationship development imply that couples in the earlier stages of a relationship may emphasize different aspects of joint shopping than couples in later stages. Further, couples tend to develop purchase role structures—that is, who takes what purchase responsibilities, based on purchase involvement and relative power (Corfman and Lehmann, 1987). Couples in the early relationship years have not yet developed stable role structures and may have higher levels of relationship-maintenance motives, seeing a joint shopping trip as an opportunity to increase intimacy. On the other hand, couples in the middle or later relationship years may focus less on hedonic aspects and more on utilitarian aspects of shopping. When we were dating, she'd ask for my opinion of clothes. But now, we've been together like eight years, so I'll sit down here and she goes to get what she wants to get. Well, it's been two years since we got married. We dated for like six years. I guess the first two or three years, I'd go with her like that. But after the relationship went on, it made progress. I don't care. You go get what you want. (male, age 29) Hypothesis 6a. The association between product purchase relevance and likelihood of joint shopping is weaker for individuals in the early stage of their relationship versus those in the middle or later stages of their relationships. Hypothesis 6b. The association between financial risk and likelihood of joint shopping is weaker for individuals in the early stage of their relationship versus those in the middle or later stages of their relationships. Hypothesis 6c. The association between expected shopping pleasure and likelihood of joint shopping is stronger for individuals in the early stage of their relationship versus those in the middle or later stages of their relationships. 2.5. Research questions Additionally, several research questions are of interest. First, what is the relative impact of the four motivations (that is, which factors are most influential)? Secondly do the motivators of couple shopping interact in their influence on joint shopping and if so, how? This paper examines three potential interactions from the numerous possibilities: Do the utilitarian factors interact? Does pleasure interact with either product purchase relevance or time availability?

777

selection for the study—furniture and electronics. These products represent a good mix of both genders who say they might shop together or alone for these products. The second pre-study assessed and finalized the shopping scenarios with 130 undergraduate students. Then, for the main study, the paper uses an online scenario-based survey. Marketing studies have successfully used scenario-based studies in the past, which provide high quality (Bitner et al., 1990). In this paper, one variable—time availability is manipulated and incorporated into a scenario regarding the purchase of one of two product categories (electronics and furniture), resulting in a 2 × 2 research design (see Appendix A). The use of two product categories increases generalizability. 3.2. Data collection and sample Online panelists from Zoomerang are the source of the data for the main study. Zoomerang randomly selected and sent e-mail invitations to 3600 U.S. panelists (from a panel of 1 million in the U.S.), currently living with a partner (either married or not), assigning them to one of the four online surveys (high/low time availability×two product classes [furniture/electronics]). Thirteen hundred and twenty-one panel members completed the surveys (one member per household). Twenty-two responses poorly or carelessly filled out responses were discarded, as were 15 responses from same-sex couples since the focus is on heterosexual couples. Thus, 1284 responses make up the final sample, with roughly equal numbers per cell. Fifty-three percent of the respondents are male, and 9% are 18–34, 20% are 35–44, 30% are 45–54, and 41% are 55 years old or older. About 40% of respondents hold bachelor degrees, while 23% have graduate degrees. The majority work full-time. Nine percent have had a relationship with their partner for less than 5 years, 15% have had one for 5–10 years, 35% for 10–25 years, 21% for 26– 35 years, and 20% for over 35 years. The sample data compares favorably with U.S. census data on gender, while the sample is somewhat older than that of couples in the census data (U.S. Census, 2000). 3.3. Scales The study includes five key constructs: product purchase relevance, perceived financial risk, time availability, expected shopping pleasure, and likelihood of joint shopping. Four items from McQuarrie and Munson's (1992) product importance measure the extent to which an individual perceived the purchase of a product to be relevant. Respondents' relevance of the purchase category to themselves and their perceptions of its relevance to their partner are both measured. Then, the two are added together to reflect the degree to which the purchase is relevant to both members of the dyad (from the respondent's perspective), with composite scores used for analysis. The perceived financial risk items are adapted from Laroche et al. (2004). Scenarios manipulate time availability, with three items checking the manipulation. For expected shopping pleasure, two items from Mangleburg et al.'s (2004) teen shopping enjoyment with friends' measure are adapted, with one new item added. Three items from Wakefield and Baker's (1998) re-patronage likelihood scale are adapted to measure likelihood of joint shopping. The final scale items appear in Table 1. The following question measures relationship length: “How long have you and your partner been living together (in years)?” This variable represents how many years the household has been together. 4. Results

3. Research method 4.1. Pooling the furniture and electronics samples 3.1. Research design First, the researchers conducted several pre-studies. In the first pre-study, 112 undergraduate students helped in the product

The two products represent replicates, with product categories not expected to moderate the relationships. The researchers examined the equality of the covariances and the means of the two samples with

778

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

Table 1 Results of confirmatory factor analysis for the measurement model. Standardized Composite AVEs reliability λxa Likelihood of joint shopping The likelihood that my partner and I would shop together for the items in the scenario is _____. 1. Unlikely–Likely .93 2. Not probable–Very probable .98 3. Impossible–Very possible .96

.97

.91

.97

.88

Perceived financial risk 1. If I were to buy these types of items in the .83 near future, I would be concerned that the financial investment I would make would not be wise. 2. Purchasing these types of items can involve .82 important financial losses. 3. If I were to buy these types of items in the .81 near future, I would be concerned that I would not get my money's worth.

.86

.67

Expected shopping pleasure 1. I like to shop with my partner for these types .90 of items. 2. I think it would be more fun to shop with my .86 partner than it would be to shop by myself for these types of items. 3. It would be really enjoyable to shop for these .93 items with my partner.

.92

.80

.93

.82

Product purchase relevance The purchase of the products would _____ to me (my partner). 1. be unimportant–important 2. be irrelevant–relevant 3. mean nothing–mean a lot 4. not matter–matter

.93 .95 .93 .95

Time availability In the scenario, it appears that 1. I would have limited amount of time .88 available to shop. (R) 2. I would not have enough time to complete .90 the shopping. (R) 3. I would be in a hurry when I shop. (R) .93 a

All loadings are significant at p b .01.

a multi-group analysis of LISREL 8.5 (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998) to assess the ability to pool the data. The statistics for the test of equality of covariances are: x2(df) = 391.48 (152), RMSEA = .05, NFI = .99, and CFI = .99 while the statistics for the equality of means are: x2(df) = 37.25 (16), RMSEA = .04, NFI = 1.00, and CFI = .00. The model fit indices are acceptable (RMSEA b .06, NFI N .90 and CFI N .90), as recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). Thus, the items are invariant across furniture and electronics, allowing for pooling of the samples. 4.2. Multiple checks of data 4.2.1. Realism of the scenarios and manipulation checks Two questions checked for the realism of the scenarios on 5 point Likert scales: the scenario is believable (mean = 4.14, sd = .91), and the situation described in the scenario could actually happen in real life (mean = 4.23, sd = .92). The means of the credibility check questions indicate strong realism and believability of the scenarios. The time-availability manipulation was checked by comparing the average scores of the three manipulation-check items of high and low time availability groups with t-tests. The means of the groups are different at p b .01 (t-value = 27.81; low time availability mean = 2.40 (sd = .94) vs. high time availability mean = 3.96 (sd = 1.01), indicating

that time availability is adequately manipulated. To check for demand effects, respondents responded to a question on the study's purpose. With no answer matching the true purpose of the study, demand effects are not a concern.

4.2.2. Measurement of constructs Exploratory factor analysis, using principal axis factoring with a promax rotation method (an oblique rotation method), produced theoretically meaningful constructs (Hair et al., 1995), suggesting all items could be retained. Next, normality was assessed by an examination of the skewness and kurtosis of the data, with no serious violations found (Cortina et al., 2001). The confirmatory factor analysis, using LISREL 8.5, indicate an acceptable measurement model fit. Even though the chi-square statistic is significant (x2(df) = 300.68(94), p b .01), other fit indices (NFI = .99; NNFI = .99; CFI = .99; RMSEA= .04; x2/df = 3.20) indicate a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Table 1 provides the loadings, composite reliabilities, and AVEs. The individual item loadings support the convergent validity of the measures since all indicator loadings for constructs are consistently high and significant (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Comparing the variance extracted for each construct to the square of each of the diagonal values within the Phi matrix for that construct allowed the researchers to assess discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In all cases, the variance extracted exceeds the squared phi estimates, indicating good discriminant validity. Construct summary statistics, including the correlations, means, standard deviations, and Cronbach's α appear in Table 2. Harman's single-factor test assessed common method bias. In an un-rotated factor analysis, a single factor does not emerge and the first factor does not account for most of the variance in the variables, suggesting that common method bias is not a concern (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

4.3. Tests of hypotheses After assessing the measurement model, the researchers test the hypotheses with regression since this approach allows for estimation of direct, moderating and interaction effects (Frazier et al., 2004). For the assessment of the direct effects of the four factors on likelihood of joint shopping, z-scores of the computed composites were included in the regression to reduce potential problems associated with multicollinearity (Frazier et al., 2004). To test the moderating effects of gender and relationship length, dummy variables capture gender and relationship length (less than 5 years; 5–35 years; over 35 years). Next, the cross products of the dummy variables and the three factors— product purchase relevance, perceived financial risk, and expected shopping pleasure and the three interactions suggested earlier were included in the regression model.

Table 2 Construct means, standard deviations, correlations, and Cronbach's α. Constructs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Product purchase relevance Financial risk Time availability Expected shopping pleasure Likelihood of joint shopping

Mean 7.81 3.08 3.19 3.67 3.78

a

SD 1.72 .99 1.25 1.09 .89

1 (.96) .32** .21** .54** .43**

2

3

4

5

(.86) .03 .28** .14**

(.93) .16** .10**

(.92) .38**

(.96)

b

Product purchase relevance and likelihood of joint shopping measured with a bipolar adjective scale (1–5). Financial risk, time availability, and expected pleasure measured with 5-point (strongly disagree to strongly agree) scales. ** p b .01, * p b .05. a Composite scores of product purchase relevance represent perceived relevance to both members of a dyad. b Cronbach's α of the construct.

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

This regression also included four covariates—shopping enthusiast, age and education of respondents, and product type. Shopping enthusiasts are “highly involved in shopping as a leisure activity and view shopping as a central part of their lives” (Guiry et al., 2006, p. 76). Guiry et al.'s (2006) shopping enthusiast scale measures this covariate. The impact of the covariates on likelihood of joint shopping is minimal, and findings do not vary considerably with or without the inclusion of the covariates. Thus, to control for the impact of the covariates, composites of likelihood of joint shopping were regressed on the covariates to parcel out their effects. The resulting standardized residuals serve as input into the regression model, with likelihood as the dependent variable. The regression results appear in Table 3. Product purchase relevance and financial risk, the two utilitarian motivators, are positively associated with the likelihood of joint shopping (Hypothesis 1, β = .32, t-value = 3.43, p b .01; Hypothesis 2, β = .24, t-value = 2.55, p b .01). Expected shopping pleasure, the hedonic element, are positively associated with the likelihood of joint shopping (Hypothesis 3) as proposed (β = .35, t-value = 3.28, p b .01), while time availability is also positively associated with likelihood of joint shopping (Hypothesis 4, β = .18, t-value = 3.07, p b .01). For the three proposed gender moderations, the analysis only supports one hypothesis. Consistent with Hypothesis 5b, a stronger relationship between financial risk and likelihood of joint shopping for males than females exists (β =−.16, t-value =−2.16, p b .01). However, no gender effects for the other proposed moderations, product purchase relevance (Hypothesis 5a) and expected pleasure (Hypothesis 5c) on the likelihood of joint shopping is present. Further, the analysis does not support the relationship length moderations (Hypotheses 6a–6c).

Table 3 Results of the regression analysis. Dependent variable: Likelihood of joint shopping R2 = .52; F (19, 1264) = 72.05 (p b .01) Beta coefficient Main effects Product purchase relevance Financial risk Expected shopping pleasure Time availability Moderating effects of gender Female (a dummy variable) Female × product purchase relevance Female × financial risk Female × expected pleasure Moderating effects of relationship length Relationship length (5–35) (a dummy variable) Relationship length (over 35) (a dummy variable) Relationship length (5–35) × product purchase relevance Relationship length (over 35) × product purchase relevance Relationship length (5–35) × financial risk Relationship length (over 35) × financial risk Relationship length (5–35) × expected shopping pleasure Relationship length (over 35) × expected shopping pleasure Interactions between factors Product purchase relevance × financial risk Product purchase relevance × expected shopping pleasure Expected shopping pleasure × time availability ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05.

t-value

.32 .24 .35 .18

3.43⁎⁎ 2.55⁎⁎ 3.28⁎⁎ 3.07⁎⁎

.04 .06 −.16 .08

.37 .53 − 2.16⁎⁎ .93

.06 .17 −.10

.43 1.25 −.59

−.12

−.83

.09 −.10 −.10

.84 − 1.13 −.72

.04

.35

.15 .21

1.45 1.98⁎

.11

1.44

779

This paper also investigates several research questions. Dominance analysis assesses the relative influence of the four antecedents on the likelihood of joint shopping by assessing the average increment in the coefficient of determination associated with an antecedent across possible sub-models (Budescu, 1993). A higher dominance index (D) indicates more variance accounted for by the independent variable (Budescu, 1993), allowing for a rank ordering of the variables based on relative influence. Expected shopping pleasure (D = .23) has the strongest influence on joint shopping, while product purchase relevance (D = .19) has the next most influence. Perceived financial risk (D = .09) is a distant third, with time availability (D = .02) last. Secondly, this paper examines three potential interactions, with only one proving to be significant. Product purchase relevance and expected shopping pleasure interact to jointly influence likelihood of joint shopping (β = .21, t-value = 1.98, p b .05). However, the other tested interactions, product purchase relevance and financial risk, and expected shopping pleasure and time availability, do not jointly affect likelihood of joint shopping. 5. Discussion and theoretical implications In this study, the researchers propose and find four important motivating factors affecting a couples' decision to jointly shop. These motivations, based on qualitative research and a literature review, provide a framework aimed at understanding the shopping motivations for couples to jointly shop. Both the hedonic motive, expected shopping pleasure, and a utilitarian motive, product purchase relevance, have strong influence on couples' likelihood of joint shopping, suggesting the importance of both variables. The other variables, perceived financial risk and time availability, are also important factors. Previous research underemphasizes the importance of hedonic motivations for couple shopping. Couples not only jointly shop to complete their purchase goals, they also engage in a shared experience that is often enjoyable and provides intimate interaction. Existing retail research identifies the importance of the hedonic and recreational aspects of shopping but focuses on individuals rather than couples (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Jones et al., 2006). Findings here suggest that researchers need to incorporate hedonic motives, especially anticipated emotions, more heavily in future explorations of family purchase decisions or joint shopping experiences, especially noting that anticipated emotions have not been examined relative to social shopping. The influence of utilitarian motives, product purchase relevance and financial risk, and time availability, on likelihood of joint shopping suggests that the “shop together or alone” decision is often determined on a case-by-case basis rather than on an always or never basis. These findings are consistent with family decisionmaking and purchase pal studies, which argue that individuals are more likely to engage in joint purchase decisions with family members or others when they have strong preferences, involvement or product importance (Beatty and Talpade, 1994; Corfman and Lehmann, 1987). Further, the existing studies on information search note that perceived risk motivates individuals to engage in productrelated conversations with others or to make more use of personal sources, while time availability has also been previously connected to greater search by individuals (Beatty and Smith, 1987; Mitra et al., 1999). However, researchers have not connected these variables to joint shopping decisions, and so this study provides a useful framework in which to consider these issues. Further, the results indicate that consistent with expectations, males are more sensitive to financial risks than females in the decision to jointly shop. However, contrary to expectations, product purchase relevance and expected shopping pleasure similarly affect both genders' likelihood to jointly shop. Perhaps, in regards to expected shopping pleasure, females and males are equally likely to anticipate

780

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

how pleasant the joint shopping experience will be from both their perspective and their partner's. Thus, perhaps the accurate reading of their partners' anticipated emotions or their product relevance in answering the questions may have produced the lack of a gender difference finding. Although the anticipation was that couples in newer relationships (or households) place less weight on utilitarian elements and more weight on hedonic elements as compared with couples in more mature relationships, the data do not support this idea. While indications of this issue emerge in the qualitative research, that data set is small. The results of this large-scale study indicate that relationship length does not affect the relationships between the utilitarian and hedonic factors and likelihood of joint shopping. This finding is true regardless of the handling of relationship length—as a dichotomous variable, a continuous variable, a log-linear function, or a curvilinear function. The lack of a moderating effect of relationship length suggests that the motivating variables are equally important at all stages of relationships. Perhaps, relationship maturity, strength, or closeness may be more relevant than simply number of years in a relationship. Additionally focusing on the honeymoon year (first year together) might be useful (but the data size precludes this assessment). Also measuring length of time in a committed relationship versus length of time living together may produce different results, but the data are not available in that form. This study also explores several interactions of factors, finding that product purchase relevance and expected shopping pleasure jointly influence the likelihood of joint shopping. This finding is interesting in that these factors are also the most important motivators. 6. Managerial implications Many shopping related decisions and behaviors, such as selection of shopping malls/stores, evaluating retail elements, and making purchase decisions, are related to whether or not members of a couple decide to jointly shop, making this an important topic to study. This study finds that couples tend to imagine whether the trip will be pleasurable and base their determination of shopping together heavily on this assessment. The couples' anticipation of pleasure from the trip arises from their experiences and perceptions as to what is available in the shopping area that will satisfy them both and make the experience pleasant. Thus, in order to appeal to couples, retailers should design retail experiential factors and events/activities that are attractive to both members of the dyad. These issues affect store placement as well. For example, Best Buy may appeal more to males, while Bed, Bath, and Beyond may appeal more strongly to females. Thus, by locating the stores near each other, couples have a stronger incentive to shop together (i.e., both can anticipate pleasurable times from the experience and the shopping trip will be more relevant to both of them). Additionally, the strategy of placing all gender-based stores close together may have some negative consequences. For example, if the mall has female-oriented stores at one end and male-oriented stores at the other end, joint shopping may be more difficult and less pleasant. While previous retail research finds that product variety and tenant mix influence individual shopping behaviors (Kirkup and Rafiq, 1994), the findings of this study imply that to appeal to couples' desires to shop together, retail managers need to understand how couples perceive their merchandise and its joint relevancy. Then, they need to appeal to that relevancy with their offerings and advertising. For example, malls or shopping areas could advertise around these two important variables—shopping pleasure and ability to find needed product (thus, appealing to the hedonic and utilitarian needs of joint shoppers). The findings of this study also suggest that salespeople need to appeal to the needs of both members of the dyad in their discussions. Further, layout issues within the stores are important, too. Offering

plentiful and comfortable seating is important, since both shoppers are not likely to be equally involved in all shopping activities in the stores or area. 7. Limitations and future research In order to test the proposed motivational model of couples' jointshopping decisions, one member of a dyad completed the survey, rather than both members of the same couple. In order to overcome this limitation, future research should focus on couples as a unit of analysis. Another limitation is the scenario-based approach. However, the scenario approach has advantages over retrospective recall and can provide ecologically valid tests (cf. Bateson and Hui, 1992). Further, noting that the two products serve as replicates of one another enhances the applicability of the findings. However, other product categories (e.g., clothing) are likely to reveal additional relevant motivational factors. Personality traits of each member of the dyad, the roles of the parties, and other specific relationship factors are other potential factors researchers may wish to consider. Future research could investigate how other family members (e.g., children) influence couples' joint-shopping decisions and their shopping experiences. Further, the interactions occurring between members of a couple during the trip are important to study, as well as the impact of these interactions on future shopping likelihoods. Future researchers could also investigate how couples' perceptions of specific retail factors influence their anticipated shopping pleasure or actual experiences. The topic of Internet versus traditional shopping for couples is another interesting topic for future study. Finally, the shopping behaviors of same gender couples, and the effect of culture on these topics are also fruitful future topics (Davis et al., 2008). Appendix A. Scenarios A.1. Electronics and low time availability You and your partner moved into a new house a month ago. You think that it would be great to have a TV and a DVD recorder in your bedroom so you decide to shop for this (You have not yet decided on brands, sizes, etc.). But you are very busy at the moment and have little time available to shop for a new TV and a DVD recorder. A.2. Electronics and high time availability You and your partner moved into a new house a month ago. You think that it would be great to have a TV and a DVD recorder in your bedroom so you decide to shop for this (You have not yet decided on brands, sizes, etc.). At the present time you are not very busy and so have plenty of time to shop for a new TV and a DVD recorder. A.3. Furniture and low time availability You and your partner moved into a new house a month ago. You and your partner spent several days to arrange the furniture for your living room. However, you feel that the sofa you have is old and does not go well in your new house, so you decide to shop for a new sofa. But you are very busy at the moment and have little time available to shop for a new sofa. A.4. Furniture and high time availability You and your partner moved into a new house a month ago. You and your partner spent several days to arrange the furniture for your living room. However, you feel that the sofa you have is old and does not go well in your new house, so you decide to shop for a new sofa. At

J. Lim, S.E. Beatty / Journal of Business Research 64 (2011) 774–781

the present time you are not very busy and so have plenty of time to shop for a new sofa. References Anderson JR, Gerbing D. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two step approach. Psychol Bul 1988;103:411–23. Arnold MJ, Reynolds KE. Hedonic shopping motivations. J Retail 2003;79(2):77–95. Arnold MJ, Reynolds KE, Ponder N, Lueg JE. Customer delight in a retail context: investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences. J Bus Res 2005;58(8): 1132–45. Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN. The self-expansion model and motivation. Rep Res Soc Psychol 1998;22:1-13. Aron A, Norman CC, Aron EN, McKenna C, Heyman RE. Couple's shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78(2):273–84. Aune KS, Buller DB, Aune RK. Display rule development in romantic relationships. Human Comm Res 1996;23(1):115–45. Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping. J Cons Res 1994;20(4):644–56. Bagozzi RP, Dholakia UM. Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. Int J Res Mark 2006;23:45–61. Bateson JEG, Hui MK. The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. J Cons Res 1992;19(2):271–81. Beatty SE, Smith SM. External search effort: an investigation across several product categories. J Cons Res 1987;14(1):83–95. Beatty SE, Talpade S. Adolescent influence in family decision making: a replication with extension. J Cons Res 1994;21(2):332–41. Belk RW. Situational variables and consumer behavior. J Cons Res 1975;1:157–64 (Dec). Bitner M, Booms B, Tetreault M. The service encounter: diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. J Mark 1990;54:71–84. Budescu DV. Dominance analysis: a new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychol Bul 1993;114(3):542–51. Celsi RL, Olson JC. The role of involvement in attention and comprehension price. J Cons Res 1988;15(2):210–24. Corfman KP, Lehmann DR. Models of cooperative group decision-making and relative influence: an experimental investigation of family purchase decisions. J Cons Res 1987;14(1):1-13. Cortina JM, Chen G, Dunlap WP. Testing interaction effects in LISREL: examination and illustration of available procedures. Organ Res Meth 2001;4(4):324–60. Darden WR, Dorsch MJ. An action strategy approach to examining shopping behavior. J Bus Res 1990;21(3):289–308. Davis L, Wang S, Lindridge A. Culture influences on emotional responses to on-line store atmospheric cues. J Bus Res 2008;61(8):806–12. Dowling GR, Richard S. A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. J Cons Res 1994;21(1):119–34. Fisher RJ, Gregoire Y. Gender differences in decision satisfaction within established dyads: effects of competitive and cooperative behaviors. Psychol Mark 2006;23(4): 313–33. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with observable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18:39–50. Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. J Councel Psych 2004;51:115–34. Furse DH, Punj GN, Stewart DW. A typology of individual search strategies among purchasers of new automobiles. J Cons Res 1984;10(4):417–31.

781

Gentry JW, Commuri S, Jun S. Review of literature on gender in the family. Acad Mark Sci Rev 2003;1:1-18. Guiry M, Mägi AW, Lutz RJ. Defining and measuring hedonic shopper identity. J Acad Mark Sci 2006;34(1):74–83. Hair JF, Tatham RL, Black WC. Multivariate data analysis. 4th Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1995. Haytko DL, Baker J. It's all at the mall: exploring adolescent girls' experiences. J Retail 2004;80(1):67–83. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc Eq Mod 1999;6(1):1-55. Hunter GL. The role of anticipated emotion, desire, and intention in the relationship between image and shopping center visits. Inter J Ret Dist Man 2006;34(10): 709–21. Jones MA, Reynolds KE, Arnold MJ. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. J Bus Res 2006;59(9):974–81. Kaltcheva VD, Weitz BA. When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? J Mark 2006;70:107–18. Kiecker P, Hartman CL. Predicting buyers' selection of interpersonal sources: the role of strong ties and weak ties. Adv Cons Res 1994;21(1):464–9. Kirkup M, Rafiq M. Managing tenant mix in new shopping centres. Int J Retail Dist Manage 1994;22(6):29–37. Laroche M, McDougall GHG, Bergeron J, Yang Z. Exploring how intangibility affects perceived risk. J Serv Res 2004;6(4):373–89. Machleit KA, Mantel SP. Emotional response and shopping satisfaction: moderating effects of shopper attributions. J Bus Res 2001;54(2):97-106. Mangleburg TF, Doney PM, Bristol T. Shopping with friends and teens' susceptibility to peer influence. J Retail 2004;80(2):101–16. McQuarrie EF, Munson M. A revised product involvement inventory: improved usability and validity. Adv Cons Res 1992;19:108–15. Meyers-Levy J. The influence of sex roles on judgment. J Cons Res 1989;14:522–30. Mitchell VW. Understanding consumers' behavior: can perceived risk theory help? Manag Dec 1992;30(3):26–31. Mitra K, Reiss MC, Capella LM. An examination of perceived risk, information search and behavioral likelihoods in search, experience and credence services. J Serv Mark 1999;13(3):208–28. Noller P. Negative communication in marriage. J Soc Pers Rel 1985;2:289–301. Ohanian R, Tashchian A. Consumers' shopping effort and evaluation of store image attributes: the roles of purchasing involvement and hedonic shopping interest. J App Bus Res 1992;8(4):40–9. Packaged Facts. Holiday spending in the U.S.: spending on gifts and charity. from www. packagedfacts.com; 2008. Podsakoff P, MacKenzie S, Lee JY, Podsakoff N. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J App Psychol 2003;88(5):879–903. Steenkamp JBE, Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Cons Res 1998;25(1):78–90. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research. 2nd edition. SAGE; 1998. Tucker P, Aron A. Passionate love and marital satisfaction at key transition points in the family life cycle. J Soc Clinical Psychol 1993;12:135–47. U.S. Census Bureau 2000. Retrieved June 25, 2007, from http://www.census.gov/. Wagner T. Shopping motivation revised: a means-end chain analytical perspective. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 2007;35(7):569–82. Wakefield KL, Baker J. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. J Retail 1998;74(4):515–39. Yoo C, Park J, Maclnnis DJ. Effects of store characteristics and in-store emotional experiences on store attitude. J Bus Res 1998;42(3):253–63.