- Email: [email protected]
Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping
Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250 – 259
Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping Anthony D. Cox*, Dena Cox1, Ronald D. Anderson Department of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 801 West Michigan, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5151, USA Received 14 August 2002; accepted 18 June 2003
Abstract Despite a growing array of nonstore shopping alternatives, consumers still do the vast majority of their shopping by visiting brick-andmortar stores. This study takes a fresh look at the pleasures of store shopping, employing data from a study of over 1300 shoppers. The results indicate that, contrary to the speculation of some writers, relatively few consumers shop in order to mingle with other shoppers. Instead, consumers tend to be drawn to shopping’s more private pleasures, particularly the enjoyment of bargain hunting. The findings suggest that bargain hunting, rather than being antithetical to shopping enjoyment, may be one of its most common sources. In addition, the data suggest that the sources of shopping enjoyment vary markedly among different demographic groups. The paper closes by discussing implications of the study’s findings and potential directions for future research. D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Shopping; Retailing; Consumer behavior; Motivation
1. Introduction To paraphrase Mark Twain, recent reports of the death of the brick-and-mortar store seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Despite a growing array of nonstore outlets (including catalogs, party-concept selling, QVC, personal shopping services, and most recently the internet) consumers still do the vast majority of their shopping in stores. Even in a product category like apparel, where catalog and internet outlets have made some of their greatest inroads, consumers still make 90% of their purchases at brick-and-mortar stores (Industry Standard, 2000). What explains the persistence of store shopping? One simple explanation, often overlooked in the enthusiasm for new retail technologies, is that many consumers enjoy store shopping. While economic theory tends to view shopping as merely a chore undertaken to acquire utility-producing products (e.g., Sargent, 1987), research suggests many consumers derive intrinsic enjoyment from the process of shopping (e.g., Guiry and Lutz, 2000).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-317-274-3831. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.D. Cox), [email protected] (D. Cox), [email protected] (R.D. Anderson). 1 Tel.: +1-317-274-3526. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00160-7
What is less clear is why consumers enjoy shopping. As Falk and Campbell note (1997, p. 189): . . . there is little doubt that many people do obtain great pleasure from shopping . . . and that shopping is a leisuretime pursuit that has increased in importance in recent decades. However, it is not entirely clear what exactly constitutes the source of the pleasure. Past researchers (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985; Jones, 1999; Babin et al., 1994; Dawson et al., 1990) have tried to identify specific facets of the shopping experience that are enjoyed by at least some consumers, some of the time. However, little attention has been given to the relative prevalence of these shopping pleasures. As a result, it is hard for marketers to know, for example, whether most consumers enjoy mingling with other shoppers (e.g., Knack, 2000) or view them as a source of irritation (see, e.g., Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). Similarly, we do not know whether most consumers view bargain hunting as a chore, or as a source of pleasure (see Schindler, 1989). To truly understand why consumers enjoy shopping, we must gain a better understanding of these issues. It is also important to understand how shopping pleasures may vary with consumers’ life circumstances, such as their age,
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
income, or child-rearing responsibilities. Westbrook and Black (1985) suggested that shopping pleasures are essentially invariant across demographic groups. But do elderly consumers really seek the same shopping pleasures as young adults? Do rich and poor consumers enjoy the same aspects of the shopping experience? To take a fresh look at these issues, we conducted the largest study to date of consumers’ recreational shopping experiences. This study addresses two central questions: (1) What are the most prevalent sources of consumer shopping pleasure? (2) How do shopping pleasures vary among different segments of consumers?
2. Potential sources of shopping pleasure Drawing from diverse prior literature, we identify several potential sources of shopping pleasure. 2.1. Mingling with other shoppers A unique trait of store shopping is one’s proximity to other shoppers. Thus, some suggest that consumers visit stores seeking social interactions. Tauber (1972, p. 47) notes that ‘‘The marketplace has traditionally been a center of social activity . . . Many parts of the United States have ‘market days,’ ‘county fairs,’ ‘town squares’ . . .’’ Similarly, Westbrook and Black (1985, pp. 79, 87) posit that there are ‘‘dependent shoppers’’ who require social support while shopping. However, others have questioned whether shoppers truly seek social experiences. Falk and Campbell (1997, p. 11) observe that shopping ‘‘. . . is essentially a private experience that occurs in a public setting . . .’’ Similarly, Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, pp. 154 – 155) describe malls as being populated by ‘‘anonymous crowds . . .’’ In addition, several social trends have made the retail environment increasingly impersonal: Most Americans now shop in large metropolitan areas, where chance retail encounters with friends and neighbors are much less likely than in smaller towns. Even in small communities, the town squares which Tauber describes, once filled with small local merchants, have been largely abandoned in favor of strip centers near interstate exits, anchored by Wal-Marts and other corporate self-service chains (see Putnam, 2000). And when in-store social encounters do occur, they are not always viewed positively. In particular, researchers have noted negative consumer reactions to retail crowding (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). 2.2. Bargain hunting In the shopping literature, the pleasures of bargain hunting have gotten relatively little attention. Bargain-oriented shoppers have often been portrayed as cool and calculating economic shoppers in contrast to pleasure-driven recreational shoppers. In his classic study of urban shoppers,
251
Stone (1954, pp. 38– 42) described the price-oriented ‘‘economic’’ shopper as an ‘‘. . . approximation to the ‘economic man’ of the classical economist . . .’’ caring only about ‘‘. . . quick efficient sale of merchandise . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . able to participate in the market in a detached, interested, alert manner.’’ Similarly, Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980, p. 78) described price-oriented ‘‘economic’’ shoppers as disliking shopping, while pleasure-oriented ‘‘recreational’’ shoppers are less concerned with price. In contrast, some researchers have suggested that the hunt for low prices is not driven solely by cool cognition but may also be a source of emotional satisfaction. Schindler (1989, p. 447) discusses ‘‘. . . the emotional response which a price promotion can generate,’’ and posits that paying a low price can induce feelings of pride, intelligence, and a sense of achievement. Morris (1987, p. 13) suggests bargain-hunting shoppers gain pleasure from beating the system. Similarly, Mano and Elliot (1997, pp. 504 – 505) argue that paying a reduced price can cause consumers to feel pride, excitement, and a sense of accomplishment. 2.3. Browsing Browsing is defined as ‘‘. . . the examination of a store’s merchandise for recreational or informational purposes without a current intent to buy . . .’’ (Bloch and Richins, 1983, p. 389). In an early study (Rich and Portis, 1963), 30% of discount and department store shoppers reported that ‘‘seeing new items and getting ideas’’ was the reason that they enjoyed shopping. Thus, browsing is proposed as a source of shopping enjoyment. 2.4. Sensory stimulation Some shoppers may derive pleasure from the sensory aspects of the retail environment—its sights, sounds, and smells. Wakefield and Baker (1998) stress the role of the shopping environment in stimulating excitement, noting retailers’ increased emphasis on store design and atmospherics. Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997) argue that one of shopping’s main attractions is getting out of the house, i.e., experiencing a change in physical environment. 2.5. Being pampered Tauber (1972) suggests some shoppers enjoy the ‘‘status and authority’’ of being pampered by retail salespeople. Westbrook and Black (1985, p. 87) argue that shoppers enjoy the ‘‘. . . attainment of elevated social position . . . the behavior of [retail personnel] to serve and please the shopper . . .’’ However, it should be noted that the decades since the publication of these studies have seen rapid growth of self-service retail formats (e.g., discounters, off-price stores, category killers) in which customers rarely interact with a salesperson prior to the checkout line.
252
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
2.6. Kinesthetic experience Even for consumers with little interest in merchandise, store atmospherics, or mingling, stores and shopping centers remain large, climate-controlled public places in which it is possible to move around freely—among the few such spaces that are open to the general public. For this reason, we expect that some consumers enjoy shopping primarily as a kinesthetic experience, i.e., as an opportunity to move about or to walk for exercise.
3. Demographic differences in shopping enjoyment 3.1. Income Research has shown that lower-income consumers are often less likely to use price-saving tactics than middle class consumers (Alwitt and Donley, 1996). While some have argued that this simply reflects reduced bargain-hunting opportunities in poorer communities (e.g., Blattberg et al., 1978), others have argued that this pattern reflects fundamental differences in the social classes’ attitude toward shopping. Levy (1966) posits that low-income shoppers are more impulsive, while middle-income shoppers are more likely to comparison shop. Similarly, Berman and Evans (1998, p. 207) contend that middle-income women tend to be ‘‘conscientious’’ shoppers, in contrast to both affluent consumers (to whom money is not important) and lower-income consumers (portrayed as impulsive shoppers who are likely to overpay). Enjoyment of browsing may also vary by income. Earlier, it was suggested that browsing or window shopping may serve as a surrogate for buying. Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, p. 143) note that ‘‘In emphasizing the aspect of possibility, it becomes evident that shopping as a pleasurable leisure activity does not necessarily require a great deal of money.’’ 3.2. Age Several shopping pleasures may vary with consumer age. First, browsers may tend to be younger than other consumers since exploratory and novelty-seeking behaviors tend to be more common among younger consumers (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2001). Second, enjoyment of shopping as exercise may be especially pervasive among older consumers since stores and malls may appeal to these consumers as safe, pleasant venues for walking (Duncan et al., 1995). Finally, older shoppers may enjoy being pampered more than their younger counterparts. As people age, they may develop physical and cognitive limitations that reduce their self-sufficiency as shoppers, making them value personal service (see Lumpkin et al., 1984). Second, societal norms dictate that older people should be treated with greater deference, and older consumers may internalize this norm.
Finally, older Americans grew up in an era when stores offered considerable personal service, and this may influence their expectations regarding the shopping experience. In contrast, younger consumers have grown up in an era when stores are largely self-service, and have learned to live without personal service. 3.3. Children Consumers with children, especially preschool-aged children, may be less likely to enjoy most aspects of shopping. Having young children may shift a consumer’s focus to more home-centered activities, as well as make shopping more difficult and stressful (e.g., Thompson et al., 1990). More specifically, the presence of children may influence the desire for social experiences while shopping (i.e., mingling with customers and being pampered salespeople). Forman and Sriram (1991) suggest that retail salespeople may serve as surrogate social contacts for socially isolated consumers. Following this reasoning, we expect childless consumers to be more likely to seek retail social interactions than consumers with children.
4. Method Women remain the dominant shoppers in most households (e.g., Dholokia, 1999) and are much more likely than men to view shopping as a recreational activity (e.g., Campbell, 2000). Thus, we collected data from 1369 women, a convenience sample recruited from a wide variety of organizations (including senior citizen, religious, and parent –teacher groups) located in a large Midwestern metropolitan area (population about 1 million). Organizations represented each sector of the metropolitan area, and a wide range of socioeconomic and age groups. The sample’s demographic profile adhered closely to national norms for females age 18 and older (CDC, 1999) in age (median age of 44), employment (59% employed outside home), and race (84% white). However, the sample had slightly higher median household income ($40,000 sample vs. $35,000 national norm) and was more likely to have minor children (49% vs. 41%) to have attended at least some college (61% vs. 52%) and to be married (66% vs. 57%). Questionnaires were administered during the regularly scheduled meetings of the participating organizations. Each organization received $1 for each questionnaire completed by its members and entered a random drawing for a chance to win an additional $250. 4.1. Measures Drawing on past research (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985) and data from individual depth interviews with eight women asked to describe recent shopping
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
253
dence intervals included 1.0. Last, we used Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) method, in which discriminant validity is established when the average variance extracted for each factor exceeds all shared variances between that and other factors. This condition held for all factors. Thus, all three tests support discriminant validity. For each of the six shopping enjoyment factors, we computed weighted means of the items loading on that factor, with items weighted in proportion to their respective factor score coefficients. These weighted means scales were used in all subsequent analyses.
experiences, we developed 25 statements to assess the six shopping pleasures discussed earlier. Respondents rated statements on six-point Likert scales. To test the expected relationships between these items and the six shoppingpleasure constructs, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, using asymptotically distribution-free estimates (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 1993). Eight items exhibited cross-loadings or loaded weakly on all factors, and were dropped. The remaining 17 items produced the measurement model shown in Table 1. This model provided a good fit to the data. While the chi-squared test was significant [v2(df = 104) = 518.2, P < .001], the model in Table 1 produced a CFI=.97, and a RMSEA=.058, indicating a good fit (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; Jo¨reskog, 1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, the six factors had composite reliabilities ranging from .81 to .94, indicating good convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed using three methods. First, we constrained each interfactor correlation to equal one, and compared the fits of the constrained and unconstrained models. In each case, the unconstrained model fit significantly better ( P < .001) supporting discriminant validity (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Second, we estimated the confidence interval for each interfactor correlation; if two factors are distinct, this confidence interval will not include 1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). No 99% confi-
5. Results 5.1. Enjoyment of specific aspects of shopping experience Fig. 1 and Table 2 show the extent to which respondents report receiving pleasure from different aspects of the shopping experience. As can be seen, while some consumers reported enjoying each of the six experiences, the extent of enjoyment varies greatly among shopping experiences. Most notably, the shopping experience enjoyed by the most consumers is one that has been overlooked in much recreational shopping research: searching for and finding bargains. Bargain enjoyment had by far the highest mean level
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis Factor pattern Mingling Opportunity to meet new friends Like shop beside customers with similar tastes Like talking with salespeople and other shoppers Like shopping with people like me Like shopping because it helps me meet men Like to casually walk through mall Often shop to get ideas Like to window shop Enjoy hunting for bargains Like to comparison shop Get a thrill from finding a real bargain The pleasant smells in a store make feel good I enjoy the store decorations and displays Like to go to the mall to keep fit Like to walk in malls because of exercise Like being waited on by salesperson Like salesperson spends time helping me Composite Reliability
Browsing
Bargain hunting
Sensory experience
Kinesthetic experience
Being pampered
0.94 0.88 0.85 0.83 0.74 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.89 0.75 0.74 0.85 0.81 0.98 0.90
0.93
0.85
0.84
0.82
0.94
0.83 0.83 0.81
1.00 .52 .37 .33
1.00 .78 .54
1.00 .54
1.00
Factor correlations Mingle Browse Bargain Sensory Kinesthetic Pamper
1.00 .69 .34 .78 .78 .66
1.00 .56 .76 .70 .42
254
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Fig. 1. Consumer enjoyment of specific shopping experiences.
(X = 4.39 on a 1 –6 scale), significantly higher than the next highest scale (t = 18.3; P < .001). In fact, the three statements comprising the bargain-enjoyment scale received the highest mean agreement scores of all shopping enjoyment statements. Respondents reported particularly strong agreement with the most strongly worded item (e.g., a mean agreement of 4.7 for ‘‘I get a thrill out of finding a real bargain.’’). Overall, 74.2% of consumers reported at least some enjoyment of bargain shopping. The next highest-rated shopping pleasures were browsing (X = 3.62; 55.7% reporting some enjoyment), being pampered (X = 3.6; 50.3%), and sensory stimulation (X = 3.48; 46.1%); mean differences between these three scales were not significant. These are followed by kinesthetic pleasure (X = 2.58; 24.3%). Finally, very few reported enjoying mingling (X = 2.15; 12.1%). Mean differences among the last three scales are statistically significant ( P < .001).
5.2. Sources of shopping enjoyment across demographic segments Demographic differences were examined using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Each ANCOVA examined shopping enjoyment differences across categories of a specific demographic trait, while controlling for the other demographic traits. Results are shown in Table 3. 5.2.1. Shopping enjoyment and income As noted earlier, since many price-saving behaviors are most common among middle-income shoppers, some have speculated that enjoyment of bargain hunting is a distinctly middle-class phenomenon. Our data do not strongly support this view. While a middle-income ($30,000 – 39,999) category exhibits the highest mean bargain enjoyment, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicate that all income groups below $60,000 have essentially equal levels. In fact, bargain
Table 2 Consumer enjoyment of specific shopping experiences Shopping experience
Percentage reporting LOW enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 1 or 2) Percentage reporting MODERATE enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 3 or 4) Percentage reporting HIGH enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 5 or 6) Scale mean S.D. Percentage above scale neutral point (3.5)
Mingling (%)
Browsing (%)
Bargain hunting (%)
Sensory experience (%)
Kinesthetic experience (%)
Being pampered (%)
70.5
24.7
11.5
26.9
57.1
27.9
25
44.8
37.7
52.3
30
42.5
4.5
30.5
50.8
20.8
12.9
29.6
2.15 1.11 12.1
3.62 1.41 55.7
4.39 1.34 74.2
3.48 1.30 46.1
2.58 1.54 24.3
3.59 1.52 50.3
Scales range from 1 to 6, where 6 indicates strong agreement that a given shopping experience is enjoyable, and 1 indicates strong disagreement.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
255
Table 3 Sources of shopping enjoyment among consumer demographic segments n
Income (a) < $20,000 (b) $20,000 – 29,999 (c) $30, 000 – 39,999 (d) $40,000 – 59,999 (e) $60,000 – 79,999 (f) $80,000 – 110,000 (g) >$110,000 F P Age (a) Under 30 (b) 30 – 39 (c) 40 – 49 (d) 50 – 64 (e) 65 and older F P Children (a) No kids (b) Youngest < 6 (c) Youngest 6 – 18 (d) Youngest >18 F P
Sources of shopping enjoyment Mingling
Browsing
Bargain hunting
Sensory experience
Kinesthetic experience
Being pampered
193 138 163 252 146 93 91
2.74b – g 2.20a 2.07a 1.98a 2.02a 1.91a 1.89a 12.1 < 0.001
3.86g 3.99e,g 3.79g 3.59g 3.46b 3.46 3.02a – d 6.8 < 0.001
4.54g 4.60g 4.68e,g 4.44g 4.17c 4.35g 3.70a – d,f 6.9 < 0.001
3.66g 3.66g 3.48 3.40 3.53 3.35 3.11a,b 2.6 0.015
3.05d – g 2.68g 2.61 2.45a 2.48a 2.12a 2.05a,b 7.7 < 0.001
3.75 3.69 3.48 3.33 3.66 3.43 3.59 1.8 NS
96 282 414 201 234
2.59 2.13 2.04 2.15 2.19 2.38 NS
3.97c 3.63 3.49a 3.57 3.73 2.8 0.03
4.22 4.58d 4.44d 4.11b,c 4.43 6.0 < 0.001
3.59 3.37e 3.44 3.37e 3.71b,d 2.7 0.03
2.60 2.47e 2.36e 2.50e 3.10b – d 2.9 0.02
3.26e 3.33e 3.28e 3.54e 4.46a – d 20.5 < 0.001
241 243 392 350
2.46b – d 1.91a 2.12a 2.12a 5.3 < 0.001
3.80b 3.28a,c,d 3.64b 3.71b 5.3 < 0.001
4.33 4.36 4.50 4.34 3.6 0.014
3.73 3.26 3.38 3.53 2.1 NS
2.76b 2.17a,d 2.47d 2.81b,c 3.0 0.03
3.80b,c 3.18a,d 3.26a,d 4.02b,c 7.2 < 0.001
Scales range from 1 to 6, where 6 indicates strong agreement that a given shopping experience is enjoyable, and 1 indicates strong disagreement. Superscripts indicate significant ( P < .05) post hoc (Bonferroni) intergroup comparisons; e.g., 2.74b – g indicates that enjoyment of mingling among consumers with incomes < $20,000 was significantly greater than that in all other income categories.
enjoyment is quite high among all but the most affluent group (income >$110,000) who do report substantially less bargain enjoyment than other segments. The data provide some confirmation that ‘‘window shopping’’ is especially appealing to consumers with limited income for making actual purchases. Browsing enjoyment peaks among the lowest income groups, and is substantially lower among the most affluent shopper segment. Table 3 also reveals some unanticipated income differences. Enjoyment of both social and kinesthetic aspects of shopping are much higher among low-income consumers compared to their middle- and upper-income counterparts. In general, with the exception of pampering (which does not differ by income), low-to-moderate income consumers are the most likely to enjoy all the shopping experiences, while very affluent consumers are the least likely to enjoy them.
exercise. In addition, elderly shoppers are most likely to enjoy the sensory aspects of shopping. As expected, enjoyment of browsing was highest among young shoppers; however, all but one difference between this and other age groups was nonsignificant.
5.2.2. Shopping enjoyment and age The data suggest that elderly consumers (>age 65) are especially likely to derive satisfaction from certain aspects of shopping. As expected, the elderly are much more likely to enjoy being pampered by salespeople than any other group, and they are most likely to enjoy shopping for
The next analysis sought to identify clusters of consumers with distinctive shopping enjoyment patterns, using subjects’ shopping enjoyment factor scores as input variables in a k-means cluster analysis. As noted by Blodgett and Anderson (2000), the k-means method has several advantages over other numerical taxonomy methods, in-
5.2.3. Shopping enjoyment and children As expected, women with small children seem generally less likely to enjoy shopping experiences. Consumers with young children are the least likely to enjoy every aspect of shopping other than bargain hunting. Also as anticipated, childless consumers are the most likely to enjoy mingling with other shoppers, and (along with those with children over age 18) are the most likely to enjoy being pampered by salespeople. 5.3. Shopping enjoyment clusters
256
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Table 4 Shopping enjoyment profiles of shopper segments Shopping enjoyment factors
Shopper segments Joyless shoppers Mean
Mingling Browsing Bargain hunting Sensory experience Kinesthetic experience Being pampered Segment size (n)
Dev.a
b
b
1.39 2.03 2.91 2.34 1.52 2.19 218
0.76 1.59 1.48 1.14 1.06 1.4
Total sample means
Bargain hunters
Enthusiasts
Attention cravers
Explorers
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
1.71 3.97 5.02 3.20 1.86 2.43 309
0.44 + 0.35 + 0.63 0.28 0.72 1.16
4.23 5.27 5.32 5.30 5.05 5.38 108
+ 2.08 + 1.65 + 0.93 + 1.82 + 2.47 + 1.79
1.83 2.92 4.06 3.22 1.66 4.90 264
0.32 0.70 0.33 0.26 0.92 + 1.31
2.65 4.40 4.75 4.06 3.87 3.81 318
+ 0.50 + 0.78 + 0.36 + 0.58 + 1.29 + 0.22
2.15 3.62 4.39 3.48 2.58 3.59 1217
a
Dev. = Deviation from total sample mean. The mean enjoyment of mingling among the joyless shopper segment is 1.39 (on a 1 – 6 scale, higher scores indicating greater enjoyment). This is 0.76 lower than the total sample’s mingling enjoyment mean of 2.15. b
cluding an ability to produce clearly differentiated groups, and relative ease of computation for large samples (see also Hair et al., 1998). Both five-cluster and six-cluster solutions were calculated; the former produced the most interpretable solution. Table 4 shows the final cluster centroids. As can be seen, two of the clusters represent consumers with globally positive or negative attitudes toward the shopping experience: Nearly 20% of consumers (whom we labeled ‘‘joyless shoppers’’) do not enjoy any aspect of shopping, exhibiting well below-average scores
on all six shopping scales. In contrast, just under 10% of consumers (labeled ‘‘enthusiasts’’) appear to enjoy every aspect of shopping. The remainder of consumers (nearly 75% of the total) fall into one of three clusters for whom shopping has a narrower appeal: Bargain hunters primarily enjoy looking for and finding deals; attention cravers especially enjoy being pampered by sales people; and explorers are especially likely to enjoy the process of exploring the retail space (e.g., movement, sensation, and browsing experiences).
Table 5 Demographic profiles of shopper segments Shopper segments Joyless shoppers
Bargain hunters
Enthusiasts
Attention cravers
Explorers
Total sample
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
Income groups < $20,000 $20,000 – 29,999 $30,000 – 39,999 $40,000 – 59,999 $60,000 – 79,999 $80,000 – 110,000 $110,000 + Column total (%)
16a 8 12 22 17 9 16 100b
89a 62 80 96 121 100 200
12 15 17 29 12 9 7 100
67 115 113 126 86 100 88
36 14 13 16 13 2 5 100
200 108 87 70 93 22 63
12 11 16 23 17 12 10 100
67 85 107 100 121 133 125
24 15 16 22 11 7 5 100
133 115 107 96 79 78 63
18a 13 15 23 14 9 8 100
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Age groups Under 30 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 64 65 and older Column total (%)
10 24 35 20 11 100
125 104 103 125 58
8 30 42 14 6 100
100 130 124 88 32
11 21 19 15 34 100
138 91 56 94 179
4 17 33 17 28 100
50 74 97 106 147
8 21 31 15 24 100
100 91 91 94 126
8 23 34 16 19 100
100 100 100 100 100
Children No kids Under 6 6 – 18 Over 18 Column total (%)
16 28 31 25 100
80 140 97 89
16 25 42 18 100
80 125 131 64
30 10 27 34 100
150 50 84 121
21 17 27 35 100
105 85 84 125
23 14 31 32 100
115 70 97 114
20 20 32 28 100
100 100 100 100
a Sixteen percent of consumers in the joyless shopper segment have annual household incomes less than $20,000, while 18% of the entire sample have incomes less than $20,000. This produces an index of (16%/18%*100) = 89, indicating that joyless shoppers are about 11% less likely than average to fall into the lowest income category. b Because of rounding of individual percentages, some columns may not appear to add exactly to 100%.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Next, we examined potential demographic differences among the five shopping enjoyment segments, cross-tabulating consumers’ cluster membership with their demographic characteristics. Chi-squared tests revealed that the clusters have significantly different demographic profiles with respect to consumer age [v2(df = 16) = 96.8, P < .001], income [v2(df = 24) = 78.4, P < .001] and child-rearing status [v2(df = 12) = 66.6, P < .001]. Table 5 summarizes these findings, with some of the stronger relationships shown in bold. As can be seen, joyless shoppers are especially likely to be very affluent and have very young children. Conversely, shopping enthusiasts are much more likely than average to fall into the lowest income category and tend to have minimal child-rearing responsibilities (either grown children, or no children at all). Bargain hunters tend to be middle-income, middle-aged consumers with children still at home (i.e., under age 18). Attention cravers tend to be affluent, older, empty nesters. Finally, Explorers also tend to be older than average but have considerably lower incomes than the attention cravers.
6. Discussion 6.1. The myth of ‘‘shopping as socializing’’ Over the years, a number of marketing scholars (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985) have maintained that consumers shop to mingle with other shoppers. Recently, some have even suggested that consumers’ desire for social interaction is central to the appeal of brick-and-mortar stores. For example, Knack (2000) quotes one retail consultant as stating ‘‘I like to think that there are many people who will continue to want to interact with other people. People like shopping with the sociability factor added.’’ However, our data do not support this view. Only one in eight respondents reports enjoying interacting with other shoppers, far fewer than any other shopping experience. Why do so few consumers enjoy interactions with other shoppers? Falk and Campbell (1997, p. 11) suggest a paradox, arguing that while one may shop in the proximity of other people, shopping is ‘‘. . . essentially a private experience that occurs in a public setting.’’ In addition, American consumers increasingly find themselves shopping in the midst of strangers. In his recent book Bowling Alone, sociologist Robert Putnam (2000, p. 211) notes: At the beginning of the twenty-first century, more and more of us commute from one suburb to another, more and more of our shopping is done in a megamall in yet a third suburb . . . Rather than at the grocery store or fiveand-dime on Main Street, where faces are familiar, today’s suburbanites shop in large, impersonal malls. Although malls constitute America’s most distinctive contemporary public space, they are carefully designed for one primary, private purpose—to direct consumers to
257
buy. Despite the aspirations of some developers, mall culture is not about overcoming isolation and connecting with others, but about privately surfing from store to store—in the presence of others, but not in their company. The suburban shopping experience does not consist of interaction with people embedded in a common social network. While relatively few consumers appear to take pleasure in mingling with other shoppers, some enjoy it more than others. Childless women are more likely to enjoy interacting with other shoppers, supporting the ‘‘social isolation’’ view of in-store socializing, and lower-income consumers are more likely to say they enjoy mingling with other shoppers. Since lower-income consumers are less likely to leave their local neighborhoods when shopping (Alwitt and Donley, 1996) they may be more likely to have chance in-store encounters with friends and neighbors. 6.2. Then what do consumers like about shopping? Above all, consumers enjoy hunting for bargains. While retail scholars have sometimes contrasted cool, calculating ‘‘price shoppers’’ with more hedonistic ‘‘recreational shoppers,’’ our data belie this distinction. Bargain hunting, rather than being antithetical to shopping enjoyment, may be its most pervasive source. About three quarters of consumers report enjoying hunting for and finding bargains; in fact, nearly 80% agree with the strongly worded ‘‘I get a thrill out of finding a real bargain,’’ and nearly half strongly agree with this statement. Further, the appeal of bargain hunting is quite universal, cutting across income, age and child-rearing categories. Table 3 reveals that every demographic group except the most affluent (>$110,000) exhibit mean bargainenjoyment scores above 4 (on a 1 –6 scale), and even very affluent consumers enjoy bargain hunting more than any other aspect of shopping. The broad-based appeal of bargain hunting may help explain the explosion of promotional pricing in recent years, which has caused even upscale department stores to rely increasingly on price reductions and deals to attract customers. A second pervasive source of shopping enjoyment is recreational browsing or window shopping. Why do so many consumers enjoy this activity? First, examining merchandise may satisfy consumers’ desire for exploration and novelty seeking (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992). In addition, consumers may receive anticipatory or imaginative pleasure from simply ‘‘window shopping.’’ Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997) suggest ‘‘. . . pleasurable shopping is understood as . . . movement in space where one has the possibility of making purchases . . . daydreaming and planning of future purchases . . . where the openness and plurality of possibilities is fundamental.’’ Notably, browsing enjoyment was highest among those with low-to-modest incomes, and was markedly lower among the most affluent segment of consumers, suggesting that ‘‘window shopping’’
258
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
appeals especially to those with limited resources for making actual purchases. Notwithstanding retailers’ growing adoption of self-service formats, a large segment of consumers still enjoy being pampered by salespeople. This finding suggests a challenge for retailers: how to control operating expenses (so consumers can be offered the bargains they desire) while providing personal service to those who value it. This balancing act may be especially important in attracting the growing population of elderly consumers. Consumers over age 65 are much more likely to desire pampering, and the older the consumer, the greater the desire. For example, consumers age 75+ value pampering significantly more (X = 4.81) than those ages 65 –74 (X = 4.13; P=.002), and means for ages 65 –69, 70 –74, 75– 79 and 80+ increase steadily from 3.95 to 5.17. This monotonic pattern suggests that the elderly’s desire for personal service is not simply a generational effect of having grown up with personal service (which is equally true of 65- and 85-year-olds) but instead results from the increased need for personal service that comes with aging per se. And, since the very old (e.g., those over 80) constitute one of the fastest growing segments of American society, this issue may require increasing attention from retailers. Nearly half of respondents find pleasure in the sensory stimulation of visiting a store or shopping center. This finding is consistent with the observation of Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, p. 163): [the] pleasure found in shopping was first connected with tourism . . . the idea of the leisurely spending of time, of going ‘somewhere else’ . . . away from the spheres of home and work, in order to be freed from duties and in order to enjoy oneself. Thus, despite consumers’ supposed desire to ‘‘nest’’ or ‘‘cocoon’’ in their homes, shopping by catalog, phone or computer, brick-and-mortar shopping still offers a unique appeal to many consumers: the opportunity to get out of the house and experience a change of scene. As noted above, the relative prevalence of specific shopping pleasures varies according to consumers’ demographics or life circumstances. However, there is one life circumstance that has a particularly strong and pervasive impact on women’s enjoyment of shopping: child-rearing responsibility. Women with children are less likely to enjoy virtually every aspect of the shopping experience, and, the younger the children, the lower the shopping enjoyment. There are at least two possible explanations for this. First, the process of becoming a parent may tend to shift consumers’ interests from personal recreational pursuits (such as shopping) to more child- and family-centered activities. Second, even among parents who remain interested in shopping, the time (and money) demands of caring for children (particularly very young children) may make leisurely, recreational shopping impractical (see Thompson et al., 1990).
6.3. Limitations and directions for future research This study employed a cross-sectional survey to examine women’s attitudes toward shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. As such, it has several inherent limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, it would be useful for future research to employ longitudinal methods, to examine how the relative prevalence of different shopping pleasures may be changing over time. Such research might allow us to determine, for example, whether the social aspects of shopping are decreasing in importance (as suggested by Putnam). In addition, future research should examine the recreational aspects of nonstore shopping (e.g., catalogs, e-tailers, party-concept selling) as well as the recreational shopping tendencies of other consumer segments (e.g., men, adolescents or children). It would be particularly interesting to examine whether the pleasures of store shopping examined here are transferable to other retail modalities. For example, while it is possible to find a bargain in a catalog or web site, one must then wait days before actually receiving the product. Does this delayed gratification diminish the pleasure in finding a bargain? Similarly, while one can browse through a catalog or web site, is the limited visual field of a PC screen or catalog a satisfying substitute for the moving, three-dimensional panorama of walking through a well-merchandised store? Does true recreational browsing require touching and feeling the merchandise? In building on this study, future researchers can further deepen our understanding of one of the most fundamental aspects of market behavior: why, and how, consumers shop.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Don Granbois and John Summers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This research was partially funded by the American United Life endowment at Indiana University.
References Alwitt L, Donley T. The low income consumer: adjusting the balance of exchange. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1996. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103: 411 – 23. Babin B, Darden W, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J Consum Res 1994;20(March):644 – 56. Bellenger D, Korgaonkar P. Profiling the recreational shopper. J Retail 1980;56(Fall):77 – 92. Bentler PM, Bonnet DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980;88:588 – 606. Berman B, Evans J. Retail management: a strategic approach. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1998. Blattberg R, Buesing T, Peacock P, Sen S. Identifying the deal prone segment. J Mark Res 1978;15(August):369 – 77.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259 Bloch P, Richins M. Shopping without purchase: an investigation of consumer browsing behavior. In: Bagozzi R, Tybout A, editors. Advances in Consumer Research vol. 11. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1983. p. 389 – 93. Blodgett J, Anderson RA. A Bayesian network model of the consumer complaint process. J Serv Res 2000;2:321 – 38. Campbell C. Shopaholics, spendaholics, and the question of gender. In: Benson AL, editor. I shop, therefore I am: compulsive buying and the search for self. Northvale (NJ): Jason Aronson; 2000. p. 57 – 75. CDC. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Washington (DC): U.S. Dept. HHS, 1999, http://www2.cdc.gov/nccdphp/brfss. Dawson S, Bloch P, Ridgway N. Shopping motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. J Retail 1990;66(Winter):408 – 27. Dholokia RR. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behaviors and motivations. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 1999;27(4):154 – 65. Duncan H, Travis S, McAuley W. An emergent theoretical model for interventions encouraging physical activity (mall walking) among older adults. J Appl Gerontol 1995;14(March):64 – 78. Eroglu S, Machleit K. An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and consequences. J Retail 1990;66(Summer):201 – 41. Falk P, Campbell C. The shopping experience. London: Sage, 1997. Forman A, Sriram V. The depersonalization of retailing: its impact on the ‘lonely’ consumer. J Retail 1991;67(Summer):226 – 43. Fornell C, Larcker VF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18: 39 – 50. Guiry M, Lutz R. Recreational shopper identity: implications of recreational shopping for consumer self-definition. Working paper, University of Florida, 2000. Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1998. Hoyer W, MacInnis D. Consumer behavior. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2001. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1 – 55. Industry Standard PM. Catalogers wise to the net. Ind Standard 2000; 3(May 29):196. Jones M. Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation. J Retail Consum Serv 1999;6(3):129 – 39. Jo¨reskog KG. Testing structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long J, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1993. p. 294 – 316.
259
Jo¨reskog KG, So¨rbom D. LISREL 8: analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago (IL): International Education Services, 1993. Knack R. Retail vs. e-tail. Planning 2000;66(July):24. Lehoten T, Maenpaa P. Shopping in east center mall. In: Falk P, Campbell C, editors. The shopping experience. London: Sage; 1997. p. 136 – 65. Levy S. Social class and consumer behavior. In: Howard J, editor. Knowing the consumer. New York: John Wiley; 1966. p. 146 – 160. Lumpkin J, Greenberg B, Goldstucker J. Marketplace needs of the elderly: determinant attributes and store choice. J Retail 1984;61(Summer): 75 – 105. Mano H, Elliott M. Smart shopping: the origins and consequences of price savings. In: MacInnis D, Brucks M, editors. Advances in consumer research vol. 24. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1997. p. 504 – 10. Morris B. As a favored pastime, shopping ranks high with most Americans. Wall Street J 1987;1(July 30):13. Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum, 1991. Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Rich S, Portis B. Clues for action from shopper preferences. Harvard Bus Rev. 1963;41:145 – 152 (March – April). Sargent T. Dynamic macroeconomic theory. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Univ. Press, 1987. Schindler R. The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses concerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. In: Srull T, editor. Advances in consumer research vol. 16. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1989. p. 447 – 53. Steenkamp JB, Baumgartner H. The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. J Consum Res 1992;19(December):434 – 48. Stone G. City shoppers and urban identification: observations on the social psychology of city life. Am J Sociol 1954;60(July):36 – 45. Tauber E. Why do people shop. J Mark 1972;36(Oct.):46 – 59. Thompson C, Locander W, Pollio H. The lived meaning of free choice: an existential description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women. J Consum Res 1990;17(December):346 – 61. Wakefield K, Baker J. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. J Retail 1998;74(Winter):515 – 32. Westbrook R, Black W. A motivation-based shopper typology. J Retail 1985;61(Spring):78 – 103.
Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping Anthony D. Cox*, Dena Cox1, Ronald D. Anderson Department of Marketing, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 801 West Michigan, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5151, USA Received 14 August 2002; accepted 18 June 2003
Abstract Despite a growing array of nonstore shopping alternatives, consumers still do the vast majority of their shopping by visiting brick-andmortar stores. This study takes a fresh look at the pleasures of store shopping, employing data from a study of over 1300 shoppers. The results indicate that, contrary to the speculation of some writers, relatively few consumers shop in order to mingle with other shoppers. Instead, consumers tend to be drawn to shopping’s more private pleasures, particularly the enjoyment of bargain hunting. The findings suggest that bargain hunting, rather than being antithetical to shopping enjoyment, may be one of its most common sources. In addition, the data suggest that the sources of shopping enjoyment vary markedly among different demographic groups. The paper closes by discussing implications of the study’s findings and potential directions for future research. D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Shopping; Retailing; Consumer behavior; Motivation
1. Introduction To paraphrase Mark Twain, recent reports of the death of the brick-and-mortar store seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Despite a growing array of nonstore outlets (including catalogs, party-concept selling, QVC, personal shopping services, and most recently the internet) consumers still do the vast majority of their shopping in stores. Even in a product category like apparel, where catalog and internet outlets have made some of their greatest inroads, consumers still make 90% of their purchases at brick-and-mortar stores (Industry Standard, 2000). What explains the persistence of store shopping? One simple explanation, often overlooked in the enthusiasm for new retail technologies, is that many consumers enjoy store shopping. While economic theory tends to view shopping as merely a chore undertaken to acquire utility-producing products (e.g., Sargent, 1987), research suggests many consumers derive intrinsic enjoyment from the process of shopping (e.g., Guiry and Lutz, 2000).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-317-274-3831. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.D. Cox), [email protected] (D. Cox), [email protected] (R.D. Anderson). 1 Tel.: +1-317-274-3526. 0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00160-7
What is less clear is why consumers enjoy shopping. As Falk and Campbell note (1997, p. 189): . . . there is little doubt that many people do obtain great pleasure from shopping . . . and that shopping is a leisuretime pursuit that has increased in importance in recent decades. However, it is not entirely clear what exactly constitutes the source of the pleasure. Past researchers (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985; Jones, 1999; Babin et al., 1994; Dawson et al., 1990) have tried to identify specific facets of the shopping experience that are enjoyed by at least some consumers, some of the time. However, little attention has been given to the relative prevalence of these shopping pleasures. As a result, it is hard for marketers to know, for example, whether most consumers enjoy mingling with other shoppers (e.g., Knack, 2000) or view them as a source of irritation (see, e.g., Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). Similarly, we do not know whether most consumers view bargain hunting as a chore, or as a source of pleasure (see Schindler, 1989). To truly understand why consumers enjoy shopping, we must gain a better understanding of these issues. It is also important to understand how shopping pleasures may vary with consumers’ life circumstances, such as their age,
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
income, or child-rearing responsibilities. Westbrook and Black (1985) suggested that shopping pleasures are essentially invariant across demographic groups. But do elderly consumers really seek the same shopping pleasures as young adults? Do rich and poor consumers enjoy the same aspects of the shopping experience? To take a fresh look at these issues, we conducted the largest study to date of consumers’ recreational shopping experiences. This study addresses two central questions: (1) What are the most prevalent sources of consumer shopping pleasure? (2) How do shopping pleasures vary among different segments of consumers?
2. Potential sources of shopping pleasure Drawing from diverse prior literature, we identify several potential sources of shopping pleasure. 2.1. Mingling with other shoppers A unique trait of store shopping is one’s proximity to other shoppers. Thus, some suggest that consumers visit stores seeking social interactions. Tauber (1972, p. 47) notes that ‘‘The marketplace has traditionally been a center of social activity . . . Many parts of the United States have ‘market days,’ ‘county fairs,’ ‘town squares’ . . .’’ Similarly, Westbrook and Black (1985, pp. 79, 87) posit that there are ‘‘dependent shoppers’’ who require social support while shopping. However, others have questioned whether shoppers truly seek social experiences. Falk and Campbell (1997, p. 11) observe that shopping ‘‘. . . is essentially a private experience that occurs in a public setting . . .’’ Similarly, Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, pp. 154 – 155) describe malls as being populated by ‘‘anonymous crowds . . .’’ In addition, several social trends have made the retail environment increasingly impersonal: Most Americans now shop in large metropolitan areas, where chance retail encounters with friends and neighbors are much less likely than in smaller towns. Even in small communities, the town squares which Tauber describes, once filled with small local merchants, have been largely abandoned in favor of strip centers near interstate exits, anchored by Wal-Marts and other corporate self-service chains (see Putnam, 2000). And when in-store social encounters do occur, they are not always viewed positively. In particular, researchers have noted negative consumer reactions to retail crowding (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). 2.2. Bargain hunting In the shopping literature, the pleasures of bargain hunting have gotten relatively little attention. Bargain-oriented shoppers have often been portrayed as cool and calculating economic shoppers in contrast to pleasure-driven recreational shoppers. In his classic study of urban shoppers,
251
Stone (1954, pp. 38– 42) described the price-oriented ‘‘economic’’ shopper as an ‘‘. . . approximation to the ‘economic man’ of the classical economist . . .’’ caring only about ‘‘. . . quick efficient sale of merchandise . . .’’ and ‘‘. . . able to participate in the market in a detached, interested, alert manner.’’ Similarly, Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980, p. 78) described price-oriented ‘‘economic’’ shoppers as disliking shopping, while pleasure-oriented ‘‘recreational’’ shoppers are less concerned with price. In contrast, some researchers have suggested that the hunt for low prices is not driven solely by cool cognition but may also be a source of emotional satisfaction. Schindler (1989, p. 447) discusses ‘‘. . . the emotional response which a price promotion can generate,’’ and posits that paying a low price can induce feelings of pride, intelligence, and a sense of achievement. Morris (1987, p. 13) suggests bargain-hunting shoppers gain pleasure from beating the system. Similarly, Mano and Elliot (1997, pp. 504 – 505) argue that paying a reduced price can cause consumers to feel pride, excitement, and a sense of accomplishment. 2.3. Browsing Browsing is defined as ‘‘. . . the examination of a store’s merchandise for recreational or informational purposes without a current intent to buy . . .’’ (Bloch and Richins, 1983, p. 389). In an early study (Rich and Portis, 1963), 30% of discount and department store shoppers reported that ‘‘seeing new items and getting ideas’’ was the reason that they enjoyed shopping. Thus, browsing is proposed as a source of shopping enjoyment. 2.4. Sensory stimulation Some shoppers may derive pleasure from the sensory aspects of the retail environment—its sights, sounds, and smells. Wakefield and Baker (1998) stress the role of the shopping environment in stimulating excitement, noting retailers’ increased emphasis on store design and atmospherics. Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997) argue that one of shopping’s main attractions is getting out of the house, i.e., experiencing a change in physical environment. 2.5. Being pampered Tauber (1972) suggests some shoppers enjoy the ‘‘status and authority’’ of being pampered by retail salespeople. Westbrook and Black (1985, p. 87) argue that shoppers enjoy the ‘‘. . . attainment of elevated social position . . . the behavior of [retail personnel] to serve and please the shopper . . .’’ However, it should be noted that the decades since the publication of these studies have seen rapid growth of self-service retail formats (e.g., discounters, off-price stores, category killers) in which customers rarely interact with a salesperson prior to the checkout line.
252
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
2.6. Kinesthetic experience Even for consumers with little interest in merchandise, store atmospherics, or mingling, stores and shopping centers remain large, climate-controlled public places in which it is possible to move around freely—among the few such spaces that are open to the general public. For this reason, we expect that some consumers enjoy shopping primarily as a kinesthetic experience, i.e., as an opportunity to move about or to walk for exercise.
3. Demographic differences in shopping enjoyment 3.1. Income Research has shown that lower-income consumers are often less likely to use price-saving tactics than middle class consumers (Alwitt and Donley, 1996). While some have argued that this simply reflects reduced bargain-hunting opportunities in poorer communities (e.g., Blattberg et al., 1978), others have argued that this pattern reflects fundamental differences in the social classes’ attitude toward shopping. Levy (1966) posits that low-income shoppers are more impulsive, while middle-income shoppers are more likely to comparison shop. Similarly, Berman and Evans (1998, p. 207) contend that middle-income women tend to be ‘‘conscientious’’ shoppers, in contrast to both affluent consumers (to whom money is not important) and lower-income consumers (portrayed as impulsive shoppers who are likely to overpay). Enjoyment of browsing may also vary by income. Earlier, it was suggested that browsing or window shopping may serve as a surrogate for buying. Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, p. 143) note that ‘‘In emphasizing the aspect of possibility, it becomes evident that shopping as a pleasurable leisure activity does not necessarily require a great deal of money.’’ 3.2. Age Several shopping pleasures may vary with consumer age. First, browsers may tend to be younger than other consumers since exploratory and novelty-seeking behaviors tend to be more common among younger consumers (Hoyer and MacInnis, 2001). Second, enjoyment of shopping as exercise may be especially pervasive among older consumers since stores and malls may appeal to these consumers as safe, pleasant venues for walking (Duncan et al., 1995). Finally, older shoppers may enjoy being pampered more than their younger counterparts. As people age, they may develop physical and cognitive limitations that reduce their self-sufficiency as shoppers, making them value personal service (see Lumpkin et al., 1984). Second, societal norms dictate that older people should be treated with greater deference, and older consumers may internalize this norm.
Finally, older Americans grew up in an era when stores offered considerable personal service, and this may influence their expectations regarding the shopping experience. In contrast, younger consumers have grown up in an era when stores are largely self-service, and have learned to live without personal service. 3.3. Children Consumers with children, especially preschool-aged children, may be less likely to enjoy most aspects of shopping. Having young children may shift a consumer’s focus to more home-centered activities, as well as make shopping more difficult and stressful (e.g., Thompson et al., 1990). More specifically, the presence of children may influence the desire for social experiences while shopping (i.e., mingling with customers and being pampered salespeople). Forman and Sriram (1991) suggest that retail salespeople may serve as surrogate social contacts for socially isolated consumers. Following this reasoning, we expect childless consumers to be more likely to seek retail social interactions than consumers with children.
4. Method Women remain the dominant shoppers in most households (e.g., Dholokia, 1999) and are much more likely than men to view shopping as a recreational activity (e.g., Campbell, 2000). Thus, we collected data from 1369 women, a convenience sample recruited from a wide variety of organizations (including senior citizen, religious, and parent –teacher groups) located in a large Midwestern metropolitan area (population about 1 million). Organizations represented each sector of the metropolitan area, and a wide range of socioeconomic and age groups. The sample’s demographic profile adhered closely to national norms for females age 18 and older (CDC, 1999) in age (median age of 44), employment (59% employed outside home), and race (84% white). However, the sample had slightly higher median household income ($40,000 sample vs. $35,000 national norm) and was more likely to have minor children (49% vs. 41%) to have attended at least some college (61% vs. 52%) and to be married (66% vs. 57%). Questionnaires were administered during the regularly scheduled meetings of the participating organizations. Each organization received $1 for each questionnaire completed by its members and entered a random drawing for a chance to win an additional $250. 4.1. Measures Drawing on past research (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985) and data from individual depth interviews with eight women asked to describe recent shopping
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
253
dence intervals included 1.0. Last, we used Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) method, in which discriminant validity is established when the average variance extracted for each factor exceeds all shared variances between that and other factors. This condition held for all factors. Thus, all three tests support discriminant validity. For each of the six shopping enjoyment factors, we computed weighted means of the items loading on that factor, with items weighted in proportion to their respective factor score coefficients. These weighted means scales were used in all subsequent analyses.
experiences, we developed 25 statements to assess the six shopping pleasures discussed earlier. Respondents rated statements on six-point Likert scales. To test the expected relationships between these items and the six shoppingpleasure constructs, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, using asymptotically distribution-free estimates (Jo¨reskog and So¨rbom, 1993). Eight items exhibited cross-loadings or loaded weakly on all factors, and were dropped. The remaining 17 items produced the measurement model shown in Table 1. This model provided a good fit to the data. While the chi-squared test was significant [v2(df = 104) = 518.2, P < .001], the model in Table 1 produced a CFI=.97, and a RMSEA=.058, indicating a good fit (Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; Jo¨reskog, 1993; Hu and Bentler, 1999). In addition, the six factors had composite reliabilities ranging from .81 to .94, indicating good convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed using three methods. First, we constrained each interfactor correlation to equal one, and compared the fits of the constrained and unconstrained models. In each case, the unconstrained model fit significantly better ( P < .001) supporting discriminant validity (Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Second, we estimated the confidence interval for each interfactor correlation; if two factors are distinct, this confidence interval will not include 1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). No 99% confi-
5. Results 5.1. Enjoyment of specific aspects of shopping experience Fig. 1 and Table 2 show the extent to which respondents report receiving pleasure from different aspects of the shopping experience. As can be seen, while some consumers reported enjoying each of the six experiences, the extent of enjoyment varies greatly among shopping experiences. Most notably, the shopping experience enjoyed by the most consumers is one that has been overlooked in much recreational shopping research: searching for and finding bargains. Bargain enjoyment had by far the highest mean level
Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis Factor pattern Mingling Opportunity to meet new friends Like shop beside customers with similar tastes Like talking with salespeople and other shoppers Like shopping with people like me Like shopping because it helps me meet men Like to casually walk through mall Often shop to get ideas Like to window shop Enjoy hunting for bargains Like to comparison shop Get a thrill from finding a real bargain The pleasant smells in a store make feel good I enjoy the store decorations and displays Like to go to the mall to keep fit Like to walk in malls because of exercise Like being waited on by salesperson Like salesperson spends time helping me Composite Reliability
Browsing
Bargain hunting
Sensory experience
Kinesthetic experience
Being pampered
0.94 0.88 0.85 0.83 0.74 0.83 0.81 0.77 0.89 0.75 0.74 0.85 0.81 0.98 0.90
0.93
0.85
0.84
0.82
0.94
0.83 0.83 0.81
1.00 .52 .37 .33
1.00 .78 .54
1.00 .54
1.00
Factor correlations Mingle Browse Bargain Sensory Kinesthetic Pamper
1.00 .69 .34 .78 .78 .66
1.00 .56 .76 .70 .42
254
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Fig. 1. Consumer enjoyment of specific shopping experiences.
(X = 4.39 on a 1 –6 scale), significantly higher than the next highest scale (t = 18.3; P < .001). In fact, the three statements comprising the bargain-enjoyment scale received the highest mean agreement scores of all shopping enjoyment statements. Respondents reported particularly strong agreement with the most strongly worded item (e.g., a mean agreement of 4.7 for ‘‘I get a thrill out of finding a real bargain.’’). Overall, 74.2% of consumers reported at least some enjoyment of bargain shopping. The next highest-rated shopping pleasures were browsing (X = 3.62; 55.7% reporting some enjoyment), being pampered (X = 3.6; 50.3%), and sensory stimulation (X = 3.48; 46.1%); mean differences between these three scales were not significant. These are followed by kinesthetic pleasure (X = 2.58; 24.3%). Finally, very few reported enjoying mingling (X = 2.15; 12.1%). Mean differences among the last three scales are statistically significant ( P < .001).
5.2. Sources of shopping enjoyment across demographic segments Demographic differences were examined using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Each ANCOVA examined shopping enjoyment differences across categories of a specific demographic trait, while controlling for the other demographic traits. Results are shown in Table 3. 5.2.1. Shopping enjoyment and income As noted earlier, since many price-saving behaviors are most common among middle-income shoppers, some have speculated that enjoyment of bargain hunting is a distinctly middle-class phenomenon. Our data do not strongly support this view. While a middle-income ($30,000 – 39,999) category exhibits the highest mean bargain enjoyment, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicate that all income groups below $60,000 have essentially equal levels. In fact, bargain
Table 2 Consumer enjoyment of specific shopping experiences Shopping experience
Percentage reporting LOW enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 1 or 2) Percentage reporting MODERATE enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 3 or 4) Percentage reporting HIGH enjoyment (rounded scale scores = 5 or 6) Scale mean S.D. Percentage above scale neutral point (3.5)
Mingling (%)
Browsing (%)
Bargain hunting (%)
Sensory experience (%)
Kinesthetic experience (%)
Being pampered (%)
70.5
24.7
11.5
26.9
57.1
27.9
25
44.8
37.7
52.3
30
42.5
4.5
30.5
50.8
20.8
12.9
29.6
2.15 1.11 12.1
3.62 1.41 55.7
4.39 1.34 74.2
3.48 1.30 46.1
2.58 1.54 24.3
3.59 1.52 50.3
Scales range from 1 to 6, where 6 indicates strong agreement that a given shopping experience is enjoyable, and 1 indicates strong disagreement.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
255
Table 3 Sources of shopping enjoyment among consumer demographic segments n
Income (a) < $20,000 (b) $20,000 – 29,999 (c) $30, 000 – 39,999 (d) $40,000 – 59,999 (e) $60,000 – 79,999 (f) $80,000 – 110,000 (g) >$110,000 F P Age (a) Under 30 (b) 30 – 39 (c) 40 – 49 (d) 50 – 64 (e) 65 and older F P Children (a) No kids (b) Youngest < 6 (c) Youngest 6 – 18 (d) Youngest >18 F P
Sources of shopping enjoyment Mingling
Browsing
Bargain hunting
Sensory experience
Kinesthetic experience
Being pampered
193 138 163 252 146 93 91
2.74b – g 2.20a 2.07a 1.98a 2.02a 1.91a 1.89a 12.1 < 0.001
3.86g 3.99e,g 3.79g 3.59g 3.46b 3.46 3.02a – d 6.8 < 0.001
4.54g 4.60g 4.68e,g 4.44g 4.17c 4.35g 3.70a – d,f 6.9 < 0.001
3.66g 3.66g 3.48 3.40 3.53 3.35 3.11a,b 2.6 0.015
3.05d – g 2.68g 2.61 2.45a 2.48a 2.12a 2.05a,b 7.7 < 0.001
3.75 3.69 3.48 3.33 3.66 3.43 3.59 1.8 NS
96 282 414 201 234
2.59 2.13 2.04 2.15 2.19 2.38 NS
3.97c 3.63 3.49a 3.57 3.73 2.8 0.03
4.22 4.58d 4.44d 4.11b,c 4.43 6.0 < 0.001
3.59 3.37e 3.44 3.37e 3.71b,d 2.7 0.03
2.60 2.47e 2.36e 2.50e 3.10b – d 2.9 0.02
3.26e 3.33e 3.28e 3.54e 4.46a – d 20.5 < 0.001
241 243 392 350
2.46b – d 1.91a 2.12a 2.12a 5.3 < 0.001
3.80b 3.28a,c,d 3.64b 3.71b 5.3 < 0.001
4.33 4.36 4.50 4.34 3.6 0.014
3.73 3.26 3.38 3.53 2.1 NS
2.76b 2.17a,d 2.47d 2.81b,c 3.0 0.03
3.80b,c 3.18a,d 3.26a,d 4.02b,c 7.2 < 0.001
Scales range from 1 to 6, where 6 indicates strong agreement that a given shopping experience is enjoyable, and 1 indicates strong disagreement. Superscripts indicate significant ( P < .05) post hoc (Bonferroni) intergroup comparisons; e.g., 2.74b – g indicates that enjoyment of mingling among consumers with incomes < $20,000 was significantly greater than that in all other income categories.
enjoyment is quite high among all but the most affluent group (income >$110,000) who do report substantially less bargain enjoyment than other segments. The data provide some confirmation that ‘‘window shopping’’ is especially appealing to consumers with limited income for making actual purchases. Browsing enjoyment peaks among the lowest income groups, and is substantially lower among the most affluent shopper segment. Table 3 also reveals some unanticipated income differences. Enjoyment of both social and kinesthetic aspects of shopping are much higher among low-income consumers compared to their middle- and upper-income counterparts. In general, with the exception of pampering (which does not differ by income), low-to-moderate income consumers are the most likely to enjoy all the shopping experiences, while very affluent consumers are the least likely to enjoy them.
exercise. In addition, elderly shoppers are most likely to enjoy the sensory aspects of shopping. As expected, enjoyment of browsing was highest among young shoppers; however, all but one difference between this and other age groups was nonsignificant.
5.2.2. Shopping enjoyment and age The data suggest that elderly consumers (>age 65) are especially likely to derive satisfaction from certain aspects of shopping. As expected, the elderly are much more likely to enjoy being pampered by salespeople than any other group, and they are most likely to enjoy shopping for
The next analysis sought to identify clusters of consumers with distinctive shopping enjoyment patterns, using subjects’ shopping enjoyment factor scores as input variables in a k-means cluster analysis. As noted by Blodgett and Anderson (2000), the k-means method has several advantages over other numerical taxonomy methods, in-
5.2.3. Shopping enjoyment and children As expected, women with small children seem generally less likely to enjoy shopping experiences. Consumers with young children are the least likely to enjoy every aspect of shopping other than bargain hunting. Also as anticipated, childless consumers are the most likely to enjoy mingling with other shoppers, and (along with those with children over age 18) are the most likely to enjoy being pampered by salespeople. 5.3. Shopping enjoyment clusters
256
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Table 4 Shopping enjoyment profiles of shopper segments Shopping enjoyment factors
Shopper segments Joyless shoppers Mean
Mingling Browsing Bargain hunting Sensory experience Kinesthetic experience Being pampered Segment size (n)
Dev.a
b
b
1.39 2.03 2.91 2.34 1.52 2.19 218
0.76 1.59 1.48 1.14 1.06 1.4
Total sample means
Bargain hunters
Enthusiasts
Attention cravers
Explorers
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
Mean
Dev.
1.71 3.97 5.02 3.20 1.86 2.43 309
0.44 + 0.35 + 0.63 0.28 0.72 1.16
4.23 5.27 5.32 5.30 5.05 5.38 108
+ 2.08 + 1.65 + 0.93 + 1.82 + 2.47 + 1.79
1.83 2.92 4.06 3.22 1.66 4.90 264
0.32 0.70 0.33 0.26 0.92 + 1.31
2.65 4.40 4.75 4.06 3.87 3.81 318
+ 0.50 + 0.78 + 0.36 + 0.58 + 1.29 + 0.22
2.15 3.62 4.39 3.48 2.58 3.59 1217
a
Dev. = Deviation from total sample mean. The mean enjoyment of mingling among the joyless shopper segment is 1.39 (on a 1 – 6 scale, higher scores indicating greater enjoyment). This is 0.76 lower than the total sample’s mingling enjoyment mean of 2.15. b
cluding an ability to produce clearly differentiated groups, and relative ease of computation for large samples (see also Hair et al., 1998). Both five-cluster and six-cluster solutions were calculated; the former produced the most interpretable solution. Table 4 shows the final cluster centroids. As can be seen, two of the clusters represent consumers with globally positive or negative attitudes toward the shopping experience: Nearly 20% of consumers (whom we labeled ‘‘joyless shoppers’’) do not enjoy any aspect of shopping, exhibiting well below-average scores
on all six shopping scales. In contrast, just under 10% of consumers (labeled ‘‘enthusiasts’’) appear to enjoy every aspect of shopping. The remainder of consumers (nearly 75% of the total) fall into one of three clusters for whom shopping has a narrower appeal: Bargain hunters primarily enjoy looking for and finding deals; attention cravers especially enjoy being pampered by sales people; and explorers are especially likely to enjoy the process of exploring the retail space (e.g., movement, sensation, and browsing experiences).
Table 5 Demographic profiles of shopper segments Shopper segments Joyless shoppers
Bargain hunters
Enthusiasts
Attention cravers
Explorers
Total sample
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
%
Index
Income groups < $20,000 $20,000 – 29,999 $30,000 – 39,999 $40,000 – 59,999 $60,000 – 79,999 $80,000 – 110,000 $110,000 + Column total (%)
16a 8 12 22 17 9 16 100b
89a 62 80 96 121 100 200
12 15 17 29 12 9 7 100
67 115 113 126 86 100 88
36 14 13 16 13 2 5 100
200 108 87 70 93 22 63
12 11 16 23 17 12 10 100
67 85 107 100 121 133 125
24 15 16 22 11 7 5 100
133 115 107 96 79 78 63
18a 13 15 23 14 9 8 100
100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Age groups Under 30 30 – 39 40 – 49 50 – 64 65 and older Column total (%)
10 24 35 20 11 100
125 104 103 125 58
8 30 42 14 6 100
100 130 124 88 32
11 21 19 15 34 100
138 91 56 94 179
4 17 33 17 28 100
50 74 97 106 147
8 21 31 15 24 100
100 91 91 94 126
8 23 34 16 19 100
100 100 100 100 100
Children No kids Under 6 6 – 18 Over 18 Column total (%)
16 28 31 25 100
80 140 97 89
16 25 42 18 100
80 125 131 64
30 10 27 34 100
150 50 84 121
21 17 27 35 100
105 85 84 125
23 14 31 32 100
115 70 97 114
20 20 32 28 100
100 100 100 100
a Sixteen percent of consumers in the joyless shopper segment have annual household incomes less than $20,000, while 18% of the entire sample have incomes less than $20,000. This produces an index of (16%/18%*100) = 89, indicating that joyless shoppers are about 11% less likely than average to fall into the lowest income category. b Because of rounding of individual percentages, some columns may not appear to add exactly to 100%.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
Next, we examined potential demographic differences among the five shopping enjoyment segments, cross-tabulating consumers’ cluster membership with their demographic characteristics. Chi-squared tests revealed that the clusters have significantly different demographic profiles with respect to consumer age [v2(df = 16) = 96.8, P < .001], income [v2(df = 24) = 78.4, P < .001] and child-rearing status [v2(df = 12) = 66.6, P < .001]. Table 5 summarizes these findings, with some of the stronger relationships shown in bold. As can be seen, joyless shoppers are especially likely to be very affluent and have very young children. Conversely, shopping enthusiasts are much more likely than average to fall into the lowest income category and tend to have minimal child-rearing responsibilities (either grown children, or no children at all). Bargain hunters tend to be middle-income, middle-aged consumers with children still at home (i.e., under age 18). Attention cravers tend to be affluent, older, empty nesters. Finally, Explorers also tend to be older than average but have considerably lower incomes than the attention cravers.
6. Discussion 6.1. The myth of ‘‘shopping as socializing’’ Over the years, a number of marketing scholars (e.g., Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985) have maintained that consumers shop to mingle with other shoppers. Recently, some have even suggested that consumers’ desire for social interaction is central to the appeal of brick-and-mortar stores. For example, Knack (2000) quotes one retail consultant as stating ‘‘I like to think that there are many people who will continue to want to interact with other people. People like shopping with the sociability factor added.’’ However, our data do not support this view. Only one in eight respondents reports enjoying interacting with other shoppers, far fewer than any other shopping experience. Why do so few consumers enjoy interactions with other shoppers? Falk and Campbell (1997, p. 11) suggest a paradox, arguing that while one may shop in the proximity of other people, shopping is ‘‘. . . essentially a private experience that occurs in a public setting.’’ In addition, American consumers increasingly find themselves shopping in the midst of strangers. In his recent book Bowling Alone, sociologist Robert Putnam (2000, p. 211) notes: At the beginning of the twenty-first century, more and more of us commute from one suburb to another, more and more of our shopping is done in a megamall in yet a third suburb . . . Rather than at the grocery store or fiveand-dime on Main Street, where faces are familiar, today’s suburbanites shop in large, impersonal malls. Although malls constitute America’s most distinctive contemporary public space, they are carefully designed for one primary, private purpose—to direct consumers to
257
buy. Despite the aspirations of some developers, mall culture is not about overcoming isolation and connecting with others, but about privately surfing from store to store—in the presence of others, but not in their company. The suburban shopping experience does not consist of interaction with people embedded in a common social network. While relatively few consumers appear to take pleasure in mingling with other shoppers, some enjoy it more than others. Childless women are more likely to enjoy interacting with other shoppers, supporting the ‘‘social isolation’’ view of in-store socializing, and lower-income consumers are more likely to say they enjoy mingling with other shoppers. Since lower-income consumers are less likely to leave their local neighborhoods when shopping (Alwitt and Donley, 1996) they may be more likely to have chance in-store encounters with friends and neighbors. 6.2. Then what do consumers like about shopping? Above all, consumers enjoy hunting for bargains. While retail scholars have sometimes contrasted cool, calculating ‘‘price shoppers’’ with more hedonistic ‘‘recreational shoppers,’’ our data belie this distinction. Bargain hunting, rather than being antithetical to shopping enjoyment, may be its most pervasive source. About three quarters of consumers report enjoying hunting for and finding bargains; in fact, nearly 80% agree with the strongly worded ‘‘I get a thrill out of finding a real bargain,’’ and nearly half strongly agree with this statement. Further, the appeal of bargain hunting is quite universal, cutting across income, age and child-rearing categories. Table 3 reveals that every demographic group except the most affluent (>$110,000) exhibit mean bargainenjoyment scores above 4 (on a 1 –6 scale), and even very affluent consumers enjoy bargain hunting more than any other aspect of shopping. The broad-based appeal of bargain hunting may help explain the explosion of promotional pricing in recent years, which has caused even upscale department stores to rely increasingly on price reductions and deals to attract customers. A second pervasive source of shopping enjoyment is recreational browsing or window shopping. Why do so many consumers enjoy this activity? First, examining merchandise may satisfy consumers’ desire for exploration and novelty seeking (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992). In addition, consumers may receive anticipatory or imaginative pleasure from simply ‘‘window shopping.’’ Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997) suggest ‘‘. . . pleasurable shopping is understood as . . . movement in space where one has the possibility of making purchases . . . daydreaming and planning of future purchases . . . where the openness and plurality of possibilities is fundamental.’’ Notably, browsing enjoyment was highest among those with low-to-modest incomes, and was markedly lower among the most affluent segment of consumers, suggesting that ‘‘window shopping’’
258
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259
appeals especially to those with limited resources for making actual purchases. Notwithstanding retailers’ growing adoption of self-service formats, a large segment of consumers still enjoy being pampered by salespeople. This finding suggests a challenge for retailers: how to control operating expenses (so consumers can be offered the bargains they desire) while providing personal service to those who value it. This balancing act may be especially important in attracting the growing population of elderly consumers. Consumers over age 65 are much more likely to desire pampering, and the older the consumer, the greater the desire. For example, consumers age 75+ value pampering significantly more (X = 4.81) than those ages 65 –74 (X = 4.13; P=.002), and means for ages 65 –69, 70 –74, 75– 79 and 80+ increase steadily from 3.95 to 5.17. This monotonic pattern suggests that the elderly’s desire for personal service is not simply a generational effect of having grown up with personal service (which is equally true of 65- and 85-year-olds) but instead results from the increased need for personal service that comes with aging per se. And, since the very old (e.g., those over 80) constitute one of the fastest growing segments of American society, this issue may require increasing attention from retailers. Nearly half of respondents find pleasure in the sensory stimulation of visiting a store or shopping center. This finding is consistent with the observation of Lehoten and Maenpaa (1997, p. 163): [the] pleasure found in shopping was first connected with tourism . . . the idea of the leisurely spending of time, of going ‘somewhere else’ . . . away from the spheres of home and work, in order to be freed from duties and in order to enjoy oneself. Thus, despite consumers’ supposed desire to ‘‘nest’’ or ‘‘cocoon’’ in their homes, shopping by catalog, phone or computer, brick-and-mortar shopping still offers a unique appeal to many consumers: the opportunity to get out of the house and experience a change of scene. As noted above, the relative prevalence of specific shopping pleasures varies according to consumers’ demographics or life circumstances. However, there is one life circumstance that has a particularly strong and pervasive impact on women’s enjoyment of shopping: child-rearing responsibility. Women with children are less likely to enjoy virtually every aspect of the shopping experience, and, the younger the children, the lower the shopping enjoyment. There are at least two possible explanations for this. First, the process of becoming a parent may tend to shift consumers’ interests from personal recreational pursuits (such as shopping) to more child- and family-centered activities. Second, even among parents who remain interested in shopping, the time (and money) demands of caring for children (particularly very young children) may make leisurely, recreational shopping impractical (see Thompson et al., 1990).
6.3. Limitations and directions for future research This study employed a cross-sectional survey to examine women’s attitudes toward shopping in brick-and-mortar stores. As such, it has several inherent limitations that should be addressed in future research. First, it would be useful for future research to employ longitudinal methods, to examine how the relative prevalence of different shopping pleasures may be changing over time. Such research might allow us to determine, for example, whether the social aspects of shopping are decreasing in importance (as suggested by Putnam). In addition, future research should examine the recreational aspects of nonstore shopping (e.g., catalogs, e-tailers, party-concept selling) as well as the recreational shopping tendencies of other consumer segments (e.g., men, adolescents or children). It would be particularly interesting to examine whether the pleasures of store shopping examined here are transferable to other retail modalities. For example, while it is possible to find a bargain in a catalog or web site, one must then wait days before actually receiving the product. Does this delayed gratification diminish the pleasure in finding a bargain? Similarly, while one can browse through a catalog or web site, is the limited visual field of a PC screen or catalog a satisfying substitute for the moving, three-dimensional panorama of walking through a well-merchandised store? Does true recreational browsing require touching and feeling the merchandise? In building on this study, future researchers can further deepen our understanding of one of the most fundamental aspects of market behavior: why, and how, consumers shop.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Don Granbois and John Summers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This research was partially funded by the American United Life endowment at Indiana University.
References Alwitt L, Donley T. The low income consumer: adjusting the balance of exchange. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1996. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988;103: 411 – 23. Babin B, Darden W, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J Consum Res 1994;20(March):644 – 56. Bellenger D, Korgaonkar P. Profiling the recreational shopper. J Retail 1980;56(Fall):77 – 92. Bentler PM, Bonnet DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980;88:588 – 606. Berman B, Evans J. Retail management: a strategic approach. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1998. Blattberg R, Buesing T, Peacock P, Sen S. Identifying the deal prone segment. J Mark Res 1978;15(August):369 – 77.
A.D. Cox et al. / Journal of Business Research 58 (2005) 250–259 Bloch P, Richins M. Shopping without purchase: an investigation of consumer browsing behavior. In: Bagozzi R, Tybout A, editors. Advances in Consumer Research vol. 11. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1983. p. 389 – 93. Blodgett J, Anderson RA. A Bayesian network model of the consumer complaint process. J Serv Res 2000;2:321 – 38. Campbell C. Shopaholics, spendaholics, and the question of gender. In: Benson AL, editor. I shop, therefore I am: compulsive buying and the search for self. Northvale (NJ): Jason Aronson; 2000. p. 57 – 75. CDC. Behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Washington (DC): U.S. Dept. HHS, 1999, http://www2.cdc.gov/nccdphp/brfss. Dawson S, Bloch P, Ridgway N. Shopping motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. J Retail 1990;66(Winter):408 – 27. Dholokia RR. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behaviors and motivations. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 1999;27(4):154 – 65. Duncan H, Travis S, McAuley W. An emergent theoretical model for interventions encouraging physical activity (mall walking) among older adults. J Appl Gerontol 1995;14(March):64 – 78. Eroglu S, Machleit K. An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and consequences. J Retail 1990;66(Summer):201 – 41. Falk P, Campbell C. The shopping experience. London: Sage, 1997. Forman A, Sriram V. The depersonalization of retailing: its impact on the ‘lonely’ consumer. J Retail 1991;67(Summer):226 – 43. Fornell C, Larcker VF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18: 39 – 50. Guiry M, Lutz R. Recreational shopper identity: implications of recreational shopping for consumer self-definition. Working paper, University of Florida, 2000. Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1998. Hoyer W, MacInnis D. Consumer behavior. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2001. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999;6:1 – 55. Industry Standard PM. Catalogers wise to the net. Ind Standard 2000; 3(May 29):196. Jones M. Entertaining shopping experiences: an exploratory investigation. J Retail Consum Serv 1999;6(3):129 – 39. Jo¨reskog KG. Testing structural equation models. In: Bollen KA, Long J, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1993. p. 294 – 316.
259
Jo¨reskog KG, So¨rbom D. LISREL 8: analysis of linear structural relations by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago (IL): International Education Services, 1993. Knack R. Retail vs. e-tail. Planning 2000;66(July):24. Lehoten T, Maenpaa P. Shopping in east center mall. In: Falk P, Campbell C, editors. The shopping experience. London: Sage; 1997. p. 136 – 65. Levy S. Social class and consumer behavior. In: Howard J, editor. Knowing the consumer. New York: John Wiley; 1966. p. 146 – 160. Lumpkin J, Greenberg B, Goldstucker J. Marketplace needs of the elderly: determinant attributes and store choice. J Retail 1984;61(Summer): 75 – 105. Mano H, Elliott M. Smart shopping: the origins and consequences of price savings. In: MacInnis D, Brucks M, editors. Advances in consumer research vol. 24. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1997. p. 504 – 10. Morris B. As a favored pastime, shopping ranks high with most Americans. Wall Street J 1987;1(July 30):13. Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. Measurement, design, and analysis. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum, 1991. Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Rich S, Portis B. Clues for action from shopper preferences. Harvard Bus Rev. 1963;41:145 – 152 (March – April). Sargent T. Dynamic macroeconomic theory. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Univ. Press, 1987. Schindler R. The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses concerning the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. In: Srull T, editor. Advances in consumer research vol. 16. Provo (UT): Association for Consumer Research; 1989. p. 447 – 53. Steenkamp JB, Baumgartner H. The role of optimum stimulation level in exploratory consumer behavior. J Consum Res 1992;19(December):434 – 48. Stone G. City shoppers and urban identification: observations on the social psychology of city life. Am J Sociol 1954;60(July):36 – 45. Tauber E. Why do people shop. J Mark 1972;36(Oct.):46 – 59. Thompson C, Locander W, Pollio H. The lived meaning of free choice: an existential description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women. J Consum Res 1990;17(December):346 – 61. Wakefield K, Baker J. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. J Retail 1998;74(Winter):515 – 32. Westbrook R, Black W. A motivation-based shopper typology. J Retail 1985;61(Spring):78 – 103.