Reflections on journeys within the supermarket

Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j

Reflections on journeys within the supermarket Daniela Spanjaard a,*, Lynne Freeman b, Louise Young a a b

School of Business, Western Sydney University, PO Box 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 31 March 2015 Revised 21 October 2015 Accepted 22 October 2015 Available online 14 November 2015 Keywords: Videography Grocery shopping Multi-method Ethnography Brand loyalty

A B S T R A C T

In this paper, we deconstruct the ethnographic process to examine how adopting a multifaceted approach impacted our interpretation of the findings. The original intention was to undertake (only) structured, observational research to consider a fairly standard marketing problem – why do consumers choose some grocery brands over others. However we soon realized that such a format was unsatisfactory. Instead we recognized the need to consider both the content and process of shopping to understand the complexity of behaviours reflected. The results suggest that many consumers’ lives are created around various realities and they use consumption to engage and experience these. © 2015 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

C H I N E S E

A B S T R A C T

在本文中，我们解构了人种学方法，以研究采用多方面的方法如何影响我们对研究结果的解释。初衷（只）是为 了开展结构性、观察性研究，以考虑一个比较规范的营销问题 — 为什么消费者选择一些食品品牌而不是其他的品 牌。然而，我们很快意识到，这样的形式并不能令人满意。相反，我们认为有必要考虑购物的内容和流程，以了 解所体现的行为的复杂性。研究结果表明，许多消费者的生活都建立在各种现实情况的基础之上，并且他们利用 消费去参与和体验这些生活。 © 2015 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper is positioned in the cultural environment inhabited by the supermarket shopper. Grocery shopping is often portrayed as a routine activity grounded in repetitive behaviour that carries with it little thought and complexity (Beharrell and Denison, 1995). We challenge this notion and show that there is more to understanding grocery buying than just behavioural measurements. To assume that it is merely a superficial exercise in consumer activity where utilitarian needs are the main motivators for brand decisions is too simplistic (Yim et al., 2014). In one sense, by adopting a consumer culture approach, this study places emphasis on the sociocultural aspects of supermarket shopping generally not available via the application of surveys and experiments. Acknowledging that consumer culture theory represents a widely accepted perspective of consumer research (Arnould

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9685 9638; fax: + 61 2 9678 7160. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Spanjaard).

and Thompson, 2007), the focus is on understanding consumers’ personal and collective identities and how these are embodied in their lived environments, and their underlying experiences within the context of the sociological categories in which these dynamics are enacted (Arnould and Thompson, 2005; Thompson et al., 2013). Drawing upon the theoretical foundations of consumer culture theory to illuminate the subtleties that drive decision making during the consumer’s shopping experience, we build upon the work of Arnould and Thompson (2005, 2007), Holt (1995), and Kozinets (2001) to further develop an understanding of how consumer culture theory explores the behaviour of consumers who interpret the symbolic meanings encrypted in brand and retail settings as a way to manifest their identity, or those of their family. More broadly, CCT has quickly become a recognized institutional category that represents one of the three major pillars of consumer research, along with information processing. This paper contributes to theory by challenging the notion that a single methodology will adequately explain in store consumer decision-making, and presents an alternative that uncovers unanticipated insights exploring both the mundane and complex activities of consumer shopping.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.10.006 1441-3582/© 2015 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

304

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

We are ‘accidental ethnographers’, coming as we do from an academic discipline that is apt to shy away from in-depth observational research as its primary methodology (Chamberlain and Broderick, 2007; Kapoulas and Mitic, 2012) and which has a tendency to frown upon non positivistic methods (Silva and Ramos, 2013). Customarily marketing tends to use measured constructs to predict consumer conduct (Dube et al., 2005), but these are rarely able to account for actual behaviour. The implication being that conventional modelling is forcing consumption subtleties to fit the laws of mathematics (El-Amir and Burt, 2010), whereas we propose that by applying an ethnographic approach, it allows participant nuances to construct insights as a way to develop innate understanding of the behaviour (Underhill, 2009). 1.1. The research question The initial goal of the research was to develop a methodological mix that would overcome the limitations of traditional retail research where transaction data are assumed to be a sufficient reflection of consumer decisions about brand choice. As part of this, our preliminary research question was what are the mechanisms shaping consumer grocery brand selections within a naturalistic environment? The outcome of this was to form part of a study investigating brand loyalty for products where there are a high number of alternatives and where switching costs were low. 2. Stepping into the supermarket Grocery shopping is often viewed as social practice (Miller, 1998) where the choices made during the buying situation reflects the link between consumers and their significant others. These shared characteristics, rituals and values have been viewed as an expression of family identity and as a way for consumers to construct and maintain their relational self (Woodruffe-Burton and Wakenshaw, 2011). Such family identity is often communicated by the use of products, and symbols (Cappellini and Parsons, 2013; Epp and Price, 2008) found in the supermarket aisle. We take into consideration the works of Woodruffe-Burton and Wakenshaw (2011), Miller (1998) and Cappellini and Parsons (2013) that suggest shopping is a way for consumers to create and maintain their self-concept via their choice of products and through exchanges with store artefacts such as retailer activity and store environment. It is widely known that this form of consumer action usually involves consumers undertaking an evaluation of a variety of options and behaviours so as to make a brand choice. There is a large body of research that proposes how this is done (Chenting et al., 2003; Deshpande et al., 1982; Hansen, 2005; Nayeem and Casidy, 2015; Yoon et al., 2009), and it is well established that consumers will only gather information about a product until they reach a point where gathering further facts, without a purchase, is not practicable (Widing, 2003). To some extent, via the application of ethnography, we are able to appreciate these consumer decisions and purchasing practices as a multifaceted arena of actors, processes and buying activities (Brembeck et al., 2015; Sunderland and Denny, 2003) that the ‘usual’ statistical counting of brand loyalty measures would overlook (Rungie et al., 2013). Added to the complexity of not only seeking to understand consumer motives, grocery manufacturers and retailers have concentrated on their ability to ‘tailor’ their offerings to the individual requirements of the market (Chimhundu et al., 2015; Silveira and Marreiros, 2014), increasing the amount of information consumers are exposed to prior to actual purchase. Whilst this has benefited the dyadic interactions between all involved, consumers are being overwhelmed by a variety of marketing messages in the form of electronic presentation, in-store offers and traditional advertising strategies (Hutter and Hoffmann, 2014). Given the

challenge of fully capturing the nuances of these influences, it is unlikely that a single quantitative research methodology will suffice. Rather, applying the interpretive perspective to qualitative methods has resulted in greater awareness about the impact of consumption experiences (Moisander and Valtonen, 2012). This is not to advocate that the positivistic approaches are now redundant, but by paying closer attention to participants’ lives and practices, more meaningful outcomes will result. 3. Choosing an ethnographic approach Researchers have theorized that the purpose of ethnography is the study of culture where the resulting descriptions are creative endeavours that allow insights to the realm of that particular culture (Schembri and Boyle, 2013). In many instances, ethnography is often identified as a practice that incorporates a range of different yet complementary qualitative techniques to capture understanding of an experience (Mariampolski, 1999). Core to its principles is the process of undertaking a thorough study of a few cases in a naturalistic context by applying these different methods and drawing on a variety of sources as way to gain holistic insight into everyday situations (Hammersley and Atkinson, 2007) and then provide a ‘thick description’ of these (Geertz, 1973). It is incorrect to assume that ethnography is just another form of data collection; rather it should aim to clarify patterns of cultural and/or social behaviour (Arnould and Wallendorf, 1994) that in turn provides distinctive interpretation of human action in natural settings (Tedlock, 1983) that often remain unarticulated by its participants (Gummesson, 2007). Thus, ethnographic research enables the researcher to change their perspective from viewing the consumer as a passive information processor to one that views them as an active participant engaged in socially meaningful activities (Catterall and Maclaran, 2001). It is this premise that has been presented here via the blending of traditional interviewing (King and Horrocks, 2010), supported by the real-time imagery to create cultural inventories and examine any social aspects (Heisley and Levy, 1991). Sunderland, and Denny (2007) recommend that ethnography be viewed as an epistemic orientation rather than just another method so that, from this perspective, ethnography is an approach that researchers use to gain culturally and socially grounded knowledge. The original intention of our study was to embark on only structured, observational research to consider a fairly typical marketing question: why do consumers choose some grocery brands over others? The topic itself is not unique (Park et al., 1989; Silayoi and Speece, 2004) with observational shopping techniques dating back to the 1960s (Wells and Lo Sciuto, 1966); however the methods applied in this instance would ideally provide greater appreciation in terms of consumer connectedness to preferred brands (Fournier, 1998) and how this reflects their own and their family’s identity (Cappellini and Parsons, 2013). We additionally support the notion that ethnography should be a multi-lens activity, where such data are also embedded in participant reflection and archival documents rather than just visual imagery (Gracy, 2004). If, for example we had taken a solely archival research approach, in this case six weeks of shopping dockets provided by our participants, we would have known where they shop, the brands they bought, how much they spent and when they buy, but this alone would not have answered our research question as to why their purchasing conformed to particular patterns. Observational data certainly contributed to solving this dilemma but would not give the required level of insight needed to add to the existing body of knowledge. Our study adopted a quasi-ethnographic study (Elliott and Jankel-Elliott, 2003) which enabled this research to overcome the limitations of a single approach in understanding, describing and explaining complex human behaviours (Morse, 2002). The use of

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

sequential quantitative and qualitative phases ensured this exploration was not controlled by a single domain of investigation (Johnson and Turner, 2002; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998); rather, the design permitted the research to benefit from the strengths of the methodologies employed without being limited by their inherent weaknesses (Johnson and Turner, 2002). The systematic, naturalistic approach allowed for a wider perspective when confirming the established patterns of grocery purchasing amongst our Australian consumers and then moved to greater depth when the focus narrowed to understanding the whys and hows of brand choice in the context of routines undertaken during shopping visits (Woodruffe-Burton and Wakenshaw, 2011). Whilst the research commenced with a conventional survey, subsequent methods employed a more interpretative stance and included the use of videography, ensuing depth interview and finally archival data via the submission of several weeks of grocery shopping receipts. Although our use of videography gave us detailed insights into how our participants interacted with brand selection and with each other (where applicable), the images on their own did not allow us to identify if we were seeing ‘typical’ or ‘atypical’ purchasing behaviour. We were, therefore, at risk of misrepresenting the results without additional data viewpoints (Hietanen et al., 2014). Consequently, a depth interview after the shopping trip aided in building our understanding of our participants’ grocery buying and complemented the activity that had just been recorded. Adding this verbal component supported our interpretation of the imagery. Whilst we could micro-analyse the video data, the interviews provided a form of explanation that we needed in order to attain a more complete picture of what was happening at store level. We propose that the adoption of this blending of techniques enhanced our ability to support our findings from various perspectives via the practice of triangulation (Jonsen and Jehn, 2009).

4. Do we really understand consumer purchase decisions? As a general rule people cannot accurately and fully report their decision processes. And just relying on their recall is largely not conducive to obtaining a complete picture. We would argue that this shortfall can be overcome by integrating a range of methods within an ethnographic context, thus making it possible to compare and contrast observable behaviour with unobservable memories. Accordingly, the use of videography effectively captures expressions and bodily presence in a contextual space when compared to data capture via text (Belk and Kozinets, 2005). Whilst the use of video has become a pervasive part of a visually engaged consumer culture, often embedded in systems of social relations, it should be understood as a media practice rather than just a technical device (Hietanen et al., 2014). Visual ethnography therefore becomes a methodological approach that facilitates the capture of an authentic representation of the lives experienced by our participants as they are created and as a way to discover new understandings of this (Schembri and Boyle, 2013; Sherry, 2008). The application of videography in this instance was twofold. Firstly, capturing real-time images allowed for an authenticity and spontaneity that could be further played and replayed as was necessary to gain depth and precision during analysis (Petr et al., 2015). Secondly, it allowed us to focus on the sequential nuances of the whole behaviour series under study. For example, we could closely observe the conduct of our participants during brand comparisons, and then what influenced them to make a final decision. Using visual ethnographic techniques reduced the amount of disruption to the participants’ shopping behaviour (Basil, 2011) and provided an opportunity for the creation of information laden qualitative data that complements the application of ethnographic methods

305

(Brace-Govan, 2007; Hein et al., 2011). The results prove a more emotional and data rich perspective that command attention (De Valck et al., 2009) where the application of the methods offered insights into the cherished relationships our participants had with each other via their non-verbal behaviours and some of the rituals that create their identities. The remainder of this paper expands these matters by explaining in more detail how our blended methodology aided in understanding in-store consumer behaviour. To that end, first the formalities of consumer decision-making are discussed and following this, the way our combined methods addressed these is presented. 5. The intricacy of data capture As is often the case for ethnographic research (Hein et al., 2011) a mix of research methods was applied here because each on its own did not provide sufficient understanding. The in-store videography and subsequent depth interviews allowed recognition and understanding of the repertoires experienced by participants in relation to their grocery purchasing. Although we could ask ‘what were your reasons for choosing that brand’ and ‘how did you feel about that choice’ not long after the recording of the event, it quickly became apparent that we might not be gaining astute understanding into the processes leading to their decision-making. Certainly adopting a more positivistic stance would have allowed us to answer the ‘who’, ’where’, and ’when’, of grocery shopping; and if we have faith in the derived sales data from the shopper dockets, even ‘how do you remember/think that you felt when you bought Product X?’ But if more insightful outcomes were our goal, then a different lens to view both the data collection and analysis was needed. As such, triangulation techniques were implemented to provide a valid and reliable offering where the phenomenon under study was approached from various angles to establish a robust understanding of what was to be explained (Hall and Rist, 1999). What emerged was a process where one research method introduced the need for the next and thus provided a more complete ethnographic outcome. When the videos and interviews were analysed in combination with the shopping dockets, an even more inclusive picture was uncovered. It was this blending of ethnographic tools that allowed us to comprehend participant interaction and thus meet our research goal (Agafonoff, 2006; Lampl et al., 2004). Whilst the initial intention was envisioned as a linear approach to precisely capture a range of consumer decision-making processes, it became apparent that the outcome was not going to be so direct. Instead, the ability to back track between each of the methods allowed us to uncover greater comprehension as each technique was compared to the outcome of the previous. This was a surprising effect not anticipated during the design phase. This will now be discussed in further detail. 5.1. Methodology 5.1.1. Survey Questions in the survey focused on how often consumers shop in grocery stores, the kinds of brands they choose and the general reasons they buy. A total of 363 useable surveys provided us with overall buying patterns but did not form a substantial part of the project as the results merely confirmed what was already known (Gorman, 2015; Scacco, 2014). That is, the respondents were mostly between 35 years and 64 years (63%), within a household size of 2 people (33%) or 3–4 people (36%). Sixty-nine percent of main grocery buyers made the decision about which brands to buy, and shopping was most often undertaken on a weekly basis (51%). Eighty one percent said they chose brands on the basis that they could ‘trust’ them to fulfil their needs. The survey fulfilled its purpose of providing

306

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

participants for additional research who had a similar demographic and buying profile in line with that theorized (ABS, 2009/10). Its purpose was a ‘recruitment tool’ that invited a group of participants to take part in the more intensive, qualitative component rather than to provide any meaningful insights into consumer buying behaviour.

5.1.2. Videography All respondents who completed the survey were invited to participate in the subsequent video-interview component of the research. From those who indicated an interest and availability, a smaller group of participants were recruited without any predefined sample size (Patton, 1999). Given the nature of the topic, and the methods applied, it was determined that recruitment would continue until no further insights were forthcoming. The videography was conducted during a shopping visit by the participant at a supermarket identified as being familiar to them. Filming began once consumers entered the ‘dry’ grocery aisles rather than attempting to capture images of fresh food selections; an area often placed near the front of the store entrance – although it was perceived to be capturing data from the moment they entered the store. The purpose of this was to facilitate the participant being ‘comfortable’ with the camera on them by the time the principal shopping tasks were undertaken. The researcher remained at a distance to the shopper to ensure minimal intrusion into product selection activities. Video data capture ceased once the participant proceeded to the checkouts. All were briefed on the process (a non-participatory observation of their grocery shop) prior to the actual data collection. As previously noted, a sample size was not pre-determined, and so observations and interviewing were undertaken until a point of ‘saturation’ had been reached (Patton, 1999). After twelve observations and interviews had been completed and evaluated, no additional findings were evolving and so data collection ceased. Eight respondents shopped alone, whilst the remaining four bought family members with them. There was a wide range of ages represented; from younger shoppers (mid-20s) through to older shoppers (mid 80s). A total of 342 product selections were made across the twelve shopping occasions. As part of data reliability and checking, each video was crossexamined several times by three researchers, including two who did not contribute to data collection. These researchers offered a range of divergent opinions or perspectives of the situation (e.g. nonverbal communications versus behavioural actions) as part of the analysis process. All researchers watched the videos at the same time and made notes about what they observed. The summaries were then discussed and comparisons made about each perspective. We discovered that when multiple researchers viewed the images, different points of observation were uncovered. This did not indicate that the interpretations were inaccurate, but instead highlighted the value of several perspectives. The researchers perceived dissimilar but not necessarily conflicting or incompatible aspects of the same image. This process and the complex variance in interpretations underlined the need to consider the depth interview in conjunction with the observation as a way to further clarify what was happening at store level. For example, whilst one researcher observed a participant picking up several products before making a selection, another noted that the same participant touched their face, wrung their hands or continue their visual inspection despite seemingly to have already made a brand choice. Using just the images presented, it wasn’t possible to determine if lack of choice was due to an out of stock, or indecision in brand selection. Subsequently this led to closer analysis of the depth interviews to ascertain possible reasons behind observed shopping behaviour.

5.1.3. Depth interviews A depth interview with the participants occurred immediately after the shop at a local café familiar to them. Immediacy was thought to be essential to ensure that all activities were easy to recall. Whilst alternative venues and delayed interviews were considered, implementing these was thought to negatively impact the advantages of the methodological design. The timing of the interview also aimed to reduce the number of drop-outs if later sessions were required. Participants were first asked to identify two or three brands that they had just purchased and which they believed they bought often. The purpose of this was twofold – these brands were to act as an ice-breaker topic in the discussion, and it allowed participants to select the products they perceive made a meaningful contribution to their everyday lives (Fournier, 1998). Whilst there was still reference to the video data that had just been captured, the increased level of disconnect between the observation and interview was effective in uncovering unexpected insights (Denzin, 2001). Moving attention away from the video gave participants the freedom to openly talk about which brands were really important to them, and their reasons for this. So, whilst the video images were important to the researchers’ understanding, the participants became more animated if there was less emphasis placed on this. 5.1.4. Archival data The final method of data collection asked the respondents to provide six weeks or so of shopping receipts. This was expected to provide confirmation that the brand(s) discussed during the interview, and/or those selected in the video observations indeed reflected the consumers’ repertoires. They were not told of the reason for these receipts so as to minimize unintentional bias in terms of normal shopping behaviour. Although not constituting a significant amount of data, it provided a form of authentication by confirming that any scrutiny of the decisions made and products discussed were the appropriate ones to focus upon in subsequent analysis. Without it, the researchers may well have placed too much emphasis on products that were not necessarily central to the participant outside the video/interview environment. 6. Results: love in the supermarket A review of the visual behaviour of the participants in conjunction with the interview transcripts revealed significant insights. Clear emotions were revealed via distinct non-verbal communication, the ‘bargaining’ behaviour between other family members who attended became obvious (Haselhoff et al., 2013), and often in combination with the range of time taken to make decisions. Without the inclusion of video data, so much would have been inadvertently missed. It was only through in-depth investigation of the images that emotive responses to the consumers’ environment became apparent. This was an unexpected outcome given it is not common for supermarket brands to be intricately connected to consumer decisions driven by emotions (Jensen, 2011). The combination of these results appeared to have identified an answer for our research question and that there was a range of different mechanisms shaping brand decisions at the point of purchase. Examples of this are presented below. 6.1. “Nell and Gary” Nell and Gary are both in their eighties, and have been married for many decades. They raised all their children in the one family home, and are now great grandparents who are still actively involved in their local community. They were observed to make many joint brand decisions whilst grocery shopping. The videographic

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

images identified a clear pattern how these two interacted, as represented by their ‘emotional connectedness’; they stood near to each other, almost affectionately, at nearly every decision point. They spoke quietly on occasion, but many selections were made without the need for words. Nell often led the direction down the supermarket aisles, Gary following quite closely behind with the trolley. On numerous occasions she would check to ensure that he was still not far away from her. The lack of conversation evidenced the many times the couple had taken this path and the repetitiveness revealed by the ease in which products were selected with little or no consultation. There is a sense of ‘closeness’ between the two. Yet, on one occasion as they approached the Asian foods section, Nell commences the decision process by stopping and scanning the shelves visually as Gary stood close by, just behind her. He too, visually checks the brands in the upper section of the aisle shelves. After several seconds, Nell cautiously starts to choose one product by reaching for it, but at the last minute decides against it and ended up not picking up anything. Her facial expression suggested one of frustration even as Gary continued the visual inspection after she had moved on to the next range of products nearby. Finally she walks away as if she’s lost interest. Despite Nell obviously not choosing a product, Gary stayed, spending longer time to double-check the international food brands. Even once Nell had walked on to the next section of the store, he does not move immediately although he deliberately scans her position as if unconsciously experiencing a sense of conflict – to continue to survey the products or to remain near his wife given their age and possible frailty. Using the video in isolation could suggest that both were looking for a particular brand of food which they did not find. They spent time confirming that the product was not there via their visual searching behaviour; however, Nell made her decision earlier than Gary, a pattern that was repeated on several other occasions. The video certainly gave us adequate information about how the couple interact, but the imagery on its own did not provide enough information to indicate the reasons why a product was not selected. This was revealed during the depth interview where they reported: The Sharwood’s Curry is our favourite, we just love it. We couldn’t find that today, so we didn’t buy any. (Gary) When we couldn’t see it in the usual aisle, we thought we’d find it in another section, but of course it wasn’t there either. We had to walk all over the place! We’ll go to Woolies later and see if they’ve got any Sharwood’s. We like it because we’ve got some very dear friends and they always used curry paste and they were the ones who told us to try it. Now we love it over the powder. We don’t like the others. (Nell) They’re far too spicy. (Gary) Yes, much too spicy. You can always trust Sharwood’s to taste good. If I can’t get Sharwood’s here, then I can go to several different stores until I find it, and if I still can’t find it, like today, I’ve got some curry powder at home – but I prefer to use the paste. The paste seems to make a better curry. (Nell) A better flavour. (Gary) We’ll shop around for it rather than risk buying another brand we can’t trust. (Nell) Examination of the archival data revealed prior purchases for ‘Sharwood’s Curry Paste’. Merging the results from the video, interview and shopping receipts revealed that Nell and Gary saw themselves as being ‘loyal’ to Sharwood’s Curry and that if they were unable to locate the brand at the time of their normal shop, they were prepared to go so far as to visit another retailer rather than

307

buy a competing brand which would not necessarily meet their expectations. This form of behaviour was unexpected for brands where switching behaviour is common. The video images clearly showed the loving connection between the two in the way they interacted during the shop, and the way they merged conversations during the interview. However, this strong degree of loyalty towards a brand would not have revealed itself if only one method had been applied. Their preference for Sharwood’s Curry when beyond simplistic repeat purchasing to a form of ‘emotive’ loyalty as demonstrated by the use ‘love’ and ‘trust’ to describe the brand. Certainly this kind of devotion has been linked to how consumers use products to reflect their sense of self (Belk, 1987) but not commonly for this kind of product type. To hear of this affect being discussed within the context of an everyday food brand challenged our assumptions, and we speculated that it was quite possible that supermarket brands not only satisfied basic needs but also offered a sense of identity to our participants. We therefore looked to the data to see if this outcome would be found in elsewhere. 6.2. “Katrina and Lachlan” Katrina, is in her mid-thirties, and a mother of two children, with the youngest Lachlan, who at nearly five, is still at home. Her shopping pattern proceeded at a slow place as she attempted to select products off the shelf, but also to keep her son under control in light of his lack of interest in being placed in the shopping trolley. On several occasions she gave him products to put in the cart to keep him busy whilst at the same time, he occasionally offered some of his own brand selections – none of which were accepted by his mother. The video revealed that as she enters the cordial section of the supermarket, her eyes are immediately scanning just one area of the shelves despite the variety of brands extending almost halfway down the aisle. After nearly thirty seconds, her body language changes as she starts to frown, move a small distance down the aisle and back again. She places her hand on the side of her face and frowns slightly stepping back from the shelves as if to view it from a wider perspective, only to move closer again not long after this. She still doesn’t physically pick up any product, unlike Lachlan who reaches down to the lower shelf and offers one of the cordial bottles to his mother. Distractedly, she simply returns the bottle to where he picked it up. He repeats this with another bottle but she doesn’t even take the time to look at what he has chosen, giving her focus entirely to the middle and upper shelves. Eventually she moves onto the next aisle without product selection, a look of consternation still on her face. Later during her shop, she is seen paying attention to an aisle end promotion of the same cordial brand that had been visually scanned in the aisle. Giving the display a cursory look, she is more focused on the boxes used to build it. Without hesitation, she opens one of these boxes, removes a bottle from the carton and places it in her trolley. The subsequent depth interview explained her behaviour: I only buy Cottees (cordial). I keep all three flavours at home – orange, green and raspberry, for a bit of variety at home. I replace each one as it runs out… and I’ve run out of raspberry so I [was] ‘specially looking for that one today… don’t get me wrong, I have tried other brands – I’ve even tried Aldi which isn’t that nice at all. I’ve tried Golden Circle, which isn’t bad but it just doesn’t live up to Cottees in my opinion, and I’m not going buy something my family won’t drink. I’d continue to buy Cottees even if they put their price up more than the other brands. I started to get really worried when I couldn’t find the raspberry…If I didn’t find those bottles hidden in the display, I might have had to have gone to another shop – just for a bottle

308

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

of Cottees Raspberry – this probably makes me sound really strange…. Her distress was clearly noticeable in the video, but without the interview this could have been assumed to be confusion about brand choice; when it was in fact the opposite. Katrina describes her devotion to the brand, “I only buy Cottees…” and reveals her attention to her family’s needs, “I’m not going to buy something my family won’t drink…”, which in her eyes was the necessity to have ‘all three flavours’ available to them. This combination exemplifies a form of unexpected ritualistic behaviour. Her desire to only consider the “Cottees” brand far outweighed her need to replenish her pantry to such an extent that it was emotionally impacting her. As with Nell and Gary, it was the interviews in combination with the imagery that gave insight into this expressive emotion even though her young son had attempted to resolve the dilemma by offering a brand that was positioned at his height. 6.3. “Brittany” Brittany, in her early forties, is a mother of two school-aged children. She was one of the few participants to bring a list and a supermarket catalogue. Her pace during the shop was quite steady and she often referred to either the list or the catalogue at different times. During her shop we saw her choose several brands with minimal hesitation or deliberation. Only at one time did she spend nearly 30 seconds surveying an aisle end display of confectionery when she reviewed the catalogue, picking up one bag then swapping it for another. Her interview revealed the following reasons for her shopping behaviour: Yes, I always pay attention to those (the catalogue) because that’s where the specials are – even though there was one today where the price wasn’t marked, but when I checked the brochure I knew they were on special. Maybe they just hadn’t got round to put the special price up yet. I knew what I was looking for before I came in and saw the chocolate – my son’s birthday is coming up so I bought a couple of packs of chocolate on special for this. I found all of this in the brochure in my mailbox before I even came to the store today. And later in the interview: I also bought my usual brands. One of those is Sultana Bran. I’m really loyal to it. I’ve been buying it for years, and years, and years. I don’t actually eat it anymore, but my husband absolutely loves it because of the taste. I actually bought some other things last week – Special K – and he said to me “can we get some more Sultana Bran, I’m not that keen on what you bought last time”. So even though it wasn’t on sale today, I had to get some because he specifically asked for it. Careful comparison of the video images and the interview transcripts revealed Brittany to be extremely focused on the needs of her family. To the casual observer, her purchase of Kellogg’s Sultana Bran was quick and without deliberation. It could be (correctly) assumed that she had bought the brand before, and this was a straightforward repurchase. Whilst this conjecture is right, what wasn’t revealed in the video was her reason for buying it. Her interview was scattered with references to her innate desire to meet the needs of others: “my husband absolutely loves…”, “… good for the kids…” – to such an extent that many of her purchases were driven more by their needs than her own. Her shopping behaviour reflected an individual with purposeful intentions and minimal consideration for other brands on offer: I only buy Kleenex tissues – I won’t even look at any other brand. They’re the only ones with aloe vera and if you’ve got a cold, they’re so gentle on your nose, which is good for the kids.

It’s just like in the ad – there’s no chafing when you use these tissues. Even when we don’t have a cold, I always, always buy Kleenex Aloe Vera. We spend a fortune on buying these tissues! That’s why I bought several today because they were on special. Even when we have to send a box of tissues for school, I send in those. Sometimes the teacher gives them back to me and says ‘you might want to keep these’ or she’ll use them for the days when one of the kids are really sad. I know it’s silly, but I’m so loyal to these tissues that I just can’t bring myself to buy another brand. A review of the shopping receipts showed that Brittany had previously purchased Kleenex Aloe Vera and Kellogg’s Sultana Bran on more than one occasion. This was yet another example where we uncovered strong, demonstrative brand loyalty which had not been immediately obvious. The only time she hesitated was when she needed to make a decision about an unfamiliar brand for her son’s birthday, and which had been previously decided upon via the weekly catalogue. The hesitation was less to do with brand choice and more to do with whether or not it was on ‘special’. The data suggested that the majority of Brittany’s decisions were entwined by the desire to care for loved others to the point that she perceived herself to be loyal to brands she doesn’t even consume or use – “I’m really loyal…I don’t actually eat it anymore, but my husband loves it…” 7. Discussion As discussed by Miller (1998) shopping is not a case of consumers being unwilling passive partners in a marketing exercise (Sherry, 2008), but instead it offers a method of communication between brands and consumers via social relationships. For example, we know that in these trips, Brittany bought some 35 items across 12 product categories and that 22% of these were on special. However it is apparent to even the most casual of observers that these numbers don’t fully describe her in-store decision making nor give real insight into her behaviour. The application of ethnographic methods suggests that someone (or something) else is impacting this. Is it emotion or another factor, such as the presence, near or far, of others? We will call it emotion but that is an oversimplistic term for what we were observing. What we see in the choices made reflects the outcome of the shoppers’ attempts to satisfy the emotional needs of self and others, to such an extent that ‘rituals’ revealed themselves in many instances – Gary always kept Nell in his sight over and above his own purchasing behaviour so that many of their decisions were made jointly; Brittany’s hesitancy was driven more by her family’s needs than her own; and for Katrina it was all about her “favourite” brand being available in her pantry. Taking a positivistic approach to this study would have provided us with confirmation that our sample was brand loyal to at least one product; however the blending of methods showed us that the reasons for this loyalty were very different. The underlying connection across all our participants was the influence of their relationships with significant others. The notion that relationships influence buying decisions is not new (Burns and Granbois, 1977; Davis, 1970), and prior work has been done investigating the roles of children during a family shop (Haselhoff et al., 2013; Marshall, 2014; Nadeau and Bradley, 2012), the influence of others on older consumers (East et al., 2014) and relationships in general (Simpson et al., 2012), but little has been done using an ethnographic approach via a blend of research methods to uncover some of the reasons behind this. We were able to identify how consumers were choosing brands in the supermarket, but we also uncovered so much more during the process. The results suggest that as with the theory of consumer culture (Arnould and Thompson, 2005, 2007), many consumers’

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

lives are created around various realities, and they use consumption to engage and experience these. The research highlighted the “central role of market mediation” (Askegaard, 2014, p. 4) in decision making within the retail environment. In other words, we saw how our participants interpreted mass media and advertising when making their brand choices, then selecting those brands that they interpreted as contributing to their own and family’s identity. Yet it is also acknowledged that the presence of these desire-inducing marketing symbols is also largely reliant on the use of personal choice of individuals in everyday life (Granot et al., 2014). We propose that it is these “ghosts of others” and their own needs of self-identity that shape in-store behaviour (El-Amir and Burt, 2010) to such an extent that emotive brand loyalty results. Unless we as marketers take note of this we cannot claim to understand grocery-buying behaviour. Too often loyalty is assumed to be relatively fleeting in the world of supermarket shopping (Jensen, 2011), but our research showed this is not always the case. Indeed every one of our participants expressed a devotion to at least one brand that far exceeded the usual assumptions of supermarket loyalty (Jensen, 2011) and as presented here, for a variety of reasons. There was no consistency in the product type as they spoke with affection about basics such as rice through to the quality coffee brands and laundry detergent. Price could not be argued as the main influencer as all participants indicated that even if price went up, they would still continue to buy their favourite brand and as seen in the examples presented here, “I’d continue to buy Cottees even if they put their price up more than the other brands”. Whilst the tangible aspects of flavour/smell/texture certainly enticed consumers to choose a brand over others, when it came to ongoing loyalty it was these perceived emotional connections that overrode everything else. This outcome was the result of adopting an ethnographic approach. The visual images captured gave an indication of the decision processes the participants followed when selecting the brands they bought. However the depth interviews revealed the kind of emotive influences they felt towards the brand, whilst the shopping receipts confirmed they were repeat buyers. Without this combination of methods, it is likely that aspects of decision-making activity, and the reason behind it, would have been missed. It is no longer enough to just statistically measure consumer experiences. Our study reflected the work of Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) which identified consumption as a personal and subjective experience which drives a need for sensory and emotional inspiration to form identity. Thus in many cases, the functional and more utilitarian aspects of brands are being influenced by these expressive responses (Richelieu and Korai, 2014) that outweigh many decisions about brand choice.

8. Conclusion To understand the complexities of the consumer, there is a general move away from traditional marketing research tools of survey and focus groups with greater tendency to apply ethnographic methods to more fully understand how consumers behave in their everyday lives (Catterall and Maclaran, 2001). The design of this study encouraged a conscious awareness that it was essential to capture multiple perspectives of the ‘life world’ experience (Goulding, 1999) using a variety of data collection methods undertaken at different times. It was not one research tool or one interaction between the applied methods that provided more important insights. It was the blending of techniques. Whilst the aim of videography is for a true representation of consumers’ behaviour, the concern is always that greater damage will be caused through misrepresentation (Hietanen et al., 2014). Thus a multifaceted approach such as the one described in this paper is

309

particularly beneficial. If we are to come truly understand the processes in what is assumed to be a routine activity then such depth is necessary. For many brand managers, they want their brand to be the one that is ‘loved’ by the consumer. This in turn, provides a consumer-brand relationship based upon a high degree of attachment to the brand (Fournier, 1998), positive perceptions and ongoing affirmative emotions (Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). One unexpected consequence of this approach was the richness of the data that emerged beyond the usual nuances of triangulation. The results of this study answered our research question and identified the presence of consumer decision-making mechanisms beyond purely transactional measurement. It is not merely a case of automated repeat buying. Rather, there is raft of underlying motives that bring about brand choice even though behavioural indications may suggest quick judgment. As demonstrated in this paper, to really understand consumer in-store decision making, future research in the area should focus on what it is about brands that transition them from being an ‘everyday’ supermarket item to one that forms an integral part of a consumer and their family’s “sense of self’. To do this means stepping away from the overly, simplistic single approach thinking that dominates research in this area to adopt more complex designs where the consumer, in all his or her wonderful complexity, is centre stage. References Agafonoff, N., 2006. Adapting ethnographic research methods to ad hoc commercial market research. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 9 (2), 115–125. doi:10.1108/ 13522750610658766. Arnould, E.J., Thompson, C.J., 2005. Consumer culture theory (CCT): twenty years of research. J. Consum. Res. 31 (4), 868–882. doi:10.1086/426626. Arnould, E.J., Thompson, C.J., 2007. Consumer culture theory (and we really mean theoretics): dilemmas and opportunities posed by an academic branding strategy. In: Russell, W.B., John, F.S., Jr. (Eds.), Research in Consumer Behaviour, vol. 11. Consumer Culture Theory. Elsevier, Oxford, UK, pp. 3–22. Arnould, E.J., Wallendorf, M., 1994. Market-oriented ethnography: interpretation building and marketing strategy formulation. J. Mark. Res. 31 (4), 484–504. . Askegaard, S., 2014. Consumer culture theory – neo-liberalism’s ‘useful idiots’? Mark. Th. 14, 507–511. doi:10.1177/1470593114545424. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2009/10. 6530.0 – Household Expenditure Survey, Australia: Summary of Results. Basil, M., 2011. Use of photography and video in observational research. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 14 (3), 246–257. doi:10.1108/13522751111137488. Beharrell, B., Denison, T.J., 1995. Involvement in a routine food shopping context. Br. Food J. 97 (4), 24–29. doi:10.1108/00070709510085648. Belk, R.W., 1987. Identity and the relevance of market, personal and community objects. Mark. & Sem.: New Dir. (77), 151–162. Belk, R.W., Kozinets, R.V., 2005. Videography in marketing and consumer research. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 8 (2), 128–141. doi:10.1108/13522750510592418. Brace-Govan, J., 2007. Participant photography in visual ethnography. Int. J. Mark. Res. 49 (6), 735–750. . Brembeck, H., Cochoy, F., Moisander, J., 2015. Moving consumption. Consump. Mark. Cult. 18 (1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/10253866.2014.899218. Burns, A.C., Granbois, D.H., 1977. Factors moderating the resolution of preference conflict in family automobile purchasing. J. Mark. Res. 14 (1), 77–86. Cappellini, B., Parsons, E., 2013. Practicing thrift at dinnertime: mealtime leftovers, sacrifice and family membership. Sociol. Rev. 60 (2), 121–134. doi:10.1111/1467954X.12041. Carroll, B.A., Ahuvia, A.C., 2006. Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Mark. Lett. (17), 79–89. doi:10.1007/s11002-006-4219-2. Catterall, M., Maclaran, P., 2001. Body talk: questioning the assumptions in cognitive age. Psychol. Mark. 18 (10), 1117–1133. Chamberlain, L., Broderick, A.J., 2007. The application of physiological observation methods to emotion research. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. (10), 199–216. doi:10.1108/13522750710740853. Chenting, S., Fern, E.F., Ye, K., 2003. A temporal dynamic model of spousal family purchase-decision behavior. J. Mark. Res. 40 (3), 268–281. doi:10.1509/ jmkr.40.3.268.19234. Chimhundu, R., McNeill, L.S., Hamlin, R.P., 2015. Manufacturer and retailer brands: is strategic coexistence the norm? Aust’n Mark. J. 23 (1), 49–60. doi:10.1016/ j.ausmj.2014.11.004. Davis, H.L., 1970. Dimensions of marital roles in consumer decision making. J. Mark. Res. 7 (2), 168–177. De Valck, K., Rokka, J., Hietanen, J., 2009. Videography in consumer research; visions for a method on the rise. Fza. Mark. Prodiuz. 27, 81–101. Denzin, N.K., 2001. The reflexive interview and a performative social science. Qual. Res.: An Int. J. 1 (1), 23–46. doi:10.1177/146879410100100102.

310

D. Spanjaard et al./Australasian Marketing Journal 23 (2015) 303–310

Deshpande, R., Hoyer, W.D., Jeffries, S., 1982. Low involvement decision processes: the importance of choice tactics. Mark. Th. 155–158. Dube, J., Sudhir, K.C., Ching, A., Crawford, G.S., Dranganska, M., Fox, J.T., et al., 2005. Recent advances in structural econometric modelling; dynamics, product positioning and entry. Mark. Lett. 16 (3/4), 209–224. doi:10.1007/s11002-0055886-0. East, R., Uncles, M.D., Lomax, W., 2014. Hear nothing, do nothing: the role of word of mouth in the decision-making of older consumers. J. Mark. Manag. 30 (7–8), 786–801. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.841275. El-Amir, A., Burt, S., 2010. Modelling in branding: a critical ethnography approach. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 13 (2), 189–209. doi:10.1108/13522751011032610. Elliott, R., Jankel-Elliott, N., 2003. Using ethnography in strategic consumer research. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 6 (4), 215–223. doi:10.1108/13522750310495300. Epp, A.M., Price, L.L., 2008. Family identity: a framework of identity interplay in consumption practices. J. Consum. Res. 35 (1), 50–70. doi:10.1086/529535. Fournier, S., 1998. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 24 (4), 343–373. . Geertz, C., 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, vol. 5019. Basic Books. Gorman, J., 2015. Where is the love? Store loyalty down as savvy consumers use promotions to shop around. . Goulding, C., 1999. Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities. Eur. J. Mark. 33 (9/10), 859–873. doi:10.1108/03090569910285805. Gracy, K.F., 2004. Documenting communities of practice: making the case for archival ethnography. Archival Sci. 4 (3/4), 335–365. doi:10.1007/s10502-005-2599-93. Granot, E., Alejandro, T.B., La Toya, M.R., 2014. A socio-marketing analysis of the concept of cute and its consumer culture implications. J. Consum. Cult. 14 (1), 66–87. doi:10.1177/1469540513485274. Gummesson, E., 2007. Access to reality: observations on observational methods. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 10 (2), 130–134. doi:10.1108/13522750710740808. Hall, A., Rist, R., 1999. Integrating multiple qualitative research methods (or avoiding the precariousness of a one-legged stool). Psychol. Mark. 16 (4), 291–304. Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P., 2007. Ethnography; Principles in Practice. Routledge, London. Hansen, T., 2005. Perspectives on consumer decision making: an integrated approach. J. Consum. Behav. 4 (6), 420–437. doi:10.1002/cb.33. Haselhoff, V., Faupel, U., Holzmüller, H., 2013. Strategies of children and parents during shopping for groceries. Yng. Cons. 15 (1), 17–36. doi:10.1108/YC-03-2013-00366. Hein, W., O’Donohue, S., Ryan, A., 2011. Mobile phones as an extension of the participant observer’s self. Reflections on the emergent role of an emergent technology. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 14 (3), 258–273. doi:10.1108/ 13522751111137497. Heisley, D., Levy, S., 1991. Autodriving: a photoelicitation technique. J. Consum. Res. 18 (3), 257–272. . Hietanen, J., Rokka, J., Schouten, J.W., 2014. Commentary on Schembri and Boyle (2013): from representation towards expression in videographic consumer research. J. Bus. Res. 67 (9), 2019–2022. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.10.009. Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. J. Mark. 46 (3), 92–101. . Holt, D., 1995. How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. J. Consum. Res. 22 (1), 1–16. . Hutter, K., Hoffmann, S., 2014. Surprise, surprise: ambient media as a promotion tool for retailers. J. Retail. 90 (1), 93–110. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2013.08.001. Jensen, J.M., 2011. Consumer loyalty on the grocery product market: an empirical application of Dick and Basu’s framework. J. Consum. Mark. 28 (5), 333–343. doi:10.1108/07363761111149983. Johnson, B., Turner, A., 2002. Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 297–319. Jonsen, K., Jehn, K., 2009. Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies. Qual. Res. Org. & Mgt.: An Int. J. 4 (2), 123–150. doi:10.1108/17465640910978391. Kapoulas, A., Mitic, M., 2012. Understanding challenges of qualitative research: rhetorical issues and reality traps. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 15 (4), 354–368. doi:10.1108/13522751211257051. King, N., Horrocks, C., 2010. Interviews in Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Kozinets, R.V., 2001. Utopian enterprise: articulating the meaning of Star Trek’s culture of consumption. J. Consum. Res. 27 (1), 67–89. . Lampl, L.L., Squires, S.E., Johnsrud, C., 2004. Ethnographic-based approaches to knowledge capture. In: Proceedings of 13th International Association for Management of Technology Conference. Washington, DC. Mariampolski, H., 1999. The power of ethnography. J. Mark. Res. Soc. 4 (1), 75–92.

Marshall, D., 2014. Co-operation in the supermarket aisle: young children’s accounts of family food shopping. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 42 (11/12), 990–1003. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-08-2013-0165. Miller, D., 1998. A Theory of Shopping. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. Moisander, J., Valtonen, A., 2012. Interpretive marketing research. In: Penaloza, L., Toulouse, N., Visconti, L.M. (Eds.), Marketing Management: A Cultural Perspective. Routledge, Oxon. Morse, J., 2002. Principles of mixed method and multi-method research design. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), The Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research. pp. 189–191. Nadeau, J., Bradley, M., 2012. Observing the influence of affective states on parent– child interactions and in-store purchase decisions. J. Consum. Behav. 11 (2), 105–114. doi:10.1002/cb.386. Nayeem, T., Casidy, R., 2015. Australian consumers’ decision-making styles for everyday products. Aust’n Mark. J. 23 (1), 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.ausmj.2015.01.001. Park, C.W., Iyer, E.S., Smith, D.C., 1989. The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for shopping. J. Consum. Res. 15 (4), 422–433. . Patton, M.Q., 1999. Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv. Res. 34 (5), 1189–1209. Petr, C., Belk, R., Decrop, A., 2015. Videography in marketing research: mixing art and science. Arts & the Mark. 5 (1), 73–102. doi:10.1108/AM-01-20140002. Richelieu, A., Korai, B., 2014. The consumption experience of Tim Hortons’ coffee fans. Qual. Mark. Res.: An Int. J. 17 (3), 192–208. doi:10.1108/QMR-06-2012-0032. Rungie, C., Uncles, M., Laurent, G., 2013. Integrating consumer characteristics into the stochastic modelling of purchase loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 47 (10), 1667– 1690. Scacco, S., 2014. Online Grocery Retailing: trend predictions for 2017. http://www.nielsen.com/au/en/insights/news/2014/promotions-not-so-specialanymore.html. Schembri, S., Boyle, M.V., 2013. Visual ethnography: achieving rigorous and authentic interpretations. J. Bus. Res. 66 (9), 1251–1254. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.021. Sherry, J.F., Jr., 2008. The ethnographer’s apprentice: trying consumer culture from the outside in. J. Bus. Ethics 80 (1), 85–95. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9448-7. Silayoi, P., Speece, M., 2004. Packaging and purchase decisions: an exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. Br. Food J. 106 (8), 607–628. doi:10.1108/00070700410553602. Silva, S., Ramos, S., 2013. Research methods in management academic programs: from where we are to where we want to go. European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies: 333-XIII. Kidmore End: Academic Conferences International Limited. (Jul 2013). Silveira, P.D., Marreiros, C.G., 2014. Exploring shopper marketing approach implications on brand communication at the point-of-purchase: an expert’s opinion qualitative study. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 30 (5), 1329–1338. . Simpson, J.A., Griskevicius, V., Rothman, A.J., 2012. Consumer decisions in relationships. J. Consum. Psychol. 22 (3), 304–314. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.007. Sunderland, P.L., Denny, R., 2003. Psychology vs. anthropology: where is culture in marketplace ethnography? In: Malefyt, T.D., Moeran, B. (Eds.), Advertising Cultures. Berg, London. Sunderland, P.L., Denny, R.M.T., 2007. Doing anthropology in consumer research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 57–82. Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C., 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining the Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Sage, Thousand oaks, CA. Tedlock, D., 1983. The Spoken Word and the Work of Interpretation. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Thompson, C.J., Arnould, E., Giesler, M., 2013. Discursivity, difference, and disruption: genealogical reflections on the consumer culture theory heteroglossia. Mark. Th. 13 (2), 149–174. Underhill, P., 2009. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping-Updated and Revised for the Internet, the Global Consumer, and Beyond. Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, New York. Wells, W.D., Lo Sciuto, L.A., 1966. Direct observation of purchasing behavior. J. Mark. Res. 3 (3), 227–233. . Widing, R.E., 2003. Customer Behaviour: consumer behaviour and beyond. Thomson Learning. Woodruffe-Burton, H., Wakenshaw, S., 2011. Revisiting experiential values of shopping: consumers’ self and identity. Mark. Intell. Plan. 29 (1), 69–85. doi:10.1108/02634501111102760. Yim, M., Yoo, S.-C., Sauer, P., Hwan, S., 2014. Hedonic shopping motivation and co-shopper influence on utilitarian grocery shopping in superstores. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 42 (5), 528–544. doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0357-2. Yoon, C., Cole, C.A., Lee, M.P., 2009. Consumer decision making and aging: current knowledge and future directions. J. Consum. Psychol. 19 (1), 2–16. doi:10.1016/ j.jcps.2008.12.002.