- Email: [email protected]
Retail borrowing: definition and retailing implications
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
Retail borrowing: de"nition and retailing implications Francis Piron *, Murray Young Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Business School, CS3-01C-103 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 637820 Bethel College Mishawaka, IN 46545, USA
Abstract This research de"nes and explores the pervasiveness of temporary merchandise purchase and use. The "ndings from a survey of 310 consumers suggest retail borrowing is quite common, especially with clothing items. Subjects provided a signi"cant range of motivations and explanations for their practice of the behavior. Implications are suggested and we develop organizational ability to maintain or improve consumers' and society's well being. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Retailing; Consumer illicit behavior; Consumer ethics
1. Introduction This paper investigates a phenomenon with a signi"cant ethical dimension: merchandise `borrowing.a Although no date could be found recording the advent of merchandise borrowing, it seems reasonable to assume that the development of the phenomenon may be contemporary to the time when retailers accepted returned merchandise in an e!ort to better satisfy their customers, thereby gaining a competitive edge. Accepting returned merchandise stems directly from retailers `e!ort to address consumersa complaints. Complaints are a serious matter to retailers since their number has almost doubled recently (NCC survey in Management Today, 1998). Interestingly, while the phenomenon has been alluded to in the literature (Coopersmith, 1990; Shulz, 1993; Bickerton and Hodge, 1992; Greenberg et al., 1979), it has not yet been formally de"ned. We o!er the following conceptual de"nition. Retail borrowing is the purchase of an item with the intent to return the same item for a refund once the item has been used, with satisfaction, for a speci"c purpose. On occasion, to comply with stores' policies that favor merchandise exchange over refunds, the borrower will have to settle for a merchandise exchange or credit. Operationally, retail borrowing takes many forms. A consumer may borrow a dress for a date and return it to the store
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #65-790-5696; fax: #65-791-3697. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Piron), youngm@ bethel-in.edu (M. Young).
after usage. Another consumer may borrow a suit to return it after a job interview. Retail borrowing may also occur via a product exchange. In this situation, a consumer who desires two products may initially purchase one item for which she/he has a short-lasting need for a speci"c occasion. Once the temporary need has been ful"lled, the item is returned and exchanged for a second product that o!ers longer lasting satisfaction. For example, a consumer may borrow a formal attire and return it for more casual wear. Ethics, or its absence, is common to all instances of retail borrowing: The `purchasea involves a degree of deceit or fraud since the product is returned once it has satis"ed the consumer's need(s). Retail borrowing can be perceived as a variant of shoplifting. Similarities between the two phenomena are discussed in the "nal section of this article. As previously stated, retail borrowing exists because of retailers' desire to handle complaints to the best of their abilities, motivated by the idea that `a good service accepts that things are wrong and "xes ita (Management Today, 1998 p. 11). The proper handling of complaints allows the retailer to o!er a solution to a problem and please an unsatis"ed customer, thus increasing the chances of customer retention (Hirschman, 1970). Dissatis"ed customers who voice their negative experience may initiate and stimulate negative word-of-mouth communication, a di$cult situation for a retailer (Richins, 1983). Complaints handling also provides the retailer with precious feedback on the quality of its products and services (Fornell and Wenerfelt, 1987). Day and Landon (1977) proposed a taxonomy to understand the complaint}response process: dissatis"ed
0969-6989/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 9
122
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
customers can either take no action or, when they act, do it publicly or privately. Private actions can then take the form of a personal boycott or negative word-of-mouth, as mentioned earlier. Unsatis"ed customers can publicize their reactions through legal actions or by seeking redress from the retailer (Stephens, 1998). In the case of retail borrowing, consumers publicly act, seeking redress from the retailer. However, in this case, the consumer is cognizant that the retailer, its services and products were not at fault. In sum, retail borrowing is an important, but little understood, behavior. The study described next attempts to address this de"ciency.
2. Procedure Retail borrowers may remain discrete about their behavior. Though not recognized as an addictive nor as an illegal consumer phenomenon, the premeditative and deceptive aspects of retail borrowing are likely to suppress admission of the behavior. In order to generate candid disclosures, it was deemed appropriate to ask a sample of shoppers to respond to anonymous, open-ended answers, rather than to administered structured surveys or individual interviews. Previous research in unusual or atypical consumer behaviors (Rook, 1987; Faber and O'Guinn, 1992) has recognized that some consumers may be embarassed to recount to others behaviors that may be perceived as non-traditional. Undergraduate students at an American university served as a subject pool. Three hundred ten participants were given time during a class in business to "ll out an open-ended questionnaire. Respondents were provided with the de"nition of retail borrowing provided earlier in this text, and were asked four questions. The "rst asked `Have you ever borrowed?a the second was `If you answered `Yes,a what product(s) have you borrowed?a The third question asked `Why did you borrow?a and the last question was ` Please, describe any particular emotion or thought you may have experienced while purchasing the item with the intention to borrow.a In order to avoid any potential lead or demand artefact, participants were only provided with the four questions and adequate blank space to respond. Finally, each participant was asked to check selected demographic data options that best described him or her. Using students as our sample was a matter of convenience. However, it should be noted that the students who participated in the research were young adults (27% were between 21 and 24 years old, and 41% were between 25 and 30 years old) who worked either part-time (46%) or full-time (31%). In Alaska, where the study was conducted, students are traditionally older than at other universities. In other words, we believe that, while students, the respondents were also consumers, thereby representative of the larger population.
2.1. Initial analysis Responses were content analyzed by two assistants, working independently. They categorized the borrowed product(s) and the reasons advanced to explain retail borrowing. This initial sort revealed that all but one instance of retail borrowing (i.e., a. set of dishes) related to clothing. A subsequent sorting categorized items as `general clothes,a `special occasion clothes,a and `other clothing.a The objective of this initial, exploratory investigation was to assess the range of behaviors, rationale, and feelings. Coders recorded all reasons, emotions and thoughts provided by the respondents on index cards. The three stacks of index cards (i.e. reasons, thoughts, emotions) were then given to two marketing professors who sorted each stack and attempted to recognize categories from the respondents' answers. Whenever disagreement arose, each judge expressed his/her reason for categorization, and the index card was eventually placed into a mutually agreed, existing or newly created category.
3. Findings Eighteen per cent of the respondent (58/310) described their personal involvement in borrowing. While female respondents made up 47% of the sample (145/310), they outnumbered male borrowers four folds (47 vs. 11). Two of the 58 respondents described two borrowing instances. As depicted in Table 1, 34 of 60 episodes related to generic and 13 related to speci"c female clothing items, while 11 reports were of male clothing items. 3.1. Reasons in support of borrowing In their narratives, the respondents provided a total of 55 reasons. Three of the 58 respondents who had
Table 1 Categories of `Borrowed Productsa Product category
Number of items
% of total
Clothes Special occasion dress Accessories Shirt Jacket Men's suit Women's suit Graduation gown Cotillion dress Blazer Sport coat Tuxedo pants Houseware
34 11 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
56 18 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total
60
100
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
borrowed declined to accompany their account with reasons. Fifty-two of the 55 reasons stated by the respondents can be grouped into "ve broad categories of needs: Social, economic, personal satisfaction, professional, and altruistic needs. The remaining three reasons formed a separate category, excuses. 1. Social need: Forty-two percent (23/55) of the reasons appear related to the ful"lment of social needs. A distinction can be made between what we labelled, self-focused vs. reference group-focused needs, with the latter needs accounting for the majority (19/23). Consumers perceived it necessary to borrow clothing items to attend and participate in social events, such as wedding (n"6), proms (n"3), special functions (n"3) and Christmas parties (n"2), `to keep up with friendsa (n"2) or miscellaneous other reasons (see Table 2). 2. Economic needs: Economic necessity seems an important reason why some consumers perceive a need to Table 2 Reasons for `Borrowing Productsa Reasons given by consumers
Number of items
% of total
Social needs To attend a wedding For a special function To go to a `proma For a social event For a christmas party To keep up with friends For social life For a party To look good in the night clubs To lock good for a date To attend a concert Total
23
42
Economic needs High prices and low income To save money Total
14 1 15
27
Other needs Work-related needs For work To impress- higher management To interview for a job Total
2 1 1 4
7
Personal satisfaction Want to look good Like to be noticed To feel better Total
5 2 1 8
14
Satisfaction of others To look good for husband For spoiled daughter Total
1 1 2
3
4
7
58
100
Miscellaneous Total
6 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
123
borrow. Twenty-seven per cent (15/55) of all borrowers cited some form of economic reasons in support of their behavior: speci"cally 14 of the 15 borrowers identi"ed a combination of high prices and low income. 3. Personal satisfaction needs: Eight respondents (14% of the borrowers) provided reasons that can be associated to a need to ful"l personal satisfaction. Five respondents stated that they borrowed clothes `to feel gooda and one respondent `to feel better.a Two respondents stated that they borrowed clothes because they `1ike to be noticed.a 4. Professional needs: Four of the respondents who had borrowed stated work-related reasons behind their behavior. In particular, one consumer borrowed `to impress higher management,a while another did it to `interview for a job,a and another `for work.a 5. Altruistic needs: Finally, two respondents gave altruistic reasons to explain their need to borrow clothes from the stores. One respondent aimed to look good for her husband, and the second wrote '1 wanted to spoil my daughter. In summary, borrowers frequently stated a `purposea for their behavior. (No respondents described wanton, purposeless borrowing.) The purpose was associated with acceptability, either in a professional or in a social context. In other words, borrowing enabled the consumer either to maintain or to acquire social acceptability, and was seen as a tool toward that goal, thus justifying the behavior. 3.2. Borrowers' emotions and cognitive reactions
1
A total of 77 emotions and thoughts were recorded from the survey (multiple responses were allowed), and were coded and classi"ed using the procedure described earlier. Three basic categories of emotions and thoughts emerged from the narratives: `Guilty vs. Not guilty feelings,a `Repentant. vs. Recidivist borrowers,a and `Blame the store.a 1. Not guilty vs. Guilty feelings: A notable number of the respondents' cognitions and emotions (n"26/77 or 33%) expressed an absence of guilt. Eighteen respondents clearly indicated feeling no guilt about their behavior, another two added that `the store could a!ord ita and yet another `did not give it a second thought.a Two other respondents thought that `as long as it's not illegal, its 0.K.a and `as long as the clothes are in good condition, it's OKa while a third indicated that `someone will eventually buy the clothes.a Other borrowers compared the behavior to a game. Guilt, in one form or another, was indicated in 21 of the 77 emotions and thoughts recorded in the study. Many emotions and thoughts (n"10/21) plainly stated the feeling of `guilta at having borrowed from the store. Others indicated that `it was wrong,a and felt `embarrassed,a while yet wished they `had not done it,a felt `remorse,a `dishonest,a `unethical.a One female
124
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
respondent added that she felt `as though [she had] stolen the dress,a while another described her becoming so nervous that something might happen to the dress before she could return it that she could not enjoy herself while wearing it. Another female respondent commented that she had to return to the store later and tell the truth to the store clerk because she felt so bad about what she had done. Interestingly, while the questionnaire did not direct the respondents to discuss the presence or absence of guilt as accompanying the behavior, 47 of their 77 (61%) emotions and cognitive reactions dealt with guilt. One third of all emotions and cognitive reactions in this category expressed consumers' absence of guilt feelings. The question of why consumers provided, while not prompted to do so, so much information about `non-experienceda emotions and thoughts merits further study. 2. Repentant vs. Recidivist Borrowers: Twenty-four thoughts and emotions were grouped in a repentant vs. recidivist category (n"12 in each category). Recidivists stated that they `would do it again,a or saw `no problem with borrowing.a One recidivist even stated that she continues to borrow whenever she feels like impressing someone. The twelve repentants made statements indicating their intention not to borrow again. One of the twelve respondents made a half-hearted commitment, stating that she does not intend to borrow again unless she becomes "nancially unstable and cannot a!ord what she needs. Another wrote that she `will quit borrowing after leaving [her] job.a 3. Blame the Store: Two respondents were of the opinion that their borrowing was caused and encouraged by stores that o!er too lenient return policies. They both felt that borrowing was the stores' responsibility. Another four respondents added comments indicating their surprise at how easy it was to borrow.
4. Discussion The results from this study provide an indication on the pervasiveness of retail borrowing. Almost one of every "ve respondents (18%) who participated in the survey described situations where they had engaged in the behavior. One dimension emerged as common to all accounts: borrowing seems triggered by the respondents' "nancial inability to project or maintain a personal image within their social or professional environments. In other words, there seems to be a discrepancy between the respondents' desired or needed social or professional status, and actual "nancial status. Considering that clothes are often an expression of one's status or taste may partly explain why all but one of the borrowing episodes described by the respondents dealt with clothing.
Interestingly, female borrowers outnumbered male respondents by more than 4 to 1. It may be that the preponderance of female fashion magazines and stores over those for males re#ect societal and cultural norms about female image. The large proportion of female borrowers could be a re#ection of females' perceived need to maintain a fashionable but expensive image. There appears to be a product e!ect, as certain categories of products can be utilized without noticeable wear. For instance, clothes can be worn for one day or a television set watched for one day and still look new, while a saw can be used for one day and be dull. Additionally, borrowing may be inadvertently encouraged by di!erential store policies that o!er lenient return privileges, such as clothing stores versus appliances outlets. Further, respondents' comments hint at the consumer discomfort with their situation. It is noteworthy that, without prompting, one third of the respondents expressed a need to explain an absence of guilt and/or advance arguments in support of their behavior. It is conceivable that such explanations are merely a veil to cover guilt and o!er self reassurance. Another 27% clearly expressed guilt. To better understand retail borrowing and borrowers' perspectives, it may be helpful to compare what has been learned from this study with what is known of shoplifting behavior. Negley (1998) identi"ed key factors that contribute to an environment supporting shoplifting: among those factors are `deep pockets,a denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemner, and appeal to higher loyalties. `Deep pocketsa relates to the perception that the retailer is a `faceless entity with unlimited fundsa (p. 13). In our study, 33% of the respondents expressed an absence of guilt. Some of those respondents indicated that `the store could a!ord it.a Some respondents also indicated a denial of responsibility and condemned the retailer, indicating that their borrowing was the store's responsibility as it was making it so easy to do. Other respondents denied injury to the retailer, stating that `someone will eventually buy the clothes,a or denied the existence of a victim, stating that `as long as the clothes are in good condition, it's OK.a Finally, as noted earlier, borrowers also appeal to higher loyalties when they borrow for economic, professional or altruistic reasons. This seminal study and its "ndings point toward a potential relationship between shoplifting and retail borrowing. Future research may want to investigate the strength of the relationship, identifying other similar emotions and cognitions across the two phenomena. Such implications are tentative at best. Characteristics of this study, such as a lack of formal hypotheses, experimental design and treatment(s) are to be expected in truly exploratory research. But, clearly additional research is needed.
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
5. Conclusion Retail borrowing may be quite pervasive. Patrick et al., 1992 state that some stores' return policies of no-questions-asked are `sometimes abused by shoppers (who may, for example, order an expensive dress, wear it to a party, and then return it)a (p. 346). Greenberg et al.'s (1979) pro"le of heavy- and non-returners found frequent merchandise returners tended to be high-income bargain seekers; non-returners are cautious, low-income buyers. The Greenberg et al. (1979) study, though, does not di!erentiate between legitimate and illegitimate returns since it is di$cult, if not impossible, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate returns at the (pre)purchase stage. To better understand the phenomenon of retail borrowing, researchers should investigate the extent of preparation or planning that accompanies the decision to borrow. For example, research indicates that `two thirds of shoplifters say they decide to steal after they enter the storea (Gips, 1998). Other research (Chang, 1998) indicates that the `theory of planned behavior is better than [the] theory of reasoned action in predicting unethical behaviora (p. 1830). The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is an extension to the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), adding a component, perceived behavioral control, as the determinant of behavioral intentions. More speci"cally, to prevent retail borrowing or other unethical behaviors, retailers must increase the perceived behavioral control. In turn, this may be achieved by reducing the opportunities for retail borrowing. From a managerial perspective, the e!ects of retail borrowing may be signi"cant. E!ective handling of merchandise returns is a critical element of customer satisfaction. As noted by Patrick et al., (1992 p. 346), to build customer goodwill, `the shift [among retailers] has been to a cash refund policy so as not to o!end good customers.a Abuse of the policy could lead retailers to curtail or eliminate a valuable, consumer-oriented, service. Research in the consumer complaint area may provide retailers with a structure on which to base their return policy. Speci"cally, Management Today (1998) states that: many retailers operate with the safety net of a twotier system. Complaints can either be dealt with on the spot at the point-of-purchase or taken to the higher authority of a centralized department (p. 11). Similarly, repeat borrowers could be asked to communicate with the higher authority of the company and to "ll out numerous forms, etc. thus discouraging the behavior
125
by altering the convenience, simplicity, and anonymity of present return policies. From a societal perspective, the e!ects of retail borrowing may also be important. The retailer passes on the cost of handling or processing returned merchandise to the consumer. Borrowed items may need cleaning, repackaging, or other refurbishment, the costs of which are borne by consumers. And, should the phenomenon become pervasive in some product categories, consumers may be concerned that items for sale may have been previously borrowed. In addition, a continued tolerance of retail borrowing may increase its acceptability. Consumers need to be educated about the cost of retail borrowing, just as consumers are becoming educated about the cost of shoplifting, which is eventually passed on to them.
References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 50, 179}211. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ. Bickerton, D., Hodge, G.T., 1992. Refund fraud. Retail Business Review 60, 26}28. Coopersmith, J., 1990. Many happy returns. Catalog Age 7, 93}94. Day, R.L., Landon, E.L., 1977. Toward a theory of consumer complaining behavior. In: Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N., Bennett, P.D. (Eds.), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. North Holland, New York, pp. 425}437. Faber, R.J., O'Guinn, T.C., 1992. A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (3), 459}469. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Addsion-Wesley, Reading, MA. Fornell, C., Wenerfelt, B., 1987. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research XXIV, 337}346. Gips, M., 1998. Wherefore art thou shoplifter? Security Management 42 (8), 13. Greenberg, B., Dellenger, D., Robertson, D., Parameswaran, R., 1979. An analysis of return-prone consumers. Proceedings of 1979 Southern Marketing Association Meetings, pp. 252}258. National Consumer Council 1998. Management Today. (December). Negley, J., 1998. An environment of mutual respect can curtail shoplifting. Discount Store News, New York 37-9 (May 11), 13}14. Patrick, D., Lusch, R., Gable, M., Gebhardt, R., 1992. Retailing. SouthWestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 344}346. Richins, M.L., 1983. Negative word-of-mouth by dissatis"ed consumers: a pilot study. Journal of Marketing 47, 68}78. Rook, D.W., 1987. The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (2), 189}199. Shulz, D.P., 1993. Refund Authorization. Stores 75, 26. Stephens, N., 1998. Why don't some people complain? A cognitiveemotive process model of consumer complaint behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 26 (3), 172}189.
Retail borrowing: de"nition and retailing implications Francis Piron *, Murray Young Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang Business School, CS3-01C-103 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 637820 Bethel College Mishawaka, IN 46545, USA
Abstract This research de"nes and explores the pervasiveness of temporary merchandise purchase and use. The "ndings from a survey of 310 consumers suggest retail borrowing is quite common, especially with clothing items. Subjects provided a signi"cant range of motivations and explanations for their practice of the behavior. Implications are suggested and we develop organizational ability to maintain or improve consumers' and society's well being. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Retailing; Consumer illicit behavior; Consumer ethics
1. Introduction This paper investigates a phenomenon with a signi"cant ethical dimension: merchandise `borrowing.a Although no date could be found recording the advent of merchandise borrowing, it seems reasonable to assume that the development of the phenomenon may be contemporary to the time when retailers accepted returned merchandise in an e!ort to better satisfy their customers, thereby gaining a competitive edge. Accepting returned merchandise stems directly from retailers `e!ort to address consumersa complaints. Complaints are a serious matter to retailers since their number has almost doubled recently (NCC survey in Management Today, 1998). Interestingly, while the phenomenon has been alluded to in the literature (Coopersmith, 1990; Shulz, 1993; Bickerton and Hodge, 1992; Greenberg et al., 1979), it has not yet been formally de"ned. We o!er the following conceptual de"nition. Retail borrowing is the purchase of an item with the intent to return the same item for a refund once the item has been used, with satisfaction, for a speci"c purpose. On occasion, to comply with stores' policies that favor merchandise exchange over refunds, the borrower will have to settle for a merchandise exchange or credit. Operationally, retail borrowing takes many forms. A consumer may borrow a dress for a date and return it to the store
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #65-790-5696; fax: #65-791-3697. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Piron), youngm@ bethel-in.edu (M. Young).
after usage. Another consumer may borrow a suit to return it after a job interview. Retail borrowing may also occur via a product exchange. In this situation, a consumer who desires two products may initially purchase one item for which she/he has a short-lasting need for a speci"c occasion. Once the temporary need has been ful"lled, the item is returned and exchanged for a second product that o!ers longer lasting satisfaction. For example, a consumer may borrow a formal attire and return it for more casual wear. Ethics, or its absence, is common to all instances of retail borrowing: The `purchasea involves a degree of deceit or fraud since the product is returned once it has satis"ed the consumer's need(s). Retail borrowing can be perceived as a variant of shoplifting. Similarities between the two phenomena are discussed in the "nal section of this article. As previously stated, retail borrowing exists because of retailers' desire to handle complaints to the best of their abilities, motivated by the idea that `a good service accepts that things are wrong and "xes ita (Management Today, 1998 p. 11). The proper handling of complaints allows the retailer to o!er a solution to a problem and please an unsatis"ed customer, thus increasing the chances of customer retention (Hirschman, 1970). Dissatis"ed customers who voice their negative experience may initiate and stimulate negative word-of-mouth communication, a di$cult situation for a retailer (Richins, 1983). Complaints handling also provides the retailer with precious feedback on the quality of its products and services (Fornell and Wenerfelt, 1987). Day and Landon (1977) proposed a taxonomy to understand the complaint}response process: dissatis"ed
0969-6989/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 2 2 - 9
122
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
customers can either take no action or, when they act, do it publicly or privately. Private actions can then take the form of a personal boycott or negative word-of-mouth, as mentioned earlier. Unsatis"ed customers can publicize their reactions through legal actions or by seeking redress from the retailer (Stephens, 1998). In the case of retail borrowing, consumers publicly act, seeking redress from the retailer. However, in this case, the consumer is cognizant that the retailer, its services and products were not at fault. In sum, retail borrowing is an important, but little understood, behavior. The study described next attempts to address this de"ciency.
2. Procedure Retail borrowers may remain discrete about their behavior. Though not recognized as an addictive nor as an illegal consumer phenomenon, the premeditative and deceptive aspects of retail borrowing are likely to suppress admission of the behavior. In order to generate candid disclosures, it was deemed appropriate to ask a sample of shoppers to respond to anonymous, open-ended answers, rather than to administered structured surveys or individual interviews. Previous research in unusual or atypical consumer behaviors (Rook, 1987; Faber and O'Guinn, 1992) has recognized that some consumers may be embarassed to recount to others behaviors that may be perceived as non-traditional. Undergraduate students at an American university served as a subject pool. Three hundred ten participants were given time during a class in business to "ll out an open-ended questionnaire. Respondents were provided with the de"nition of retail borrowing provided earlier in this text, and were asked four questions. The "rst asked `Have you ever borrowed?a the second was `If you answered `Yes,a what product(s) have you borrowed?a The third question asked `Why did you borrow?a and the last question was ` Please, describe any particular emotion or thought you may have experienced while purchasing the item with the intention to borrow.a In order to avoid any potential lead or demand artefact, participants were only provided with the four questions and adequate blank space to respond. Finally, each participant was asked to check selected demographic data options that best described him or her. Using students as our sample was a matter of convenience. However, it should be noted that the students who participated in the research were young adults (27% were between 21 and 24 years old, and 41% were between 25 and 30 years old) who worked either part-time (46%) or full-time (31%). In Alaska, where the study was conducted, students are traditionally older than at other universities. In other words, we believe that, while students, the respondents were also consumers, thereby representative of the larger population.
2.1. Initial analysis Responses were content analyzed by two assistants, working independently. They categorized the borrowed product(s) and the reasons advanced to explain retail borrowing. This initial sort revealed that all but one instance of retail borrowing (i.e., a. set of dishes) related to clothing. A subsequent sorting categorized items as `general clothes,a `special occasion clothes,a and `other clothing.a The objective of this initial, exploratory investigation was to assess the range of behaviors, rationale, and feelings. Coders recorded all reasons, emotions and thoughts provided by the respondents on index cards. The three stacks of index cards (i.e. reasons, thoughts, emotions) were then given to two marketing professors who sorted each stack and attempted to recognize categories from the respondents' answers. Whenever disagreement arose, each judge expressed his/her reason for categorization, and the index card was eventually placed into a mutually agreed, existing or newly created category.
3. Findings Eighteen per cent of the respondent (58/310) described their personal involvement in borrowing. While female respondents made up 47% of the sample (145/310), they outnumbered male borrowers four folds (47 vs. 11). Two of the 58 respondents described two borrowing instances. As depicted in Table 1, 34 of 60 episodes related to generic and 13 related to speci"c female clothing items, while 11 reports were of male clothing items. 3.1. Reasons in support of borrowing In their narratives, the respondents provided a total of 55 reasons. Three of the 58 respondents who had
Table 1 Categories of `Borrowed Productsa Product category
Number of items
% of total
Clothes Special occasion dress Accessories Shirt Jacket Men's suit Women's suit Graduation gown Cotillion dress Blazer Sport coat Tuxedo pants Houseware
34 11 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
56 18 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Total
60
100
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
borrowed declined to accompany their account with reasons. Fifty-two of the 55 reasons stated by the respondents can be grouped into "ve broad categories of needs: Social, economic, personal satisfaction, professional, and altruistic needs. The remaining three reasons formed a separate category, excuses. 1. Social need: Forty-two percent (23/55) of the reasons appear related to the ful"lment of social needs. A distinction can be made between what we labelled, self-focused vs. reference group-focused needs, with the latter needs accounting for the majority (19/23). Consumers perceived it necessary to borrow clothing items to attend and participate in social events, such as wedding (n"6), proms (n"3), special functions (n"3) and Christmas parties (n"2), `to keep up with friendsa (n"2) or miscellaneous other reasons (see Table 2). 2. Economic needs: Economic necessity seems an important reason why some consumers perceive a need to Table 2 Reasons for `Borrowing Productsa Reasons given by consumers
Number of items
% of total
Social needs To attend a wedding For a special function To go to a `proma For a social event For a christmas party To keep up with friends For social life For a party To look good in the night clubs To lock good for a date To attend a concert Total
23
42
Economic needs High prices and low income To save money Total
14 1 15
27
Other needs Work-related needs For work To impress- higher management To interview for a job Total
2 1 1 4
7
Personal satisfaction Want to look good Like to be noticed To feel better Total
5 2 1 8
14
Satisfaction of others To look good for husband For spoiled daughter Total
1 1 2
3
4
7
58
100
Miscellaneous Total
6 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
123
borrow. Twenty-seven per cent (15/55) of all borrowers cited some form of economic reasons in support of their behavior: speci"cally 14 of the 15 borrowers identi"ed a combination of high prices and low income. 3. Personal satisfaction needs: Eight respondents (14% of the borrowers) provided reasons that can be associated to a need to ful"l personal satisfaction. Five respondents stated that they borrowed clothes `to feel gooda and one respondent `to feel better.a Two respondents stated that they borrowed clothes because they `1ike to be noticed.a 4. Professional needs: Four of the respondents who had borrowed stated work-related reasons behind their behavior. In particular, one consumer borrowed `to impress higher management,a while another did it to `interview for a job,a and another `for work.a 5. Altruistic needs: Finally, two respondents gave altruistic reasons to explain their need to borrow clothes from the stores. One respondent aimed to look good for her husband, and the second wrote '1 wanted to spoil my daughter. In summary, borrowers frequently stated a `purposea for their behavior. (No respondents described wanton, purposeless borrowing.) The purpose was associated with acceptability, either in a professional or in a social context. In other words, borrowing enabled the consumer either to maintain or to acquire social acceptability, and was seen as a tool toward that goal, thus justifying the behavior. 3.2. Borrowers' emotions and cognitive reactions
1
A total of 77 emotions and thoughts were recorded from the survey (multiple responses were allowed), and were coded and classi"ed using the procedure described earlier. Three basic categories of emotions and thoughts emerged from the narratives: `Guilty vs. Not guilty feelings,a `Repentant. vs. Recidivist borrowers,a and `Blame the store.a 1. Not guilty vs. Guilty feelings: A notable number of the respondents' cognitions and emotions (n"26/77 or 33%) expressed an absence of guilt. Eighteen respondents clearly indicated feeling no guilt about their behavior, another two added that `the store could a!ord ita and yet another `did not give it a second thought.a Two other respondents thought that `as long as it's not illegal, its 0.K.a and `as long as the clothes are in good condition, it's OKa while a third indicated that `someone will eventually buy the clothes.a Other borrowers compared the behavior to a game. Guilt, in one form or another, was indicated in 21 of the 77 emotions and thoughts recorded in the study. Many emotions and thoughts (n"10/21) plainly stated the feeling of `guilta at having borrowed from the store. Others indicated that `it was wrong,a and felt `embarrassed,a while yet wished they `had not done it,a felt `remorse,a `dishonest,a `unethical.a One female
124
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
respondent added that she felt `as though [she had] stolen the dress,a while another described her becoming so nervous that something might happen to the dress before she could return it that she could not enjoy herself while wearing it. Another female respondent commented that she had to return to the store later and tell the truth to the store clerk because she felt so bad about what she had done. Interestingly, while the questionnaire did not direct the respondents to discuss the presence or absence of guilt as accompanying the behavior, 47 of their 77 (61%) emotions and cognitive reactions dealt with guilt. One third of all emotions and cognitive reactions in this category expressed consumers' absence of guilt feelings. The question of why consumers provided, while not prompted to do so, so much information about `non-experienceda emotions and thoughts merits further study. 2. Repentant vs. Recidivist Borrowers: Twenty-four thoughts and emotions were grouped in a repentant vs. recidivist category (n"12 in each category). Recidivists stated that they `would do it again,a or saw `no problem with borrowing.a One recidivist even stated that she continues to borrow whenever she feels like impressing someone. The twelve repentants made statements indicating their intention not to borrow again. One of the twelve respondents made a half-hearted commitment, stating that she does not intend to borrow again unless she becomes "nancially unstable and cannot a!ord what she needs. Another wrote that she `will quit borrowing after leaving [her] job.a 3. Blame the Store: Two respondents were of the opinion that their borrowing was caused and encouraged by stores that o!er too lenient return policies. They both felt that borrowing was the stores' responsibility. Another four respondents added comments indicating their surprise at how easy it was to borrow.
4. Discussion The results from this study provide an indication on the pervasiveness of retail borrowing. Almost one of every "ve respondents (18%) who participated in the survey described situations where they had engaged in the behavior. One dimension emerged as common to all accounts: borrowing seems triggered by the respondents' "nancial inability to project or maintain a personal image within their social or professional environments. In other words, there seems to be a discrepancy between the respondents' desired or needed social or professional status, and actual "nancial status. Considering that clothes are often an expression of one's status or taste may partly explain why all but one of the borrowing episodes described by the respondents dealt with clothing.
Interestingly, female borrowers outnumbered male respondents by more than 4 to 1. It may be that the preponderance of female fashion magazines and stores over those for males re#ect societal and cultural norms about female image. The large proportion of female borrowers could be a re#ection of females' perceived need to maintain a fashionable but expensive image. There appears to be a product e!ect, as certain categories of products can be utilized without noticeable wear. For instance, clothes can be worn for one day or a television set watched for one day and still look new, while a saw can be used for one day and be dull. Additionally, borrowing may be inadvertently encouraged by di!erential store policies that o!er lenient return privileges, such as clothing stores versus appliances outlets. Further, respondents' comments hint at the consumer discomfort with their situation. It is noteworthy that, without prompting, one third of the respondents expressed a need to explain an absence of guilt and/or advance arguments in support of their behavior. It is conceivable that such explanations are merely a veil to cover guilt and o!er self reassurance. Another 27% clearly expressed guilt. To better understand retail borrowing and borrowers' perspectives, it may be helpful to compare what has been learned from this study with what is known of shoplifting behavior. Negley (1998) identi"ed key factors that contribute to an environment supporting shoplifting: among those factors are `deep pockets,a denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of the condemner, and appeal to higher loyalties. `Deep pocketsa relates to the perception that the retailer is a `faceless entity with unlimited fundsa (p. 13). In our study, 33% of the respondents expressed an absence of guilt. Some of those respondents indicated that `the store could a!ord it.a Some respondents also indicated a denial of responsibility and condemned the retailer, indicating that their borrowing was the store's responsibility as it was making it so easy to do. Other respondents denied injury to the retailer, stating that `someone will eventually buy the clothes,a or denied the existence of a victim, stating that `as long as the clothes are in good condition, it's OK.a Finally, as noted earlier, borrowers also appeal to higher loyalties when they borrow for economic, professional or altruistic reasons. This seminal study and its "ndings point toward a potential relationship between shoplifting and retail borrowing. Future research may want to investigate the strength of the relationship, identifying other similar emotions and cognitions across the two phenomena. Such implications are tentative at best. Characteristics of this study, such as a lack of formal hypotheses, experimental design and treatment(s) are to be expected in truly exploratory research. But, clearly additional research is needed.
F. Piron, M. Young / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 121}125
5. Conclusion Retail borrowing may be quite pervasive. Patrick et al., 1992 state that some stores' return policies of no-questions-asked are `sometimes abused by shoppers (who may, for example, order an expensive dress, wear it to a party, and then return it)a (p. 346). Greenberg et al.'s (1979) pro"le of heavy- and non-returners found frequent merchandise returners tended to be high-income bargain seekers; non-returners are cautious, low-income buyers. The Greenberg et al. (1979) study, though, does not di!erentiate between legitimate and illegitimate returns since it is di$cult, if not impossible, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate returns at the (pre)purchase stage. To better understand the phenomenon of retail borrowing, researchers should investigate the extent of preparation or planning that accompanies the decision to borrow. For example, research indicates that `two thirds of shoplifters say they decide to steal after they enter the storea (Gips, 1998). Other research (Chang, 1998) indicates that the `theory of planned behavior is better than [the] theory of reasoned action in predicting unethical behaviora (p. 1830). The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is an extension to the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), adding a component, perceived behavioral control, as the determinant of behavioral intentions. More speci"cally, to prevent retail borrowing or other unethical behaviors, retailers must increase the perceived behavioral control. In turn, this may be achieved by reducing the opportunities for retail borrowing. From a managerial perspective, the e!ects of retail borrowing may be signi"cant. E!ective handling of merchandise returns is a critical element of customer satisfaction. As noted by Patrick et al., (1992 p. 346), to build customer goodwill, `the shift [among retailers] has been to a cash refund policy so as not to o!end good customers.a Abuse of the policy could lead retailers to curtail or eliminate a valuable, consumer-oriented, service. Research in the consumer complaint area may provide retailers with a structure on which to base their return policy. Speci"cally, Management Today (1998) states that: many retailers operate with the safety net of a twotier system. Complaints can either be dealt with on the spot at the point-of-purchase or taken to the higher authority of a centralized department (p. 11). Similarly, repeat borrowers could be asked to communicate with the higher authority of the company and to "ll out numerous forms, etc. thus discouraging the behavior
125
by altering the convenience, simplicity, and anonymity of present return policies. From a societal perspective, the e!ects of retail borrowing may also be important. The retailer passes on the cost of handling or processing returned merchandise to the consumer. Borrowed items may need cleaning, repackaging, or other refurbishment, the costs of which are borne by consumers. And, should the phenomenon become pervasive in some product categories, consumers may be concerned that items for sale may have been previously borrowed. In addition, a continued tolerance of retail borrowing may increase its acceptability. Consumers need to be educated about the cost of retail borrowing, just as consumers are becoming educated about the cost of shoplifting, which is eventually passed on to them.
References Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 50, 179}211. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cli!s, NJ. Bickerton, D., Hodge, G.T., 1992. Refund fraud. Retail Business Review 60, 26}28. Coopersmith, J., 1990. Many happy returns. Catalog Age 7, 93}94. Day, R.L., Landon, E.L., 1977. Toward a theory of consumer complaining behavior. In: Woodside, A.G., Sheth, J.N., Bennett, P.D. (Eds.), Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. North Holland, New York, pp. 425}437. Faber, R.J., O'Guinn, T.C., 1992. A clinical screener for compulsive buying. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (3), 459}469. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Addsion-Wesley, Reading, MA. Fornell, C., Wenerfelt, B., 1987. Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research XXIV, 337}346. Gips, M., 1998. Wherefore art thou shoplifter? Security Management 42 (8), 13. Greenberg, B., Dellenger, D., Robertson, D., Parameswaran, R., 1979. An analysis of return-prone consumers. Proceedings of 1979 Southern Marketing Association Meetings, pp. 252}258. National Consumer Council 1998. Management Today. (December). Negley, J., 1998. An environment of mutual respect can curtail shoplifting. Discount Store News, New York 37-9 (May 11), 13}14. Patrick, D., Lusch, R., Gable, M., Gebhardt, R., 1992. Retailing. SouthWestern Publishing, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 344}346. Richins, M.L., 1983. Negative word-of-mouth by dissatis"ed consumers: a pilot study. Journal of Marketing 47, 68}78. Rook, D.W., 1987. The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (2), 189}199. Shulz, D.P., 1993. Refund Authorization. Stores 75, 26. Stephens, N., 1998. Why don't some people complain? A cognitiveemotive process model of consumer complaint behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 26 (3), 172}189.