Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95
Hedonic shopping motivations

Mark J. Arnold a,∗ , Kristy E. Reynolds b
a Department of Marketing, John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
bDepartment of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Accepted 12 February 2003
Abstract
Given the increasing importance of entertainment as a retailing strategy, this study identifies a comprehensive inventory of consumers’
hedonic shopping motivations. Based on exploratory qualitative and quantitative studies, a six-factor scale is developed that consists of
adventure, gratification, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations. Using the six-factor hedonic shopping motivation profiles, a cluster
analysis of adult consumers reveals five shopper segments, called here the Minimalists, the Gatherers, the Providers, the Enthusiasts, and the
Traditionalists. The utility of the proposed scale is discussed both for future research and retail strategy.
© 2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hedonic shopping; Scale development; Shopping motivations; Hedonic consumption; Retail strategy; Shopper segments
Over the years, retailers have been buffeted by a num- landscape the hedonic experiences that a customer can now
ber of macro-environmental forces that have changed the obtain are virtually endless: from rock-climbing walls in
landscape of the industry. These include the spread of mass shoe stores, to “singles nights” in grocery stores, to off-road
discounters, the proliferation of suburban power centers test tracks in Land Rover dealerships (e.g., Fournier, 1996).
and lifestyle retailing formats, and the recent arrival of the While retailers are focusing more on entertainment,
Internet as an alternative retail platform offering consumers academic research is lagging in investigating the hedonic
unparalleled convenience. For example, the July 1998 cover reasons people go shopping. For example, the last compre-
of Time magazine predicted the demise of the shopping hensive effort at examining shopping motivations occurred
mall: “Kiss Your Mall Good-Bye: Online Shopping is some time ago (Westbrook & Black, 1985), and the retail
Cheaper, Quicker and Better.” landscape has changed dramatically since then. Recent re-
In this environment it is no longer enough for a retailer to tail research is beginning to focus on the hedonic aspects
operate in a conventional manner by enticing customers with of the in-store experience, such as the affective response of
broad assortments, low pricing, and extended store hours. excitement (Wakefield & Baker, 1998). However, no recent
The entertainment aspect of retailing, or “entertailing,” is in- research has investigated, in a comprehensive manner, the
creasingly being recognized as a key competitive tool. Many multiple and varied hedonic reasons, or motivations, that
retailers are responding to the threat of Internet-based shop- people go shopping. Therefore, given the current focus by
ping by leveraging the “brick-and-mortar” advantages that retailers on the hedonic aspects of shopping and the general
virtual retailers cannot match: higher levels of service, highly lack of academic activity in this area, there is clearly a need
trained staff, and an entertaining and fun retail environment for research on this issue.
(Burke, 1997; Cope, 1996; Wakefield & Baker, 1998). Re- This study investigates the hedonic reasons people go
tailers from supermarkets to video stores are sporting new shopping. Based on qualitative and quantitative studies, a
and exciting ideas, such as animatronic farm animals, butter scale that measures hedonic shopping motivations is de-
churning contests, and roaming face painters and children’s veloped and validated. Simply put, a sound measurement
performers (Buss, 1997). In fact, in this evolving retail instrument provides a foundation for future research inves-
tigating the interrelationships between hedonic motivations,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-314-977-3612 (Office)/3868 (Depart- in-store experiences, shopping outcomes (e.g., satisfaction),
ment); fax: +1-314-977-1481. and specific shopping behaviors such as impulse buying.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.J. Arnold). Further, retailers would have a tool that could be employed to
0022-4359/03/$ – see front matter © 2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1
78 M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95
examine current and potential patrons, thereby providing shoppers have previously described themselves as a “kid in
guidance for store design and marketing communications a candy store” when engaged in holiday shopping, often ex-
strategy. pressing excitement, increased arousal, and a deep sense of
Therefore, the major objectives of this research include: enjoyment in shopping for others (Fischer & Arnold, 1990,
p. 334). Informants have expressed a sense of escapism while
1. Qualitatively investigate the hedonic reasons people go
shopping, often describing the shopping trip as an adventure:
shopping;
“Shopping is . . . an adventure. When you can’t or don’t find
2. Develop and purify a scale measuring hedonic shopping
[what you’re after] it’s o.k. because there are lots of other
motivations;
places to look” (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646). Shoppers have
3. Validate the hedonic shopping motivations scale on a
also described the enjoyment of bargaining and haggling
separate sample of shoppers;
(Sherry, 1990) and the mood-altering qualities of the shop-
4. Construct a taxonomy of shoppers based on their hedonic
ping experience (Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1990). In
shopping motivations.
summarizing these aspects of shopping, Sherry (1990) con-
The remainder of this paper is divided into four major cludes that the “seeking of such experiences is often far more
sections. First, we discuss the theoretical background and significant than the mere acquisition of products” (p. 27; see
previous research that has been conducted in this area. Sec- also Babin et al., 1994).
ond, we present the results of a qualitative investigation into
hedonic shopping motivations, and discuss our findings in Shopping motivations
relation to existing theory. Based on this we then develop an
initial pool of scale items. Third, we present the results of a Early studies developed taxonomies of retail shoppers, of-
multi-sample investigation that serves to purify and validate ten in an attempt to infer shopping motivations from distinct
the hedonic shopping motivation scale. Finally, we provide “types” of shoppers, such as the “economic,” or “apathetic”
a general discussion of the findings, as well as limitations shopper (Stone, 1954). Other studies have developed tax-
of the study and directions for future research. onomies based on orientations to product usage (Dardin
& Reynolds, 1971), actual patronage and shopping behav-
ior (Stephenson & Willett, 1969), shopping-related AIO
Background and review of literature items (Moschis, 1976), shopping enjoyment (Bellenger &
Korgaonkar, 1980), and retail attribute preferences (Bellenger,
Shopping research has long focused on the utilitarian Robertson, & Greenberg, 1977; Dardin & Ashton, 1974).
aspects of the shopping experience, which has often been In a widely cited study, Tauber (1972) developed a num-
characterized as task-related and rational (Batra & Ahtola, ber of shopping motivations, with the basic premise that
1991) and related closely to whether or not a product ac- shoppers are motivated by a variety of psychosocial needs
quisition “mission” was accomplished (Babin, Darden, & other than those strictly related to acquiring some product.
Griffin, 1994). However, traditional product acquisition ex- These motives can be classified into personal (i.e., role play-
planations may not fully reflect the totality of the shopping ing, diversion, self-gratification, learning about new trends,
experience (Bloch & Richins, 1983). Because of this, the physical activity and sensory stimulation), and social (i.e.,
last several years have seen resurgent interest in shopping’s social experiences, communication with others, peer group
hedonic aspects, particularly as researchers have recognized attractions, status and authority, and pleasure of bargaining).
the importance of its potential entertainment and emotional Shopping thus occurs when a consumer’s need for a par-
worth (Babin et al., 1994; Langrehr, 1991; Roy, 1994; ticular good is sufficient for allocating time and money to
Wakefield & Baker, 1998). travel to a store to go shopping, or when a consumer “needs
Hedonic consumption has been defined as those facets of attention, wants to be with peers, desires to meet people
behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy, and emo- with similar interests, feels a need to exercise, or simply has
tive aspects of consumption (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). leisure time” (Tauber, 1972, p. 48).
This view suggests that consumption is driven by the fun Westbrook and Black (1985) linked Tauber’s (1972)
a consumer has in using the product, and the criteria for framework to McGuire’s (1974) typology of 16 funda-
“success” are essentially aesthetic in nature (Holbrook & mental human motivations, suggesting that shopping be-
Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic shopping motives are similar to havior arises for three fundamental reasons: to acquire a
the task orientation of utilitarian shopping motives, only the product, to acquire both a desired product and provide
“task” is concerned with hedonic fulfillment, such as expe- satisfaction with non-product-related needs, or to primar-
riencing fun, amusement, fantasy, and sensory stimulation ily attain goals not related to product acquisition. These
(Babin et al., 1994). fundamental shopping motives are captured in seven dimen-
Although the “festive and ludic” aspects of shopping have sions of shopping motivation labeled, “anticipated utility,”
generally been studied infrequently (Sherry, 1990), hedo- “role enactment,” “negotiation,” “choice optimization,”
nic aspects of shopping motivation have been uncovered in “affiliation,” “power/authority,” and “stimulation.” While
related phenomenological inquiry. For example, Christmas all motivations can be described as containing both hedonic
M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 79
and utilitarian elements, Westbrook and Black (1985) note grounds. The final sample included 33 men and 65 women,
that some are more utilitarian in nature while others are ranging from 18 to 55 years of age. A variety of occupations
more hedonic in nature. We focus here on motivations that and income levels were represented.
are primarily hedonic and non-product in nature. The interviewers were given a discussion guide and very
specific instructions as to how to conduct the interviews.
Interviewers provided a brief description of the goal of the
Qualitative inquiry and initial scale development depth interview, and respondents were first asked to think
about shopping in general, in stores and/or malls (exclud-
We rely on the accepted paradigm for scale development ing grocery shopping), and to describe reasons why they go
provided by (Churchill, 1979) and augmented by others shopping, how they felt when shopping, and benefits they
(e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1982; Bagozzi, 1980; Bentler & received from shopping. The interviewers were instructed
Bonnet, 1980; Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; to probe the reasons, feelings, and benefits in depth by ask-
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Peter, 1981). Fig. 1 summa- ing extensive follow-up questions. All depth interviews were
rizes the scale development procedures employed here, and tape recorded and transcribed. Each respondent’s name and
the procedures are discussed in detail in subsequent sections. daytime telephone number were recorded for research verifi-
cation purposes, and each respondent was assured of his/her
Qualitative inquiry anonymity (i.e., no names were attached to the interview
notes). To ensure data quality, a random sample of respon-
Depth interviews were used to uncover the hedonic rea- dents was contacted to validate the interview, and no abnor-
sons people shop. This method was employed because it malities were noted.
provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon from the The interviews were read thoroughly many times by a
consumer’s perspective (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). Respon- coding team (one of the authors and two graduate students).
dents were recruited on a referral basis—98 undergraduate Each member of the team (individually) identified and listed
students were asked to provide the name and demographic recurring themes in the data, using a categorizing process
characteristics of a friend or family member who would be developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). This involved sort-
willing to participate in a depth interview. Strict guidelines ing themes into categories based on similar characteristics.
were given to ensure a diverse sample of shoppers with re- Then, the three members met to discuss the key themes (mo-
gards to age, occupation, gender, income, and reasons for tivations for shopping) and illustrative quotes from the data.
shopping. The students were instructed not to include other The goal at this point was to search for commonalities that
college students, and the initial list of respondents was pre- allowed for the most accurate representation of each domain
screened by the authors to ensure that the sample would and to develop conceptual definitions of the motivations. In
include respondents with differing points of view and back- addition, labels for each motivation were constructed, and
Fig. 1. Scale development process.

disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two market- interpersonal relationships. A significant amount of prior re-
ing faculty members familiar with the topic area evaluated search has uncovered social aspects of shopping motivation.
the motivations (accompanied by illustrative quotes from Stone (1954) first identified a “personalizing” shopper, one
the data) and the corresponding conceptual definitions for who seeks personal relationships while shopping, whereas
content validity. Moschis (1976) acknowledged a “psychosocializing” shop-
per. Tauber (1972) also recognized that shoppers desire
Qualitative results and domain definitions social interaction outside the home, communicating with
others having similar interests, and affiliating with reference
Six broad categories of hedonic shopping motivations groups. In addition, Westbrook and Black (1985) identified
emerged from the data. Appendix A illustrates sample com- “affiliation” as a shopping motivation, and Reynolds and
ments from informants for each of the six categories which Beatty (1999) discuss social motivations for shopping.
we have labeled as the following: “adventure shopping,” “so-
cial shopping,” “gratification shopping,” “idea shopping,” Gratification shopping
“role shopping,” and “value shopping.” Each of these mo- A third category is labeled “gratification shopping,” which
tivations is briefly defined and discussed in light of theo- involves shopping for stress relief, shopping to alleviate a
retical explanations of human motivation and prior research negative mood, and shopping as a special treat to oneself.
findings. Several respondents admitted that they go shopping to re-
lieve stress or to forget about their problems. Other infor-
Adventure shopping mants view the shopping experience as a way to wind down,
The first category is labeled “adventure shopping,” which relax, improve a negative mood, or just treat themselves.
refers to shopping for stimulation, adventure, and the feeling Gratification shopping is grounded in McGuire’s (1974)
of being in another world. A significant number of respon- collection of tension-reduction theories of human motivation
dents reported that they go shopping for the sheer excite- (e.g., Freud, 1933), which suggests that humans are moti-
ment and adventure of the shopping trip. These informants vated to act is such a way as to reduce tension, thereby main-
often described the shopping experience in terms of adven- taining inner equilibrium and returning the self to a state
ture, thrills, stimulation, excitement, and entering a different of homeostasis. Babin et al. (1994) recognized the value
universe of exciting sights, smells, and sounds. of shopping as a self-gratifying, escapist, and therapeutic
Adventure shopping is grounded in stimulation theo- activity, describing respondents who view shopping as a
ries (e.g., Berlyne, 1969) and expressive theories (e.g., “pick-me-up” and a “lift” when they feel depressed. Tauber
Huizinga, 1970; see also Sherry, 1990) of human moti- (1972) also identified the self-gratifying benefits of shop-
vation as described by McGuire (1974). These theories ping, such that the process of shopping to make the shopper
are externally oriented, and stress the need for stimula- feel better. Finally, shopping has been acknowledged in the
tion and self-expression through play and creativity among literature as a form of emotion-focused coping in response
human organisms. Adventure shopping is also similar to to stressful events or simply to get one’s mind off a problem
prior findings which show that shoppers often seek sensory (Lee, Moschis, & Mathur, 2001).
stimulation while shopping. For example, Tauber (1972),
Westbrook and Black (1985) uncovered the personal shop- Idea shopping
ping motive of sensory stimulation, Babin et al. (1994) A fourth category we label “idea shopping,” which refers
refer to adventurous aspects of shopping as a factor that to shopping to keep up with trends and new fashions, and to
may produce hedonic shopping value, and Jarboe and see new products and innovations. A significant number of
McDaniel (1987) identified shoppers (labeled “browsers”) both females and males reported that they shop to keep up
who enjoyed exploring and window shopping. with the latest trends and fashions. Other informants describe
shopping as a way to keep abreast with new products and
Social shopping innovations that are available.
A second category is labeled “social shopping,” which Idea shopping is grounded in McGuire’s (1974) collection
refers to the enjoyment of shopping with friends and fam- of categorization theories, which collectively attempt to ex-
ily, socializing while shopping, and bonding with others plain the human need for structure, order, and knowledge, as
while shopping. Respondents mentioned quite frequently well as objectification theories (e.g., Festinger, 1954), which
that shopping is a way to spend time with friends and/or view the human as needing external guidelines and informa-
family members. Some respondents stated that they just en- tion in an attempt to make sense of himself. This motivation
joy socializing with others while shopping and that shopping corresponds with Tauber’s (1972) personal shopping motive
gives them a chance to bond with other shoppers. of learning about new trends and keeping informed about the
Social shopping is grounded in McGuire’s (1974) col- latest trends in fashion, styling, or innovations. Some con-
lection of affiliation theories of human motivation (e.g., sumers may enjoy browsing to obtain information as an end
Sorokin, 1950), which collectively focus on people being in itself, not to make a particular purchase (Bloch, Ridgway,
altruistic, cohesive, and seeking acceptance and affection in & Sherrell, 1989). Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway (1986)
describe pleasure and recreation—having fun and experienc- Item generation

ing positive affect—as a motive for ongoing search (infor-
mation gathering independent of a specific purchase need or Based on the findings of the qualitative study, as well as
decision). Thus, for these consumers, ongoing search rep- instruction from theory and ideas from prior research, items
resents a leisure pursuit as an end goal (Punj & Staelin, were constructed to tap each of the six categories of shopping
1983). motivations. The initial item-generation process produced
140 items: 29 items for adventure shopping, 28 items for
Role shopping gratification shopping, 25 items for social shopping, 11 items
A fifth category of shopping motivations is labeled “role for role shopping, 21 items for value shopping, and 26 items
shopping,” which reflects the enjoyment that shoppers derive for idea shopping.
from shopping for others, the influence that this activity has Several marketing faculty members then evaluated the
on the shoppers’ feelings and moods, and the excitement and items for content and face validity. The faculty members
intrinsic joy felt by shoppers when finding the perfect gift were given the conceptual definitions of the motivations,
for others. Many respondents talked about the enjoyment along with illustrative quotes from the data, and instructed
they obtain from shopping for other people, explaining that to retain items based on their representation of the motiva-
shopping for their friends and family is very important to tional domain and clarity of wording. Candidates for dele-
them and that it makes them feel good. Some respondents tion were items that were not clear, not representative of the
described the positive feelings they get from finding the domain, or that were possibly open to misinterpretation (e.g.,
perfect gift for someone. Babin et al., 1994). In addition, a substantial number of re-
Role shopping is grounded in McGuire’s (1974) collec- dundant items were eliminated. The authors then reviewed
tion of identification theories of human motivation (e.g., the list of candidates for elimination and any inconsisten-
Goffman, 1959), whereby people are motivated by the per- cies were resolved by discussion. The resulting item pool
ceived roles they may be playing at any given time. In contained 48 items: 9 items for adventure shopping, 6 items
essence, people seek ego enhancement to their self-concepts for gratification shopping, 12 items for social shopping, 4
through the addition of satisfying roles and “acting out” the items for role shopping, 8 items for value shopping, and 9
role’s responsibilities. This motive is related to Tauber’s items for idea shopping. The item pool was then submitted
(1972) personal motive of “role playing,” in which the pro- to a multi-sample scale purification and validation process,
cess of shopping produces positive effects for people who which is described next.
view it as part of their social role. It also closely corre-
sponds to Westbrook and Black’s (1985) role enactment,
which describes the drive to fulfill culturally prescribed Scale purification
roles regarding shopping. Babin et al. (1994) explain how
some consumers can view shopping as a duty, but enjoy Substantive (e.g., breadth of theoretical content coverage
the experience and obtain hedonic value from the process. by an item) as well as empirical considerations were em-
Further, other researchers have discussed how, for some ployed throughout the scale purification process (cf., Chin
consumers (especially women), shopping is an expression & Todd, 1995). Scale purification is concerned with detailed
of love (cf. Miller, 1998; Otnes & McGrath, 2001). item analyses, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory
factor analyses, and an initial assessment of scale reliability,
Value shopping unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity.
The final category is labeled “value shopping,” which Here, standard (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Churchill,
refers to shopping for sales, looking for discounts, and hunt- 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair, Anderson,
ing for bargains. Many of our respondents talked about how Tatham, & Black, 1998), as well as emerging guidance
they enjoyed hunting for bargains, looking for sales, and (e.g., Peterson, 2000) in the literature is employed in item
finding discounts or low prices, almost as if shopping is a reduction and assessment of the resulting factor structure.
challenge to be “conquered” or a game to be “won.” A questionnaire was constructed that contained the 48
Value shopping is grounded in McGuire’s (1974) collec- hedonic motivation items (7-point agree–disagree response
tion of assertion theories (e.g., McClelland, 1961), which format), interspersed throughout the questionnaire, as well
view the human as a competitive achiever, seeking success as age, income and gender items. Respondents were in-
and admiration, and striving to develop his potentials in or- structed to think about shopping in stores and malls, and not
der to enhance his self-esteem. Consumers may obtain he- consider on-line/television shopping or convenience formats
donic benefits through bargain perceptions, which provide such as grocery stores or drug stores. As used successfully in
increased sensory involvement and excitement (Babin et al., prior research (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Gwinner,
1994). Value shopping may also be related to the choice Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991),
optimization dimension identified by Westbrook and Black marketing research students were recruited and trained as
(1985), given that finding a discount or bargain may lead to data collectors for the calibration sample. Respondents were
satisfaction from personal achievement. contacted face-to-face or by telephone, and subsequently
given a paper copy of the self-administered questionnaire. This procedure resulted in the deletion of 2 items for the
A total of 269 questionnaires were returned, and 3 question- adventure shopping dimension, leaving a remaining item
naires were judged unusable, leaving a final sample size of pool of 34 items for further analysis.
n = 266. An inspection of the demographic variables re-
vealed representation in all age and income categories, with Exploratory factor analysis
approximately 38% of the respondents male and 62% fe-
male. Following item analysis, the 34 items were then sub-
jected to exploratory factor analysis with principal axis
Item analysis factoring and oblique rotation, with the scree test criterion
used to identify the number of factors to extract (Bearden
First, corrected item-total subscale correlations were ex- et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein,
amined for each set of items representing a hedonic moti- 1994). A six-factor model was estimated, and items ex-
vation dimension. Items not having a corrected item-total hibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high cross-loadings
correlation above .50 were candidates for deletion (cf., Tian, (>.40), or low communalities (<.30) were candidates for
Bearden, & Hunter, 2001; Zaichowsky, 1985). After care- elimination (cf., Hair et al., 1998). After inspection of item
ful inspection of item content for domain representation, 12 content for domain representation, 9 items were deleted
items having corrected item-total correlations of .50 and be- (2-item cross-loadings >.40, 7-item factor loadings <.40).
low were subsequently deleted (7 items representing social The remaining 25 items were submitted to further ex-
shopping, 4 items representing value shopping, and 1 item ploratory factor analysis. Applying the same empirical and
representing idea shopping). substantive considerations in item trimming, 2 additional
Second, the correlations for items with their hypothesized items were deleted (both item factor loadings <.40). A
dimension were then compared with their correlations with final six-factor model was estimated with the remaining
the remaining dimensions (cf., Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel, 23 items. The factor solution accounted for approximately
1989; Tian et al., 2001). Items that did not have statistically 67% of the total variance, and exhibited a KMO measure
higher correlations (cf., Bruning & Kintz, 1977) with the of sampling adequacy of .90. All communalities ranged
dimensions to which they were hypothesized to belong in from .41 to .77. Table 1 illustrates the 23-item factor
comparison to other dimensions were subsequently deleted. structure.
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis results sample 1a
Items Adventure Value Role Idea Social Relaxation
shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping
To me, shopping is an adventure .86 .03 −.05 .02 .09 .05
I find shopping stimulating .67 .01 −.06 .08 .13 −.04
Shopping is a thrill to me .59 .05 −.12 .06 .08 −.19
Shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe .57 .03 .08 .14 −.03 −.19
For the most part, I go shopping when there are sales .04 .86 .07 −.03 .01 .11
I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop −.05 .83 −.06 .01 .01 −.05
I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop .05 .74 .01 −.04 .02 −.07
I go shopping to take advantage of sales −.04 .73 −.19 .17 −.05 −.04
I like shopping for others because when they feel good I feel good .15 −.04 .83 .03 .01 .02
I feel good when I buy things for the special people in my life −.05 .03 .81 −.05 −.05 .02
I enjoy shopping for my friends and family .02 .05 .80 −.02 .10 .03
I enjoy shopping around to find the perfect gift for someone −.07 .07 .57 .06 .04 −.15
I go shopping to keep up with the trends −.07 .04 .05 .87 .07 −.01
I go shopping to keep up with the new fashions −.01 −.03 −.10 .84 −.08 −.03
I go shopping to see what new products are available .06 −.05 .01 .70 .05 .05
I go shopping to experience new things .17 .09 .09 .66 .05 −.02
I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize −.01 .01 .02 .04 .85 .01
I enjoy socializing with others when I shop .02 −.01 −.06 .02 .76 .06
To me, shopping with friends or family is a social occasion −.06 .09 −.02 −.02 .71 −.20
Shopping with others is a bonding experience .18 −.07 −.02 −.01 .71 −.05
When I’m in a down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better .23 −.04 −.07 .05 −.04 .69
To me, shopping is a way to relieve stress .13 .10 .07 −.03 .15 .67
I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special −.08 .04 −.11 .11 .14 .50
a Pattern matrix shown. Principal axis factoring, oblique rotation. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = .90. Cumulative variance extracted = 67%.
Confirmatory factor analysis only one underlying construct (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing &
Anderson, 1988). As illustrated in Appendix B, coefficient
The scale purification procedures rely on an iteration of alpha estimates, ranging from .79 to .86, and the composite
confirmatory factor analyses, with the goal to improve the reliability estimates, ranging from .83 to .89, are considered
congeneric measurement properties of the scale (Anderson acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally & Bernstein,
& Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, 1980; Bearden et al., 1989; Chin 1994). Item-to-total correlations, also appearing in Appen-
& Todd, 1995; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; MacCallum, dix B, range from 0.55 to 0.79, and all variance ex-
1986). A 23-item, six-dimension confirmatory factor model tracted estimates (adventure shopping = .72; gratification
was estimated using LISREL 8.1 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, shopping = .71; social shopping = .73; value shopping =
1993), and inspection of model fit revealed indices that were .71; role shopping = .67; idea shopping = .71) exceed the
generally below acceptable thresholds (χ(215) 2 = 604.07, recommended .50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
p = .000; GFI = .81; AGFI = .76; CFI = .89; NNFI =
.87; standardized RMR = .064; RMSEA = .09). Item Convergent and discriminant validity
squared multiple correlations (SMCs) ranged from .43 to
84, and an inspection of the modification indices (MIs) Convergent validity can be assessed from the measure-
revealed 4 items as candidates for removal, each account- ment model by determining whether each indicator’s es-
ing for three or more significant modification indices (MIs timated maximum likelihood loading on the underlying
ranging from 8.90 to 22.78). Each item was then inspected construct is significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; see
for domain representativeness (cf., Nunnally & Bernstein, also Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981).
1994). For example, the candidate item for removal for the As illustrated in Appendix B, all confirmatory factor load-
social shopping dimension was, “To me, shopping with ings exceed .66, and all are significant with t values ranging
friends or family is a social occasion,” which tapped into from a low of 10.61 to a high of 17.31. Therefore, we have
the same “family and friends” facet as the retained item, “I evidence of convergent validity of our measures.
go shopping with my friends or family to socialize.” The Hedonic shopping motivations are conceptually related
three other candidate items exhibited similar facet charac- constructs, yet are also expected to exhibit discriminant va-
teristics, therefore, facet representation was ensured and the lidity (Westbrook & Black, 1985). As evidence of their
four items were removed from further consideration. relationship, the inter-factor correlations between the five
A second confirmatory model was then estimated on the hedonic motivations, estimated by the phi coefficient, ranges
remaining 19 items. Model fit was substantially improved: from .23 to .72. Discrimination between the constructs is
χ(137)
2 = 335.22, p = .000; GFI = .86; AGFI = .81; evident since the variance extracted estimates, ranging from
CFI = .92; NNFI = .90; standardized RMR = .049; .67 to .73, exceed all squared phi correlations, ranging from
RMSEA = .08. Item SMCs ranged from .44 to .87, and an .05 to .52 between the constructs (Bearden et al., 1989;
examination of modification indices revealed three signifi- Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Netemeyer et al., 1990). Therefore,
cant indices. The item having the largest significant modifi- we have evidence of discriminant validity.
cation index (10.32) was, “I go shopping to experience new
things,” which was judged to not represent the idea shop-
ping facet of “new products” as well as the retained item, Scale validation
“I go shopping to see what new products are available.”
Therefore, this item was removed from further analysis. The purpose of scale validation activities is fourfold. First,
A final confirmatory model was then estimated on the it is desirable to replicate the confirmatory factor structure
remaining 18 items. The model exhibited respectable fit: on an independent sample, thereby reducing error due to
χ(120)
2 = 289.42, p = .000; GFI = .87; AGFI = .82; CFI = capitalization on chance (Chin & Todd, 1995; MacCallum,
.93; NNFI = .91; standardized RMR = .049; RMSEA = Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). Not only should the model
.079. All modification indices were predominantly low, al- replicate, but we must also show the extent to which our
though two were marginally significant, and item SMCs measurement model is stable across independent samples.
ranged from 0.44 to 0.87. Since the final 18 items parsimo- Second, the hedonic constructs are then correlated with the-
niously represent the six hedonic dimensions, and since each oretically related constructs, thereby establishing evidence
item taps into a unique facet of each hedonic dimension and of nomological validity. Third, to demonstrate the useful-
thus provides good domain representation, no further items ness of the scale, some degree of predictive validity of the
were removed. See Appendix B for complete item measure- hedonic measures must be shown. Finally, we use the data
ment properties of the final six-dimension, 18-item scale. to cluster respondents into meaningful shopper segments,
thereby providing additional practical utility of the scale for
Unidimensionality and reliability retailers.
A two-part questionnaire was constructed that contained
Given these results, we have evidence that the mea- the 18 hedonic motivation items in the first part, and a vari-
sures are unidimensional, with each item reflecting one and ety of variables used for nomological and predictive validity
tests, and age, income and gender items in the second part. sional measures (e.g., low and/or insignificant modification
The data collection procedures employed for the calibration indices; see Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). As appearing in
sample were replicated here for the validation sample, only Appendix B, reliability of the subscales is acceptable as co-
students were instructed to administer the two parts of the efficient alpha estimates range from .77 to .87 (Nunnally &
questionnaire approximately 2 weeks apart. Administering Bernstein, 1994). Composite reliability estimates (Fornell &
the hedonic motivation items separately reduces the com- Larcker, 1981) range from .80 to .92, corrected item-to-total
mon methods bias that might explain correlations between correlations range from .50 to .83, and all variance extracted
the hedonic constructs and other related variables. Both the estimates range from .58 to .78 (adventure shopping = .78,
sampling procedures and instructions for respondents em- gratification shopping = .58, social shopping = .72, value
ployed for the calibration sample were also employed here. shopping = .76, role shopping = .71, idea shopping = .75).
A total of 253 completed surveys were returned, and two Convergent validity is evident in that all confirmatory factor
questionnaires were judged unusable, leaving a final sample loadings exceed .61 and are significant (t values range from
size of n = 251. Respondent names and contact informa- 9.32 to 17.89).
tion were recorded, and a random subsample of 25 respon- Discriminant validity was again tested by comparing the
dents was contacted to verify the research procedures they variance extracted estimates with the squared phi correla-
followed. No issues or abnormalities were noted. The demo- tions between the hedonic constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
graphic profile of the validation sample was highly consis- 1981). Two squared phi correlations, gratification/adventure
tent with that of the calibration sample: all age and income shopping (φ2 = .76, φ = .87) and gratification/social
categories were represented with approximately 32% of the shopping (φ2 = .64, φ = .80) exceeded the variance ex-
respondents male and 68% female. tracted estimate for gratification shopping of .58, but not for
social (.72) or adventure shopping (.78). Therefore, addi-
Factor structure stability tional tests for discriminant validity were conducted. First,
chi-square difference tests were performed among several
A measurement model was then estimated using the 18 models that fixed the relationship between the suspect con-
items developed in scale purification. The results indicated structs to one (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; see also Bearden
2
good fit (χ(120) = 254.15, p = .000; GFI = .88; AGFI = et al., 1989): gratification/adventure shopping fixed to unity
.83; CFI = .94; NNFI = .92; standardized RMR = .048; 2
(χ(121) = 419.71, p = .000; RMSEA = .105) and grat-
RMSEA = .073). Several modification indices were signif- 2
ification/social shopping fixed to unity (χ(121) = 444.18,
icant but predominantly low (ranging from 8.24 to 17.65),
p = .000; RMSEA = .109). The fit for both models was
and item squared multiple correlations ranged from 0.37
significantly worse (
␹2 with 1 degree of freedom) when
to 0.91. No modifications were made to the measurement
compared to the fit of the theoretically specified six-factor
model because (a) no theoretical or conceptual basis justi-
model. Therefore, this test shows support for the discrim-
fies making further modifications, (b) the model fits the data
inant validity between the three hedonic motivations. A
well and replicates across independent samples.
second test for discriminant validity was then performed
To assess the factorial stability of the hedonic motiva-
that examines the confidence interval around the correlation
tions, a multi-group analysis procedure was performed in
between the suspect factors. If the correlation plus or mi-
LISREL 8.1 that allows for the independent estimation of
nus 2 standard errors does not include the value 1.0, then
factor loadings, factor correlations, and error variances on
evidence of discriminant validity is shown (Anderson &
the two samples (Byrne, 1998; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993;
Gerbing, 1988). Neither confidence interval for the phi es-
Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Six multi-group tests
timates between gratification/adventure shopping (.81–.93)
revealed substantial measurement equality across the cali-
and gratification/social shopping (.72–.88) includes the
bration and validation samples. When compared to the base-
value of 1.0. In summary, since two of three statistical
2
line model (χ(263) = 614.81), successive models showed no
tests provide evidence of discriminant validity, and since
significant change in chi-square: equal factor loadings only
discriminant validity was previously shown between all
2
(χ(273) = 623.13); equal factor correlations only (χ(286)
2 =
constructs on an independent sample (calibration sample),
625.89); equal error variances only (χ(286) = 622.40); equal
2
we have sufficient evidence of discriminant validity.
2
factor loadings and factor correlations (χ(268) = 621.04);
and equal factor loadings, factor correlations, and error Nomological validity
2
variances (χ(291) = 628.59). Therefore, we have evidence
of the factorial stability of the hedonic motivations scale The importance of establishing nomological validity has
across independent samples. been well documented in the literature (e.g., Babin et al.,
1994; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Netemeyer, Durvasula,
Reliability and validity & Lichtenstein, 1991). Therefore, the six hedonic shop-
Unidimensionality, reliability, convergent and discrimi- ping constructs were investigated within a larger nomolog-
nant validity were then evaluated. Given the results of the ical network of theoretically related constructs, including
model estimation, we again have evidence of unidimen- flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), time distortion and aesthetic
M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95
Table 2
Nomological validity assessmenta
Adventure Gratification Social Role Value Idea Flow Time Aesthetic Product Non-generosity Personal
shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping shopping distortion appeal innovativeness shopper
Adventure shopping 1.00
Gratification shopping .71 1.00
Social shopping .63 .58 1.00
Role shopping .38 .46 .42 1.00
Value shopping .34 .42 .32 .37 1.00
Idea shopping .48 .52 .46 .31 .17 1.00
Flow .55 .46 .38 .32 .24 .33 1.00
Time distortion .62 .59 .49 .39 .31 .36 .60 1.00
Aesthetic appeal .45 .39 .40 .29 .30 .33 .33 .42 1.00
Product innovativeness .26 .28 .17 .20 .09b .42 .15 .28 .28 1.00
Non-generosity −.13 −.17 −.30 −.43 −.31 −.07b −.15 −.18 −.21 −.11b 1.00
Personal shopper .26 .21 .28 .05b .19 .16 .11b .17 .19 .07b .03b 1.00
a All correlations significant at p < .05 (two-tailed) unless otherwise noted.
b Correlation not significant at p > .05 (two-tailed).
85
appeal (Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994), innovativeness H2c. The correlation between time distortion and adventure
(Oliver & Bearden, 1985), non-generosity (Belk, 1984), and shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations
personalizing shopper attitudes (Hawes & Lumpkin, 1984). between time distortion and role, value, social, and idea
Each of these is briefly discussed in order, and the correlation shopping.
estimates calculated from the validation sample (n = 251)
appear in Table 2. H2d. The correlation between time distortion and gratifi-
cation shopping will be significantly higher than the corre-
Flow lations between time distortion and role, value, social, and
Flow is a cognitive state that has been characterized idea shopping.
as an optimal experience that is intrinsically enjoyable
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Consumers experiencing flow are To measure time distortion, we employed three items
deeply involved in the focal activity where time may seem (α = .92, 7-point format ranging from “strongly disagree”
to stand still (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Since adventure to “strongly agree”) used in prior research (Bloch et al.,
shopping captures the experiential and fantasy aspects of 1994). An example of one such item employed is, “I lose
shopping, we should expect flow to positively correlate with track of time when I’m in a store or at the mall.” As seen in
adventure shopping, and be more strongly correlated with Table 2, the correlations between time distortion and adven-
adventure shopping than with the other hedonic motivations. ture shopping (r = .62) and gratification shopping (r = .59)
Therefore: are both significantly higher (p < .05) than the correlations
between time distortion and the remaining hedonic motiva-
H1a. The correlation between flow and adventure shopping tions. Therefore, H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d are supported.
will be positive.
Aesthetic appeal
Aesthetic appeal refers to an appreciation of the physical
H1b. The correlation between flow and adventure shopping design or appearance of the mall habitat, and is based on the
will be significantly higher than the correlations with other premise that some consumers notice and enjoy the physical
hedonic motivations. elements of the retail environment (Bloch et al., 1994). Re-
search has shown the importance of the retail atmosphere
Flow was measured with a single item used by Novak, in influencing a wide variety of emotions and behaviors re-
Hoffman, and Yung (2000) and adapted for the present study: lated to shopping (e.g., Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Thus,
“Most of the time I go shopping at malls or stores I feel we should expect that aesthetic appeal is likely to be posi-
that I am in flow” (7-point format ranging from strongly tively correlated with all of the hedonic motivations studied
disagree to strongly agree). The item was preceded with a here. Therefore:
description of flow also used by Novak et al. (2000). The
correlation estimate reported in Table 2 between flow and H3a. Aesthetic appeal will correlate positively with all six
adventure shopping of .55 is significantly higher (p < .05) hedonic motivations.
than correlations with other hedonic motivations. Therefore,
H1a and H1b are supported. However, role shopping, value shopping, and idea shop-
ping address motivations that are product-oriented (i.e., find-
Time distortion ing the perfect gift, shopping for others, hunting for bargains,
Time distortion describes a psychological state where finding new fashions, etc.), as opposed to the non-product
shoppers become relatively isolated from the cues regard- motives of social interaction (social shopping), stimulation
ing the passage of time (Bloch et al., 1994). Hours pass and fantasy (adventure shopping), or stress relief and re-
without notice if the consumption state is sufficiently pleas- laxation (gratification shopping). Given this reasoning, we
ant (Kowinsky, 1985). Therefore, it is likely that shoppers should expect that the correlations between aesthetic appeal
motivated by adventure shopping will also experience time and role shopping, value shopping, and idea shopping will
distortion. Additionally, since gratification shopping mo- be lower than the correlations with adventure shopping, grat-
tives are oriented to relaxation, stress relief, and improved ification shopping and social shopping.
mood states, it is reasonable to expect a strong correlation
with gratification shopping as well. Therefore: H3b. The correlations between aesthetic appeal and role
shopping, value shopping and idea shopping, will be signif-
icantly lower than the correlations with the remaining hedo-
H2a. The correlation between time distortion and adventure nic motivations.
shopping will be positive.
To measure aesthetic appeal, we employed three items
H2b. The correlation between time distortion and gratifica- (α = .90, 7-point format ranging from “strongly disagree”
tion shopping will be positive. to “strongly agree”) used in prior research (Bloch et al.,
1994). An example of one such item employed is, “I notice tively with role shopping, and be significantly lower than
colors or textures on the interior of retail stores or malls.” other correlations. Therefore:
As seen in Table 2, the correlations between aesthetic ap-
peal and all six hedonic motivations are positive and signif- H5a. The correlation between non-generosity and role
icant. Therefore, H3a is supported. Further, the correlations shopping will be negative.
between aesthetic appeal and role shopping (r = .29), value
H5b. The correlation between non-generosity and role
shopping (r = .30), and idea shopping (r = .33) are the
shopping will be significantly lower than the correlations
lowest reported correlations. However, only the correlation
between non-generosity and other hedonic motivations.
between aesthetic appeal and adventure shopping is statisti-
cally higher than the correlations with role, value, and idea To measure non-generosity, we employed five items
shopping. Therefore, H3b is partially supported. (α = .69, 7-point format ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree”) used in prior research (Belk, 1984).
Product innovativeness An example of one such item employed is, “I don’t like
Innovativeness has been defined as the degree to which an to lend things, even to good friends.” As seen in Table 2,
individual makes innovative decisions independent of infor- the correlation between non-generosity and role shopping
mation provided by others (Midgley, 1977). Innovativeness (r = −.43) is negative and significantly lower (p < .05)
is viewed as a generalized personality trait, closely related than the correlations between non-generosity and the re-
to a number of dimensions of human personality (Midgley maining hedonic motivations. Therefore, H5a and H5b are
& Dowling, 1978). Product innovativeness is similar to the supported.
generalized trait innovativeness, but relates to a person’s de-
sire to be among the first to try new products (Oliver & Personalizing shopper
Bearden, 1985). Given our domain definition of idea shop- Personalizing shopping reflects a consumer’s desire to
ping, we should expect a strong and positive relationship shop at stores where she/he is known (Dardin & Reynolds,
between idea shopping and product innovativeness. Further, 1971). Personalizing shoppers prefer to individualize the
this relationship should be stronger than other reported re- shopping trip by seeking social relationships with other
lationships. Therefore, customers, and retail and service salespeople (Hawes &
Lumpkin, 1984; Stone, 1954). Since personalizing shop-
H4a. The correlation between innovativeness and idea per contains a strong social element, we should expect
shopping will be positive. a positive relationship with social shopping motives, and
the correlation between social shopping and personalizing
shopper should be stronger than other reported correlations.
H4b. The correlation between innovativeness and idea
Therefore,
shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations
between innovativeness and other hedonic motivations.
H6a. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
social shopping will be positive.
To measure product innovativeness, we employed two
items (r = .72, 7-point format ranging from “strongly dis- H6b. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
agree” to “strongly agree”) used in prior research (Oliver & social shopping will be significantly higher than the cor-
Bearden, 1985). An example of one such item employed is, relations between personal shopping and other hedonic
“I like to buy new and different things.” As seen in Table 2, motivations.
the correlation between innovativeness and idea shopping
(r = .42) is positive and significantly higher (p < .05) than Role shopping is defined here as the motivation to shop
the correlations between innovativeness and the remaining for others, and is based on the fundamental human motiva-
hedonic motivations. Therefore, H4a and H4b are supported. tion of acting out and fulfilling one’s roles as people seek
ego enhancement to their self-concepts. Since role shopping
Non-generosity is product-oriented (e.g., gift shopping) and is inherently
The conceptual domain for non-generosity includes the inner-directed (ego enhancement, empathy), the social in-
unwillingness to give or share possessions with others, a teraction aspects would seem less important than in other
reluctance to lend or donate possessions to others, and neg- shopping motivations. Given this reasoning, we should see a
ative attitudes toward charity (Belk, 1985). Non-generosity weaker correlation with personalizing shopper attitudes than
has been found to be negatively related to happiness (Belk, with other hedonic motivations. Therefore:
1984). Importantly, evidence suggests that non-generosity
may be based on egoist self-interest, with those more H6c. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
non-generous people believing themselves to be unworthy role shopping will be significantly lower than the cor-
to give or receive (Belk, 1985; Neisser, 1973). Hence, we relations between personal shopping and other hedonic
should expect that non-generosity should correlate nega- motivations.
To measure personalizing shopper, we employed three Correlation analysis revealed our measure of browsing
items (α = .89, 7-point format ranging from “strongly behavior correlated positively (p < .05) with the six hedo-
disagree” to “strongly agree”) used in prior research (Hawes nic motivations: adventure shopping (r = .43), gratification
& Lumpkin, 1984; Dardin & Reynolds, 1971). An example shopping (r = .49), social shopping (r = .48), role shop-
of one such item employed is, “I like to shop where people ping (r = .28), value shopping (r = .34), and idea shopping
know me.” As seen in Table 2, the correlation between (r = .38). Therefore, H7 is supported.
personalizingness and social shopping (r = .28) is positive.
Therefore, H6a is supported. However, this correlation is Shopper segments
only significantly higher (p < .05) than the correlation
between personalizingness and role shopping. Therefore, To assess the practical utility of the hedonic shopping
H6b is partially supported. Finally, the correlation between motivations scale, a shopper taxonomy was developed. A
personalizingness and role shopping is not significant, and two-step clustering procedure was employed for partition-
is significantly lower (p < .05) than all other correlations. ing activities, using both hierarchical and non-hierarchical
Therefore, H6c is supported. methods on the validation sample (n = 251). The first step in
partitioning was to submit the summed scales representing
Predictive validity the six hedonic dimensions to hierarchical cluster analysis
(Ward’s method, squared Euclidian distances; see Milligan,
Predictive validity is defined as the ability of a measuring 1980; Punj & Stewart, 1983). Given that prior research on
instrument to estimate some criterion behavior that is exter- shopper taxonomies suggests a variety of the number of opti-
nal to the measuring instrument itself, and is shown by the mal clusters (e.g., Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Bellenger
correlation between the instrument and the criterion variable et al., 1977; Bloch et al., 1994; Westbrook & Black, 1985),
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). To assess predictive validity a range of cluster solutions (3–6) was tested, and an ex-
of the six hedonic motivations, a measure of browsing be- amination of the dendrogram as well as the agglomeration
havior was employed as the criterion variable. Browsing is schedule produced support for a five-cluster solution (see
understood as the ongoing search behavior in a retail envi- Hair et al., 1998; Milligan & Cooper, 1985 for a discussion
ronment for informational and/or recreational purposes and of stopping rules).
without immediate intentions to purchase (Bloch & Richins, The next step consisted of employing k-means cluster
1983; Bloch et al., 1989). analysis using the hierarchical cluster centers as initial seeds
The extent and nature of browsing behavior is likely to (Hair et al., 1998; Milligan, 1980). Table 3 illustrates the
be predicted by all six hedonic motivations held by shop- cluster means of the summed motivation scales (columns la-
pers. Prior research suggests that browsing behavior is recre- beled “specified seeds”), which was the final assignment of
ationally motivated (Bloch et al., 1989; Jarboe & McDaniel, cases to clusters, resulting in five clusters of n1 = 28, n2 =
1987), related to the need for sensory stimulation and di- 34, n3 = 55, n4 = 64, and n5 = 55. As shown, ANOVA
version (Bloch et al., 1989), and also provides a shopping models indicate significant mean differences across the five
context for social interaction (Bloch et al., 1994; Jarboe clusters (F values ranging from 112.67 to 50.08). Further,
& McDaniel, 1987). Further, browsing provides shoppers Tukey HSD post hoc tests illustrate differences between spe-
with gratification and pleasure, as consumers can vicari- cific cluster means.
ously “buy” desirable products (Hirschman, 1980), and the
informational dimension of browsing provides shoppers the Cluster validation
benefits of seeing new products, fashions, and trends (Bloch Two validation procedures were performed. First, a
et al., 1989), as well as providing a venue to hunt for bar- k-means cluster analysis was performed using the six
gains and shop for others. summed shopping motivation scales, this time with ran-
To measure browsing behavior, we employed three items dom initial seeds (Hair et al., 1998; Punj & Stewart, 1983).
(α = .90) used in prior research (Jones, Reynolds, Weun, & The results, appearing in Table 3 (random seeds columns),
Beatty, in press). An example of one of the items is, “How confirm the stability of the five-cluster solution identi-
often do you visit stores just to look at new products, with fied during the partitioning activities. The cluster sizes as
no intention of making a purchase?” Each item was mea- well as all cluster centroids are nearly identical across the
sured on a 7-point scale ranging from “Never” to “Very specified-seeds and the random-seeds cluster models. The
Frequently.” Since predictive validity is shown by a sig- second step assesses predictive validity by investigating
nificant correlation between two focal constructs (Nunnally whether variables that are theoretically related to the hedo-
& Bernstein, 1994), we hypothesize that all six motivation nic shopping motivations do indeed differ across clusters.
constructs will be correlated with the measure of browsing Table 3 illustrates the results of univariate ANOVAs of the
behavior. Therefore: summed scales across the five clusters, along with Tukey
HSD post hoc tests.
H7. All six hedonic motivations will correlate positively Given the information in Table 3, we provide an interpre-
with browsing behavior. tation of the clusters: Cluster 1, labeled the “Minimalists,” is
Table 3
Results of non-hierarchical cluster analysis and validationa
Shopping motivation Cluster means
Cluster 1, Minimalists Cluster 2, Gatherers Cluster 3, Providers Cluster 4, Enthusiasts Cluster 5, Traditionalists Specified seeds model
Specified Random Specified Random Specified Random Specified Random Specified Random F value Significant F
seedsb seedsc seeds seeds seeds seeds seeds seeds seeds seeds
Hedonic motivation

Adventure shopping 4.14e 4.23 5.38e 5.98 6.60 6.61 14.42 14.63 9.80 11.36 106.94 .00
Gratification shopping 5.71 5.71 7.82 8.45 9.69 9.73 16.84 17.00 13.36 14.90 112.67 .00
Role shopping 7.07 7.29 12.15e 13.12 17.16f 16.50 17.98f 18.33 13.05e 14.29 83.66 .00
Value shopping 11.46 10.87 6.65 7.88 17.15e 17.95 16.94e 17.46 14.73 14.80 63.96 .00
Social shopping 4.64 4.77 7.74e 8.00 8.51e 8.93 15.08 16.29 10.73 11.02 68.26 .00
Idea shopping 4.46 4.65 10.44 10.45 8.31 9.14 14.39 14.79 12.29 12.36 50.08 .00
Demographics
Cluster size 28 31 34 42 55 56 64 42 55 59
Percentage of respondentsd 12 13 15 18 23 24 27 20 23 25
Male (%) 57 70 17 10 42
Femaleg (%) 43 30 83 90 58
Ageg
<25 years old (%) 21 47 22 43 43
25–49 years old (%) 54 41 63 36 46
Related constructs
Flow 1.56h 2.18h 2.46h,i 4.08 2.48i 19.74 .00
Time distortion 6.36 9.35h 10.65h 16.51 12.31 29.87 .00
Aesthetic appeal 8.32h 10.09h,i 11.66i,j 14.95 12.70j 15.13 .00
Innovativeness 7.64h 8.82h,i 8.44i 9.68j 9.48j 6.27 .00
Non-generosity −22.48h,i −21.55h −26.05j −26.90j −23.09j 8.40 .00
Personalizing shopper 7.43h 7.97h 9.04 10.85i 10.05j 3.95 .00
Browsing behavior 5.96 8.38h 9.33h 13.31 11.78 20.37 .00
a Cluster means shown in cells.
b The k-means cluster analysis performed with initial seeds specified from hierarchical cluster solution (Ward’s method, squared Euclidian distance).
c The k-means cluster analysis performed with random seeds. Post hoc tests not show for clarity.
d Percentage of respondents calculated on validation sample size of n = 236 following deletion of cases with missing values.
e,f Not significantly different within hedonic factor (rows) at p < .05.
g Significant differences between males and females (χ2 = 50.9, p < .01) and age groups (χ2 = 15.4, p < .05).
h,i,j Not significantly different within rows at p < .05, post hoc HSD test.
89
composed of a majority of males and largely middle-aged, Faber, 1989), would also appear to be another application
and scores lower on all hedonic motivations with the excep- of the scale for retailers and researchers alike.
tion of value shopping. Cluster 2, labeled the “Gatherers,” Prior research has called for the investigation into which
is composed largely of younger males who score higher motivations are likely to vary across retail shopping for-
on idea and role shopping, and exhibit the lowest level of mats, and temporal variation in shopping motivations across
value shopping. The Gatherers appear to be motivated by a number of shopping occasions (Westbrook & Black, 1985).
the hedonic aspects of gathering information on new prod- Important strategic considerations arise when considering
ucts and trends, perhaps in anticipation of future purchases. that different hedonic motivations may dominate in different
Cluster 3, labeled the “Providers,” is composed largely of retail formats. In addition, the importance of different moti-
middle-aged females who score highly on role and value vations may vary with regards to the degree of the shopper’s
shopping, and score the lowest in non-generosity. Cluster 4, product involvement and the particular shopping situation.
the “Enthusiasts,” is composed overwhelmingly of younger How the motivations vary with regards to gender and the
females and scores highly on all hedonic motivations. Clus- specific shopping context is also an interesting question. In
ter 5, the “Traditionalists,” is slightly more females than this study, females scored higher on the hedonic motiva-
males and younger to middle-aged, and scores moderately tion subscales than do males. This finding is consistent with
high on most hedonic dimensions. Reynolds and Beatty (1999), however, other research has
found that browsing and ongoing search for computers and
related products were higher among men (Bloch et al., 1986;
Discussion and implications Otnes & McGrath, 2001). This is an area that requires fur-
ther research.
Implications for research
Implications for retailers
The hedonic shopping motivation scale captures a wide
variety of hedonic reasons people go shopping, and has A number of implications for retailers are apparent as
a broad variety of applications to retail research. First, well. First, knowledge of distinct shopper segments is use-
the scale can be employed in research investigating the ful for retailers in constructing marketing communication
interrelationships between hedonic motivations, in-store ex- strategy and designing appealing store environments. For ex-
periences, and shopping outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). Prior ample, advertising in many cases may need to be designed
research suggests that shopping motives drive the behavior to attract shoppers who are motivated for different hedonic
that brings shoppers into the marketplace, but the emotions reasons. This could be accomplished by focusing on the ex-
experienced in the store affect preference and choice behav- periential aspects of the store environment, positioning the
iors (Dawson, Bloch, & Ridgway, 1990). Shoppers driven shopping experience as an adventure or a chance to visit
by a larger set of hedonic motivations may pay attention to with friends.
a larger set of retail attributes (e.g., merchandise displays, Store atmospherics can be tailored to certain shopper seg-
in-store promotions), and thereby have a larger number ments as well. If a retailer finds a large segment of En-
of inputs in the decision-making process (Dawson et al., thusiasts or Traditionalists among its regular customers, it
1990). could consider ways to facilitate the social experience its
Alternatively, intense shopping motives may create a customers can have. We see evidence of these considerations
strong goal-attainment drive for consumers (Dawson et al., in today’s marketplace, particularly with the bookstore–café
1990). Hence in a manner similar to product involvement concept that has become so popular (e.g., Barnes and No-
(Oliver, 1997), strong (vs. weak) motivations may magnify ble). Conversely, if a store finds a large segment of Gatherers
the experience in the mind of the shopper. This could have among its target market, it may consider providing more in-
the effect, like involvement, of making in-store evaluations formative, “hands-on” displays that are increasingly popular
and affective responses more intense, either positive or in specialty stores (e.g., the Discovery Store). Alternatively,
negative. a retailer who finds that a large proportion of its customers
Another application centers on relating the type and inten- are Providers may design an in-store experience character-
sity of hedonic motivations to specific shopping behaviors, ized by convenience and even an emphasis on web-based
such as impulse purchasing and compulsive consumption. kiosks for ordering products on-line.
Impulse purchasing has strategic value for retailers (Jones Aside from the shopper segmentation, retailers could use
et al., in press), and is defined as the degree to which an in- the scale to investigate the direction and strength of hedonic
dividual is likely to make unintended, immediate, and unre- motivations among their current customers. For example,
flective purchases. Impulse purchasing is also closely linked a hedonic motivational profile could be constructed of a
to hedonic consumption and sensory stimulation (Beatty & store’s current customer base, thereby providing the retailer
Ferrell, 1998; Rook, 1987). Compulsive consumption, which with additional knowledge of intensity and types of hedonic
in a retail setting describes shoppers who carry out shop- motivations influencing its customers. Further, the retailer
ping activities in pursuit of hedonic fulfillment (O’Guinn & would be well positioned to assess motivational strength of
different shopper groups. The retailer could focus on one or service, and to have fun as well. Therefore, measuring
or all of the hedonic motivations in investigations of mean only hedonic motivations may be missing part of the story.
levels of motivation across customer groups based on age, This is both a limitation as well as a direction for further
gender, race/ethnicity, and even profitability. research. In addition, the current study only addressed shop-
Retailers may wish to employ the scale to assess the ping motivations in a single retail channel—shopping in reg-
effects of different hedonic motivations on important shop- ular stores. Further testing in other retail channels, namely,
ping outcomes. Retail research suggests a direct link be- on-line and catalog (e.g., Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon,
tween shopping motivations and outcomes such as retail 2001), may be warranted.
satisfaction, loyalty, and assessments of hedonic and utili- While our qualitative investigation revealed a rich array
tarian shopping value (Babin et al., 1994). For example, are of hedonic shopping motivations, interesting was what our
shoppers who are strongly motivated by hedonic dimen- qualitative investigation did not show, such as motives to
sions more likely to be satisfied, repatronize the retailer, interact with salespeople or derive feelings of power and
and engage in behaviors such as talking positively about authority from being waited on (e.g., Westbrook & Black,
their experiences? Prior research suggests that satisfaction 1985). In hindsight, this may not be too surprising given
is a direct indicator of a shopper’s motivational strength the increasingly poor levels of service consumers receive in
(Westbrook & Black, 1985), thereby suggesting that motive today’s retail and service marketplace (Brady, 2000). Fur-
strength is directly and positively associated with aspects ther, shoppers may not easily admit to these motives, or may
of preference and satisfaction (Dawson et al., 1990). There- not raise these motives when thinking about the hedonic
fore, retailers could potentially have another tool to manage motivations to shop. This clearly is another area for future
customer satisfaction and loyalty. research.
Finally, it is important to note that the purified scale cap-
tures broad dimensions of shopping motivation, yet is also
Limitations and directions for future research parsimonious. Future research could investigate further a
number of areas that were uncovered here in the qualitative
As with any scale development research, one must use investigation, such as value shopping, which relates to the
caution with the application of the scale to other shopping “hunting” for bargains, and “winning” the “game” of shop-
contexts. Specifically, while we have provided evidence that ping (Sherry, 1990). Research could also investigate the role
the scale replicates well across independent samples, further of “flow” in shoppers’ evaluation of their shopping experi-
evidence of generalizability is needed. Second, as with any ences along hedonic or utilitarian dimensions (Babin et al.,
factor analysis, a certain amount of subjectivity is neces- 1994), as well as a qualitative validation of the shopper seg-
sary in identifying and labeling factors. Third, the scale was ments, and correlating each segment with actual shopping
developed only to address hedonic, or non-product reasons behaviors. Finally, future research, possibly experimental,
people shop. Westbrook and Black (1985) and others have could investigate hedonic motivations after controlling for
recognized that shoppers often have utilitarian motives as in-store mood states, as well as the correspondence of the
well, in many cases going shopping to acquire some product hedonic scores in spousal dyads.
Appendix A. Sample of respondent comments from qualitative study
Motivation Illustrative comments
Adventure • It gets me all excited! So it’s kind of like exploring, only in a shopper’s world? In a shopper’s world.
shopping Right ... What’s out there since I’d last been there? Okay. Well, that’s a type of adventure. Mm hm. It’s
an adventure for me.
• I enjoy shopping. It brings me great excitement and sometimes suspense as to what I am going to find.
• Oh yeah, I always think about other things when I am shopping. Being in a different place helps me
get away from my everyday life. With clothes, I visualize where I would wear things. I think about
where I will wear things and imagine how everyone will think I am really pretty.
• When I go to a store or mall, I am kind of in my own little “shopping” world. I don’t try to think of
anything but what I like, what would I look good in, and what is eye catching enough for me to spend
my money on.
Social • Well, I shop because it gives me a chance to spend time with my friends and family. I do not always
shopping go shopping to buy things. I do a lot of shopping with my mom and my aunt and I feel it’s an excuse to
spend the day together.
• I go with my mom, we use shopping as a bonding time together.
Appendix A. (Continued )
Motivation Illustrative comments
• The experience itself is kind of secondary unless I am out shopping with a friend or something. If
you are with a friend then it is more like a social atmosphere where you are going shopping as just an
excuse to hang out together and if you see something you want then you buy it.
• Shopping for fun to me means more of socialization, if I had to pick one. But mostly socialization with
other people. I don’t like to shop for fun by myself; I have to go with someone else for it to be any fun.
• I usually don’t shop alone, so I socialize with the people I’m with, and sometimes I run into people I
know while I’m shopping.
Gratification • I love to go shopping. It is my biggest stress reliever.
shopping • I like to go shopping when I’m stressed; to me it’s a way to get my mind off of what happens to be
stressing me out that day.
• I also go a lot when I am depressed. It makes me feel good about myself like I’m doing something
for myself. I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special. When I feel I have put so
much time into working that I need a reward.
• I want to shop. Its like giving yourself a pat on the back and saying it was worth all the hard work to
be able to shop.
Idea shopping • Sometimes I go to look just to get an idea. If I feel like or see a style in a magazine I might go to a store
and try it out just to see how it looks. Its something new and something different and I just want to try it.
• I like to shop because I like to see what the latest fashions are. Sometimes it’s so hard to keep up
with the latest fashions are. I try my best and hope I stay as hip as possible.
• I want to see the new things that come out on the market. It’s a way of staying in style. It also tells
me if the clothes I have are out of date or not.
• Yes, I thrive on being up on the latest fashions. I always have to make a fashion statement so I am
continuously shopping to buy the new trends.
• I like new gadgets, new technology and see the new toys that are out there. It is kind of a hobby.
Role shopping • Shopping for others I find to be much more pleasurable. The pleasure I find is trying to determine the
needs of the person I’m buying for and then determining a gift that tailors to that person’s needs.
• I love giving gifts, especially if it something different and unique. It’s not just something that you can
get at any other store. I think people know when you spend extra time getting them something that you
know that they really want. This is what I love to do, is give something to someone that you know they
wouldn’t purchase for themselves.
• I shop more for others than for myself. I especially shop more for my grandchildren and my three sons.
Having my oldest son married and on his own with two daughters, I love to help in anyway possible.
• Shopping for others makes me feel good. It makes me feel good to see how I can help make them
happy. To give someone happiness or to give them something they might not usually get for themselves
make me feel really good.
• I love to buy gifts for other people. It makes me feel good to buy something for someone that I know
they are going to like. It is a satisfaction to me. I like to go shopping when it is for other people. I love that.
Value • I like to turn it into a game, how cheap can I get it. My favorite thing to do is to find something I really
shopping like in the mall, like wet seal or something, that costs $50, and then see how cheap I can find it somewhere
else. I almost always find it for $15 or so. What a feeling when that happens. I live for those days.
• I look at sales and when I go shopping for fun I look at all the sale racks. I like to see what’s on sale
and I dig through things.
• And it is just like pushing or stretching my money to the boundaries or right to the edge is exciting. It
is exciting to see how much I can buy with what I have.
• How is this experience exciting? It’s exciting, because you feel like your winning. You feel like I
have control over my money, because I can buy 5 items for $20, rather than 2 items for $20. That’s like
the competitive part of shopping.
• It’s really fun when you come back with a bunch of goodies for a lot less money than you planned on
spending. Two for ones.
Appendix B. Scale/item measurement properties
Construct Itemsa Coefficient α Composite EFA Item Corrected CFA item Squared Scale/item
reliabilityb loading item-total loading multiple mean
correlation correlation
S1c S2d S1 S2 S1 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
Adventure .86 .86 .88 .92 9.09 9.12
shopping To me, shopping is an adventure .86 .79 .74 .89 .89 .79 .79 3.12 3.17
I find shopping stimulating .67 .74 .81 .88 .94 .78 .89 3.14 3.27
Shopping makes me feel like I am .57 .67 .68 .77 .82 .59 .67 2.83 2.69
in my own universe
Gratification .79 .77 .83 .80 11.92 11.87
shopping When I’m in a down mood, I go .69 .69 .72 .87 .84 .76 .71 3.56 3.50

shopping to make me feel better
To me, shopping is a way to relieve .67 .66 .60 .83 .82 .68 .67 3.78 3.75
stress
I go shopping when I want to treat .50 .55 .50 .66 .61 .44 .37 4.58 4.63
myself to something special
Role shopping .83 .84 .86 .88 14.79 14.63
I like shopping for others because .83 .72 .73 .83 .90 .69 .81 5.09 4.96
when they feel good I feel good
I enjoy shopping for my friends and .80 .74 .75 .91 .89 .83 .80 5.04 5.06
family
I enjoy shopping around to find the .57 .62 .64 .71 .73 .50 .53 4.66 4.61
perfect gift for someone
Value shopping .85 .87 .88 .90 14.32 14.39
For the most part, I go shopping .86 .68 .71 .78 .80 .61 .65 4.58 4.61
when there are sales
I enjoy looking for discounts when I .83 .77 .80 .93 .93 .87 .86 4.99 5.06
shop
I enjoy hunting for bargains when I .74 .71 .73 .81 .87 .66 .76 4.74 4.72
shop
Social shopping .85 .83 .89 .88 10.47 10.30
I go shopping with my friends or .85 .76 .74 .89 .90 .80 .81 3.47 3.34
family to socialize
I enjoy socializing with others when .76 .68 .63 .75 .74 .56 .54 3.76 3.71
I shop
Shopping with others is a bonding .71 .75 .71 .91 .89 .83 .80 3.23 3.26
experience
Idea shopping .84 .87 .88 .90 10.87 10.86
I go shopping to keep up with the .87 .74 .83 .93 .95 .86 .91 3.36 3.37
trends
I go shopping to keep up with the .84 .74 .81 .86 .93 .74 .87 3.65 3.52
new fashions
I go shopping to see what new .70 .62 .65 .72 .69 .52 .47 3.86 3.97
products are available
a Measurement based on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree”.
b See Fornell and Larcker (1981) for details on the composite reliability calculation.
c S1 = sample 1, calibration sample (n = 266).
93
d S2 = sample 2, validation sample (n = 251).
References Chin, Wynne, & Todd, Peter A. (1995). On the use, usefulness and ease
of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of
caution. MIS Quarterly, (June) 237–246.
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1982). Some methods for
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453–461.
16(February), 64–73.
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation
Cope, Nigel. (1996). Retail in the digital age. London: Bowerdean.
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Cronbach, Lee J., & Meehl, Paul E. (1955). Construct validity in psy-
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
chological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(July), 281–302.
Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., & Griffin, Mitch. (1994). Work
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal ex-
and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal
perience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
of Consumer Research, 20(March), 644–656.
Dardin, William R., & Ashton, Dub. (1974). Psychographic profiles of
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York:
patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing, 50(Winter), 99–102.
Wiley.
Dardin, William R., & Reynolds, Fred D. (1971). Shopping orientations
Batra, Rajeev, & Ahtola, Olli. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitar- and product usage roles. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(November),
ian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(April), 159– 505–508.
170. Dawson, Scott, Bloch, Peter H., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1990). Shopping
Bearden, William O., Netemeyer, Richard G., & Teel, Jesse E. (1989). motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing,
Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence. 66(4), 408–427.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 473–481. Donovan, Robert J., & Rossiter, John R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An
Beatty, Sharon E., & Ferrell, M. Elizabeth. (1998). Impulse buying: environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(Spring),
Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(Summer), 169–192. 34–57.
Belk, Russell W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to ma- Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
terialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happi- Relations, 7(1), 117–140.
ness. In Thomas Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. Fischer, Eileen, & Arnold, Stephen J. (1990). More than a labor of love:
11, pp. 291–297). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Gender roles and Christmas shopping. Journal of Consumer Research,
Belk, Russell W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material 17(December), 333–345.
world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 265–280. Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
Bellenger, Danny N., & Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. (1980). Profiling the models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(Fall), 77–92. of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Bellenger, Danny N., Robertson, Dan H., & Greenberg, Barnett. (1977). Fournier, Susan. (1996). Land Rover North America, Harvard Business
Shopping center patronage motives. Journal of Retailing, 53(Summer), School Case 9-596-036. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Pub-
29–38. lishing.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, Douglas G. (1980). Significance tests and Freud, Sigmund. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis.
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological New York: W.W. Norton.
Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. Gerbing, David W., & Anderson, James C. (1988). An updated paradigm
Berlyne, Daniel. (1969). Laughter, humor and play. In G. Lindzey & for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assess-
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 291–297). ment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186–192.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
Bitner, Mary Jo, Booms, Bernard H., & Tetrault, Mary Stanfield. (1990). City, NY: Doubleday and Company.
The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable inci- Gwinner, Kevin P., Gremler, Dwayne D., & Bitner, Mary Jo. (1998).
dents. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 71–84. Relational benefits in service industries: The customer’s perspective.
Bloch, Peter H., & Richins, Marsha L. (1983). Shopping without pur- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(Spring), 101–114.
chase: An investigation of consumer browsing behavior. Advances in Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., & Black,
Consumer Research, 10, 389–393. William C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River,
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Dawson, Scott A. (1994). The NJ: Prentice Hall.
shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 23– Hawes, Jon, & Lumpkin, James R. (1984). Understanding the outshopper.
42. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(4), 200–218.
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Sherrell, Daniel L. (1989). Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking and
Extending the concept of shopping: An investigation of browsing consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283–291.
activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(1), 13– Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). Hedonic con-
21. sumption: Emerging concepts. Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer),
Bloch, Peter H., Sherrell, Daniel L., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1986). Con- 92–101.
sumer search: An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, Hoffman, Donna L., & Novak, Thomas P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia
13(June), 119–126. computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Marketing, 60(July), 50–68.
New York: Wiley. Holbrook, Morris B., & Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982). The experiential
Brady, Diane. (2000). Why service stinks. Business Week, 3704(October aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal
23), 118–128. of Consumer Research, 9(March), 132–140.
Bruning, James L., & Kintz, B. L. (1977). Computational handbook of Hudson, Laurel A., & Ozanne, Julie L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking
statistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company. knowledge in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
Burke, Raymond. (1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual 14(March), 508–522.
shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 352– Huizinga, Johan. (1970). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in
361. culture. New York: Harper and Row.
Buss, Dale D. (1997). Entertailing. Nation’s Business, 85(12), 12–18. Jarboe, Glen R., & McDaniel, Caral D. (1987). A profile of browsers
Byrne, Barbara. (1998). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts, in regional shopping malls. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Science, 15(1), 46–53.
Jones, Michael, Reynolds, Kristy E., Weun, Seungood, & Beatty, Sharon Oliver, Richard L., (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the
E. (in press). The product-specific nature of impulse buying tendency. consumer. Boston, MA: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.
Journal of Business Research. Oliver, Richard L., & Bearden, William O. (1985). Crossover effects in
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. of Consumer Research, 12(December), 324–340.
Kowinsky, William S. (1985). The malling of America. New York: William Otnes, Cele, & McGrath, Mary Ann. (2001). Perceptions and realities
Morrow and Company, Inc. of male shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(Spring), 111–
Langrehr, Frederick W. (1991). Retail shopping mall semiotics and hedonic 137.
consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 428–433. Peter, J. Paul. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and
Lee, Euehun, Moschis, George P., & Mathur, Anil. (2001). A study of marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133–
life events and changes in patronage preferences. Journal of Business 145.
Research, 54(October), 25–38. Peterson, Robert A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for
Lincoln, Yvonne, & Guba, Egon. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters,
Hills: Sage. 11(3), 261–275.
MacCallum, Robert. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure Punj, Girish, & Staelin, Richard. (1983). A model of consumer information
modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107–120. search for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(March),
MacCallum, Robert, Roznowski, Mary, & Necowitz, Lawrence B. (1992). 366–380.
Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of Punj, Girish, & Stewart, David. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing
capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504. research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing
Mathwick, Charla, Malhotra, Naresh, & Rigdon, Edward. (2001). Ex- Research, 20(May), 134–148.
periential value: Conceptualization, measurement, and application in Reynolds, Kristy E., & Beatty, Sharon E. (1999). A relationship customer
the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, typology. Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 509–523.
77(Spring), 39–56. Rook, Dennis W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer
McClelland, David C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Research, 14 (September). 189–199.
Nostrand. Roy, Abhik. (1994). Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retail-
McGuire, William. (1974). Psychological motives and communication ing, 70(Summer), 139–161.
Gratification. In J. F. Blumer & Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass commu- Sherry, John F, Jr. (1990). A Sociocultural analysis of a midwestern
nication: Current perspectives on gratification research (pp. 106–167). American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(June), 13–
Beverly Hills: Sage. 30.
Midgley, David F. (1977). Innovation and new product marketing. New Sorokin, P. A. (1950). Altruistic love: A study of American good neighbors
York: Halsted Press, Wiley. and Christian saints. Boston: Beacon Press.
Midgley, David F., & Dowling, Grahame R. (1978). Innovativeness: Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., & Baumgartner, Hans. (1998). Assessing
The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal
4(March), 229–242. of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–91.
Miller, Daniel. (1998). A theory of shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- Stephenson, P. Ronald, & Willett, Ronald P. (1969). Analysis of
versity Press. consumers’ retail patronage strategies. In P. R. McDonald (Ed.), Mar-
Milligan, Glenn. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error keting involvement in society and the economy (pp. 316–322). Chicago:
perturbation of fifteen clustering algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral American Marketing Association.
Research, 15, 225–238. Stone, Gregory P. (1954). City shoppers and urban identification: Ob-
Milligan, Glenn, & Cooper, Martha C. (1985). An examination of proce- servation on the social psychology of city life. American Journal of
dures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychome- Sociology, 60(July), 36–45.
trika, 50(2), 159–179. Tauber, Edward M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing,
Moschis, George P. (1976). Shopping orientations and consumer use of 36(October), 46–49.
information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer), 61–70. Tian, Kelly Tepper, Bearden, William O., & Hunter, Gary L. (2001).
Neisser, Marianne. (1973). The sense of self through giving and receiving. Consumers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation.
Social Casework, 54(5), 294–301. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 50–66.
Netemeyer, Ricard G., Durvasula, Srinivas, & Lichtenstein, Donald R. Thompson, Craig J., Locander, William B., & Pollio, Howard R. (1990).
(1991). A cross-national assessment of the reliability and validity of The lived meaning of free choice: An existential-phenomenological
the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 320– description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary mar-
327. ried women. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 346–
Netemeyer, Ricard G., Johnston, Richard G., & Burton, Mark W. (1990). 361.
Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in structural equations. Wakefield, Kirk L., & Baker, Julie. (1998). Excitement at the mall:
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148–158. Determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing,
Novak, Thomas P., Hoffman, Donna L., & Yung, Yiu-Fai. (2000). Mea- 74(Fall), 515–540.
suring the customer experience in on-line environments: A structural Wallendorf, Melanie, & Arnould, Eric. (1991). We gather together: Con-
modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(Winter), 22–42. sumption rituals of thanksgiving day. Journal of Consumer Research,
Nunnally, Jum C., & Bernstein, Ira H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd 18(June), 13–31.
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Westbrook, Robert A., & Black, William. (1985). A motivation-based
O’Guinn, Thomas C., & Faber, Ronald J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring), 78–103.
phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), Zaichowsky, Judith Lynne. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
147–158. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 341–352.

Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the study?

What does the study aim to develop?

Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95

Hedonic shopping motivations

Accepted 12 February 2003

Fig. 1. Scale development process.

describe pleasure and recreation—having fun and experienc- Item generation

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95

Appendix A. Sample of respondent comments from qualitative study

Motivation Illustrative comments

Motivation Illustrative comments

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95

You might also like