The Florida State University

College of Business

An Empirical Investigation into the Effects of Shopping Motivation on

Store Environment-Value Relationship

By

Renu Singh

A Dissertation submitted to the

Department of Marketing
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester 2006

Copyright© 2006
Renu Singh
All Rights Reserved
 UMI Number: 3232452

Copyright 2006 by
Singh, Renu

All rights reserved.

UMI Microform 3232452

Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Renu Singh
defended on March 17th 2006.

------------------------------
J. Dennis Cradit
Professor Directing Dissertation

------------------------------
Susan Fiorito
Outside Committee Member

------------------------------
Michael J. Brusco
Committee Member

------------------------------
Charles F. Hofacker
Committee Member

Approved:

---------------------------------------------------------
Caryn Beck-Dudley, Dean, College of Business

The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named
committee members.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would not have been successful in completing this dissertation if it were not for
the continuous support and guidance of my dissertation chair Dr. Mike Brusco. His
encouragement and faith in my abilities have helped me in my efforts to become a better
student, a better teacher and a better researcher. I would also like to express my gratitude
to Dr. Dennis Cradit who always gave me sound counsel as a department chair and at
times went out his way to help me make it through the program. I would like to express
my deep admiration and appreciation for Dr. Charles Hofacker. His expert comments and
suggestions on data analysis always offered fresh insights into the problem and have
helped me gain a better understanding of the subject. I would also like to express sincere
thanks to Dr. Susan Fiorito for her patience, constructive suggestions, and for the support
throughout this dissertation process.
Finally, I would like to express a special thanks to my colleague and friend Sacha
Joseph for always being there for me and to Ms. Scheri Martin for always finding a way
to make things happen for me.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of tables---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------vii

List of figures--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------viii

Abstract---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ix

INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.1 Nature of the problem----------------------------------------------------------3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW-------------------------------------------------------------------5

2.1 Physical Store Environment---------------------------------------------------5

2.2 Stimulus Organism Response Framework-----------------------------------5

2.3 Environmental Components of Physical Store------------------------------6

2.4 Consumer’s Internal Evaluations---------------------------------------------7

2.5 Approach-Avoidance Behavior-----------------------------------------------9

2.6 Store Environmental Cues and Customer’s Value Perceptions----------12

2.7 Customer Value----------------------------------------------------------- -----12

2.8 Operationalization of Customer Value in Present Study------------------16

2.9 Shopping Motivations----------------------------------------------------------18

2.10 Consumer Responses-----------------------------------------------------------20

2.11 Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------22

3. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES-------------------------------------------------------------------23

iv
 3.1 The Effect of Social Cues on Customer’s Internal Evaluations----------23

3.2 The Effect of Design Cues on Customer’s Internal Evaluations------ --26

3.3 The Effect of Ambient Cues on Customer’s Internal Evaluations--------30

3.4 The Effect of Customer’s Internal Evaluations on Overall Experiential

Value Perceptions----------------------------------------------------------------33

3.5 The Effect of Perceived Experiential Value on Customer Response------38

3.6 Model Equivalence Across Multiple Segments------------------------------39

4. RESEARCH METHOD---------------------------------------------------------------------------41

4.1 Research Strategy----------------------------------------------------------------41

4.2 Sampling Procedure-------------------------------------------------------------42

4.3 Measurement Scales-------------------------------------------------------------43

4.4 Ethical Issues---------------------------------------------------------------------48

5. ANALYSES AND RESULTS--------------------------------------------------------------------49

5.1 Missing Data--------------------------------------------------------------------------49

5.2 Measurement Model-----------------------------------------------------------------49

5.3 Structural Model----------------------------------------------------------------------50

5.4 Results for the Hypothesized Model-----------------------------------------------55

5.4a Research Hypotheses 1a – 1d: Effect of social cues-------------------57

5.4b Research Hypotheses 2a – 2e: Effect of store design cues------------57

5.4c Research Hypotheses 3a – 3e: Effect of ambient cues-----------------58

5.4d Research Hypotheses 4a - 4g: Effect of customer’s internal

evaluations on experiential value--------------------------------------58
5.4e Research Hypotheses 5a and 5b: Customer response------------------59

5.5 Differences in Shopping Orientation-----------------------------------------------59

v
 5.5a Measurement Equivalence across Groups-------------------------------60

5.5b Structural Equivalence across Groups-----------------------------------61

6. DISCUSSION LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

6.1 Discussion---------------------------------------------------------------------------64

6.2 Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions---------------------67

APPENDIX

A. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PILOT STUDY---------------------------------------73

B. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE MAIN STUDY----------------------------------------83

REFERENCES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------91

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH---------------------------------------------------------------------101

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Theoretical foundation for questionnaire items--------------------------------------47

2. CFA analysis for the hypothesized measurement model---------------------------51

3. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations ----------------------------------52

4. Results of principal component analysis of shopping motivations---------------60

5. Final cluster centers for recreational and task oriented shoppers-----------------61

6. Results of testing for metric equivalence---------------------------------------------63

7. Group comparison and parameter estimates -----------------------------------------64

8. Standardized parameter estimates for recreational and task oriented shoppers--65

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

1. The Mehrabian-Russell S-O-R Model--------------------------------------6

2. The S-O-R Framework of Atmospherics and the Constructs in Physical

Stores—------------------------------------------------------------------------10

3. The Hypothesized Model----------------------------------------------------11

4. Effects of store social cues on customers’ internal evaluations--------26

5. Effect of design cues on customers’ internal evaluations---------------29

6. Effect of ambient cues on customers’ internal evaluations-------------33

7. Effect of customers’ internal evaluations on perceived value----------37

8. Effect of perceived value on customer outcomes------------------------38

9. Standardized loadings for the hypothesized model----------------------56

viii
 ABSTRACT

A recent survey by IBM institute for Business Value reports that fifty four percent
retailers are improving upon their store design to facilitate a rich experience for their
customers. These changes stress upon improved functionality and efficiency of the store
as well as making the shopping task a fun activity. Retailers are recognizing that today’s
shopper is not only seeking utilitarian benefits but also desires fulfillment at an emotional
level. Thus, the store environment has to be geared towards facilitating both the
utilitarian and hedonic desires of a consumer.

Traditionally, researchers have studied the effect of store environment on

cognitive evaluations of customers. These cognitive evaluations include perceived
merchandise quality, perceived price, perceived service quality etc. This study broadens
the scope of store environment research to affective evaluations as well. The main
purpose of the study is to examine the role of store environment on customers’ internal
evaluations which constitute both utilitarian and hedonic evaluations; and how these
evaluations lead to the customers’ judgment of overall value.

Additionally, it is proposed that store environment will not impact all the
customers in a similar manner. Customers will value only those consequences which they
desire. Therefore for some customers the primary drivers of value will be utilitarian
benefits whereas for others hedonic benefits. Customer’s shopping motivation is
identified as the moderating factor in the model.

Data were collected using a survey methodology. Shoppers’ perception of store

environment was recorded after they had visited a particular store. They were also asked
about various cognitive and affective evaluations they made in the store as well as their
perceptions of overall value received. Generally the model presented in this study was
supported. The three dimensions of store environment –social factors, ambiance and
design factors were found to influence evaluations of merchandise quality, interpersonal

ix
quality, price, efficiency, enjoyment, appeal and escapism. Additionally, these
evaluations contribute to the customers’ perceptions of overall value. Individual
perceptions of value lead the customers to spend more time in the store and create a
desire to visit the store again.

The equivalence of the model for recreational and task oriented shoppers was also
examined in the study. Findings suggest that the value formation for recreational and task
oriented shoppers is different. Whereas, recreational shoppers take both cognitive and
affective evaluations into account while forming value perceptions; task oriented
shoppers are more inclined towards cognitive evaluations such as perceptions of
interpersonal quality, efficiency, merchandise quality and price. In sum, this study
emphasizes that store environment impacts consumer perceptions of utilitarian and
hedonic benefits offered by the store, and may influence different types of shoppers in
unique ways.

x
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Do we as shoppers pick stores at random to shop, or do we have a particular

store(s) which we are most likely to visit for a particular shopping task? It’s most likely
that we do have our own favorite stores where we like to shop. Perhaps what makes us
favor these stores over others is the positive experience that we had when we shopped
there the last time. So is it all about shopping experience? That seems to be the buzz word
in today’s economy. Researchers and practitioners alike are proposing that the traditional
levers of price, selection and location, although still important, are no longer sufficient as
bases for competitive differentiation. Retailers need to focus on improving the end to end
experience in-order to boost sales and win customer loyalty.

The main question concerns to the type of experience retailers should deliver to
their customer base. Is there a solution that can fit all customer types or should retailers
profile customers to understand what an individual shopper may be looking for?
I think the answer resides in the customer itself, since any type of store offering can not
be appreciated if that does not relate to what the customer wants.

Some of the measures taken by retailers to improve and differentiate the shopping
experience for their customers are - use of advance technology such as delivering
promotions to personal mobile devices and use of digital media displays in the store;
enabling cross-channel shopping where shoppers can order on the internet and within
hours pick up from the nearby store; providing their employees access to a wide range of
data to make quick and effective decisions, and designing stimulating in-store
environments that is not only geared towards functional benefit such as maximizing sales
per square but to create memorable shopping experiences. The primary goal
encompassing all the above mentioned strategies is to deliver greater customer value.
Greater customer value can only be achieved if the implemented strategies cater to the

1
desired result for the customers, which in turn will also make the investment of resource
in the implementation of such strategies a profitable venture for the concerned business.

‘Sears Grand’ is a fine example of the changing face of retailing today. The Sears Grand
concept was created to deliver a memorable shopping experience to its customers. The
one-level store is brightly lit with wide, uncluttered aisles and easy checkout lanes at the
exit. A racetrack format combined with colorful, bilingual signage makes it easy for
customers to navigate the 165,000 to 210,000 sq. foot stores easily. Additionally, price
verifiers throughout the store enable customers to easily identify the price on any product
or call for assistance if needed. To make the shopping experience even more convenient
and fun, Sears Grand features shopping carts that have a kid-friendly racecar theme and
are equipped with cup holders for mom and dad. The stores also feature convenient
services and a café where busy families can grab a bite to eat. The theme that emerges out
of this description of Sears Grand is an atmosphere created to maximize shopping
convenience through store layout and design, faster availability and accessibility of
information, and offering multiple benefits by merging merchandising, entertainment and
hospitality.

The key for creating outstanding and memorable experiences lies in the
understanding of what customer seeks when they shop in a store. Retailers are trying to
delve deeper to understand why customers make particular shopping decisions, not just
what they bought and where they bought it (IBM Business Consulting Services, 2004).
Traditional superficial classifications (based on demographic characteristics) are
increasingly inadequate to accurately predict behavior. For example, two 40-year-old
working women who both have two children and similar household income may shop
very differently, depending on their personal value systems. One customer chooses
brands that donate a part of profits to good causes; prefers recycled goods, even if they
cost more; and emphasizes convenience and simplicity in the shopping experience. The
second customer only buys products from domestic companies and brands; clips coupons
and carefully compares prices before choosing what to buy; and emphasizes product
quality and value. How must retailers vary the services delivered to these two very

2
different customers? How will a retailer signal to its customer when he or she enters the
store that one has reached the right place? Specifically, how should retailers tailor the in-
store experience to specific customer groups to make it noteworthy and memorable?

The Nature of the Problem

The importance of in-store shopping environment on consumer behavior is not a

new idea in the marketing literature. Kotler (1973 p.50) first introduced the concept of
store atmospherics and defined it as “the effort to design buying environments to produce
specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhances his or her purchase probability”. In
1974, two environmental psychologists, Mehrabian and Russell, introduced the Stimulus-
Organism-Response (S-O-R) framework. Their framework asserts that the physical
environment influences individuals’ internal states, and in turn these states determine
approach and avoidance behavior. The S-O-R framework initiated a number of marketing
studies that have generally supported relationships between store environment and
consumer perception, affect and store patronage intentions (e.g. Donovan and Rossiter,
1982; Baker, Levy, and Grewal, 1992; Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal and Voss, 2002).

Despite the plethora of evidence in support of the link between atmospherics and
consumer behavioral outcomes already accumulated by the past studies, several areas in
store environment research warrant further examination. For example, store
environmental research till date has not adequately addressed the importance of
environmental cues for varying customer types. Though conventional wisdom and
actions of retailers imply that customers differ in their goals and motivations to engage in
shopping activities; empirical verification as to how these motivations may influence
customers’ perceptions of in-store environment is lacking.

The extant literature also lacks empirical research on the effect of store
environment on customer’s perceived value. Though the effect of store environment on
merchandise value has been investigated in the literature (e.g. Zeithaml 1988; Baker et al
2002), there is a dearth of research based answers as to how store environment can

3
deliver hedonic value such as enjoyment, escapism, visual appeal etc. Since, customers’
overall perception of value received from a store will depend upon the ability of the store
to deliver the value sought by the customer, an understanding of customer segmentation
based on shopping goals or motivations, which are both hedonic and utilitarian, is critical
to design environments that are apt to deliver superior value to the target customer. A
shopping visit to a retail facility can be valuable or valueless based on whether the
facility in question was able to deliver the desired consumption experience to the
customer.

In accordance with this line of thought, the goal of this dissertation study is to explore
the following research questions:
1. Does a customer’s shopping motivation affect the impact of in-store
environmental cues?
2. How does an in-store environment influence the customer’s evaluation of
utilitarian and hedonic benefits received from the shopping trip?
3. How customer’s evaluation of benefits received lead to the perception of overall
shopping value?
4. What are the consequences of overall shopping value?

4
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents a review of literature on in-store environment, shopping

value and shopping motivations. Next, a conceptual model is introduced. The theories
relevant to the proposed model are explained at each stage. Finally, a summary of this
model and its characteristics are outlined.

Physical Store Environment

The Stimulus-Organism- Response model as proposed by Mehrabian and Russell

1974, established the link between physical environment and individual’s behavior. In the
following section, I discuss the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model and each of
its dimensions from the perspective of retail store environment.

The Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Framework

Environmental psychology literature asserts that the physical environment

influences the approach-avoidance behavior of individuals within it (Mehrabian and
Russell 1974). Mehrabian and Russell’s S-O-R framework describes mechanisms for
how environmental elements influence individuals’ internal states and in turn their
approach-avoidance behaviors (see Figure 1). They propose that emotional states serve as
mediating variables in determining a variety of approach-avoidance behaviors. Following
the S-O-R model, a number of marketing studies on atmospherics generally support the
relationship between store environment and consumer behavior (e.g., Donovan and
Rossiter 1982, Baker et al 1992). In a retailing context, the atmospheric variables are the
stimuli (S) that drive consumer evaluations (O), and then influence their behavioral
responses (R). Consumer behavior responses are either approach or avoidance within a
retail store. This view is consistent with Markin, Lillis and Narayana’s argument (1976)
that retail store designers, planners, and merchandisers shape a retailing space, that
creates one’s mood, activates intentions, and affects a customer’s reactions.

5
 Behavioral Responses
Stimulus Organism Approach-Avoidance
The Physical Emotional Responses
Environment Response

Figure 1.The Mehrabian-Russell S-O-R Model

Source: Mehrabian, A and Russell J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental
Psychology, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, p.8.

Environmental Components of Physical Stores

On the basis of S-O-R framework, environmental stimulus cues are the

antecedents of consumer evaluations towards a retail store. Schellinck (1982) defined a
cue as “a characteristic, event, quality, or object, external to a person that can be encoded
and used to categorize a stimulus object.” A store environment contains numerous non-
product cues that aim to create a buying environment designed to produce specific
emotional effects in the buyer to enhance his or her purchasing probability. These cues
are termed as store environmental cues.

Service marketing researchers indicate that the ability of the physical environment
to influence behaviors and to create an image is particularly apparent for service
businesses such as retail stores (Bitner 1986). To enhance the development of store
environment research, several researchers have proposed classification schemes in an
attempt to categorize all the elements in a physical store environment (e.g., Baker 1987,
Bitner 1992). Bitner (1992) proposed three dimensions of store environment features that
constitute the servicescape (1) ambient conditions, (2) spatial layout and functionality,
and (3) signs, symbols and artifacts.

Likewise, Baker (1987) classifies environmental components into ambient, design

and social factors. Ambient factors refer to the non-visual elements of a space that tend to
impact the consumer’s subconscious (e.g. temperature, music, and lighting). Design
factors are the stimuli that represent the visual elements of a space that tend to exist more

6
at the forefront of a consumers’ awareness (e.g. color, layout, architectural elements).
Social factors involve the presence of employees and customers in the environment. A
comparison of these two classification schemas was undertaken by Brady and Cronin
(2001), which found Baker’s typology to be more comprehensive and parsimonious in
uncovering the underlying dimensions of service environments. Since retailing involves a
large service component this study will use Baker’s typology of environmental cues.

Customer’s Internal Evaluations

Researchers have found that physical environment induces two types of internal
states for an individual: affective and cognitive (Zeithaml 1988; Mehrabian and Russell
1974). Each type of evaluation impacts a consumer’s shopping behavior in a different
way.

Affective evaluation: Affective evaluation is a judgment of something as pleasant,

attractive, valuable, likable or preferable (Russell and Snodgrass 1987). Mehrabian and
Russell (1974) first suggested that an individuals’ emotional responses to an environment
which summarizes the emotion-eliciting qualities of an environment. Though Mehrabian
and Russell suggest three dimensions for affective responses, subsequent research
concluded that the emotion-eliciting qualities of environments are captured by two
dimensions of pleasure and arousal (Russell and Pratt 1980; Russell and Snodgrass
1987). Baker et al. (1992) define pleasure as “the extent to which a person feels good in
the environment,” and refer to arousal as “the extent to which a person feels excited or
stimulated.”
In a retailing context Donovan and Rossiter (1982) applied the M-R model and
found that affect is a significant factor of consumers’ approach behaviors within a store.
Baker et al. (1992) examined the effect of two environmental factors on consumer
affective evaluation. They found that ambient cues (music) interact with social cues
(store employees) to influence consumers’ pleasure levels and the social cues increase
consumers’ arousal levels. Consistent with the S-O-R model, their findings indicate that
consumer affective evaluations mediate the relationship between store environments and

7
shopping behavior. In sum, the research reviewed here suggests that consumers’ affective
evaluations can be explained in terms of pleasure and arousal dimensions. Furthermore,
pleasure and arousal mediate the relationship between the physical environments and
approach-avoidance behavior.

Cognitive evaluations: Cognitive evaluations are associated with consumer perception.

Perception processes are rooted in information-processing and inference theories
(Bettman 1979; Zeithaml 1988; Baker 1998). Perception is a high level of psychological
activity concerned with the process whereby sensory stimulation (e.g. cues) is converted
into meaningful information (Bettman 1979). When consumers engage in external search
during a purchase situation, the stimuli in a physical store provide some important
informational cues to consumers. Consumers may use those cues as the basis for forming
inference about price, product, or service quality in that store (Baker 1998; Baker et al.
2002). For example, the use of carpeted floor and elegant décor in a store design may
make consumers infer that this store might charge higher prices and provide higher
quality of merchandise and service. During this process, a consumer selects, organizes
and interprets information cues residing in a store to create a meaningful picture of that
store. This rational process or “making sense” is cognitive evaluation.

To consumers, the availability of extrinsic environmental cues is particularly

important for services or manufactured goods that are high in experience, credence
attributes, or unobservable quality (Bitner 1986; Zeithaml et al. 1985; Zeithaml 1988). In
the same vein, Kirmani and Rao (2000) argued that marketing signaling rooted in
information economic theory should be used to supplement information processing for
consumers. Because information asymmetry may exist between transacting parties due to
the unobservable quality of products or experience-based services, it is economically
wise for companies to offer some signals to its consumers who lack information about
those products or services. In essence, marketing signals serve as surrogate indicators for
consumers, as they form beliefs about services or product quality. Those signals may
include a variety of forms such as brand name, advertising, expenditure, price, or retailer
investment in reputation. The physical environment is rich in such cues, and as such may

8
be very influential in communicating the company’s image and product or service quality
to their customers (Rapopart, 1982).

Several empirical studies support the argument that environmental cues influence
one’s cognitive responses. Baker, Grewal and Parasuraman (1994) found that consumers
infer higher merchandise quality and service quality in a prestige-image ambient
environment than in a discount-image ambient environment. Further, consumers’
merchandise and service quality inferences mediate the effects of ambient and social
environmental factors on their store image perceptions. Another study by Bitner (1990)
found that the appearance of the physical environment can influence how customers
perceive causes of service failure in a travel agency. Less control is attributed to the firm
when the service failure occurs in an organized service environment than when the same
event occurs in a disorganized environment. Additionally, Grewal and Baker (1994)
found that the price range of a product item is more acceptable in a high-social store
environment than in a low-social store environment.

Though past research has well established that environmental cues influence
consumers’ affective and cognitive evaluations, it is not yet confirmed if a particular set
of environmental cues is successful in creating similar evaluations for all customers. For
example is a particular type of music likely to produce a state of pleasure and arousal in
all customers? Or more broadly does store environment drives affective and cognitive
evaluations of customers uniformly.

Approach-Avoidance Behavior

According to the S-O-R framework, approach avoidance behaviors are the actions
resulting from individuals’ internal states. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) suggest that
approach behaviors include physical approach, work performance, exploration, and social
interaction. In a retail setting, Donovan and Rossiter (1982) found that emotional
reactions influenced the time that consumers spent in exploring a store, the tendency to
spend more money than originally planned, and the likelihood of returning to the store

9
(future patronage intention). Extending their previous work, Donovan, Rossiter,
Marcoolyn, and Nesdale (1994) found that pleasure was a significant predictor of extra
time spent and unplanned purchasing in a retail store. Milliman (1982) found that the
tempo of background music could affect traffic flow in supermarket settings. In terms of
experiential evaluation, Baker et al. (2002) found negative effects of shopping experience
costs (e.g. time/effort and psychic costs) on consumer patronage intentions. In sum, the
approach-avoidance behaviors in a retail store include one’s patronage intentions, future
patronage intentions, and the amount of time and money spent.

Using the S-O-R framework, Figure 2 summarizes the components and constructs of each
stage in physical store atmospherics research.

Stimulus Organism Cognitive Behavioral Response

Evaluations Approach-Avoidance
Ambient
Design Merchandise Quality Time spent in store
Social Price Repurchase Intention
Service Quality
Efficiency

Affective Evaluations
Enjoyment
Visual Appeal
Escapism

Figure 2: The S-O-R Framework of Atmospherics and the Constructs in Physical

Stores

10
 Store Environment Cues Customer’s Internal Evaluations Customer Response

Perceived
merchandise
quality
Social Cues

• Store employee
perceptions Perceived
• Co shopper price
perceptions

Perceived Time Spent

Design Cues interpersonal
service quality Overall
Experiential
• Store layout Value
perceptions Perception
• Store functionality
perceptions Repurchase
Perceived
enjoyment Intent

Ambient Cues Perceived

efficiency
• Store music
perceptions
• Commercial
displays
Perceived
• Lighting visual appeal

Perceived
escapism

Figure 3. A conceptual model of the effect of store environmental cues on experiential

value and repurchase intention.

11
 Store Environmental Cues and Customers’ Value Perceptions

Past research on the effects of store environmental cues on customers’ value

perceptions is scarce. The few studies that have investigated this relationship suggest that
store environmental cues affect a customer’s value perceptions; however the relationship
is mediated by perceived merchandise quality and perceived merchandise price (Baker et
al. 2002, Sirohi et al. 1998). Additionally, higher quality perceptions will positively affect
merchandise value perceptions whereas higher price perceptions will hold a negative
relationship with perceived merchandise value. This view of atmospherics-value
relationship explains the process by which customers make value judgments about the
product on the basis of external cues present in the environment, and how these value
judgments affect the consumer responses in a retail outcome. Emphasizing the utilitarian
approach towards value, empirical studies have shown that by manipulating the
environmental variables of a retail store the retailer can affect the value perceptions of
customers by influencing the perceived price and quality on one hand and psychic costs
(such as perceived waiting time ) on the other .

Two major questions emerge at this point. Firstly, are customers only looking for
a good deal in a shopping context, i.e. economic value? And secondly, if shopping is not
limited to a search for economic value than what are the other types of value that a
customer may search for in a retail setting, and how can a retailer deliver such value to its
customers?
To shed some light on these queries, literature related to customer value and
shopping motives is presented below:

Customer Value
“At the source of any successful enterprise enabling its very existence is the value
creation process”- Reichheld, Markey and Hopton (2000). Customer value has been
identified as an important driver of customer loyalty and is considered central to the
performance of the firm (Reichheld 1994; Heskett et al 1997). Consequently, customer

12
value has been and continues to be the focus of academic research both in the field of
marketing and management.

In marketing, the role of customer value on consumer behavior has been revised
and reexamined at length (Boyd and Levy 1963; Holbrook 1985, 1986; Zeithaml 1988;
Bolton and Drew 1991; Tracey and Wiersema 1993; Lai 1995; Woodruff and Gardial
1996; Woodruff 1997). Despite the extant of research on the topic, researchers
acknowledge the difficulties in reconciling on a common definition of customer value
because of its subjective and dynamic nature (Piercy and Morgan 1997; Naumann 1995;
Woodruff 1997). Conceptualizations of customer value as present in the literature can be
grouped into three categories: value component models, benefits-cost ratio models, and
means-ends models.

Value component models

Value component models are based on the features or characteristics of products
and services. Joiner (1994) and Rust and Oliver (2000) perception of customer value is
based on the disconfirmation model prevalent in consumer behavior literature. It includes
three components of value: dissatisfiers, satisfiers and delighters. Dissatisfiers are
features of a product or service that are expected to be present and are generally taken to
be granted. For example- availability of the product on the shelf when a customer goes
shopping in a store. Since these features are expected to be there, their presence only
brings customer to the neutral point but their absence frustrates the customer (Khalifa
2004). Satisfiers are the features or characteristics of a product or service that are
expected and explicitly requested by the customer. For example- customer may expect to
exercise choice in the method of payment. If the store only accept cash or debit card, it
may disappoint the customer; however allowing the customer to use any mode of
payment may not only satisfy the customer but may even prove delightful. Delighters are
the innovative features of a product or service that the customers do not expect. When the
seller’s offering exceeds the customer’s expectation, the customer is delighted. These
features have no negative effect if they are absent but lead to a positive state when
present.

13
 Kaufman (1998) classifies value elements as utility value, exchange value and
esteem value. Utility value is the primary value element that describes the performance of
the product. Exchange value translated into the reason for customer wanting the product.
And esteem value invokes the buyer’s desire to own the product. Any of these elements
or a combination of them drives the customer to make a buy decision.Value components
models of customer value places importance on the benefits perceived by a customer in a
product or service. They do not account for the costs incurred by the customer to acquire
such benefits. Additionally, it is not explained as to why a set of benefits may invoke
different value judgments from different customers.

Benefit-Cost Ratio Models

“Value is the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on
perceptions of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml 1988, p. 14).”
“Buyer’s perception of value represents a tradeoff between the quality or benefits
they perceive in the product relative to the sacrifice they perceive by paying the price
(Monroe 1990, p.46).”
“Customer value is market perceived quality adjusted for the relative price of your
product (Gale 1994, p xiv).”
“By customer value, we mean the emotional bond established between a
customer and a producer after the customer has used a salient product or service produced
by that supplier and found the product to provide an added value (Butz and Goodstein
1996, p. 63).”
As evident from the presented definitions here value has been defined in terms of
the ‘gets versus the gives’ (Day 1990; Dodds, Monroe & Grewal 1991; Jacoby 1971;
Ostrum and Iacobucci (1995); Monroe 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). Day (1990) proposes that
value can be expressed in terms of a ‘value equation’; “Customer Perceived Benefits –
Customer Perceived Costs = Customer Perceived Value” (p.142). This conceptualization
of the value construct defines value as a trade-off between total benefits received versus
total sacrifices made (Buzzell and Gale, 1987; Monroe, 1979; 1990; Monroe & Krishnan,
1985; Sweeny 1994). This sacrifice can be monetary or non-monetary, but the emphasis
is on acquiring practical, utilitarian and instrumental utility in a product from this trade

14
(Holbrook 1994). Thus, the traditional understanding of value can be viewed as a more
functional definition of value, which is derived from customer analysis of multiple
functional benefits such as specific product attributes and the technical utility a product
offers (Jacoby 1971; Lai 1995; Shavitt 1992; Woodruff, Schumann and Gradial 1993;
Zeithaml 1988).
Value conceptualization under benefit-cost model is not limited to
utilitarian benefits alone. Groth (1994) argues that customers buy products or services not
only for utilitarian purposes but also for psychic need fulfillment. These psychic factors
are both internal and external. Internal factors are the customer’s own perceptions of
value independent of the opinions, suggestions, influences, and approval of others
whereas external factors are the customer’s perception because of the opinions,
influences, suggestions and approval of others. Both internal and external factors can be
real or perceived.

Means End Model

Means-end models are based on the assumption that customers acquire products
and services in order to achieve favorable ends. Means are products and services whereas
ends are the personal values considered important by the customer. Woodruff (1997)
emphasizes that customers perceive products or services as bundles of attributes and
attribute performance. They form preferences for certain attributes based on their ability
to facilitate desired consequences. Customers also learn to prefer those consequences that
help them to achieve the desired end goal.
Various authors have emphasized on the total consumption experience in their
conceptualization of value. Consumption of a product or service provides the individual
with cognitive and sensory benefits (Hirschman 1984). Cognitive consumption leads to
the tangible benefits derived from performing utilitarian functions whereas sensory
consumption is the emotional reward that a customer derives from the product (Holbrook
and Hirschman 1982).

15
Operationalization of Customer Value in Present Study

Shopping can provide both task related (product acquisition) or hedonic value
through responses evoked during the experience (Babin et al. 1994 p. 645). Value of a
good or service is dependent on its role in creating a consumption experience (Holbrook
1982). To create and maintain lasting relationships with one’s customers, marketers need
to go beyond the price and quality mix to provide experience-based value (Steigelman
2000). A strictly utilitarian approach, focusing on an object, its price or the functional
utility provided by a product is too narrow to account for all value provided by the
consumption experience (Hirschman and Holbrook 1982). Therefore value in a shopping
context has to be considered from an experiential perspective that includes both the
tangible utilitarian outcomes and hedonic responses from a consumption experience. This
study adopts the experiential view of value as proposed by Holbrook (1994), where value
is defined as
“A relativistic (comparative, personal, situational) preference characterizing
a subject’s experience of interacting with some object.”
Experiential value perceptions are based upon either direct usage or distant
appreciation of goods or services. Experiential value offers both extrinsic and intrinsic
benefits (Babin and Darden 1995; Batra and Ahtola 1991). Extrinsic benefits are derived
from shopping trips that are utilitarian in nature (Batra and Ahtola 1991). Whereas
intrinsic value is derived from the “appreciation of an experience for its own sake, apart
from any other consequence that may result (Holbrook 1994 p. 40).” Mathwick et al
(2001) build upon Holbrook’s (1994) typology of experiential value and provide
additional insights into the four dimensions of experiential value which are as follows:

Consumer return on investment: Consumer return on investment represents the

“active investment of financial, temporal, behavioral and psychological resources that
potentially yield a return” (Mathwick et al., 2001). The consumer may experience this
return in the form of economic utility generating from the efficiency of an exchange
encounter (Zeithaml, 1988) as well as from the perception of affordable quality (Grewal,
Monroe and Krishnan 1996).

16
 Service Excellence: Service excellence is a reactive response whereby the
consumer exhibits an admiration for the marketing entity’s capacity to serve as a means
to a self-oriented end (Holbrook and Corfman 1985). Service excellence acts as a
standard against which quality judgments are ultimately formed (Oliver 1999). Therefore
the value derived from perceived service excellence reflects the customer appreciation of
a service provider to deliver on its promise through demonstrated expertise and task
related performance (Zeithaml 1988).

Aesthetics: An aesthetic response is analogous to the appreciation of a work of

“art”, it is a reaction to the symmetry, proportion and unity of a physical object (Veryzer
1993). In a retail context, aesthetics is reflected in two key dimensions-the visual
elements of a retail environment and the entertaining aspects of the service performance
itself (Mathwick et al 2001). Visual appeal is driven by the design and physical
attractiveness of the retail setting. Entertainment value reflects the appreciation for the
marketing entity’s ability to lift the spirits of shoppers (Babin et al 1994). Consumers
who perceive the shopping experience to be more than an errand or purchase opportunity
and seek to make it a memorable or entertaining experience respond to the entertainment
dimension of aesthetics. In sum, both visual appeal and entertainment dimensions of
aesthetic response offer pleasure on their own, irrespective of the retail store’s ability to
facilitate the economic goals of shoppers (Driefus 1997).

Playfulness: Playful exchange behavior is reflected in the intrinsic enjoyment one

finds while engaging in absorbing activities that offer a means of escape from the
demands of the day-to-day life (Unger and Kernan 1983). Playfulness operates outside
the immediate material interests and has a restorative capability (Day, 1981). In addition
to enjoyment, escapism is another aspect of playfulness that allows the customer to
temporarily seek a refuge from worldly demands. Window shopping or other forms of
vicarious consumption are examples of escapism in the retail shopping context.

17
 This typology emphasizes value as a transient process influenced by personal
goals, moods, and consumer self image (Flint, Woodruff and Gardial 1996; Johar & Sirgy
1991; Shavitt 1992; Woodruff, Schumann and Gardial 1993; Woodruff 1997). Different
individuals will favor different things and activities (Maynes 1975), and will utilize
different criteria in perceiving benefits from a shopping experience, thus leading to
different value judgments (Taylor 1961).

According to Zeithaml (1988 p.13) “what constitutes value even in a single

product category appears to be highly personal and idiosyncratic”. Thus, value becomes a
personal evaluation, based on one’s internal value system tied into innate needs and
wants. Subsequently each consumption context evokes a different value perception to be
applied to that specific purchase transaction. (Holbrook 1994; Oliver 1996; Woodruff
1997). Each purchase transaction can evoke a different value perception but all forms of
value are self-oriented; having intrinsic characteristics that are self-motivating and self-
justifying (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). In this conceptualization of value the
construct is seen as a judgment within a particular context (Lewis 1946), one that is
highly dependent on the circumstances under which the decision was made (Taylor
1961). Therefore, it is logical to imply that in order to gain a deeper understanding of
what constitutes value for a given consumer, an understanding of customer motivation is
essential. In the following section, consumer shopping motivations are reviewed:

Shopping Motivations

Shopping motivations reflect the general predisposition of consumers toward the

act of shopping (Gehrt et al., 1992). This predisposition may be manifested in buyer’s
decision making process that includes patterns of information search, alternative
evaluation, and product selection. In order to infer shopping motivations, various
taxonomies of retail shoppers were developed by researchers based on orientation to (1)
product usage (Darden and Reynolds 1971), (2) actual patronage and shopping behavior
(Stephenson and Willett 1969), (3) shopping enjoyment (Bellenger and Korgaonkar
1980), (4) retail attribute preference (Bellenger et al. 1977, Darden and Ashton 1974),

18
and (5) psychological needs (Tauber 1974). It has been suggested in the literature that
common segments can be found across the various taxonomies generated by past studies
(Lesser and Hughes 1986, Westbrook and Black 1985).
During this review of the literature, six main shopper classes can be identified. A
brief explanation of these classes is presented below:

The economic shopper as identified by Stone (1954) is the most frequently

identified segment in the literature. These shoppers are price conscious and look forward
to buying products at the lowest price. The price-bargain-conscious shopper (Stephenson
and Willett 1969), the special shopper (Moschis 1976), the low-price shopper (Williams
et al., 1978), the economic-convenience shopper (Bellenger and Korgaonkar 1980), the
price shopper (Lesser and Hughes 1986), and the price conscious, “value-for-money”
consumer (Shim and Mahoney 1992) are all essentially referring to the same segment.

The recreational shopper was first identified by Stephenson and Willett (1969). A
similar type of shopper has also been labeled as ‘active’ (Lesser and Hughes, 1986;
Lumpkin, 1985) and ‘shopping process involved’ (Westbrook and Black, 1985).
Recreational shoppers enjoy the act of shopping regardless of whether a purchase is made
or not. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) contend that this group represents a sizeable
proportion of consumers, a view supported by Gehrt and Carter (1992) in specific relation
to catalogue shoppers.

The apathetic shopper is also referred to as the inactive shopper by Lesser and
Hughes (1986) and has emerged in many shopper typologies as the single largest segment
of consumers, yet it has been relatively under-explored by empirical researchers (Brown
and Reid, 1997).

Convenience-oriented shoppers have been identified in a number of studies,

notably in those investigating the shopping orientations of catalogue users (Gehrt and
Carter, 1992). Convenience has often been conceptualized as a time-oriented construct,
although there is evidence that it also involves space and effort dimensions (Gehrt et al.,

19
1996). Individuals can be motivated by only one of these dimensions or all
simultaneously.
Two other major groups appear in the literature with some consistency.
The ethical shopper is distinguished by loyalty, with studies investigating store loyalty,
brand loyalty, or both. The dominant stream of research into this group has concentrated
on store loyalty, often conceptualized as “loyalty to local merchants” in studies of
shopping behavior. The personalizing shopper orientation refers to consumers who
demonstrate a propensity to value relationships with store personnel. These six
orientations are relatively distinct from one another, reducing the potential for
redundancy among consumer shopping characteristics.
Consumers possess different shopping motivations and it is logical that these
motives or personal goals play an important role in the evaluation of a retailer’s offering
and the formation of value judgments about the shopping experience.

Consumer Responses (Behavioral Outcomes)

Mehrabian and Russell (1974) refer to approach intention as willingness or desire

to move toward and explore an environment. In a retailing context, Donovan and Rossiter
(1982) further specified patronage intention behaviors including (1) time spent in store
(2) In-store browsing, (3) impulse buying and (4) repurchase intentions.

Time Spent in the Store

Many researchers have manipulated environmental variables and measured the
time consumers spent in retail settings. Yalch and Spangenberg (1990) reported that
music style influenced the time that shoppers spent in the store. Besides music, studies of
other variables associated with time spent in store include color (Bellizzi and Hite 1992)
and lighting (Areni and Kim 1994). Lighting was found to have no influence on time
spent in store.

20
 In-Store Browsing
Bloch, Ridgway, and Sherrell (1989) defined in-store browsing as the behavior in
which consumers examine the merchandise for information or for recreational purposes
without any intention of buying. The browsing behavior usually reflects a shopper’s view
of shopping as a potential recreational activity (Babin and Darden 1995). At the same
time, shopping may actually provide pleasurable experience to shoppers (Sherry 1990).
These feelings of pleasure a shopper may experience while browsing can be regarded as a
positive behavioral outcome for a retailer.

Impulse Buying
An impulse purchase, by definition, is an unplanned purchase (Bellenger,
Robertson and Hirschman 1978; Cobb and Hoyer 1986). Rook (1987) addressed impulse
buying as a shopping experience with a sudden urge to buy something immediately.
Beatty and Ferrell (1998) extended this concept of impulse buying to include buying with
no pre-shopping intentions to buy. Literature suggests that as consumers get exposed to
more in-store environmental stimuli, such as displays or promotional events, they would
experience more positive emotions (Gardner and Rook, 1988). When a shopper is in
positive response, he/she is more likely to engage in approach behavior than avoidance
behavior in a retail environment (Baker et al., 1992). Donovan and Rossiter (1982) also
found that pleasure was positively associated with overspending in a shopping
environment.

21
 Summary

Social factors, design factors, and ambient factors are the store environmental
elements chosen to test the model developed in this dissertation study. The basic premise
is that environmental cues influence the perceptions of interpersonal service quality,
merchandise value, efficiency, visual appeal, entertainment, and escapism. These
perceptions in turn determine the overall experiential value received by a customer in a
retail setting. Positive value perceptions lead to outcome behaviors such as extra time
spent in store, impulse buying and repurchase intentions. It is also contended that the
evaluation of environmental cues and determinants of overall experiential value in a
shopping environment will differ due to the differing customer motivations.

22
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

This chapter contains four groups of research hypotheses. In accord with the
literature review and the underlying relationships in the proposed model, the research
hypotheses are developed to address the following research questions:

1. How do the three environmental factors (ambient, design, and social)

influence customers’ internal evaluations?
2. How do customer’s internal evaluations lead to an evaluation of overall
experiential value?
3. What are the consequences of experiential value evaluations?
4. Is the model generalizable across various customer segments based on their
shopping motivations?

The Effects of Social Cues on Customer Value Evaluations

Store employees and co-customers are recognized as ‘social factors’ in retail store
setting. Prior research suggests that sales people affect customers’ satisfaction level with
the store services by influencing the moods of the customers (Grewal and Sharma 1991).
The recognition that service employees are particularly helpful and friendly, or provide
faster service may induce greater levels of stimulation and pleasure resulting in positive
affect towards the store (Wakefield and Blodgett 1999). In addition to the interaction
between store employees and a customer, the service encounter is often characterized by
the condition of multiple customers whose presence may influence each other. Therefore,
a customer’s service experience may be affected positively or negatively by one’s fellow
customers (Grove and Fisk 1997).

23
Store Employee Perceptions – Perceived Merchandise Quality

Literature presents mixed findings for the relationship between store employee
perceptions and perceived merchandise quality. For example, Gardner and Simons (1985)
found that customers perceived merchandise quality to be higher when the sales people
were well dressed, friendly and cooperative versus sloppily dressed, nasty and
uncooperative. In another study by Akhter et al. (1994), merchandise quality was
perceived to be higher when customers felt that store employees are friendly and
knowledgeable. However, in another study by Baker et al. (2002) no relationship was
found between employee cues and perceived merchandise quality. In the light of these
mixed findings it will be worthwhile to evaluate the relationship between store employee
perceptions and perceived merchandise quality.
RH1a: Favorable perceptions of store employee cues are positively related to higher
perceived merchandise value.

Store Employee Perceptions –Perceived Price

Helson (1964) posits that contextual factors shape a person’s frame of reference
for focal stimuli. In a retailing context, store atmosphere will influence customers’ price
perceptions. Additionally, store atmosphere may generate price beliefs irrespective of the
actual prices. For example, consumers perceive the prices of a product to be higher if the
product is purchased in an upscale store. Although quite a few studies have established
that store atmosphere affects price perceptions (Nagle 1987; Kotler 1973 ; Grewal and
Baker 1994 ), there is sparse research on the effect of individual store environmental cues
on price perceptions. Since the appearance and behavior of store employees contribute to
the perceptions of overall store atmosphere, it is desirable to investigate the effect of
customers’ store employee perceptions on perceived price. It is theorized here that
customers will perceive higher prices if the store employees are formally dressed and
appear to be knowledgeable about the product sold.

24
RH1b: Favorable perceptions of store employee cues are positively related to higher
perceived prices.
Store Employee Perceptions - Perceived Interpersonal Service Quality

Past research offers empirical evidence that store employee cues affect inter-
personal service quality perceptions. The number of employees present in a store and
their appearance are tangible signals of service quality in a retail setting (Parasuraman,
Berry and Zeithaml 1988; Hartline and Ferrell 1996). Cues of positive interaction
between the employees and customers such as greeting the customers when they enter the
store, providing assistance and displaying friendly behavior are likely to influence
customers’ interpersonal quality perceptions.
RH1c: Favorable perceptions of store employee cues are positively related to higher
perceived interpersonal quality.

Store Employee Perceptions – Perceived Efficiency

Efficiency is the extrinsic value that results from the active manipulation of some
means in pursuit of some self-oriented goals (Holbrook 1986 p.30). Efficiency can be
characterized in the terms of input-output ratio, as to what resources were spent to
achieve a given objective. In marketing, where time is perceived to be a key resource,
efficiency can also be viewed as ‘convenience’ (Szymanski and Hise 2000). Baker et al.
(2002) state that both time and effort are important elements of consumers’ shopping
experience costs. Prior research suggests that social factors can influence customers’
perception of time and effort spent in a store. If the number of sales employees is
perceived to be insufficient for the customer density, customers may perceive that they
have to wait longer to receive assistance (Eroglu and Machleit 1990). In such a case,
customers’ time/effort cost perception is higher and may result in anger and frustration on
the part of the customer thus leading to lower efficiency.
RH1d: Favorable perceptions of store employee cues are positively related to perceived
efficiency.

25
 Perceived
Merchandise
Quality

Perceived Price
Social Cues

Perceived
Interpersonal
Quality

Perceived
Efficiency

Figure 4: Summary for the research hypotheses regarding the effects of store social cues.

The Effect of Store Design Cues on Customer Value Evaluations

The design of a store represents the physical appearance of the store. Store design
can be broken down into two main components: spatial layout and functionality (Bitner,
1992). Spatial layout refers to the amount and the size of merchandise, fixtures and
furnishings, the way they are arranged and the spatial relationship among them (Berman
and Evans 1992, p.42). Store functionality is the ability of these items to facilitate
performance of the store and accomplishment of goals.
Retailers try to develop their own individual looks through design of the store that
can emphasize products and help the product to stand out. The design of the layout

26
patterns varies by the retail format. Typically, the type of layout used by the
merchandise- oriented stores is different from service- oriented retailers (for example,
commercial banks). At merchandise- oriented stores, the layout design elements include
fixtures, allocation of floor space, product grouping, traffic flow, department locations,
and allocation of space for merchandise within departments. Retailers try to accomplish
many goals while designing a store environment, such as providing customers an
adequate space to navigate and shop easily (Levy and Weitz, 2001), controlling and
directing traffic flow on the selling floor (Hasty and Reardon, 1996), and creating a
unique store image.

Store Design Cues – Perceived Merchandise Quality

In the absence of prior knowledge, consumers infer quality of the merchandise

sold in a store on the basis of other non-product cues. Prior research shows that the same
merchandise bought at an upscale store is perceived to be of superior quality than when
bought in a discount store (Gardner et al. 1985). Kotler (1973) notes that a retail
environment communicates the quality standards that the retailer abides with, and wishes
to deliver to its patrons. Baker et al. (2002) also found significant effect of design cues on
merchandise quality perceptions.
RH 2a: As the perceptions of store design cues become more favorable, consumers will
perceive merchandise quality to be higher.

Store Design Cues – Perceived Price

It is argued in the literature that consumers respond to prices on the basis of the
entire purchase situation. Thaler (1985) states that subjects were willing to pay higher
prices for a beer purchased at a resort hotel, whereas the same price was considered
outrageous in a grocery store. Baker et al. (2002) found that consumers expected higher
prices in an upscale store even before they examined the price tags. These expectations
were influenced by the cues present in the store environment.

27
RH2b: As the perceptions of store design cues become more favorable, consumers will
perceive the price of the merchandise to be higher.

Store Design Cues – Perceived Interpersonal Service Quality

The design style refers to the store image that is created by the design elements.
For example, the use of marble, carpeted floors and rich décor in the store are
instrumental in creating a rich and plush environment. On the other hand, tiled floor,
plastic racks, etc creates a low store image (Gardner and Siomkos 1985). In the absence
of prior knowledge about the store, customers’ expectations of a store’s offering are
influenced by the environmental cues (Grewal and Baker 1994). Although studies related
to the effect of design cues on perceived interpersonal service quality are sparse in the
retailing literature, Greenland and McGoldrick (1994) found that consumers perceived
employees in modern style branch banks more approachable and knowledgeable.
RH2c: As perceptions of store design cues become more favorable, consumers will
perceive interpersonal service quality to be higher.

Store Design Cues – Perceived Efficiency

The primary purpose of a facility design is to fulfill the goals of its occupants. In
retail settings store design is primarily geared towards customer convenience that is
facilitated by easy movement, ease in finding information and product, fast checkout etc.
Latest research from Mintel on retail store design questioning 1,058 adults, finds over
half of consumers having walked out of a store when they were going to make a purchase
because of long queues. A further 35% have left a store where they were going to buy
goods because they could not find the product they were looking for or the price of the
item. The same percentage of consumers was put off by certain shops due to unattractive
store design. Consumers tend to spend more time in shops which have an attractive store
environment and good facilities such as cafes, restaurants, clean toilets and baby
changing places, on the other hand cramped environment and absence of functional
elements may initiate negative feelings in a customer.
RH 2d: As the perceptions of design cues become more favorable, consumers’ perceived
efficiency will be higher.

28
Store Design Cues – Perceived Visual Appeal

Store design is not only geared towards accomplishment of functional goals but
also to provide aesthetic qualities to the environment. Retail marketers are paying
detailed attention to the aesthetics and to the processes by which consumers make
meaning out of their physical experience of the place (Kozinets 2002). Through the use
of lavish décor, sleek finishes and attention to the smallest detail, the design of the store
not only accomplishes task related goals but also provides a visually stimulating
experience to the customers. Retailers utilize interesting window displays to capture
consumers’ attention and draw them into the store (Sen et al. 2002). The use of warm
colors, carpeted floors and spacious layout of the store create a visually appealing look to
engage customers into spending more time in the store.
RH 2e: As the perception of store design cues becomes more favorable, customers’
perception of visual appeal will be higher.

Perceived
Merchandise
Quality

Perceived
Price
Store Design
Cues

Perceived
Interpersonal
Service Quality

Perceived
Efficiency

Perceived
Visual appeal

Figure 5 presents the effect of store design cues on customers’ internal evaluations.

29
 The Effect of Store Ambient Cues on Customers’ Internal Evaluations

Ambient conditions, the “background conditions that exist below the level of
immediate awareness” (Aubert- Gamet 1997, p.29), have been a focus of research on
reactions to sensory cues in physical stores (Bitner 1992). In this vein, studies of ambient
conditions consider visual cues (e.g., lighting, color) (Bellizzi, Crowley, and Hasty 1983;
Bellizzi and Hite 1992; Summers and Hebert 2001), auditory cues (e.g., music, noise)
(Milliman 1982; North and Hargreaves 1999; Tom 1990; Mattila and Wirtz 2001),
olfactory cues (e.g., scents) (Hirsch 1995; Mitchell, Kahn, and Knasko 1995;
Spangenberg 1996), and tactual cues (e.g., temperature) (Griffith 1970). Several scholars
have studied the effect of ambient cues on consumer evaluations. However, the recurring
theme in the past studies is the effect of store ambience on consumers’ pleasure or/and
arousal level. There is a significant lack of research as to how ambient cues can influence
different cognitive and affective evaluations in the mind of the consumer.

Effect of Ambient Cues on Perceived Price

In a study by Areni and Kim (1993) shoppers inferred higher prices for wine
when classical music was played in a wine store than when hip-hop music was played.
This finding is also supported by Baker et al (2002), who found the effect of music cues
on perceived price of merchandise to be significant. Additionally, retailers often
manipulate the illumination in a store to create an upscale image. Higher illumination
levels tend to create an upscale image whereas lower illumination levels tend to drop the
perception of price.
RH 3a: As the perception of store ambience cues becomes more favorable, customers will
perceive merchandise prices to be higher.

30
Effect of Ambient Cues on Perceived Enjoyment

Store ambience cues can affect the customers in both physiological and emotional
ways. For example, noise that is too loud, the temperature of the room or the odor may
create physical discomfort to the customer (Bitner 1992). On the other hand, by
manipulating lighting, music and scents, retailers try to create an emotionally pleasing
environment. Consumers avoid unpleasant and approach pleasant environments. Retailers
are making a significant effort to purchase background music inclined to please the target
clientele and make the shopping task enjoyable. In retail stores where hedonic
consumption is higher (e.g. Barnes and Noble, where customers come as much for
entertainment as the actual purchase) ambience of the store may prove to be more
important.
RH 3b: As the perception of ambient cues becomes more favorable, consumers’
perception of enjoyment will be higher.

Effect of Ambient Cues on Perceived Efficiency

An inviting ambience of the store can influence the shopping time and effort
perceptions of consumers. Environments rich in ambience can induce affective reactions
in consumers (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Dube and Morin, 1999). Hui et al (1997)
state that consumers in their study perceived waiting time to be longer when music was
played in the background, however this did not result in consumer dissatisfaction with the
service provider. Ambient conditions such as soothing music, pleasantly scented
environment, can have a calming effect on the consumers, and can alleviate stress, thus
leading to perceptions of low psychic costs (Stratton, 1992).
RH 3c: As the perception of ambient cues becomes more favorable, customers’ perceived
efficiency would be higher.

31
Effect of Ambient Cues on Perceived Visual Appeal

Color and lighting in a store are often manipulated to create the desired visual
impact on the consumer (Scott 1993). Accent lightings and warm colors are used to
convey an image of high quality. Lower levels of illumination also give an upscale
feeling whereas bright lights give a warehouse look to a store (Chain Store Age, 1994 p.
34). Because color and illumination are the visual elements of store ambience, the
congruity of these elements with customer preferences will dictate the visual appeal of
the environment to the customer.
RH 3d: As the perception of ambient cues becomes more favorable, consumers’
perception of visual appeal will be higher.

Effect of Ambient Cues on Perceived Escapism

Women often use shopping as an escape and a way to buoy their moods, hence
the phrase ‘retail therapy’. Retailers are responding to this trend by creating a store
environment that is conducive for fun and recreation. Soft music, virtually stimulating
displays, opportunities to touch, and taste (where appropriate), game sections,
comfortable chairs are all part and parcel of this trend. Restoration Hardware tells stories
to establish rapport with customers and create nostalgic cachet around its products.
Progressive grocery retailers are combining education with entertainment by offering
activities such as wine tasting and cooking classes to make Saturday morning marketing
fun.
RH3e: As the perception of ambient cues becomes more favorable, consumers’
perception of escapism will be higher.

32
 Perceived
Price

Perceived
Ambient Cues
Lighting Perceived
Music Enjoyment

Perceived
Efficiency

Perceived
Visual
Appeal

Perceived
Escapism

Figure 6: The effect of ambient cues on customer’s internal evaluations

The Effects of Customers’ Internal Evaluations on Overall Experiential Value

Perception

Experiential value perception of a shopper is a summary judgment of the

complete shopping experience. Shopping environments can evoke both cognitive and
affective responses in consumers, and such reactions, in turn, influence shopping
behaviors and outcomes (Machleit and Eroglu 2000). Additionally, these responses
evoked during the shopping experience can provide both task related and/or hedonic
benefits to the consumer (Bloch and Richins 1983). As stated earlier, in this study,

33
overall value is considered from the experiential perspective, which is a reflection of the
tangible consequences as well as the hedonic benefits received by the customer.
Perceived Merchandise Quality – Perceived Experiential Value

Prior research has consistently suggested a positive and direct link between
product quality and value (Grewal et al 1998; Sirohi et al 1998; Baker et al. 2002). The
perception of high product quality is related to high utility received by the consumer from
the purchase of the given product. If the perceived merchandise quality is high, the
customer will perceive a high return for his/her investment and therefore will include this
return in forming an overall experiential value perception.
RH4a: As the perception of merchandise quality becomes more favorable, consumers’
perceived experiential value would be higher.

Perceived Price – Perceived Experiential Value

Price perception is what is given up in terms of monetary prices (Zeithaml 1988).

Baker et al (2002) found that monetary price and merchandise quality were salient
determinants of perceived value. Monetary price perceptions had a negative effect on
value perceptions while merchandise quality had a positive effect on value perceptions.
Previous studies examining the effect of monetary price on perceived value also suggest a
negative relationship, that is, the higher the price perception, the lower the perceived
value (Dodds et al 1991; Grewal et al 1998; Sirohi et al 1998).
RH4b: As the perception of monetary price becomes higher, consumers’ perceived
experiential value would be lower.

Perceived Interpersonal Service Quality – Perceived Experiential Value

Zeithaml (1988) states that inferior interpersonal service quality of a store will
translate into low value perceptions on the part of the consumer. Interpersonal service
quality is an element of service quality perceptions, and includes good treatment,
personal attention, high quality service and prompt service to the customers (Baker et al

34
2001). In a retail setting, if consumers’ perception of the quality of service provided by
the sales force is positive, it will translate into high value perceptions.
RH4c: As the perception of interpersonal service quality becomes more favorable,
consumers’ perceived experiential value would be higher.
.
Perceived Enjoyment – Perceived Experiential Value

Retail stores are moving away from just massive product display to focusing on
providing customers an entertaining environment. Themed flagship brand stores not only
provide a more engaging experience of the brand’s essence but also satisfy customers that
are looking for entertainment alongside their shopping (Kozinets et al 2002). Retail stores
are providing indoor climbing structures, mountain bike test tracks, internet cafes etc. to
create a more memorable and attractive consumer experience. Consumers who perceive a
shopping experience to be more than a purchase opportunity view that experience to be
appreciated for all its nuances (Mathwick et al 2001). Entertainment value reflects an
appreciation for the entire retail setting, irrespective of a retail environment’s ability to
deliver tangible benefits (Driefus 1997).
RH4d: As the customers’ perception of enjoyment becomes more favorable, perceived
experiential value will be higher.

Perceived Efficiency – Perceived Experiential Value

Consumers consider time and effort as key inputs while deciding upon a shopping
destination. The convenience offered by a store to its customers is a key source of
customer value (Holbrook 1982 p. 45). An ample number of salespeople, self checkout
counters, and small checkout lines, lead to an efficient transaction between buyers and
the seller. On the other hand, crowded shopping environments, waiting for salespeople
for assistance, long checkout cues result in high time and effort costs, and thus low
efficiency. Consumers are likely to have a favorable assessment for the store that they
perceive to be efficient. Consumers’ perception of higher efficiency would result in more
positive experiential value because they gain benefits from saving time and effort.

35
RH4e: As the customers’ perception of efficiency becomes more favorable, the perceived
experiential value will be higher.
Perceived Visual Appeal – Perceived Experiential Value

Visually appealing environments are aesthetically pleasing to a person. Aesthetic

value arises from an innate appreciation for the target object (Holbrook 1982 p. 50).
Beauty provides immediate pleasure and is valuable in it, without being an intermediate
means to some end (Hilliard 1950). In a retail setting, visual appeal of a store can prove
to be relaxing and pleasurable to a consumer. Many consumers flock to the malls in the
holiday season just to appreciate the festive displays. Extending this thesis to a retail
store, it is posited that retail stores that are visually appealing will evoke a positive
experiential evaluation from the customers.
RH4f: As the customers’ perception of visual appeal becomes more favorable, the
perceived experiential value will be higher.

Perceived Escapism – Perceived Experiential Value

Perceived freedom, fantasy fulfillment, and a sense of escapism may indicate a

valuable shopping experience (Babin et al. 1994). Escapism is an aspect of playfulness
that allows a customer to temporarily find “a respite from it all”, often involving an
element of pretend (Mathwick et al. 2001). Bloch et al. (1986) states that window-
shopping is an example of the pretend aspect of escapism in a retail setting. Grandiose,
spectacular and entertaining aspects of retailing are becoming increasingly important to
the retail stores (Kozinets 2002). As brands become more associated with fantasy
oriented lifestyle advertising, the stores that sell these brands are also shifting from
functional environments to fantasyland. The richness of store environment (such as that
of ESPN Zone Chicago) presents a type of theatrical display meant for enticing and
attracting a customer to linger for a longer time.
RH 4g: As the customers’ perception of escapism becomes more favorable, perceived
experiential value will be higher.

36
 Perceived
Merchandise
Quality

Perceived
Price

Perceived
Interpersonal
Service Quality
Perceived
Experiential
Value

Perceived
Enjoyment

Perceived
Efficiency

Perceived
Visual
Appeal

Perceived
Escapism

Figure 7: The effect of customers’ internal evaluations on customer perceived

experiential value.

37
 The Effect of Perceived Experiential Value on Customer Response

Perceived value is regarded as the primary driver of purchase intentions and

behaviors (Zeithaml 1988; Dodds et al 1991; Baker et al. 2002). However, these studies
employ the perceived utilitarian value received from a transaction (e.g. product value) as
a measure for customer value. Because the basic tenet of this study is that both utilitarian
as well as hedonic benefits form the overall value evaluation of a customer, it is posited
that experiential value as perceived by the customer will influence his/her behavioral
responses. The behavioral responses include time spent in store, impulse buying, in-store
browsing and intention to revisit the store in future. Customers’ positive perception of the
value received from a store will lead to positive behavioral response such as spending
more time in the store etc. If a customer experiences that the visit to a store was a waste
of resources, it will result in negative behavioral responses from the customer.
RH 5: As the perception of customers’ overall experiential value becomes high,
customers will (a) spend more time in store and (b) will exhibit higher intention to revisit
the store in future.

Time Spent
Overall Value in store
Perceptions

Repurchase
Intent

Figure 8: Effect of Perceived Value on Customer Response

38
 Model Equivalence across Multiple Segments

The broad question asked in atmospheric research is “How does the store
environment influence a customer’s decision to patronize a particular store”? In an effort
to provide research based answers, past studies suggest that store environmental cues
trigger various cognitive and affective reactions in customers which in turn influence the
customers’ patronage intentions. Additionally, the effect of individual environmental
elements such as music, color, store design, store employees etc. on patronage intentions
have also been investigated. However, while these studies attempt to achieve an
understanding of how store atmospherics relate to value perceptions of a consumer, they
typically give little attention to the dissimilarities among consumer characteristics in
terms of their buying behavior and shopping motivations. Several researchers have noted
that customer perceptions of value derived from a retail setting may be moderated by
market segment characteristics or shopping goals (Bolton and Drew 1991; Woodruff
1997; Mathwick et al. 2001). Since, value is a subjective assessment of an individual and
differs from a person to person, an understanding of the role played by customer
characteristics in a retail setting may be necessary before making any generalizations
about store atmospherics and value relationship.

Marketing literature has identified various segments among consumers. Consumer

taxonomies generated thus far have either focused on demographic variables (Stone
1954; Smith 1956), shopping activities (Wells 1975; Bloch et al. 1994) or consumer
motivations (Reynolds et al 2002; Ruiz et al. 2004). Despite the approach undertaken to
derive customer segments, all studies have been able to derive stable and meaningful
profiles.

Equipped with this knowledge that there are distinct segments of consumers with
unique profiles, it is theorized that the contribution of individual environmental features
in creating overall value to a customer will be moderated by the customer type. For
example, perception of design elements of a store and perception of store employees may

39
weigh more heavily on the value evaluations of a convenience seeking customer than a
recreational shopper who may perceive ambience to be more important than
functionality. Furthermore, the contribution of hedonic or utilitarian benefits derived
from a shopping trip in the total shopping experience (overall experiential value) may
differ based on the shopping motivation of an individual. Therefore, this study attempts
to investigate the boundary condition for the relationship between store atmospherics and
overall value by testing whether the proposed relationships as hypothesized in the model
are equivalent across all customer segments. Testing for invariance of the hypothesized
model across customer segments will strengthen the interpretations derived from
atmospheric research.

In order to clear the ambiguities regarding the universal application of store

atmospheric research concepts, it becomes necessary to test for the generalizability of the
corresponding measures. Since theories and measures should not be decoupled (Bagozzi
and Philips 1982), it is critical to consider the question whether constructs and measures
are equivalent across customer segments. Testing for measurement invariance can also
address the question whether empirical similarities or differences (if found) reflect a real
phenomenon that may advance theory, or are merely artifacts of measurement
instruments. Therefore, following the recommendations of Douglas and Craig (1983 p.
132), this study recognizes and tests for equivalence of the measurement model and
equivalence of the structural model across customer segments.

RH6a: The measurement model as hypothesized in the study is equivalent across task -
oriented and recreational shoppers.

RH6b: The structural model as hypothesized in the study is equivalent across task-
oriented and recreational shoppers.

40
 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter describes the methodological issues pertinent to empirical testing of

the research hypotheses discussed in the previous chapter. First, the research strategy
selected to achieve the objective of this empirical study is outlined. Then, measures of the
exogenous and endogenous variables are described. Third, the research procedure,
including the sample selection method and desired sample size, are delineated.

Research Strategy

McGrath et al. (1982) explore the problems of conducting research in the social
sciences. They argue persuasively that each individual method makes trade-offs between
the fundamental problems that researchers want to avoid and the problems they are
willing to accept. Cook & Campbell (1979) state that, all other things being equal, it is
always best to maximize: generalizability with respect to populations, precision in control
and measurement of variables related to the behavior of interest and existential realism
for the participants and of the context in which behavior is observed. For example, if one
uses a controlled laboratory experiment to maximize precision in control and
measurement of variables, one risks low generalizability to other populations and lack of
realism with respect to the work context.

Researchers have traditionally used lab experiments and simulations for store
atmospheric studies. Laboratory experiments are high in internal validity, since this
strategy allows the researcher greater control of potential extraneous variables. By
reducing the noise of these potential confounding variables, the precision of testing links
of interest would increase (Kerlinger 1986). However, experimental research designs are
plagued with several problems. A lab setting is an unnatural and foreign environment for
the participants. First, their motivation for participating in the experiment is very different

41
from that of the normal shopper because they are there for the incentive, not a need to
shop. This motivational difference has profound effects on the subjects’ behavior,
altering the speed at which they move the exercise as well as how they approach the
entire exercise. Additionally, the laboratory setting does not effectively replicate the
shopping environment, this change is quite disorienting, leading to altered behavior.

Finally, the Hawthorne effect (Adair 1984) runs rampant in these evaluations. The
subjects know they are being observed and approach the entire task in a different manner
than they normally would. Attention is more focused on the task at hand, changing the
entire attitude of the subject from the one that the subject may have displayed during a
real purchase situation. Additionally, when subjects interact with experimenters during
the evaluation, they often attempt to please the experimenter by conforming to
expectations and being overly complimentary. The same problem can impair the
experimenter as well, preventing him or her from conducting an objective assessment.

The main goal of this study was to empirically test whether atmospheric factors of
a store affect all consumer types in a similar manner, therefore it was vital that the study
be conducted in a natural setting and the sample be representative of the population of
interest. Since sample surveys offer maximum generalizability and realism, it was chosen
as the appropriate method for the purpose of this study.

Sampling Procedure

Prior to conducting the main study, an exploratory study of 250 shoppers was
conducted to finalize the hypotheses, refine the questionnaire, and to generally confirm
that the proposed theoretical model conforms to the actual shopping experience. A
convenience sampling method was undertaken for this task. Senior class students from
various departments at a large southern university were recruited to fill out the survey
questionnaire in exchange for extra credit.

42
 The survey was divided into four sections. The first section enquired about the
purpose of one’s visit to the store. The second section required one’s perception of the
atmosphere of the store and the third section asked as to how someone felt being in the
store. The fourth section was used for registering additional demographic information of
the respondent such as age, gender, educational background, ethnicity, and annual gross
income. Completed surveys were collected from the respective class instructors. Surveys
were inspected for missing data and respondent error. Data gathered from these surveys
were analyzed for scale reliabilities and model fit. The results obtained from the pilot
study helped to revise questionnaire and provided confidence in the proposed model.

A sample size of 1000 respondents was targeted for the main study. Snowball
sampling method was used to collect the data. Upon obtaining permission from class
instructors at the business schools of two universities, students were asked to volunteer
their participation in collecting data using a survey instrument. Students were duly
assured that non participation in this data collection would not affect their grades in the
courses they were enrolled. Each student was given four survey forms to collect data. In
order to avoid data from a student sample, students were asked to administer the survey
to their parents or relatives or friends and return the surveys to class instructor or the
researcher after completion. Surveys were handed out to only those students who
consented to participate voluntarily. Each student was briefed about the purpose of the
study. In order to guarantee equal representation a quota of 500 was set for male
respondents as well as for female respondents.

Measures

The questionnaire was developed in several stages, following the procedure of

Fowler (1988), and refined according to methods recommended in the appropriate
literature (Bagozzi 1991; Campbell 1960; Churchill 1979). As the first step in
questionnaire development, a bank of items suitable for measuring the constructs under
study was gathered from the relevant literature. These were framed as five-point Likert-
type scales to minimize response time and respondent fatigue. Data from the pilot study
were used to refine the instrument. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to

43
identify and drop items that did not load significantly on the appropriate factor (<0.40) or
cross loaded on more than one factor. Given below is a detailed description of the
measures adopted for the constructs under final study:

Shopping motivation: Shopping motivation measures the general predisposition of

consumers toward the act of shopping. Twenty statements measured six attitudes towards
shopping: Adventure shopping (4 items)- referred to shopping for stimulation, adventure,
and the feeling of being in another world; Gratification shopping (3 items)- involved
shopping for stress relief, shopping to alleviate a negative mood, and shopping as a
special treat to oneself; Convenience shopping (4 items)- involved shopping to save time
and effort ; Idea shopping (4 items)- referred to shopping to keep up with trends and new
fashions, as well as to see new products and innovations; and Social shopping (5 items)-
referred to the enjoyment of shopping with friends and family, socializing while
shopping, and bonding with others while shopping. Among these items, nine items
capturing convenience shopping and social shopping were adopted from Westbrook and
Black (1985), and the rest of the items were adopted from Arnold and Reynolds (2003).
Some of the items were rephrased to increase their face validity. A five point Likert scale
was used to rate each item where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented
‘strongly agree’.

Store Atmospherics: The store atmospherics measures are based on Baker’s

(1986) three dimension conceptualization of the service environment. Items for all three
dimensions: social, design, and ambient, were adapted from Baker et al (1994), and were
changed to a five point Likert scale format where 1 represented “strongly disagree” and 5
represented “strongly agree”. Three separate atmospheric scales were utilized based on
the distinct elements captured in each scale. The ambiance scale (α = .86) covered in-
store lighting and music Four items were used to measure ambiance of the store. Six
itemed design scale (α = .82) covered items related to store layout and store functionality
cues such as signage, aisle space, and the ease of finding merchandise, as well as
merchandise layout and location. The social cues were measured using a four item social
environment scale (α = .88), which encompassed items pertaining to the knowledge, dress

44
and friendliness of employees as well as the friendliness of other customers within the
shopping environment.

Interpersonal Service Quality: Baker et. al (2002) labels interpersonal service

quality as the quality of interaction between store employees and customers in a retail
setting. Interpersonal service quality is said to be a part of overall service quality offered
by a retail store. In accordance with Baker et al (2002), four items were used to capture
interpersonal service quality and were rated on a five point Likert scale where 1
represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represents ‘strongly agree’. An example is “It
would be realistic to expect prompt service from the employees of this store”. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .84.

Merchandise Quality: Merchandise quality was operationalized by adapting

perceived product quality indicators as developed by Dodds et al. (1991). The three items
measuring perceived merchandise quality were rated on a five point Likert scale where 1
represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree’. An example is “The
products purchased at this store are of good quality”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale
is .92.

Perceived Merchandise Price: Merchandise price perceptions were measured by

three items as developed by Dodds et al. (1991). All the three items were rated on a five
point Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly
agree’. An example is “The prices of the product(s) in this store are right, given the
quality of the merchandise”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is 0.92.

Perceived Efficiency: In this study, efficiency is akin to convenience. It is

associated with the time and effort that one spends while shopping at a particular store.
Baker et al. (2002) identified time and effort as shopping experience costs. The time and
effort cost construct captures consumers’ perception of the time and effort they are likely
to expend shopping at a store. In describing efficiency in an e-tailing context, many
researchers have identified several dimensions: less search effort, convenience, and
effectiveness (Childers et al. 2001, Mathwick et al. 2001, Szymanski and Hise 2000).

45
Measures from these studies were adapted for capturing perceived efficiency in a
physical retail store. Considering the dimensions mentioned in these studies, four items
using five-point Likert scales were developed to measure one’s efficiency perception for
a retail store. An example of the items used is “Shopping from this store is an efficient
way to manage my time”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .85.

Perceived Visual Appeal: Perceived visual appeal was measured using a three
item scale, adopted from Mathwick et al. (2001). The three items captured the store’s
visual appeal on a five-point Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5
represented ‘strongly agree’. An example is “The way this store displays its product is
attractive”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .91.

Perceived Enjoyment: Respondents’ perceptions of enjoyment in the store were

measured using a three-item scale, adapted from Mathwick et al. (2001). The items were
rated on a five-point Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5
represented ‘strongly agree’. An example is “This store doesn’t just sell products, it
entertains me”. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .85.

Perceived Escapism: Respondents’ perceived escapism was measured by a three-

item scale, adapted from Mathwick et al. (2001). The items were rated on a five-point
Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree’.
An example is “I get so involved when I shop at this store that I forget everything”. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .86.

Overall Shopping Value: Overall shopping value was measured by using a four
item scale, adapted from Babin et al. (1994). The scale captured both utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions of value. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale where 1
represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree’. An example is
“Shopping at this store was truly a joy.” The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .90.

Consumer Response: Time spent in store and future purchase intentions were
used as consumer response variables in the study. Repurchase intentions of the
respondents were measured by two items rated on a five-point Likert-type scale where 1

46
represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree’. The Cronbach’s alpha
for the scale is .78. Time spent in store was measured by three items rated on a five-point
Likert scale where 1 represented ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 represented ‘strongly agree’.
The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .84.

Table 1: Theoretical Foundations for Questionnaire Items

Construct Dimensions Author(s)

Store Atmospherics Social Baker et al. (1995)
Design
Ambience
Interpersonal Service Prompt service Baker et al (2002)
Quality Perceptions Respectful
Personal attention
Well dressed employees
Merchandise Quality Product quality Dodds et al. (1991)
Perceptions Durability
Dependability
Merchandise Price Acceptable Zeithaml (1994)
Perceptions Fair Dodds et al. (1991)
Competitive Baker et al. (2002)
Efficiency Perceptions Less search effort Szymanski and Hise (2000)
Time saving Baker et al. (2001)
Convenience Mathwick et al. (2001)
Effectiveness Childers et al. (2001)
Visual Appeal Perceptions Aesthetically pleasing Hirschman (1986)
Attractive display Mathwick et al. (2001)
Enjoyment Perceptions Enthusiasm Lastovicka (1983)
Entertainment Mathwick et al. (2001)
Escapism Perceptions Mathwick et al. (2001)
Overall Shopping Value Hedonic Babin et al. (1994)
Utilitarian
Time Spent Propensity to stay longer Baker et al. (1992)
Repatronage Intentions Likelihood to revisit

47
 Ethical Issues

Since the study required use of human subjects, the research process needed to be
reviewed and approved by the human subjects committee at the Office for Research, in
accordance with university policy. The nature of this study is qualified to be exempt from
the DHHS regulations. The Office of Research approved the research procedure
implemented in this study and issued Assurance # IRB00000446. According to university
policy, subjects participated in this study voluntarily. The study didn’t place subjects in
any physical harm, discomfort or unpleasant situations. The data collected from the
respondents were kept confidential and were only used as aggregate data.

48
 CHAPTER 5

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Missing Data

Out of 1000 surveys, 815 completed surveys were returned. The returned surveys
were checked for missing data and response bias. 718 surveys were found usable for data
analysis. Cold deck imputation method as proposed by Hair et al (1998) was used for
missing data. Cold deck imputation allows researchers to replace missing data with a
value that is deemed more valid than the mean of the sample. In this study the
perceptions of the atmospheric variables were measured based on the respondent’s
inferences after the visit to the retail store. In some instances respondents may not have
been able to form opinions due to their inability to remember the particular
environmental cue. For example, a respondent may have left the question blank which
enquires about the customer’s fondness for the music played in the store because he/she
could not remember what type of music was being played during the visit. Therefore
imputation of the mid point (value=3) on a 5-point scale should provide better data than
the mean value of the construct. After the data were cleaned, reliabilities of the scales
were computed in order to check for the consistency of the measurement instruments.

Measurement Model

The measurement model analysis was conducted using a completely standardized

solution produced by LISREL 8.3 maximum likelihood estimation method (Jöreskog and
Sörbom 1993). The analysis revealed an acceptable fit to the data, based on fit criterion
(>.9) as outlined by Bentler and Bonnett (1980) for NNFI, CFI, and DELTA2 index and
the relative noncentrality index (RNI), as recommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1992)
as well as a cutoff criterion (<.08) as suggested by Steiger and Lind (1980) for RMSEA.
All of the estimates were well below the recommended threshold or below the cutoff

49
criterion. Although the chi-square statistic was significant, this statistic is known for its
sensitivity to sample size and as a result greater emphasis was placed on additional fit
indices (Marsh, Balla and McDonald 1998, Anderson and Gerbing 1984). Table 2
summarizes the results for the CFA analysis as well as reliabilities for the adopted scales.

Structural Model

The structural model presented in Figure 3 was tested using structural equation
modeling (SEM). In order to examine model fit, the χ2, root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA), goodness of fit index (GFI), normed-goodness-of-fit index
(NFI), and comparative fit index (CFI) were used. χ2 illustrates the degree to which
discrepancies between the model and the data are due only to sampling variation not
model misspecification. RMSEA approximates the amount of error present in the model.
GFI indicates how well the covariance matrix estimated by the hypothesized model
reproduces the observed covariance matrix (James, Muliak and Brett 1982). The NFI was
used because it provides a measure of the proportion of total covariance accounted for by
the model (Bentler and Bonett 1980). Finally, CFI which is an improved version of NFI
accounts for population parameters.

Once the model was established, subgroup analyses were conducted to test the
moderating effects of shopping orientation. The test followed the procedure outlined by
Bollen (1989), and Jöreskog and Sörbom (1993). First, the sample was separated into
groups based on the measures for shopping orientation. Due to the limitations of sample
size the goal was to separate shoppers into two groups-recreational shoppers and non-
recreational shoppers. A K-mean cluster analysis (MacQueen, 1967) was run with the
number of groups fixed at two. Based on the final cluster solution the group membership
for an individual shopper was established. Next, a multiple group structural equation
modeling technique was used for between-group model comparison to examine model
equivalence across the identified groups.

50
Table 2. Measurement Model Results

Item Lambda Construct Variance

loading reliability extracted
Social Cues .88 .72
Friendly .81
Knowledgeable .80
Courteous .76
Well dressed .59
Design Cues .82 .52
Logical location of products .60
Easy navigation of store .58
Sufficient open space .62
Helpful in-store signage .65
Adequate display of information .71
Attractive interiors .61
Ambient Cues .86 .70
Lighting was pleasing .72
Lighting accentuated the products .66
Music fit the image of store .81
Music was pleasing .76
Interpersonal Service Quality .84 .58
Employees were helpful .58
Promptly respond to requests .66
Realistic to expect good service .74
Employees do their job well .78

Price Perceptions .92 .52

Acceptable .92
Happy with the prices .94
Right given the quality .91
Merchandise quality perceptions .92 .56
High workmanship .77
Dependable product quality .80
Durability .83
Visual appeal perceptions .91 .68
Attractive product display .82
Aesthetically pleasing .86
Like the way the store looks .79
Enjoyment Perceptions .84 .60
Entertaining .87
Enthusiastic .92
Just doesn’t sell but entertains .77

51
Table 2 Continued…….

Efficiency perceptions .85 .62

Efficient way to manage time .65
Convenient .93
Fits schedule .85
Makes life easier .79
Escapism perceptions .86 .58
Gets me away from it all .94
Feels like in a different world .85
Forget everything else .81
Experiential Value Perceptions .90 .50
Trip was truly a joy. .76
Enjoyed shopping for its own sake .84
Accomplished what I wanted .83
Found just what I wanted .92

Repurchase Intentions .78 .72

Come back again .92
Regularly shop at this store .84
Time Spent .84 .70
Spent more time than planned .64
Amount of time was fairly high .84
Spent time only looking for .90
planned items
Fit Statistics
Chi-Square with 911 df 3170
NNFI .94
CFI .92
RMSEA .058

The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for the constructs under
study are provided in Table 3. As expected, store atmosphere variables were consistently
related to the customers’ internal evaluation measures and overall value evaluation.

52
 Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Social 3.51 .823 -

2 Design 3.52 .635 .582** -
3 Ambience 3.31 .641 .572** .618** -
4 Interpersonal 3.39 .681 .701** .609** .538** -
SQ
5 Price 3.19 .983 .304** .329** .228** .361** -
6 Merchandise 3.57 .810 .479** .464** .481** .591** .461** -
quality
7 Visual 3.50 .862 .478** .535** .715** .525** .132** .460** -
appeal
8 Enjoyment 2.68 .918 .365** .327** .521** .365** .211** .267** .531** -
9 Escape 2.27 .933 .197** .143** .349** .241** .199** .182** .346** .654** -
10 Efficiency 2.76 .863 .218** .206** .292** .316** .417** .354** .249** .364** .470** -
11 Value 3.29 .719 .476** .547** .517** .599** .488** .542** .511** .418** .356** .544** -
12 Repurchase 3.80 .999 .328** .424** .408** .420** .402** .496** .401** .285** .182** .413** .707** -
intent
13 Time spent 3.09 .870 .158** .254** .363** .208** .262** .322** .369** .396** .465** .455** .425** .525 -

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2- tailed)

N=718

The Hypothesized Model

The χ2 value and fit statistics produced by LISREL 8.3 estimation of the model suggested
the model fit the data well. The χ2 value (χ2 (909) = 3293, p<.002) was significant;
however, this is most likely attributable to the large sample size. The larger the sample
size, the more likely the rejection of the model and the more likely Type II error. In very
large samples, even tiny differences between the observed model and the perfect-fit
model may be found significant.

Examination of the fit indices revealed that they were all above the suggested 0.90
cutoff, providing evidence that the model fit the data well (GFI=0.95; CFI=0.94,
NFI=0.92). Furthermore, the model showed an acceptable level of error (RMSEA =.060)

54
which suggests a good model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). With respect to the predicted
path, 19 out of 23 paths (82%) were significant. The completely standardized loadings
are presented in Figure 9.

With respect to the non significant paths, design factors did not relate to the
perception of merchandise quality and visual appeal. Social factors did not significantly
predict perceived enjoyment and efficiency. With respect to overall value evaluations,
perceived escapism was the only non-significant predictor. The model explained an
acceptable level of variance. Sixty nine percent of the variance in interpersonal service
quality, 22% of the variance in perceived price, 50% variance in perceived merchandise
quality, 72% of the variance in visual appeal, 70% of the variance in perceived
enjoyment, 28% variance in perceived escapism, 68% of the variance in perceived
efficiency, and 86% of the variation in perceived overall value was explained by the
variables in the model.

55
 Store Environment Cues Customer’s Internal Evaluations Customer Response

Perceived
merchandise
quality
Social Cues

• Store employee
perceptions Perceived
• Co shopper price
perceptions

Time Spent
Perceived
Design Cues interpersonal
service quality Overall
Experiential
• Store layout Value
perceptions Perception
• Store functionality
perceptions
Perceived
enjoyment
Repurchase
Intent

Ambient Cues Perceived

efficiency
• Store music
perceptions
• Commercial
displays
Perceived
• Lighting visual appeal

Perceived
escapism

Figure 9 Standardized Loadings for the parameter estimates.

56
Presented below is a discussion of individual hypotheses:

Research Hypotheses 1a-1d: Effect of Social Cues

The purpose of hypothesis 1a was to evaluate the effect of social cues on

customer’s perception of interpersonal service quality in a store. The results show support
for the stated relationship (β =0.57, t=9.09). The positive effect of social cues on
perceived prices (β = 0.23, t=3.99) lends support to hypothesis 1b. Hypothesis 1c
proposed that customers perceive higher merchandise quality if the social cues in a store
are perceived to be favorable. This relationship is supported in this study (β = 0.30,
t=5.00). Surprisingly, the effect of favorable perceptions of social cues on perceived
efficiency in a store, as posited by hypothesis 1d, does not find any support. It appears
that the friendliness and good dressing sense of store employees is not perceived as an
indication of efficient service in a store. It is also likely that customers base their
judgment about efficient service on many factors including store employees.

Research Hypothesis 2a-2e: Effect of Store Design Cues

This section of hypotheses was related to the role of physical appearance of the
store in forming a customer’s perception of interpersonal service quality, perceived price,
merchandise quality, efficiency and visual appeal. The results lends support to hypothesis
2a that suggested that if a customer perceive the design of a store to be favorable, he/she
will infer high interpersonal quality (β=0.38, t=2.54). Design cues were also found to
affect customer’s perception of prices in a store. For stores that were rated higher on store
design, the prices were also perceived to be higher (β=0.41, t=5.91). Thus hypothesis 2b
was supported. The effect of store design on merchandise quality (hypothesis 2c) did not
find support. However, it was found that favorable design of a store does facilitate
efficiency for the customer. It is logical that store design and store layout should be
geared towards customer convenience and ease. Hypothesis 2d positing such relationship
was supported (0.25, t=4.28). It was theorized that store design should not only furnish
functional goals but should also add to the aesthetics of a store. Absence of support for

57
hypothesis 2e nullified this statement. It is possible that customers expect the store layout
and design to exude functionality and not frills.

Research Hypotheses 3a-3e: Effect of Ambient Cues

Ambient cues are the sensory cues in a store. Music and light are the two
components of ambiance considered in this study. The hypotheses presented in this
section relates to the combined effect of music and light and not individual cues.
Hypothesis 3a stated a positive relationship between favorable perceptions of ambient
cues and merchandise price. Interestingly, results show a negative relationship (β = -0.24,
t=-4.04) which is not in accordance to the results found in earlier studies. Since price
perceptions of the shoppers were recorded after the completion of the shopping task, an
explanation for the reversal of direction can be that the customer may have formed high
price perceptions as they entered the store based on ambient atmosphere, but once they
checked the actual prices they found them to be reasonable.

The relationship between ambient cues and perceived efficiency as stated in

hypothesis 3b was supported (β=0.41, t= 9.51). A strong support for hypothesis 3c was
also present in the study (β=0.80, t=13.25). This signifies that lighting in the store can
strongly contribute to the visual appeal of the store. Sensory elements in a store
environment are more apt to stimulate customers than non-sensory cues. It was found that
as customer’s perception of ambient cues in a store became more favorable, customers’
perceived enjoyment was also higher. Therefore hypothesis 3d was also supported
(β=0.32, t=6.56). Hypothesis 3e was related to the effect of ambient cues on customer’s
evaluation of degree of escape an environment offers. Results portrayed a significant
relationship between the two constructs (β = 0.46, t=7.61).

58
Hypothesis 4a-4g Effects of Customers’ Internal Evaluations on Overall Experiential
Value

Shopping environment can evoke both cognitive and affective responses in

consumers. This set of hypotheses relates to how such internal responses contribute
towards the summary judgment of value accrued from the shopping trip. Results for
hypothesis 4a suggested that customers perceived overall value was higher when the
store’s interpersonal quality was superior (β=.15, t=3.44). Similar support is found for
hypothesis 4b that posited a positive linkage between merchandise quality and overall
value perceptions (β=.17, t=4.49). Hypothesis 4c stated that customers will perceive low
overall value if the prices in a store are perceived to be high. This was also found to be
true in this study (β=-.11, t=-3.36), customers value evaluations were lower when the
price perceptions were unfavorable.

Significant support was found for hypothesis 4d, which measures the effect of
perceived efficiency on overall value judgment (β=0.33, t=8.73). Since efficiency reduces
the time and effort costs of a customer, higher efficiency will surely contribute to positive
value creation for the customer. A positive relationship was also found between favorable
perceptions of visual appeal and high overall value (β=0.20, t=5.19). Thus lending
support to the notion that pleasant visual elements of a store contribute to positive value
perceptions for the customers. The main tenet of hypothesis 4f was that customers are not
satisfied by price bargains alone and look for enjoyment as well in a shopping trip. The
results showed that perceived enjoyment is positively related to overall value judgments
of a customer (β=0.19, t=3.41). The relationship between perceived escapism and overall
experiential value was not supported.

Hypotheses 5a and 5b: Customer Responses

Repurchase intentions and time spent in store were the two outcome measures in
the study. It was theorized that if a customer evaluates the experience in a store to be
valuable, he/she is more likely to spend greater amount of time in store (hypothesis 6a)
and is likely to come again to make a purchase (hypothesis 6b). Both these linkages

59
 between overall experiential value and customer outcomes were supported. The
relationship between value and time spent in store (β=0.86, t=9.62) as well as between
value and repurchase intentions (β=0.55, t=7.92) were significant.

Differences in Shopping Orientation

Analysis of Shopping Motivations: The first step in the analysis was to find out
whether the survey instrument captured all the five dimensions of the consumers’
shopping motivations. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was
performed on the twenty items that were expected to measure the five dimensions. The
analysis was able to capture all five targeted dimensions with eigen value greater than 1,
explaining 67% of cumulative variance. Three items capturing social shopping were
below the .40 cutoff criterion and thus eliminated. Table 4 illustrates the loadings of the
seventeen items and Cronbach’s alphas for the five components.

Table 4: Principal Component Analysis of the Shopping Motivation Items

Items Adventure Gratification Convenience Idea Social

Shopping Shopping shopping shopping shopping
Interior design usually attracts my attention .796
Notice colors and texture .838
Notice things that other people pass by .797
Usually pay less attention to architecture of stores .666
When I’m bored I usually go shopping .621
Loose track of time when I’m in a store .841
Time seems to fly by when I’m shopping .837
When I leave the mall I’m surprised to see its dark .821
Investing new products is a waste of time .719
Nothing interests me to browse in a store .819
Investing new stores is a waste of time .789
I only visit a store to buy what I’m looking for .552
I learn a lot by visiting the mall .785
I consider visit to the mall to be a learning experience .832
Shopping malls are a good place to find what is new .642
I usually feel friendly and talkative to others .794
I enjoy going to the mall with my friends .820
I usually avoid talking to others in the mall .874
Reversed items were recoded before the principle component analysis

60
 The items were summated to represent respective shopping motivations. These
factors were used as the clustering variables to separate respondents into two groups
using K-mean cluster analysis. The first group (431 respondents) consists of respondents
that view shopping as a recreational activity, whereas the second group (283 respondents)
constitutes task oriented shoppers. The final cluster centers for the groups on the input
variables are presented in Table 5. Once the groups were established, both within-and
between-group tests were conducted for measurement and structural equivalence. The
findings for within and between group analysis are discussed in the following sections.

Table5: K-mean results for final cluster centers

Variable Recreational Task-oriented

shoppers shoppers
Adventure shopping 4.25 2.79
Gratification shopping 4.18 2.86
Convenience shopping 1.87 2.79
Idea shopping 1.69 3.90

Measurement Equivalence across Groups

To test whether the factor structure of the scale is consistent across the two
groups, diagnostic procedures laid by Jöreskog and Sörbom (1989) were followed. It was
assumed that x=Λx ξ + δ holds for both the groups, where x refers to the input variables,
Λ matrix specifies the coefficient of regression of the input variables on their
corresponding latent construct ξ , δ vector refers to the measurement error term. Bollen
(1989) suggests a hierarchy of equivalence that can be assessed along three dimensions:
model form, factorial equivalence, and equality of error variances. The first level of
equivalence examines whether variable x loads on the same number of factors in the two
groups. The hypothesis that is tested is that there are same numbers of correlated
common factors in both groups. Once the equivalence in model form is established,

61
second level of factorial equivalence can be assessed by testing whether the loadings (λ)
linking the latent variables ξ to the observed variables x are the same in both the shopping
groups. Finally, if factorial equivalence is achieved one can test for the third and the
higher form of equivalence which relates to the equality of measurement error invariance
between the two groups.

Thus the hypothesized model for the two groups is defined by the parameter
matrices

(g) (g) (g)

Λ x , Φ , Θδ

Where superscript g refers to the gth shopping group, g = 1, 2, ….., G. For the two
samples under study we have

Λ recreational shoppers, Λ task oriented shoppers

Φ recreational shoppers, Φ task oriented shoppers

Θ recreational shoppers, Θ task oriented shoppers

Using LISREL procedures, parameter in the above mentioned matrices can be set as
fixed, free or constrained. If no constraints are set than LISREL estimates unique values
for the groups. However, by setting constraints one can test any form of invariance across
the two groups. Relative fit of the three constrained models can be tested by using ∆χ2.
Relative fit is a preferred measure of fit as it captures only the difference based on the
added constraint for each subsequent test (Bentler and Bonett,1980; Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988).

A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test for the same form
equivalence. There was no equality constraints imposed for this problem. The model only
stated that the number of factors is the same across both the shopping groups. χ2

62
 and other fit indices were used as the measure of the overall fit of the model in both
groups. The overall value of the χ2 is the sum of χ2 that would be obtained if both the
groups were analyzed separately. An analysis of the path loadings signified that all items
loaded significantly on the same latent constructs for both the groups. Though the chi-
square was significant, all the fit statistics and RMSEA were within the acceptable range.
Thereupon a constrained model was run to test if the coefficients linking the latent
variables to the observed indicators are the same in both the groups. The model
specifications were the same, except for the constraint of Λ as invariant. The program
estimates path coefficients for the first group and then forces these values on the other
group. A chi-square difference test between the unconstrained and constrained model was
conducted. The chi-square difference test was found to be significant, suggesting that the
item loadings on each factor are not equivalent across both groups. The procedure was
stopped at this stage since it was deemed redundant to test for error invariance across the
two samples. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Results of testing for metric equivalence

Level of Equivalence χ2 df p-value IFI CFI RMSEA

Same Form 3115 1411 < 0.01 0.91 0.92 0.58

Factorial 3199 1452 < 0.01 0.91 0.91 0.58

χ2 difference 84 41 <0.01
(constrained-
unconstrained)

63
 Structural Equivalence across Groups

An examination of the within-group fit indices revealed that the structural model
fit well for both groups. However, the significant between group χ2 diff (117) = 338, p <
0.01) and the lower fit statistics for the constrained model compared to the unconstrained
model suggested that individual parameter estimates varied across the two groups. Group
comparisons are presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Group Comparisons and Parameter Estimates

Group Comparisons χ2 Degrees of p Goodness of Fit Comparative Fit Root Mean

Freedom index Index Square Error of
Approximation
Recreational Shoppers 2942 914 < 0.01 0.92 0.92 0.060
(within-group n=431)
Task Oriented Shoppers 2418 914 <0.01 0.92 0.94 0.068
(within group n= 283)
Unconstrained between 4943 1817 < 0.01 0.90 0.92 0.072
group
Constrained between group 5281 1934 < 0.01 0.84 0.86 0.074
χ2 difference (constrained- 338 117 < 0.01
unconstrained)

To determine which parameter estimates differed across the two groups, the
modification indices for each of the twenty seven between group constraints were
examined. The standardized parameter estimates for both groups are presented in Table
8. The between-group analysis indicated that whereas social cues affect the perceptions
of interpersonal service quality, price, and merchandise quality in both the groups, they
affect perceptions of efficiency only for task oriented shoppers. The ambience of the store
that included music and lighting contributed positively to price perceptions, visual
appeal, enjoyment and escapism for both the groups; however had no effect on the
shoppers’ perception of interpersonal service quality and merchandise quality.

64
Table 8: Standardized Parameter Estimates for Recreational and Task Oriented Shoppers

Path Recreational Task-Oriented

Shoppers Shoppers
Social ÆPerceived Interpersonal service quality .62 (7.97) .42 (5.08)
Design Æ Perceived Interpersonal service quality .23 (3.29) -.37 (-2.48)
Social ÆPerceived Price .15 (2.08) .23 (5.83)
AmbienceÆ Perceived Price .43 (4.83) .44 (3.90)
DesignÆPerceived Price .69 (6.50) -.49 (-3.08)
SocialÆ Perceived Merchandise quality .36 (5.52) .28 (5.66)
DesignÆ Perceived Merchandise quality .41 (5.12) -.74 (-4.18)
AmbienceÆ Perceived Visual appeal .78 (9.82) .70 (8.79)
DesignÆ Perceived Visual appeal .64 (2.29) ns
AmbienceÆ Perceived enjoyment .61 (7.77) .55 (5.64)
AmbienceÆ Perceived escapism .40 (4.91) .53 (6.03)
SocialÆ Perceived efficiency ns .82 (5.72)
DesignÆ Perceived efficiency .45 (5.55) -.44 (-3.21)
AmbienceÆPerceived efficiency .32(2.30) ns
Perceived Interpersonal service qualityÆ Value ns .23 (2.81)
Perceived priceÆ Value .14 (3.50) .13 (2.23)
Perceived Merchandise qualityÆ Value .21 (4.24) .13 (1.98)
Perceived visual appealÆ Value .36 (6.10) ns
Perceived enjoymentÆ Value .28 (2.60) ns
Perceived escapismÆ Value .11 (2.57) ns
Perceived efficiencyÆ Value .34 (7.25) .39 (6.20)
ValueÆ Repurchase intent .78 (8.56) .81 (7.97)
Value Æ Time spent in store .85 (7.72) .76 (5.79)

Note: t-values for respective paths are presented in the parentheses

Interestingly, the path loadings for design cues on all customer evaluation variables
(namely perceived interpersonal quality, perceived price, perceived merchandise quality,
perceived enjoyment, perceived visual appeal and perceived escapism) were negative for
task oriented shoppers and positive for recreational shoppers. Therefore, it appears that
task oriented shoppers found store layout and store functionality features dissatisfactory

65
to their standards since they are not motivated by the aesthetics but the functionality
component of design.

The results also indicate that overall value perceptions are based on different
factors for recreational shoppers and task oriented shoppers. For recreational shoppers,
the overall value perception was based on price, merchandise quality, visual appeal,
enjoyment, escapism, and efficiency. This signifies that recreational shoppers base their
value judgments on both utilitarian and hedonic outcomes of a shopping episode. On the
contrary, task oriented shoppers rely heavily on utilitarian outcomes such as interpersonal
service quality, price, merchandise quality and efficiency to form a perception of overall
value from a shopping trip.

66
 CHAPTER 6

Discussion, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

Discussion

During the course of this study, two theoretical models have been continuously
mentioned- the S-O-R model and Value model. The results of this study helps in aligning
these two distinct concepts. In brief, the S-O-R model suggests that the environment of a
store leads to certain cognitive and affective evaluations in the mind of the consumer, and
these evaluations predict the consumer’s response to approach or avoid the particular
store in future. The main question that was put forth in this study was as to which
particular evaluations a customer is likely to make while being in a store? Which
particular evaluations weigh heavily on customer’s response? And what is the effect of
the store environment on such evaluations?

One possible way to gain understanding of consumer shopping behavior is to look

through the lenses of customer value as stated by the means-ends theory of value. The
theory postulates that customers are driven by their personal goals, they seek
consequences that further these goals and in turn choose attributes that result in these
consequences (Huber et al 2001). Additionally, although the consumption experience
may result in both desired and undesired consequences, it is only the resultant desired
consequences that will direct the customer to select a particular behavior in future, for
example should the customer visit the same store again or not?

In this study, shopping motivation was chosen as a proxy for personal goals. The
impact of store environmental attributes was measured on seven different evaluations
customers may make in a retail store. Additionally, the customers’ responses on the
amount of time they spent in store and their future purchase intentions were measured.
The results suggest that store environmental attributes do not impact all customer types in
a similar manner. Additionally, the importance of shopping outcomes in the formation of

67
overall value judgment differs across recreational and task oriented shoppers. It makes
intuitive sense because if an individual’s goal is to find recreational fulfillment through
shopping, than stores that can contribute to such consequences that fulfill the recreational
goals will be deemed as providing value. On the other hand if an individual is motivated
by utilitarian goals, then the stores that provide positive consequences related to
utilitarian benefits will be seen as providing value.

Though shoppers may evaluate a store for various outcomes, the importance of
each outcome in the value equation may vary for individual shoppers. This point is well
supported by the results of this study. Whereas, overall experiential value for recreational
shoppers consisted of both hedonic and utilitarian outcomes, for the task-oriented
shoppers only utilitarian outcomes lead to the perceptions of experiential value. This
means that even if the store has a great ambience and is visually appealing, these
attributes are of no consequence to a task-oriented shopper if they do not lead to the
desired consequences.

Interestingly, perceptions of recreational shoppers for interpersonal service

quality, price fairness, merchandise quality and efficiency of the store were favorable if
they liked the design of the store. However, the same was not true for the task-oriented
shoppers. Task –oriented shoppers did not display a positive evaluation for interpersonal
service quality, price, merchandise quality and efficiency for a store if they perceived the
design in a store to be good.. Since researchers have not previously examined the effect
of store atmospheric variables in diverse customer segments, it is rather interesting to see
evidence that store atmospheric may not affect all customer types in a similar manner. A
possible explanation for design elements to show an opposite effect on outcome variables
among these two shopper segments may be that in spite of the retailers’ efforts to make
store layout and functional design components to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye, the
design elements of the store are not meeting the expectations of the consumers who seek
efficiency, are solution driven or looking for speedy replenishment. Perhaps the
interpretation of design for task-oriented shoppers is different than that of recreational
shoppers. In other words this poses a question for construct equivalence of store design as

68
measured in atmospheric research. Construct equivalence exists when individuals
interpret concepts or behaviors similarly across groups. According to the results of the
studies, it is possible that recreational shoppers and task-oriented shoppers have different
interpretations or definitions of store design.

The implication of these results is quite significant for decisions related to

shopping environment in a retail store. If a retailer wishes to create a store environment
that can deliver a valuable shopping experience, then an understanding of customers’
motivations is important. This is in tune with the main paradigm of marketing that states
that the offering of the marketer should be tailored towards the segment it wishes to
target.

The store environment research should also focus on creating environments that
are tailored towards the targeted customer segment. For example, if the customer is
looking for completing the shopping task in an efficient and timely manner, then the
environment of the store should be conducive towards accomplishing such goals.
On the other hand, if the customer is seeking recreational benefits from shopping, the
store environment should amply contribute towards such outcomes. However, it is
becoming difficult for retailers to align their offerings with customer needs due to the
complexity in buying patterns emerging among shoppers. Each consumer is exhibiting
differing characteristics depending upon particular purchase occasion or shopping
motivation. Moreover, each consumer makes distinct value judgments with each new
purchase occasion. Responding to the multi-dimensional consumer mindset requires a
different approach to retail mix decisions in-order to create multiple formats with distinct
kinds of appeals. Academicians and practitioners alike need to find ways to carefully
engineer a particular shopping experience and communicate this experience in the market
by explicitly presenting consumers with a coherent series of visual and experiential clues
emitted by the physical environment. By clueing in customers, retailers will help
customers in determining whether or not a particular shopping experience is consistent
with their needs and expectations. An understanding of the distinct experiences sought by

69
the customers on particular shopping experiences is paramount in creating valuable store
atmospherics.

Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions

This study represents an exploratory attempt to gauge if store environmental cues

assist in value creation across two different customer segments in a uniform manner. As
with any exploratory research, the findings of this study are to be accepted with several
limitations. Since limitations of a study can be viewed as directions for future research in
the field, it is pertinent to list limitations and future research opportunities
simultaneously.

The first limitation is that shopping motivation in this study captures the general
predisposition of respondents towards the act of shopping. It is likely that individuals
display different shopping orientations on varying occasions.

The second limitation of the study is that the store environmental factors were
grouped under ambiance, social and design cues prior to testing the model. This
technique captures the aggregate effect of the three store environmental dimensions on
the endogenous variables and thereby fails to identify the effect of an individual element
of store environment such as music. Future research can attempt to break down the effect
of each element on customers’ value perceptions.

The seven factors representing customers’ internal evaluations are not exhaustive.
This points to the third limitation of the study. For example, enjoyment and entertainment
are listed as two separate hedonic benefits that customers seek during shopping. Due to
low discriminant validity found in this study between these two separate constructs;
entertainment was dropped from the model. A representation of additional dimensions,
which form customer evaluations, may be sought in the model for future research.

70
 The fourth limitation of this study is the non-probability sampling technique used
to collect data from the respondents. Usage of a non-probability sample compromises the
external validity of a study to a large extent. Therefore it is advisable to repeat this study
with a probability sampling technique.

The fifth limitation of the study is that only seven different types of customers’
internal evaluations are studied. There are many more judgments customers may form
while in the store. Future research should broaden the scope in order to encompass a
wider range of customers’ internal evaluations.

The sixth limitation of the study is that respondents were not told about the type
of store they should visit. Since respondents picked the shopping stores themselves, it is
likely that some stores were rich in atmospheric variables, whereas others were not. This
may lead to some unexplained variance in the model.

Despite the fact that research on store environment has been conducted for
approximately a decade and a half, this area of research still holds ample opportunities
for eager researchers. The availability of cutting edge technology to retailers is changing
both the operations and the environment of a store. Centralized checkout stations,
availability of wireless network infrastructure, self-checkout terminals, kiosks, and radio
frequency identification tags or other biometric devices are being increasingly used,
giving a whole new meaning to store layout and functionality, design and social
environment of a store. This requires a close inspection of the available scale to
determine content validity in the light of developments occurring in the retail world.
It also appears to be vital that researchers develop a deeper understanding of experiential
retailing. One way to achieve this objective is to determine the types of experiences
which customers wish to achieve while shopping. If we can define and identify types of
experiences, we’ll be able to segment customers based on such typology. This can
provide retailers with a unique tool to better target and position their offering in the
market.

71
 APPENDIX A

INSTRUCTIONS
AND
PAPER AND PENCIL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PILOT STUDY

72
 Store Atmospherics Survey

Informed Consent Form

I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT:

1. Ms. Renu Singh, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State
University, has requested my participation in a research study at this institution.

2. The purpose of the research is to investigate consumer behavior phenomenon regarding in-store
purchases. The goal of this survey is to gain new insight into how customers evaluate the in-store
atmosphere of retail facilities. Approximately 800 subjects are being recruited to participate in this
study. I have been asked to participate in this study purely by chance.

3. My participation will involve completing a survey that consists of four sections. The first section
enquires about the purpose of my visit to a retail store. The second section requires my perception
of the atmosphere of the store and the third section asks as to how I felt being in the store. The
fourth section asks additional information about me to help the researcher understand how different
people respond to the survey items. It will take approximately 20 minutes to complete this survey.

4. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if I agree to participate in the study.

5. Although there may be no direct benefits to me, the possible benefits of my participation in this
research study are that I will become more aware of my shopping behavior and I will be able to
contribute to understanding more about consumer behavior phenomenon.

6. The results of this research study may be published but my name or identity will be revealed only
to the extent allowable by law. The researcher will do the following to maintain confidentiality of my
records; Renu Singh will not collect names or any personal identifying information from these
survey instruments. The instrument will only collect general information about age, gender, and
race and income status. This information cannot directly link me to my responses. The survey
instruments themselves will be destroyed after the data is entered for analysis.

7. I will not be paid for this participation.

8. Any questions I have concerning the research study or my participation in it, before or after my
consent, will be answered by Renu Singh, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida
State University, (850) 766 -3353, [email protected] or Prof. Michael Brusco, College of
Business, (850) 644 - 6512 , email [email protected]

9. If I have questions about my rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if I feel I have

been placed at risk, I can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review
Board, through the Office of the Vice President for Research, at (850) 644-8633.

I have read the above informed consent form. I understand that I may withdraw my consent and
discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I may otherwise be
entitled. In signing this consent form, I am not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. A copy
of this consent form will be offered to me.

Subject's Signature _________________________ (Date) _________________

73
To complete this survey please reflect on your recent experience at the store you
just visited. Please be sure to complete the entire survey. Thank you.

INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE COMPLETELY FILL IN EACH BUBBLE WITH BLUE OR

BLACK PEN.

PROPER MARKS: IMPROPER MARKS

74
Section I

Please state your level of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

a. The interior design of stores usually

1 2 3 4 5
attracts my attention
b. I notice colors and textures in the
store’s interior. 1 2 3 4 5

c. I notice things in the store’s interiors

1 2 3 4 5
and architecture that other people
usually pass by.
d. Compared to other people, I usually
1 2 3 4 5
pay less attention to the architecture of
retail stores.

e. When I’m bored, I usually go

shopping. 1 2 3 4 5

f. When I’m alone and need something

1 2 3 4 5
to do, usually go to the mall.
g. I need to be looking for a specific
1 2 3 4 5
item for me to want to visit a specific
retail store.
h. Investigating new products at retail
1 2 3 4 5
stores is generally a waste of time.
i. No products interest me enough to
1 2 3 4 5
make me want to browse in a store.
j. Investigating new stores at a mall is
1 2 3 4 5
generally a waste of time.
k. I loose track of time when I’m in a
1 2 3 4 5
store.
l. Time seems to fly by when I’m
1 2 3 4 5
shopping
m. When I leave the mall, I’m
1 2 3 4 5
sometimes surprised to see that its dark
outside.
n. Going to the mall is particularly
1 2 3 4 5
enjoyable when I’m with friends.

75
o. I learn a lot by visiting the mall and
just looking around. 1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

p. I consider the visit to the mall to be a

learning experience
q. Shopping malls are a good place to
1 2 3 4 5
find out what’s new
r. In the mall certain shops are fun to
1 2 3 4 5
visit because they sell products that
interests me.
s. I usually feel friendly and talkative to
1 2 3 4 5
others when I’m at a mall
t. The mall is a place where I usually
1 2 3 4 5
avoid talking to others.

Section II
What did you think about the store atmosphere?

1. The lighting in the store was pleasing to

1 2 3 4 5
me
2. The lighting in the store accentuated the
1 2 3 4 5
products that were displayed in the store

1 2 3 4 5
3. I enjoyed the wall color
4. The colors used in the store were
1 2 3 4 5
pleasing to the eye
5. It was easy to find what I wanted in this
1 2 3 4 5
store.
6. The store employees were friendly
1 2 3 4 5
7. The store employees were
1 2 3 4 5
knowledgeable
8. The store employees greeted me
1 2 3 4 5
courteously when I entered the store.
9. The store employees were dressed well
1 2 3 4 5

10. The store layout was cluttered and

1 2 3 4 5
confusing
11.The in-store shelving suited the design
1 2 3 4 5
scheme of the store
12. The traffic flow in this store was
1 2 3 4 5

76
uncomfortable

1 2 3 4 5
13. The store felt congested

1 2 3 4 5
14 The departments/product sections were
logically located in this store

1 2 3 4 5
15. Navigating the store was easy

1 2 3 4 5
16. Merchandise were easy to locate
17. The product grouping in this store
1 2 3 4 5
made sense
18. The background music in this store was
1 2 3 4 5
pleasing to me
19. The music in the store was played at
1 2 3 4 5
the right volume
20. The music fits the image of the store
21. The carpeting and flooring in the store
were adequate. 1 2 3 4 5

22. There was sufficient aisle space in the

1 2 3 4 5
store
23. There was sufficient open space in the
1 2 3 4 5
store to prevent congestion
24. The in-store signage was very helpful
1 2 3 4 5
25. The in-store signage was easily seen
1 2 3 4 5

26. The store layout was well thought out

1 2 3 4 5

27. In-store displays were impressive

1 2 3 4 5

28. In-store displays were imaginative and

1 2 3 4 5
fun
29. There was adequate display of in-store
1 2 3 4 5
information
30. The décor of the store is pleasing to me
1 2 3 4 5

31. I like the way the interiors of this store

1 2 3 4 5
looks
32. Pricing and sale information was
1 2 3 4 5
adequately displayed in the store
33. The in-store furniture was
1 2 3 4 5
complementary to the store design

77
Section III
What are your impression of the interpersonal service quality, merchandise quality
and merchandise price of this store?

1. Employees of this store would not know

1 2 3 4 5
what my needs are.
2. Employees of this store are willing to
1 2 3 4 5
help its customers
3. Employees of this store are very polite
1 2 3 4 5

4. Employees of this store are never too

1 2 3 4 5
busy to respond to customers’ requests
promptly
5. It is realistic to expect prompt service
from the employees of this company 1 2 3 4 5

6. Employees of this company do not

1 2 3 4 5
provide personal attention to its customers.
7. I can trust the employees of this store
1 2 3 4 5
8. Employees of this store do their job well
1 2 3 4 5

9. If I have any problems with the products

1 2 3 4 5
of this store, the employees of this store
will be sympathetic and reassuring
10. The price shown for the product is
1 2 3 4 5
acceptable.
11. I’m happy with the prices of the
1 2 3 4 5
merchandise in this store
12. The prices of the product(s) in this store
1 2 3 4 5
are right, given the quality of the
merchandise
13. The merchandise of this store is of
1 2 3 4 5
good quality
14. There is a high likelihood that the
1 2 3 4 5
products purchased at this store are durable
15. The workmanship of the products
1 2 3 4 5
available at this store is very high
16. I find the products very dependable
1 2 3 4 5
17. There is a high likelihood that the
1 2 3 4 5
product bought at this store is durable

78
 The following statements capture your experience of the store. Please state your
level of agreement about the following statements. (1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is
‘strongly agree’).

1. The way this store displays its product is

1 2 3 4 5
attractive
2. The interiors of the store is aesthetically
1 2 3 4 5
pleasing
3. I like the way this store looks
1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel entertained in this store

1 2 3 4 5

5. The enthusiasm of this store is catching,

1 2 3 4 5
it picks me up.
6. This store just doesn’t sell products-it
1 2 3 4 5
entertains me
7. Shopping at this store ‘gets me away
1 2 3 4 5
from it all’
8. Shopping at this store makes me feel like
I am in a different world 1 2 3 4 5

9. I get so involved when I shop at this

1 2 3 4 5
store that I forget everything else
10. Shopping at this store is an efficient
1 2 3 4 5
way to manage my time
11. Shopping at this store is very
1 2 3 4 5
convenient to me
12. Shopping at this store fits my schedule
1 2 3 4 5

13. Shopping at this store makes my life

1 2 3 4 5
easier

Overall Shopping Value

(Directions: Think about your overall shopping experience at this store. Please circle
the number that represents your best response to the following statements. 1 stands
for ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 stands for ‘strongly agree’).

1. This shopping trip at this store was truly a

1 2 3 4 5
joy.

2. I continued to shop at this store not because I

1 2 3 4 5

79
had to but because I wanted to
3. Compared to other things that I could have
1 2 3 4 5
done, the time spent at this store was truly
enjoyable.
4. I enjoyed the shopping at this store for its own
1 2 3 4 5
sake, not just for the items I have purchased.
5. I had a good time shopping at this store
1 2 3 4 5

6. Shopping at this store was a complete waste of

1 2 3 4 5
time.
7. I accomplished just what I wanted to while
shopping at this store 1 2 3 4 5

8. I couldn’t buy what I really needed

1 2 3 4 5

9. While shopping at this store, I found just the

1 2 3 4 5
item(s) I was looking for.
10. I was disappointed because I have to go to
another store to complete my shopping. 1 2 3 4 5

11. Given a choice, I would probably come back

1 2 3 4 5
to visit this store
12. I spent more time in this store than I
1 2 3 4 5
originally planned
13. This is my choice of store in which I regularly
1 2 3 4 5
come to shop.
14. The amount of time that I spent on looking
1 2 3 4 5
around was fairly high
15. I would definitely recommend this store to
1 2 3 4 5
other people
16. I bought more things than I expected at this
1 2 3 4 5
store.
17. I paid most of my attention on items I plan to
1 2 3 4 5
buy on this trip
18. It is very likely that I will purchase a product
1 2 3 4 5
from this store in the future.

Section IV
This information is only for research use, please make a check on the category that best
describes you.

1. Gender: ----------Male ----------------Female.

2. Age ----------------years.

3. Education: ------Middle School --------------High School

80
 ---------Under graduate ---------Graduate.

4. Occupation: ---------Student -----------Housewife/husband

------------Employed. ------------------Self-employed

5. How often do you shop at this store?

-------------Never --------------------About once a week or more.

--------------Once a month ----------------------About once every 2-5 months

---------------About once every 6 months to a year.

6. Your ethnicity is:

------------Caucasian --------------------African American

------------Native Indian -------------------Asian.

---------------Hispanic -------------------Other.

Thank you very much!

Please return this survey to the administrator.

81
 APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS
AND
PAPER AND PENCIL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MAIN STUDY

82
 Store Atmospherics Survey

Informed Consent Form

I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT:

1. Ms. Renu Singh, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State
University, has requested my participation in a research study at this institution.

2. The purpose of the research is to investigate consumer behavior phenomenon regarding in-store
purchases. The goal of this survey is to gain new insight into how customers evaluate the in-store
atmosphere of retail facilities. Approximately 1000 subjects are being recruited to participate in this
study. I have been asked to participate in this study purely by chance.

3. My participation will involve completing a survey that consists of four sections. The first section
enquires about the purpose of my visit to a retail store. The second section requires my perception
of the atmosphere of the store and the third section asks as to how I felt being in the store. The
fourth section asks additional information about me to help the researcher understand how different
people respond to the survey items. It will take approximately 20 minutes to complete this survey.

4. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if I agree to participate in the study.

5. Although there may be no direct benefits to me, the possible benefits of my participation in this
research study are that I will become more aware of my shopping behavior and I will be able to
contribute to understanding more about consumer behavior phenomenon.

6. The results of this research study may be published but my name or identity will be revealed only
to the extent allowable by law. The researcher will do the following to maintain confidentiality of my
records; Renu Singh will not collect names or any personal identifying information from these
survey instruments. The instrument will only collect general information about age, gender, and
race and income status. This information cannot directly link me to my responses. The survey
instruments themselves will be destroyed after the data is entered for analysis.

7. I will not be paid for this participation.

8. Any questions I have concerning the research study or my participation in it, before or after my
consent, will be answered by Renu Singh, Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida
State University, (850) 766 -3353, [email protected] or Prof. Michael Brusco, College of
Business, (850) 644 - 6512 , email [email protected]

9. If I have questions about my rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if I feel I have

been placed at risk, I can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review
Board, through the Office of the Vice President for Research, at (850) 644-8633.

I have read the above informed consent form. I understand that I may withdraw my consent and
discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which I may otherwise be
entitled. In signing this consent form, I am not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies. A copy
of this consent form will be offered to me.

Subject's Signature _________________________ (Date) _________________

83
To complete this survey please reflect on your recent experience at the store you
just visited. Please be sure to complete the entire survey. Thank you.

INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE COMPLETELY FILL IN EACH BUBBLE WITH BLUE OR

BLACK PEN.

PROPER MARKS: IMPROPER MARKS

84
Section I

Please state your level of agreement with the following statements.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

a. The interior design of stores usually

1 2 3 4 5
attracts my attention
b. I notice colors and textures in the
1 2 3 4 5
store’s interior.

c. I notice things in the store’s interiors

1 2 3 4 5
and architecture that other people
usually pass by.
d. Compared to other people, I usually
pay less attention to the architecture of 1 2 3 4 5

retail stores.

e. When I’m bored, I usually go

1 2 3 4 5
shopping.
f. When I’m alone and need something
1 2 3 4 5
to do, usually go to the mall.
g. I need to be looking for a specific
item for me to want to visit a specific 1 2 3 4 5

retail store.
h. Investigating new products at retail
1 2 3 4 5
stores is generally a waste of time.
i. No products interest me enough to
1 2 3 4 5
make me want to browse in a store.
j. Investigating new stores at a mall is
1 2 3 4 5
generally a waste of time.
k. I loose track of time when I’m in a
1 2 3 4 5
store.
l. Time seems to fly by when I’m
1 2 3 4 5
shopping
m. When I leave the mall, I’m
1 2 3 4 5
sometimes surprised to see that its dark
outside.
n. Going to the mall is particularly
1 2 3 4 5
enjoyable when I’m with friends.
o. I learn a lot by visiting the mall and
just looking around. 1 2 3 4 5

85
 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

p. I consider the visit to the mall to be a

learning experience
q. Shopping malls are a good place to
1 2 3 4 5
find out what’s new
r. In the mall certain shops are fun to
1 2 3 4 5
visit because they sell products that
interests me.
s. I usually feel friendly and talkative to
1 2 3 4 5
others when I’m at a mall
t. The mall is a place where I usually
1 2 3 4 5
avoid talking to others.

Section II

What did you think about the store atmosphere?

1. The lighting in the store was pleasing to

1 2 3 4 5
me
2. The lighting in the store accentuated the
1 2 3 4 5
products that were displayed in the store
3. It was easy to find what I wanted in this
1 2 3 4 5
store.
4. The store employees were friendly
1 2 3 4 5
5. The store employees were
1 2 3 4 5
knowledgeable
6. The store employees greeted me
1 2 3 4 5
courteously when I entered the store.
7. The store employees were dressed well
1 2 3 4 5

8. The store layout was cluttered and

1 2 3 4 5
confusing
9.The in-store shelving suited the design
1 2 3 4 5
scheme of the store

1 2 3 4 5
10. The store felt congested

1 2 3 4 5
11. The departments/product sections were
logically located in this store

1 2 3 4 5
12. Navigating the store was easy

86
 1 2 3 4 5
13. Merchandise were easy to locate
14. The background music in this store was
1 2 3 4 5
pleasing to me
15. The music in the store was played at
1 2 3 4 5
the right volume

16. There was sufficient aisle space in the

1 2 3 4 5
store
17. The store layout was well thought out
1 2 3 4 5

18. In-store displays were impressive

1 2 3 4 5

19. There was adequate display of in-store

information 1 2 3 4 5

20. The décor of the store is pleasing to me

1 2 3 4 5

Section III
What are your impression of the interpersonal service quality, merchandise quality
and merchandise price of this store?

1. Employees of this store would not know

1 2 3 4 5
what my needs are.
2. Employees of this store are willing to
1 2 3 4 5
help its customers
3. Employees of this store are very polite
1 2 3 4 5

4. Employees of this store are never too

1 2 3 4 5
busy to respond to customers’ requests
promptly
5. It is realistic to expect prompt service
1 2 3 4 5
from the employees of this company
6. If I have any problems with the products
1 2 3 4 5
of this store, the employees of this store
will be sympathetic and reassuring
7. The price shown for the product is
1 2 3 4 5
acceptable.
8. I’m happy with the prices of the
1 2 3 4 5
merchandise in this store
9. The prices of the product(s) in this store
1 2 3 4 5
are right, given the quality of the
merchandise

87
10. The merchandise of this store is of
1 2 3 4 5
good quality
11. There is a high likelihood that the
1 2 3 4 5
products purchased at this store are durable
12. There is a high likelihood that the
1 2 3 4 5
product bought at this store is durable

The following statements capture your experience of the store. Please state your
level of agreement about the following statements. (1 is ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 is
‘strongly agree’).

1. The way this store displays its product is

1 2 3 4 5
attractive
2. The interiors of the store is aesthetically
pleasing 1 2 3 4 5

3. I like the way this store looks

1 2 3 4 5

4. I feel entertained in this store

1 2 3 4 5

5. The enthusiasm of this store is catching,

it picks me up. 1 2 3 4 5

6. This store just doesn’t sell products-it

1 2 3 4 5
entertains me
7. Shopping at this store ‘gets me away
1 2 3 4 5
from it all’
8. Shopping at this store makes me feel like
1 2 3 4 5
I am in a different world
9. I get so involved when I shop at this
1 2 3 4 5
store that I forget everything else
10. Shopping at this store is an efficient
1 2 3 4 5
way to manage my time
11. Shopping at this store is very
1 2 3 4 5
convenient to me
12. Shopping at this store fits my schedule
1 2 3 4 5

13. Shopping at this store makes my life

1 2 3 4 5
easier

88
 Overall Shopping Value

(Directions: Think about your overall shopping experience at this store. Please circle
the number that represents your best response to the following statements. 1 stands
for ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 stands for ‘strongly agree’).

3.This shopping trip at this store was truly a joy.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Compared to other things that I could have

1 2 3 4 5
done, the time spent at this store was truly
enjoyable.
3. I enjoyed the shopping at this store for its own
1 2 3 4 5
sake, not just for the items I have purchased.
4. Shopping at this store was a complete waste of
1 2 3 4 5
time.
5. I accomplished just what I wanted to while
1 2 3 4 5
shopping at this store
6. While shopping at this store, I found just the
item(s) I was looking for. 1 2 3 4 5

7. I spent more time in this store than I originally

1 2 3 4 5
planned
8. This is my choice of store in which I regularly
1 2 3 4 5
come to shop.
9. The amount of time that I spent on looking
1 2 3 4 5
around was fairly high
10. I bought more things than I expected at this
1 2 3 4 5
store.
11. I paid most of my attention on items I plan to
1 2 3 4 5
buy on this trip
12. It is very likely that I will purchase a product
1 2 3 4 5
from this store in the future.

Section IV
This information is only for research use, please make a check on the category that best
describes you.

1. Gender: ----------Male ----------------Female.

4. Age ----------------years.

3. Education: ------Middle School --------------High School

---------Under graduate ---------Graduate.

89
4. Occupation: ---------Student -----------Housewife/husband

------------Employed. ------------------Self-employed

5. How often do you shop at this store?

-------------Never --------------------About once a week or more.

--------------Once a month ----------------------About once every 2-5 months

---------------About once every 6 months to a year.

6. Your ethnicity is:

------------Caucasian --------------------African American

------------Native Indian -------------------Asian.

---------------Hispanic -------------------Other.

Thank you very much!

Please return this survey to the administrator.

90
 REFERENCES

Akhter, S.H., J.C. Andrews and S. Durvasula (1994), “The Influence of Retail Store
Environment on Brand-Related Judgments”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 1(1), 67-76.

Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A
Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach”, Psychology Bulletin, 103(3), 411-23.

Areni, C.S. and D. Kim (1993), “The Influence of Background Music on Shopping
Behavior: Classical versus Top-Forty Music in a Wine Store”, in Advances in Consumer
Research, L. McAlister and M.L. Rothschild eds. Provo, U.T.: Association for Consumer
Research, 336-340.

Babin, Barry J. and William R. Darden (1995), “Consumer Self-Regulation in a Retail

Environment,” Journal of Retailing, 71(1) 47-70.

Babin, Barry J. and William R. Darden (1996), “Good and Bad Shopping Vibes:
Spending and Patronage Satisfaction”, Journal of Business Research, 35(3), 201-206.

-----------, William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring
Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March),
644-656.

Batra, Rajeev and Olli T. Ahtola (1991), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources
of Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2(April), 159-170.

Baker, Julie (1987) “The Role of Environment in Marketing Services: The Consumer
Perspective,” in The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage, John A.
Czepeil et al., eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 79-84.

--------, Michael Levy and D. Grewal (1992), “An Experimental Approach to Making
Retail Environmental Decision,” Journal of Retailing, 68 (4), 445-460.

--------, D. Grewal, and A. Parasuraman (1994), “The influence of Store Environment on

Quality Inferences and Store Image,” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4),
328-339.

-------- (1998), “Examining the Informational Value of Store Environments,” in

Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary Markets, John F. Sherry, eds.
Chicago IL: NTC Business Books, 55-80.

--------, Parasuraman, D. Grewal, and Glen B. Voss (2002), “The Influence of Multiple
Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions,”
Journal of Marketing, 66 (April), 120-141.

91
Bearden, W.O., J.E. Teel and R.M. Durand (1978), “Media Usage, Psychographic and
Demographic Dimensions of Retail Shoppers”, Journal of Retailing, 54, 65-74.

Beatty, S.E. and M.E. Ferrell (1998), “Impulse Buying: Modeling its Precursors”,
Journal of Retailing, 74, 169-191.

Bellenger, D.N., D.H. Robertson and E.C. Hirschman (1978), “Impulse Buying Varies by
Product”, Journal of Advertising Research, 18, 15-18.

Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K. Korgaonkar (1980), “Profiling the Recreational

Shopper,”Journal of Retailing, 56 (Fall), 77–92.

Bellizzi, J.A. and R.E. Hite (1992), “Environmental Color, Consumer Feelings, and
Purchase Likelihood”, Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-63.

Bellizzi, J.A., A.E. Crowley and R.W. Hasty (1983), “The Effects of Color in Store
Design”, Journal of Retailing, 59, 21-45.

Bentler, P.M. and D.G. Bonett (1980), “ Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the
Analysis of Covariance Structure”, Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-600.

Berman, B. and J.R. Evans (1992), Retail Management: A Strategic Approach, 5th
edition, New York, NY: Macmillan.

Bettman, James (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice,

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Bhalla, G. and L. Lin (1987), “ Cross-cultural Marketing Research: A Discussion of

Equivalence Issues and Measurement Strategies”, Psychology and Marketing, 4(4), 275-
285.

Bitner, Mary J. (1986), “Consumer Responses to the Physical Environment in Service

Settings,” in Creativity in Service Marketing, M. Venkatesan, Diane M. Schmalensee,
and Claudia Marshall, eds. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 89-93.

-------, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990), “The Service Encounter:
Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January),
71-84.

------, (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customer and

Employees,” Journal of Marketing, 56 (April), 57-71.

Bloch, Peter H. and Marsha L. Richins (1983), “A Theoretical Model for the Study of
Product Importance Perceptions,” Journal of Marketing, 47, 69–81.

92
Bloch, Peter N., Nancy M. Ridgway, and Scott A. Dawson (1994), “The Shopping Mall
as Consumer Habitat,” Journal of Retailing, 70 (1), 23–42.

Bolton, Ruth N. and James H. Drew (1991), “A Multistage Model of Customers’

Assessment of Service Quality and Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March),
375-384.

Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York.

Boyd, H.W. Jr., and S.J. Levy (1963), “New Dimensions in Consumer Analysis”,
Harvard Business Review, 41, 129-140.

Brady, Michael K. and J. Joseph Cronin Jr. (2001), “Some New Thoughts on
Conceptualizing Perceived Service Quality: A Hierarchical Approach,” Journal of
Marketing, 65 (July), 34-49.

Butz, H.E. and L.D. Goodstein (1996), “Measuring Customer Value: Gaining the
Strategic Advantage”, Organizational Dynamics, 24, 63-77.

Buzzell, R. and B. Gale (1987), The PIMS Principles, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Cobb, C.J. and W.D. Hoyer (1986), “Planned versus Impulse Purchase Behavior”,
Journal of Retailing, 62, 384-409.

Cook, T.D. and D.T. Campbell (1976), “The Design and Conduct of Quasi-Experiments
and True Experiments in Field Settings”, in Handbook for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, M.D. Dunnett, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 223-325.

Darden, W.R. and D. Ashton (1975), “Psychographic Profiles of Patronage Preference

Groups”, Journal of Retailing, 16, 64-73.

Darden W.R. and F.D. Reynolds (1971), “Shopping Orientation and Product Usage
Rates”, Journal of Marketing, 8, 505.

Day, G. (1990), Market Driven Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Day, G. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations”, Journal of

Marketing, 58, 37-52.

Day, H.I. (1981), “ Play, a Lucid Behavior”, in Advances in Intrinsic Motivation and
Aesthetics, New York and London: Plenum Press, 225-49.

Dodds, W.B. and K.B. Monroe (1985), “Effects of Price, Brand and Store Information on
Buyers’ Product Evaluations”, Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 307-319.

93
Dodds, W.B., K.B. Monroe and D. Grewal (1991), “The Effect of Price Information on
Product Evaluations” in Hirschman, E. and M.B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research, 12, 85-90.

Donovan, Robert J. and John R. Rossiter (1982), “Store Atmosphere: An Environmental

Psychology Approach,” Journal of Retailing, 58 (1), 34-57.

Donovan R.J., J.R. Rossiter, G. Marcoolyn and Andrew Nesdale (1994), “Store
Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 70 (3), 283-294.

Driefus, Claudia (1997), “A Conversation with the Men Who Brought You Neiman
Marcus, Ikea and Virgin”, The New York Time Magazine, 6, 82-86.

Eroglu, S. and G.D. Harrell (1986), “Retail Crowding: Theoretical and Strategic
Implications”, Journal of Retailing, 62, 346-63.

Eroglu, Sevgin A. and Karen A. Machleit (1990), “An Empirical Study of Retail
Crowding: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 66(2), 201-221.

Gardner, M.P. and D.W. Rook (1988), “Effect of Impulse Purchases on Consumers’
Affective States”, Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 127-130.

Gardner, M.P. and G.J. Siomkos (1985), “Toward a Methodology for Assessing Effects
of In-Store Atmospherics”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Richard Lutz, ed.
Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, 27-31.

Gale, B.Y. (1994), Managing Customer Value. Creating Quality and Service that
Customers Can See, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Gehrt, Kenneth C. and Kent Carter (1992), “An Exploratory Assessment of Catalog
Shopping Orientations,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 6 (Winter), 29–39.

Greenland, S.J. and P.J. McGoldrick (1994), “Atmospherics, Attitudes and Behavior:
Modeling the Impact of Designed Space”, The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 4, 1-16.

Grewal, Dhruv and Julie Baker (1994), “Do Retail Store Environmental Factors Affect
Consumers’ Price Acceptability? An Empirical Examination,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 11(2), 107-115.

Grewal D. and A. Sharma (1991), “The Effect of Sales force Behavior on Customer
Satisfaction: An Integrative Framework”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 11(3), 13-23.

Groth, J.C. (1994), “ The Exclusive Value Principle: A Concept for Marketing”, Journal
of Product and Brand Management, 3(3), 8-18.

94
Hair, J.F., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black (1998), Multivariate Data
Analysis, 5th edition, Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hartline, M.D. and O.C. Ferrell (1996), “The Management of Customer-Contact Service
Employee”, Journal of Marketing, 60, 52-70.

Hasty, R. and J. Reardon (1996), Retail Management, New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Helson, H. (1964), Adaptation-Level Theory, New York: Harper and Row.

Heskett, J.L., T.O. Jones, G.W. Loveman, W.E. Sasser Jr., and L.A. Schlesinger (1994),
“Putting the Service Profit Chain to Work”, Harvard Business Review, March/April, 164-
74.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), “The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial Advertising Stimuli
on Aesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions,” Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 27-
48.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1985), “Why Business is Bad for Consumer Research: The three
Bears Revisited”, Advances in Consumer Research, 12 ed. E.C. Hirschman and Morris B.
Holbrook, Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1986), “Emotion in the Consumption Experience: Toward a New

Model of the Human Consumer”, The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging
Theories and Applications, R. A. Peterson, W.D. Hoyer, and David Wilson, eds.
Lexington, MA:D.C. Heath, 17-52.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1994), “The Nature of Customer Value: An Axiology of Services in

the Consumption Experience,” in Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and
Practice, Roland T. Rust and Richard L. Oliver, eds., Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 21-71.

----------- and Kim P. Corfman (1985), “Quality and Value in the Consumption
Experience: Phaedrus Rides Again,” in Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores
and Merchandise, Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 31-57.

----------- and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), “ The Experiential Aspects of

Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings and Fun,” Journal of Consumer Research,
9, 132-140.

Hu, L. and P.M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives”, Structural Equations
Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.

95
James, L.R., S.S. Muliak and R.H. Irving (1982), “Mediators, Moderators and Tests for
Mediation, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307-321.

Joiner, B.L. (1994), Fourth Generation Management: The New Business Consciousness,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Jöreskog, K. and D. Sörbom (1993), LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with

SIMPLIS Command Language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Kirmani, Amna and Akshay Rao (2000), “No Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the
Literature on Signaling Unobservable Product Quality,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (April),
66-79.

Korgaonkar, Pradeep (1981), “Shopping Orientations of Catalog Showroom Patrons,”

Journal of Retailing, 57 (1), 79–90.

Korgaonkar, Pradeep and Alan E. Smith (1985), “Psychographic Demographic Correlates

of Electronic In-home Shopping and Banking Service,” Development in Marketing
Science, Kenneth D. Bahn (Ed.), Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science
(1988),52–55.

Kotler, Philip (1973) “Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool,” Journal of Retailing, 49 (4),

48-64.

Kaufman, J.J. (1998), Value Management: Creating Competitive Advantage, Best

Management Practice Series, Crisp Publications, Menlo Park, CA.

Lai, A.W. (1995), “Consumer Values, Product Benefits and Customer Value: A
Consumption Behavior Approach”, Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 381-87.

Levy, M. and B.A. Weitz (2001), Retailing Management, 4th edition, New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.

McGrath, J.E., J. Martin and R.A. Kulka (1992), Judgment Calls in Research, Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Markin, Rom J., Charles M. Lillis and Chem L. Narayana (1976), “Social-Psychological
Significance of Store Space,” Journal of Retailing, 52 (1), 43-54.

Mathwick, Charla, Naresh Malhotra and Edward Rigdon (2001), “Experiential Value:
Conceptualization, Measurement and Application in the Catalog and Internet Shopping
Environment,” Journal of Retailing, 77, 39-56.

Mehrabian, Albert and James A. Russell (1974), An approach to Environmental

Psychology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

96
Milliman, Ronald E. (1982), “Using Background Music to Affect the Behavior of
Supermarket Shoppers,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (summer), 86-91.

Monroe, K.B. (1973), “Buyers’ Subjective Perceptions of Price”, Journal of Marketing

Research, 10, 70-80.

Monroe, K.B. (1990), Pricing, Making Profitable Decisions, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
London.

Monroe, K.B. and R. Krishnan (1985), “The Effect of Price on Subjective Product
Evaluation”, in Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise,
Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 209-32.

Moschis, George P. (1976), “Shopping Orientations and Consumer Uses of Information,”

Journal of Retailing, 52 (Summer), 61–70, 93.

Nagle, T.T. (1987), The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Naumann, E. (1995), Creating Customer Value. The Path to Sustainable Competitive

Advantage, Thomson Executive Press, Cincinnati, OH.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J.C. and I.H. Bernstein (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd edition, New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.

Oliver, R. (1999), “Value as Excellence in the Consumption Experience”, in Customer

Value, A Framework for Analysis and Research, Morris Holbrook, (Ed.), London and
New York: Routledge.

Oliver, R.L. and R.A. Westbrook (1993), “Profiles of Consumer Emotions and
Satisfaction in Ownership and Usage”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction
and Complaining Behavior, 6, 12-27.

Oliver, R.L. and J.E. Swan (1989), “Consumer Perceptions of Interpersonal Equity and
Satisfaction in Transactions: A Field Survey Approach”, Journal of Marketing, 53, 21-
35.

Olson, Jerry C. (1981), “What is an Esthetic Response?” in Symbolic Consumer

Behavior, Elizabeth C. Hirschman and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. Ann Arbor, NY:
Association for Consumer Research, 71-74.

97
Parasuraman, A., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Leonard Berry (1988), “SERVQUAL: A
Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality,” Journal of
Retailing, 64 (1), 12-40.

Piercy, N.F. and N.A. Morgan (1997), “The Impact of Lean Thinking and the Lean
Enterprise on Marketing: Threat or Synergy?”, Journal of Marketing Management, 13,
679-93.

Rapopart, Amos (1982), The Meaning of Built Environment, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Reichheld, F.F., R.G. Markey Jr., and C. Hopton (2000), “The Loyalty Effect: The
Relationship between Loyalty and Profits”, European Business Journal, 12(3), 134-139.

Reichheld, F.F. (1994), “Loyalty and the Renaissance of Marketing”, Marketing

Management, 2 (4), 10-20.

Rook, D.W. (1987), “The buying Impulse”, Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 189-199.

Russell, James A. and Geraldine Pratt (1980), “A Description of the Affective Quality
Attributed to the Environment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 119-
135.

-----------------, and Jacalyn Snodgrass (1987), “Emotion and the Environment,” in

Handbook of Environmental Psychology, 1, D. Stokols and L. Altman eds., New York:
Wiley, 245-281.

Rust R.T. and R.L. Oliver (2000), “Should We Delight the Customer?” , Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 86-94.

Schellinck, D.A. (1982), “Cue Choice as a Function of Time Pressure and Perceived
Risk,” in Advances in Consumer Research, X, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 470-475.

Shavitt, S. (1992), “ Evidence for Predicting the Effectiveness of Value-Expressive

versus Utilitarian Appeals: A Reply to Johar and Sirgy”, Journal of Advertising, 21 (2),
47-50.

Sherry, J.F. (1990), “A Sociocultural Analysis of a Midwestern Flea Market”, Journal of

Consumer Research, 17, 13-30.

Sirohi, N., E.W. McLaughlin and D.R. Wittink (1998), “A Model of Store Perception and
Store Loyalty Intentions for a Supermarket”, Journal of Retailing, 74(2), 223-45.

98
Spangenberg, E.R., A.E. Crowley and P.W. Henderson (1996), “Improving the Store
Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behavior”, Journal of
Marketing, 60, 67-80.

Stone, Gregory P. (1954), “City and Urban Identification: Observations on the Social
Psychology of City Life,” American Journal of Sociology, 60 (July), 36–45.

Stratton, V.N. (1992), “Influences of Music and Socializing on Perceived Stress While
Waiting”, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(1), 334.

Szymanski, David M. and Richard T. Hise (2000), “E-Satisfaction: An Initial

Examination,” Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 309-322.

Thaler, R. (1985), “Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice”, Marketing Science, 4,

199-214.

Tauber, Edward M. (1972), “Marketing Notes and Communications,” Journal of

Marketing, 4 (October), 46–49.

Unger, L.S. and J.B. Kernan (1983), “On the Meaning of Leisure: An Investigation of
Some Determinants of the Subjective Experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
381-392.

Veryzer, R.W. (1993), “ Aesthetic Response and the Influence of Design Principles on
Product Preferences”, in Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, 20.

Wakefield, K.W. and Julie Baker (1998), “Excitement at the Mall: Determinants and
Effects on Shopping Behavior”, Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 515-40.

Wakefield, K.W. and J.G. Blodgett (1999), “Customer Response to Intangible and
Tangible Service Factors”, Psychology and Marketing, 16, 51-68.

Westbrook, R.A. and W.C. Black (1985), “A Motivation-Based Shopper Typology”,

Journal of Retailing, 61, 78-103.

Williams, Robert H., John J. Painter and Herbert R. Nichols (1978), “A Policy-Oriented
Typology of Grocery Shoppers,” Journal of Retailing, 54 (Spring), 27–43.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (2), 139-153.

99
Woodruff, R.B. and S. Gardial (1996), “Know Your Customer: New Approaches to
Understanding Customer Value and Satisfaction”, Blackwell, Oxford.
Yalch, R. and E. Spangenberg (1990), “Effects of Store Music on Shopping Behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 7, 55-63.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1984), “Issues in Conceptualizing and Measuring Consumer

Response to Price,” in Advances in Consumer Research, XXI, Thomas C. Kinnear eds.
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 612-616.

--------------, A. Parasuraman and Leonard L. Berry (1985), “Problems and Strategies in

Services Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring), 33-46.

---------------------(1988), “ Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality and Value: A Means-

End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 2-22.

100
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author completed her Ph.D. at Florida State University, Department of Marketing in
spring 2006. Her main research interests include retailing, research methods and Supply
chain management.

101