The differential effects of retail attribute on utilitarian versus hedonic shopping value

Svein Ottar Olsen, Troms University Business School, Norway (svein.o.olsen@uit.no) Kre Skallerud, Troms University Business School, Norway (kare.skallerud@uit.no)

Abstract Retailers would benefit from knowledge about how different antecedents relate to utilitarian versus hedonic shopping values in order to communicate to their customers the benefits for them. This study replicates and extends research by Stoel, Wickliffe, and Lee (2004) by examining grocery shoppers beliefs about store attributes as antecedents to shopping value. The study here explores if and how dimensions of store attribute beliefs have differential effects (i.e., strength and direction) on hedonic versus utilitarian shopping value. Developing adaptive selling techniques and combinations of store layouts may be useful strategies to overcome the differential effects of store attributes on shopping values. Keywords: shopping value; retail attributes; grocery shopping

The differential effects of retail attribute on utilitarian versus hedonic shopping value

Introduction The possible relationship between stores attributes beliefs and personal shopping values receives limited attention in the literature. Only Stoel, Wickliffe, and Lee (2004) appear to examine this relationship to some degree. They find that mall attributes satisfaction has a positive effect on both hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Their study, however, relates to a single shopping mall and their measure of store attributes is one-dimensional and not informed by recent developments of store attribute dimensions (e.g., Dabholkar, Thorpe, and Rentz, 1996; Vzquez, Rodriguez-Del Bosque, Ma Daz, and Ruiz, 2001). Consequently, their study masks and distorts the differential effect of dimensions of mall attributes beliefs on hedonic versus utilitarian shopping benefits. Identifying important or critical attributes of stores is a focal point in research on retail quality or evaluation (e.g., Dabholkar et al., 1996; Vzquez et al., 2001) and how these attributes affect different outcomes such as the customers satisfaction with the outlet, loyalty and intentions (Pan and Zinkhan, 2006; Sirohi, McLaughlin, and Wittink, 1998; Thang and Tan, 2003; Wakefield and Baker, 1998). The rationale behind this research interest is that if retailers want to increase the customers satisfaction and loyalty, they need to understand what kinds of attributes are important and how these attributes are related to such customer outcomes. The expected shopping benefits are multiple (Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985). Arnold and Reynolds (2003) identify six different global shopping motives: advantage, gratification, role, value, social and idea shopping motives. A stream of research defines the outcome of shopping experiences in two main value dimensions: hedonic and utilitarian shopping value (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994). According to the hedonic view, consumers shop for fun, advantage and enjoyment (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). In contrast, in the utilitarian view, consumers are concerned with purchasing products in an efficient and timely manner to achieve their goals with a minimum of time and effort. The present study investigates the relationship between store attributes and consumers shopping values on a general level. To accomplish this aim, store attributes are defined as belief importance (Jaccard, Brinberg, and Ackerman, 1986; Meyers and Alpert, 1977; Van der Pligt and De Vries, 1998) of relevant store attributes (e.g., Dabholkar et al., 1996). The assessment of hedonic and utilitarian shopping benefits is associated with general retail shopping experiences (Wang, Chen, Chan, and Zheng, 2000). Theory Studies of store attributes as potential antecedents of utilitarian versus hedonic shopping values are rare in the marketing literature (with the exception of Diep and Sweeney, 2008; Eroglu, Machleit, and Barr, 2005; Lee et al., 2009, and Stoel et al, 2004). Stoel et al.s (2004) study tests the relationship between store attribute beliefs and hedonic versus utilitarian shopping values. Respondents in a regional shopping mall in a Midwest US city indicated how satisfied they are with 18 mall attributes. All the items are then summarized to create an overall measure of beliefs about mall attributes. Their findings suggest a positive relationship between mall attribute satisfaction for both utilitarian and hedonic shopping values.

Consumers are motivated to enjoy shopping (Arnold and Reynold, 2003) but having fun also introduce a sense of guilt and need for rationalization (Okada, 2005). The shoppers may therefore patronage stores with hedonic dimensions if they at the same time are allowed to justify the shopping (i.e., utilitarian shopping). Hedonism and utilitarianism are not always a dichotomous scale (Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann, 2003). In the retail context, different store attributes may be high or low on both hedonic and utilitarian shopping dimensions. Following Dhar and Wertenbroch (2000) and Okada (2005), this research characterize dimensions of store attributes as being primarily or relatively more hedonic or utilitarian. Aggregate perceptions of store attributes as having more or less effect on hedonic and utilitarian shopping benefits/values are examined in theoretical explainable and predictable ways. Although service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, 1988) provides a general framework for assessing retail attributes and dimensions, no consensus exists on the content of these attributes or how many dimensions to use in order to evaluate the overall store image (Kim and Jin, 2001; Pan and Zinkhan, 2006; Thang and Tan, 2003; Vzquez et al., 2001). Dabholkar et al. (1996) provide a frequently used scale to assess retail service quality. They identify five quality dimensions: physical aspects, reliability, personal interactions, problem solving and retailers politics. However, price, cost and value are important antecedents in explaining store satisfaction, choice and retention (Pan and Zinkhan, 2006). Thus, several studies integrate store quality attributes with price/cost in explaining loyalty towards stores (Caruana, Money, and Berthon, 2000; Sirohi et al., 1998). Price sensitivity (Lee, Lee, and Lee, 2008), money spent (Stoel et al., 2004), value for money (Diep and Sweeney, 2008) and value shopping (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003) also distinguish utilitarian versus hedonic shopping motivations. Thus, the present study synthesize past research and propose the following store attributes affecting shopping value: product value, assortment, retailers policy, personal interaction, and physical aspects. The following six hypotheses address the proposed relationships: H1: The shoppers perceived importance of product assortment is positively related to a) utilitarian shopping value, and b) hedonic shopping value. H2: The shoppers perceived product value is positively related to a) utilitarian shopping value, and b) hedonic shopping value. H3: The shoppers perceived physical aspects is a) positively related to utilitarian shopping value, and b) negatively related to hedonic shopping value. H4: The shoppers perceived personal interaction is a) negatively related to utilitarian shopping value, and b) positively related to hedonic shopping value. H5: The shoppers perceived store policy a) is positively related to utilitarian shopping value, and b) positively related to hedonic shopping value. Control variables It is shown that demographic characteristics of customers affect their purchasing behavior (e.g., Raju, 1989; Wood, 1998). Controlling for the moderating role of customer characteristics on grocery shopping value, the following key demographic variables are examined in our study: income, gender, and age. Method A shopper intercept survey was used to collect the data at three grocery outlets in a Norwegian city. Each outlet belongs to two of the major Norwegian grocery retail chains that

each covers about 30 percent of the national grocery market. The data was collected from actual shoppers in the three outlets. A total of 572 (60 percent) questionnaires were returned within two weeks of delivery. After cleaning the data and eliminating the respondents with missing values, the analysis was performed with an effective sample size of 513 respondents. In developing measures to represent the hedonic and utilitarian grocery shopping values and grocery store attributes, we synthesized scales from the literature with those obtained in our fieldwork. The initial measures were refined and pretested to enhance face validity. The total questionnaire is dedicated to questions related to shopping in the three grocery stores investigated. On average, the respondents purchase is just above 60 percent of their annual groceries at the store where they are approached. All questions are framed toward shopping in those stores as the object of the association. The operationalization of shopping value are therefore representing a more general shopping value instead of those attached to a certain shopping trip (i.e., the common way of measuring shopping value. All the questions are measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Survey participants were asked to rate their personal importance of grocery store attributes on a seven-point scale ranging from not important (1) to very important (7). Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), the reliability and validity of the measurement scales is estimated prior to multiple regression analyses. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on 24 variables was carried out. The measurement model showed an acceptable fit (2 = 348.37 with df = 149, RMSEA= 0.051, NNFI = 0.96 and CFI = 0.97). Item reliability or squared multiple correlations (R2) of the indicators range from .32 to .87.The average variance extracted ranges from .51 to .79. The discriminant validity of the constructs is also tested by calculating the average variance extracted and compare the square root of this to the inteconstruct correlations. The square root of the average variances extracted exceeds the interconstruct correlations, suggesting that each construct shares more variance with its own measures than with other constructs. Results Multiple regressions modelling are used to test the hypotheses related to grocery shopping. Prior to testing the direct effects of store attributes on utilitarian and hedonic shopping, only the control variables are included in the regression models with the two types of shopping motivation as dependent variables. These are used as baseline models. Hypotheses 1 to 5 are then tested to examine the extent to which store attributes influence grocery shopping. A linear combination of the five store attributes and the control variables, explained 10 % of the variance in utilitarian shopping and 7 % of the variance in hedonic shopping. In both cases, no variance is explained by the control variables. Product assortment (P > .01), physical aspects (P > .001), personal interactions (P > .05), and policy (P > .01) are significant predictors of utilitarian shopping. Product value is an insignificant predictor. However, in the case of hedonic shopping, product value (P > .05) is a significant predictor in addition to physical aspects (P > .001), personal interaction (P > .05), and policy (P > .001). In addition, the change in R2 beyond the baseline/controls models is significant; indicating that the set of store attributes themselves explained all variance beyond the baseline model. The results reveal a consistent pattern between utilitarian and hedonic shopping. Grocery store attribute beliefs that have a positive or negative influence on hedonic shopping value are negatively, positively or non-significantly related to utilitarian shopping.

Table 1: Results of regression analyses Predictors and control Utility grocery shopping: Model 1 Model 2 Control variables Income .03 .06 Gender .09 .07 Age .01 .01 Independent variables H1: Product assortment .11** H2: Product value .06 H3: Physical aspects .25*** H4: Personal interactions -.12* H5: Policy .12* F (full model) 1.66 7.54*** R2 .00 .10 Change in R2 .10 > .10, * P > .05, ** P > .01, *** P > .001. Conclusions

Hedonic grocery shopping: Model 3 Model 4 -.03 .06 -.07 -.02 .07 -.07 .01 .09* -.18*** .13* .20*** 5.19*** .07 .07

1.54 .00

This research gives insight into the complex interrelationships between consumers store attribute beliefs and their hedonic and utilitarian shopping values, showing the differential effects that store attributes can have on shopping value. As hypothesized, the effect of product assortment (H1a), physical aspects (H3a), and policy (H5a) upon utilitarian shopping value are positive. Our findings provide no support for the hypothesized effect of product value (H2a) and personal interaction (H4a). As hypothesized, the effect of physical aspects (H3b) is negative and the effect of personal interaction (H4b) and policy (H5b) are positive upon hedinic shopping value. The findings provide no support for the hypothesized effect of product assortment (H1b) and product value (H2b). A broad view of these results suggests an important interrelationship between store attribute beliefs and shopping values. The findings suggest that the consumers general cognitive evaluation of store attributes influences the value that they feel they receive from their store visits. Thus, it is important that stores endeavour to offer environments that satisfy their target customers, so that visits will be perceived as giving shopping value. Product assortment (i.e., a well-assorted store and high-quality fresh produce), physical aspects of the store (i.e., easy to find products and easy to move around the store), and store policy (i.e., convenient operating hours) are important to activate shoppers utilitarian value that is driven by a sense of accomplishment of the shopping trip that is, obtaining soughtafter goods (Jones et al., 2006). On the other hand, hedonic shopping value represents the emotional worth of the shopping experience. Personal interactions with employees, policy and physical aspects activate shoppers felt pleasure in shopping for groceries. Physical aspects have a negative effect. Differing from Stoel et al. (2004), who found a general positive effect of store attributes on both utilitarian and hedonic shopping values, this study decomposes store attributes into several sub-dimensions, showing differential and conflicting effects on shopping values. Physical aspects have opposite effects on the two shopping value orientations, product assortment is only effecting utilitarian shopping value but personal interaction is only effecting hedonic shopping value. What can one make of these findings?

The physical aspects of a grocery store should both make it easy for shoppers to move around the store with a utilitarian orientation whilst simultaneously triggering shoppers with a hedonic orientation. This ostensibly contradictory strategy can be solved by a mix of store layout types. Retailing store layout theory (Ghosh, 1994; Levy and Weitz, 2001; Merrilees and Miller, 2001) recommends the grid layout for routine and planned shopping behavior, to provide shoppers with flexibility and speed in identifying preselected products (i.e., utilitarian shopping value). The freeform layout with free-flowing and asymmetric arrangements of displays and aisles and the racetrack layout with individual semi-separate areas built around particular shopping themes increases the time shoppers spend in the store and makes it easy to browse and create an entertaining shopping experience (i.e., hedonic shopping value). Grocery retailers could combine the conventional grid layout with a freeform and/or racetrack layout in order to attract shoppers with both shopping values. A mixed grid/freeform layout pattern constitutes an emerging layout for grocery retailing, as is evidenced by the use of such layouts for example by Sainsburys and Tesco in the UK. Personal interactions with store employees trigger shoppers with a hedonic orientation but utilitarian-oriented shoppers are put off by such exchanges. Therefore, grocery retailers should understand the role that their employees play in consumers decision-making and design strategies to enhance their performance by training and supervising their employees in adaptive selling techniques (Levy and Sharma, 1994; Sharma, 2001). Adaptive behavior of employees enables them to categorize shoppers (i.e., utilitarian versus hedonic shoppers) and to change their colors depending on the shoppers needs (Leong, Busch, and Roedder, 1989; Sujan, Weitz, and Sujan, 1988). Do not construe the results from this research relative to certain limitations. Although assessing store attribute beliefs as the evaluation of attribute importance instead of attributes relating to a specific store or retail outlet enhances generalizability of the findings, crossvalidation in future research with other product categories and store formats is necessary to confirm the relevance of the framework. Future studies should also include not only shopping value antecedents, but also consequences such as repatronage intentions and anticipation, satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth (Jones et al., 2006).

References Anderson, J., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (May), 411-23. Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing 79 (2), 77-95. Babin, B.J, Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4), 644-56. Caruana, A., Money, A.H., Berthon, P.R., 2000. Service quality and satisfaction the moderating role of value 34 (11), 1338-53. Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., Rentz, J.O., 1996. A measure of service quality for retail stores: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (1), 3-17. Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketinig Research 37 (1), 60-71. Diep, V.C.S., Sweeney, J.C., 2008. Shopping trip value: do stores and products matter? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (5), 399-409. Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K., Barr, T.F., 2005. Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: the role of shopping values. Journal of Business Research 58 (8), 1146-53. Ghosh, A., 1994. Retail Management (2nd ed.). The Dryden Press, NY. Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46 (Summer), 92-101. Jaccard, J., Brinberg, D., Ackerman, L.J., 1986. Assessing attribute importance: a comparison of six methods. Journal of Consumer Research 12 (4), 463-68. Jones, M.A,, Reynolds, K.E., Arnold, M.J., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping values: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research 59 (9), 974-81. Kim, J.O., Jin, B., 2001. Korean consumers patronage of discount stores: domestic vs. multinational discount store shoppers profiles. Journal of Consumer Marketing 18 (3), 236-55. Lee, M.-Y., Kim, Y.-K., Fairhurst, A., 2009. Shopping value in online auctions: their antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (1), 75-82. Lee, Y.-K., Lee, C.-K., Lee, S.-K., 2008 Festivalscapes and patrons emotions, satisfaction, and loyalty. Journal of Business Research 61 (1), 56-65.

Leong, S.M., Busch, P.S., Roedder, D., 1989. Knowledge bases and salesperson effectiveness: a script-theoretic analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 26 (2), 164-79. Levy, M., Sharma, A., 1994. Adaptive selling: the role of gender, age, sales experience, and education. Journal of Business Research 31 (1), 39-47. Levy, M., Weitz, B.A., 2001. Retailing Management (4th edition). McGraw-Hill, Irwin. Merrilees, B., Miller, D., 2001. Superstore interactivity: a new self-service paradigm of retail service. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 29 (8), 379-89. Meyers, J.H., Alpert, M.I., 1977. Semantic confusion in attitude research: salience vs. importance vs. determinance. Advances in Consumer Research 4 (1), 106-10. Okada, E.M., 2005. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research 42 (1), 43-53. Pan, Y., Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical perspective. Journal of Retailing 82 (3), 229-43. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multi-item scale for measuring consumer perception of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64 (1), 13-40. Raju, P.S., 1980. Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, demographics, and exploratory behaviour. Journal of Cunsumer Research 7 (3), 272-282. Sharma, A., 2001. Consumer decision-making, salespeoples adaptive selling and retail performance. Journal of Business Research 54 (2), 125-29. Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of consumer perceptions and store loyalty intentions from a supermarket retailer. Journal of Retailing 74 (2), 223-46. Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., Kyu, H.L., 2004. Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to shopping value. Journal of Business Research 57 (10), 1067-73. Sujan, H., Weitz, B.A,, Sujan, M., 1988. Increasing sales productivity by getting salespeople to work smarter. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management 8 (2), 9-20. Tauber, E.M., 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 36 (4), 46-50. Thang, D.C.L., Tan, B.L.B., 2003. Linking consumer perception to preference of retail stores: an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (4), 193-200. Van Der Pligt, J., De Vries, N.K., 1998. Belief importance in expectancy-value models of attributes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (15), 1339-55. Vzquez, R., Rodriguez-Del Bosque, I.A., Ma Daz, A., Ruiz, A.V., 2001. Service quality in supermarket retailing: identifying critical service experiences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (1), 1-14.

Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research 40 (3), 310320. Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing 74 (4), 515-39. Wang, C.-L., Chen, Z.-X., Chan, A.K.K., Zheng, Z.-C., 2000. The influence of hedonic values on consumer behaviors: an empirical investigation in China. Journal of Global Marketing 14 (1-2), 169-86. Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985.A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing 61 (Spring), 78-103. Wood, M., 1998. Socio-econimic status, delay of gratification, and impulse buying. Journal of Economic Psychology 19 (3), 295-320.