the fashionable eye
TRANSCRIPT
The Fashionable Eye: How Female Fashion Shoppers Perceive the Shopping Mall
Richard Michon School of Retail Management
Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street
Toronto, On, M5B 2K3 Tel: 416-979-5000 Ext. 7454
Fax: 416-979-5324 Email: [email protected]
Donna Smith
School of Retail Management Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street
Toronto, On, M5b 2K3 Tel: 416-979-5000, ext 4827
Fax: 416-979- 5324 Email: [email protected]
Hong Yu
School of Fashion Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street
Toronto, On, M5b 2K3 Tel: 416-979-5000, ext 4550
Fax: 416-979-5227 Email: [email protected]
Jean-Charles Chebat
HEC-Montreal 3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine
Montréal (Québec) Canada H3T 2A7
Tel: 514-340-6846 Fax: 514-340-6432
Email: [email protected]
Correspondence: Donna Smith School of Retail Management Ryerson University 350 Victoria Street Toronto, On, M5b 2K3 Tel: 416-979-5000, ext 4827 Fax: 416-979- 5324 Email: [email protected]
The Fashionable Eye: How Female Fashion Shoppers Perceive the Shopping Mall
In response to competing retail formats, many enclosed malls are focusing on fashion-forward re-
tailing. This study shows that the mall is more than a repository of stores. It is central to the
shopping experience and patronage intentions. Mall personality has a direct impact on the percep-
tion of merchandise and service quality. The latter triggers hedonic shopping responses, achieve-
ment of shopping tasks, and ultimately patronage intentions. Female shoppers' fashion orientation
moderates the perceptions of quality, shopping experience and future behavior. SEM is used to in-
terconnect mall personality, quality perception, and shoppers' response.
The Fashionable Eye: How Female Fashion Shoppers Perceive the Shopping Mall
1. Introduction
Build it and they will come? Not anymore. REIT executives now recognize that the consumer has many more
choices and that they need to accept new concepts and recognize what the consumer wants (Choi 2006). The ulti-
mate objectives are to reach more and more shoppers by building larger malls, generating more traffic by creating
exciting destinations, and converting traffic into sales. By doing so, shopping mall executives will be able to charge
tenants higher rents. Mall developers and managers are carefully evaluating the relationship between sales produc-
tivity and tenant space. Fashion, the traditional mainstay of enclosed shopping centers, typically occupies more than
50 percent of non-anchor tenant space in regional malls (Baker 2004). Facing aggressive competition from power
centers, outlets and lifestyle centers, regional and superregional malls rely more than ever on branded fashion mer-
chandise. Some mall operators are courting luxury retailers such as Chanel, Vuitton, Ferragamo or even Hermes
(Moin 2006). The pursuit of upscale fashion implies an understanding of the fashion-oriented consumer. Apart
from selecting and matching tenants, mall developers can also offer fashion shoppers a retail environment that will
have a positive impact on shopping behavior (Stoel, Wickliffe and Lee 2004; Laroche, Teng, Michon and Chebat
2005). This study investigates how female fashion-oriented shoppers perceive and respond to the mall environment.
2. Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses
2.1. Fashion Shoppers and Fashion Orientation
In the past two decades, marketers and behavioral scientists have studied fashion consumers extensively.
These studies focused on identifying fashion leaders, innovators, followers, and rejecters (Behling 1992; Gutman
and Mills 1982), understanding motivations and emotional enhancement (Evans 1989), and documenting demo-
graphic and lifestyle profiles (Shim and Kotsiopulos 1993). Fashion is primarily concerned with newness (Evans
1989), and is often considered as a novel way for fashion adopters to express their “self” to others. Fashion is a rep-
resentation of the pursuit of individuality, within a socially acceptable uniqueness (Sproles 1985).
In a study of self concept with respect to fashion leaders and followers, Goldsmith, Flynn, and Moore
(1996) reported that fashion leaders considered themselves as more excitable, indulgent, contemporary, formal, col-
orful, and vain than fashion followers. Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, and Freiden (1991) associated social values and fash-
ion leadership in an effort to explore if the former could be used to offer insight into the motives underlying fashion
purchases. They indicated that consumers who processed high values of fun, enjoyment, and excitement in their
lives were indeed more fashion-conscious. In another study, Workman and Kidd (2000) used the “Need for
Uniqueness Scale” to characterize fashion consumer groups. They found a significantly greater need for uniqueness
among fashion change agents (fashion opinion leaders, fashion innovators, innovative communicators) than fashion
followers. This study further suggested that the need for uniqueness might provide one explanation for adoption and
disposal of fashion products by consumers.
An understanding of fashion consumers’ shopping and consumption behaviors is of significant importance
to strategic retail marketing of fashion products. Although fashion consumers have been studied from a variety of
perspectives, no research was found that investigates the integrated shopping experience of fashion shoppers in a
mall setting. This study fills the void. The authors investigate how female fashion shoppers perceive the shopping
center environment which in turn, leads to mall patronage intention. In addition, this study includes fashion orienta-
tion as a variable that may impact female shoppers’ perception of the shopping mall environment and their shopping
experience. This was based on Gutman and Mills’ (1982) integrative analysis of fashion life style segments, and
their development of a fashion orientation scale that is comprised of four dimensions: 1) fashion leadership, 2) fash-
ion interest, 3) importance of being well-dressed and 4) antifashion attitude. These four dimensions were replicated
in other studies (Park and Burns 2005).
2.2. Store Personality and Shopping Mall Perception
Peoples’ motives for shopping may be either social or personal, and some of these motives may not relate
to the actual purchase of the merchandise (Tauber 1976). Nevertheless, retail stores are still primary points of con-
tact for most shoppers. Marketing researchers have become interested in that consumers may attribute human char-
acteristics to products, brands, stores, and other commercial objects (Aaker 1997; d’Astous and Lévesque 2003). A
sound understanding of these human attributes may be useful for effective marketing action because formal, expres-
sive, and symbolic qualities of retail environments communicate various messages to consumers (Fiore and Ogle
2000), and may influence consumers’ inferences about merchandise, service quality, and store image (Baker, Gre-
wal, and Parasuraman 1994).
In a study of the effect of store image on consumers’ perceptions of designer and private label clothing,
Baugh and Davis (1989) reported that store image affected ratings of status characteristics of the shirt. Furthermore,
store image had an impact on styling characteristics of private label shirts but not of designer label shirts. The cur-
rent study employed store personality as a variable and explored its impact on consumers’ perception of merchan-
dise and service quality in a shopping mall setting. An effective mall shopping environment may increase shopping
value and influence consumers to exhibit more approach behavior, staying longer in the mall; those who experienced
a pleasurable shopping trip were more likely to exhibit patronage intention (Stoel, Wickliffe, and Lee 2003). The
shopping mall is a store of stores (Underhill, 2004, p. 19) and may be viewed as an extension of Theodore Levitt’s
(1980) augmented product concept. Packaging and display add value to the product through enhanced consumer
perception of quality and differentiation, increasing the likelihood of purchases and ultimately impacting sales vol-
ume and profitability.
2.3. Shopping Value and Outcome
Shopping value involves an interaction between a consumer and a product or service that pertains not only
to the object itself, but also to the consumption experience. It involves the intrinsic and extrinsic value of the object
(Holbrook 1986). Shopping goes way beyond functional utility and task orientation (Wesley, LeHew and Woodside
2006; Bloch, Sherrell and Ridgway 1986), and provides other experiential benefits and gratifications (Holbrook and
Corfman 1985). Two dimensions, utilitarian and hedonic shopping values, summarize perceived shopping value
(Babin, Darden, and Griffin 1994; Babin and Attaway 2000). Utilitarian value reflects task-orientation, while he-
donic value indicates personal gratification and self-expression associated with the shopping experience. Shopping
affect was found to have a positive impact on perceived shopping value, which in turn positively influences a con-
sumer’s consistent repeat purchase behavior (Babin and Attaway 2000).
Within consumer behavior research, patronage intention may be defined as the behavioral intention of con-
sumers to behave in a certain way with regard to spending time in a shopping facility, interacting with sales associ-
ates and products, and possibly purchasing products and services (Donovan and Rossiter 1982). In this study, it was
expected that hedonic and utilitarian shopping value would have positive impact on patronage intention.
2.5. Research Hypotheses
Environmental psychology (Meharabian and Russell 1974; Donovan and Rossiter 1982) and servicescapes
theory (Bitner 1992; Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal, Parasuraman and Voss 2002) posit that perception of the retail
environment impacts shoppers’ perception of product and service quality (Figure 1). Consumers’ hedonic and utili-
tarian shopping experience is an affective manifestation of the perception of the retail environment. Patronage in-
tention is a direct consequence of the shopping experience and the attainment of shopping objectives. Research by
Gutman and Mills (1982) and others assume that fashion orientation serves as an antecedent to the entire perceptual
process. As explained later, while fashion orientation is a multifaceted construct, this study focuses on one dimen-
sion, the importance of being well-dressed. Mall atmosphere is captured through two retail personality constructs,
sophistication and enthusiasm (Aaker 1997; d’Astous and Lévesque 2003). Research hypotheses, as outlined in
Figure 2, translate the conceptual model into verifiable research propositions.
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
- H1: Shoppers’ attitude toward the importance of being well-dressed (Gutman and Mills 1982) is likely to have a
positive effect on the perception of shopping mall personality dimensions: a) sophistication and b) enthusiasm
(b) (d’Astous and Lévesque 2003).
- Based on environmental psychology theory, shoppers’ perception of mall personality (H2: Sophistication and H3:
Enthusiasm) will have a bearing on the perception of a) product quality and b) service quality offered in this
shopping center.
- Shoppers’ perceptions of product quality (H4) and service quality (H5) will elicit hedonic and utilitarian re-
sponses (Babin, Darden and Griffin 1994; Babin and Attaway 2000).
- H6: In accordance with approach/avoidance behavior (Donovan and Rossiter 1982), shoppers’ affective re-
sponses will influence mall patronage intentions.
3. Methodology
3.1 Mall Intercept
The research was carried out in a tightly controlled mall intercept survey. The 674,000-square foot urban
upscale fashion mall is located in a major Northeast city. Graduate marketing students handled the fieldwork.
Some were responsible for recruiting participants as they exited from the mall. Recruiters had to meet selection
criteria based on age distribution, day of week, and time of day to avoid systematic biases. This study was carried
out with female shoppers only (312 completed questionnaires) because of major differences in fashion orientation
between male and female shoppers.
3.2 Measurement Scales
The model was designed to be tested using SEM (Bentler 2004). For parsimony reasons and to avoid
model noise, three to four indicators per latent variables were kept. In the case of multidimensional constructs, fac-
tors not directly pertaining to the study were dropped. Measurement indicators, along with factor loadings and alpha
coefficients are posted in Table 1.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Fashion orientation was measured with Gutman and Mills (1982) scale, 17 five-point agree-
ment/disagreement statements. The Fashion Orientation Scales has four dimensions (Fashion leadership, Fashion
interest, Importance of being well-dressed and Anti-fashion attitude). It appears that the Importance of being well-
dressed is a necessary condition for Fashion leadership and Fashion interest. The latter dimensions are personality
traits on which retailers have little or no influence. However, retailers can try to influence shoppers on the impor-
tance of being well-dressed. Furthermore, one can acknowledge the importance of being well-dressed without nec-
essarily wanting to be a fashion leader or having the greatest interest in fashion. The importance of being well-
dressed (alpha = .81) is often dictated by social norms rather than personal interest.
Store personality: The store personality scale developed by d’Astous and Lévesque (2003) was adopted.
Female shoppers were asked to rate their agreement with eleven 5-point Likert scale statements, where 1 is strongly
disagree and 5 strongly agree. D'Astous and Lévesque's scale has five components: Enthusiasm (alpha = .88), So-
phistication (alpha = .91), Unpleasantness, Genuineness, and Solidity. Only the first two factors that account for 70
percent of the scale's Eigenvalues were retained.
Shopping mall merchandise quality offering and service quality are separate constructs and respectively
yield alpha coefficients of .81 and .92. Statements with 5-point Likert scales were adapted to fit this particular
shopping center. Babin, Darden, and Griffin’s (1994) shopping value scale was used to capture the shopping ex-
perience response. Hedonic (alpha = .81) and utilitarian (alpha= .70) shopping dimensions were measured on 7-
point Likert-type agreement/disagreement scales. Patronage intentions measured with 5-point scale items (alpha
= .87) were personalized for this specific shopping mall.
4. Research Findings
Shoppers' fashion attitude (importance of being well-dressed) has no significant influence on the perception
of the mall environment. Mall personality dimensions (sophistication and enthusiasm) have a focused impact on the
perception of product and service quality. For example, mall sophistication only affects the perception of product
quality (coefficient .45, z = 6.39) and has no consequence over the perception of service quality. On the other hand,
the mall enthusiasm personality factor only connects to the perception of service quality (.34, z = 5.03). The percep-
tions of product and service quality constructs are correlated (.43, z = 5.42). As expected, the perception of product
quality prompts hedonic (.26, z = 3.43) and utilitarian responses (.50, z = 2.32). The same is true for the perception
of service quality on the hedonic value (.21, z = 2.79) and on the task orientation (.42, z = 2.24). Both shoppers'
hedonic (.20, z = 3.01) and utilitarian responses (.64, z = 2.44) influence patronage intentions. The tested model
requires that H1a, H1b, H2b and H3a be dropped. All other research hypotheses are supported (Figure 2). The result-
ing model displays a good fit (Chi-square = 278, df = 177, CFI = .97 and RMSEA = .046).
The Lagrange multiplier test (Bentler 2004) suggests that the fashion component (importance of being
well-dressed) may impact shoppers’ response rather than influence initial perceptions (Figure 3). In the competing
model, the importance of being well-dressed moderates the perception of product quality (.20, z = 3.26), shoppers’
hedonic response (.17, z = 2.38), and mall patronage intentions (.14, z = 2.08). Other path coefficients do not vary
significantly from the first model. The fashion component notably adds to the goodness of fit (Chi-square = 300, df
= 236, CFI = .98 and RMSEA = .032) and a better understanding of the role of fashion orientation in the mall shop-
ping behavior. At first glance, the alternate model appears more complex with the addition of 59 degrees of freedom.
However the incremental chi-square value (X2d = 22) is not significant. The competing model AIC parsimony in-
dex (-171.53) compared to that of the baseline model (-75.046) indicates a better fit.
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE
5. Discussion
As hypothesized and supported in the literature, the perception of the mall environment has a positive im-
pact on the perception of product and service quality. However, the sophistication personality dimension only mod-
erates the perception of product quality and has no relevance on the perception of service quality. On the other hand,
the enthusiasm dimension only impacts on the perception of service quality. The mall sophistication attribute ap-
pears to be a "cold" factor that projects itself on objects. The enthusiasm construct may be a "warm" factor that
plays with interpersonal relations. In an earlier study, Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal and Voss (2002) found that
store design perceptions influenced both the service and product quality dimensions.
The attainment of shopping goals outplays the hedonic shopping experience. The impact of product and
service quality on the utilitarian value is two-fold above that on the hedonic response. Similarly, the utilitarian
shopping component has three times more impact on patronage intentions than the hedonic experience. Shopping
might be fun, but shoppers must also find what they are looking for.
Initially, it was believed that female shoppers' fashion orientation would shape their perception of the mall.
Female shoppers looking for something in particular (fashion) would be expected to have a more selective percep-
tion of their environment. This hypothesis is not verified. Instead, it is observed that fashion orientation (impor-
tance of being well-dressed) moderates shoppers' response to their environment. First, it modifies the perception of
product quality. Then, it has a positive impact on the hedonic shopping experience. Finally, it affects patronage
intentions. The importance of fashion on patronage intention is partially mediated by the perception of product
quality and by the hedonic response.
Patronage intentions are directly or indirectly shaped by several factors. Table 2 outlines the effect of all
the model constructs over mall patronage intentions. All total effect coefficients are highly significant. Successful
shopping objective (.63, z = 2.14) is by far the most important influence on patronage intentions. The perception of
merchandise quality (.32, z = 4.25) and service quality (.26, z = 3.62) are in second place, and certainly moderate
shoppers utilitarian values. Fashion orientation (importance of being well-dressed: .24, z = 3.34) is as important as
the perception of service and product quality and magnifies shoppers' cognitive, affective and behavioral response to
the retail environment. The effect of shoppers' hedonic response (.17, z = 2.38) on patronage intentions is relatively
weak, but significant, in comparison with other intervening factors. In addition, mall personality factors, sophistica-
tion (.11, z = 2.85) and enthusiasm (.15, z = 3.56), play an important role on shoppers' intentions. The mall is more
than a repository of retail stores, it is also a store unto itself.
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE 6. Managerial Implications and Future Research
Paco Undershill (2004, p. 19) noted that mall is a store of stores but does not think of itself as store. Mall
developers see themselves as real estate professionals rather than retailers. Yet, shopping malls generate both tangi-
ble real estate income and intangible business income (Kenney, 1991 and 2000; Martin and Nafe, 1996). Tenants
are willing to pay a higher rent as a premium for a successful shopping center (Fisher and Lentz, 1990). This study
highlights the central role of the shopping center in the retail shopping process and the creation of business value. A
pleasing mall personality supports retail merchandise and service quality. Moreover, mall atmosphere helps bring-
ing shoppers back. Whether they are aware of it or not, mall developers are also retailers, just like Moliere's Mr.
Jourdain who had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it.
The fashion orientation construct encompasses dimensions on which retailers and mall managers have little
or no control because they are personality traits (i.e. fashion leadership). However, fashion orientation components
such as the importance of being well-dressed can be influenced through normative persuasion and positive rein-
forcement.
Findings from this study cannot be generalized to other situations. The research should be replicated to a
variety of mall formats and shopper segments. Furthermore, other fashion-orientation factors should be considered.
However, along with model complexities, increased sample sizes are required. With only 312 completed question-
naires, researchers were not able to include additional latent constructs. Finally, research involving male shoppers
should also be considered. Statistics from the International Council of Shopping Centers show that male shoppers
patronize shopping malls 3.3 times a month compared with 3.1 for females (Soriano, 2006).
References
Aaker, Jennifer A. 1997. “Dimensions of Brand Personality.” Journal of Marketing Research 34(August): 347-356. . Babin, Barry J. and Jill Attaway. 2000. “Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value and Gaining Share of
Customer.” Journal of Business Research 49(2): 91-100.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin. 1994. “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value.” Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4): 644-656.
Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal, and A. Parasuraman. 1994. “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(4): 328-339.
____, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal and Gleen B. Voss. 2002. "The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues
on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions," Journal of Marketing, 66(2): 120-141. Baker, Michael. 2004. “Shopping Center Industry Benchmarks – An International Perspective on the Collection,
Analysis and Dissemination of Operating Statistics.” ICSC White Paper October 25, 2004.
Baugh, Dawna F. and Leslie L. Davis. 1989. “The Effect of Store Image on Consumers’ Perceptions of Designer and Private Label Clothing.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal: 15-21.
Behling, Dorothy. 1992. “Three and A Half Decades of Fashion Adoption Research: What Have We Learned?” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (2): 34-41.
Bentler, P.M. 2004, EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA. Bitner, Mary Jo. 1992. "Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employees", Jour-
nal of Marketing, 56: 57-71 Bloch, Peter H., Daniel Sherrell, and Nancy Ridgway. 1986. “Consumer Search: An Extended Framework.” Journal
of Consumer Research 13: 119-126.
Choi, Amy S. 2006. “A Return to Fundamentals.” WWD: Women’s Wear Daily, Special Section. 191(98): 8.
d’Astous, Alain and Melanie Levesque. 2003. “A Scale for Measuring Store Personality.” Psychology & Marketing 20(5): 455-469.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. 1982. "Store atmosphere: an environmental Psychology approach." Journal of Re-tailing, Vol. 58, Spring: 34-57.
Evans, Martin. 1989. “Consumer Behaviour towards Fashion.” European Journal of Marketing 23 (7): 7-16.
Fiore, Ann Marie and Jennifer Paff Ogle. 2000. “Facilitating the Integration of Textiles and Clothing Subject Matter by Students. Part One: Dimensions of A Model and Taxonomy.” Textiles and Clothing Research Journal 18 (1): 31-45.
Fisher, Jeffrey D. and George H. Lentz. 1990. “Business Enterprise Value in Shopping Malls: An Empirical Test’, Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 5 (1): 167-175.
Gutman, Jonathan and Michael K. Mills. 1982. “Fashion Life Style, Self-Concept, Shopping Orientation, and Store Patronage: An Integrative Analysis.” Journal of Retailing 58(2): 64-86.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Leisa Reinecke Flynn, and Mary Ann Moore. 1996. “The Self-concept of Fashion Leaders.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 14 (4): 242-248.
Goldsmith, Ronald E., Jeanne R. Heitmeyer, and Jon B. Freiden. 1991. “Social Values and Fashion Leadership.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 10 (1): 37-45.
Holbrook, Morris B. 1986. “Emotion in the Consumption Experience: Toward A New Model of Human Consumer.” In The Role of Affect in Consumer Behaviour: Emerging Theories and Applications. Eds. Robert Peterson, Wayne. D. Hoyer, and William. R. Wilson. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 17-52.
Holbrook, Morris B.; Corfman, Kim. 1985. “Quality and value in the consumption experience: Phaedrus rides again.” In Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise. Eds. Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 31-57.
Kenney, Mark T. 1991. “Does shopping mall development create business value?”, Appraisal Journal, Vol. 59(3), p. 303-313.
____ 2000, “Quantifying Business Enterprise Value in Shopping Malls: Current Issues & Future Trends”, Appraisal Journal, Vol. 68 (3):307-317.
Laroche, Michel, Lefa Teng, Richard Michon, and Jean-Charles Chebat. 2005. “Incorporating Service Quality into Consumer Mall Shopping Decision Making: A Comparison between English and French Canadian Consum-ers." Journal of Services Marketing 19(3): 157-163.
Levitt, T. 1980. “Marketing success through differentiation of anything”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 58 No 1, pp. 83-91.
Martin, Robert S. and Scott D. Nafe, Scott D. 1996. “Segregating real estate value from nonrealty value in shopping centers”, Appraisal Journal. 64(1): 1-13.
Mehrabian, A; Russell, J.A.. 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Midgley, D. and G. Wills. 1979. “Fashion Marketing.” Lateral Marketing Thought(s). Bradford, England: MCB Publications.
Moin, David. 2006. “Malls Court Luxury: A Long Affair”, WWD: Women’s Wear Daily. 191(81).
Park, Hye-Jung and Leslie Davis Burns. 2005. “Fashion Orientation, Credit Card Use, and Compulsive Buying.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 22 (3): 135-141.
Shim, Soyeon and Antigone Kotsiopulos. 1993. “A Typology Of Apparel Shopping Orientation Segments among Female Consumers.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 12 (1): 73-85.
Soriano, Veronica V. 2006. "Converting Browsers into Spenders", Research Review, ICSC, 13(2): 9-13.
Sproles, George B. 1985. “Behavioral Science Theories of Fashion.” In The Psychology of Fashion. Ed. Michael R Solomon. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Stoel, Leslie, Vanessa Wickliffe, and Kyu Hye Lee. 2004. “Attributes Beliefs and Spending as Antecedents to Shopping Value.” Journal of Business Research 57 (10): 1067-1073.
Tauber, Edward M. 1972. “Why do people shop?” Journal of Marketing 36: 46-49.
Underhill, Paco. 2004. Call of the Mall, New York, Simon & Schuster.
Wesley, Scarlett, Melody LeHew, and Arch G. Woodside. 2006. “Consumer decision-making styles and mall shop-ping behavior: Building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparative method”. Journal of Business Research, 59(2006): 535-548.
Workman, Jane E. and Laura K. Kidd 2000. “Use of Need for Uniqueness Scale to Characterize Fashion Consumer Groups.” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 18 (4): 227-236
Table 1: Measurement Scales and Factor Loading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Explained variance 10.5% 10.4% 10.3% 9.7% 9.6% 9.0% 8.7% 7.2% Importance of being well-dressed (α = .81) Gutman and Mills (1982)
If you want to get ahead, you have to dress the part. .815 -.028 -.019 .055 .121 .093 .086 .099
What you think of yourself is reflected by what you wear. .811 .021 .025 -.049 .076 .152 .071 -.045
It’s important to be well-dressed. .801 .031 .036 .099 .061 -.103 -.020 .055 Wearing good clothes is part of leading the good life. .707 -.157 .083 -.012 .023 .227 .070 -.075
Sophistication (α =.91) D'Astous and Lévesque (2003)
High class -.053 .914 .007 .009 .065 .042 .195 -.015 Upscale .011 .884 .012 .025 .001 .097 .111 .001 Chic -.077 .884 -.001 .044 .102 .112 .154 .019
Service quality (α =.92) Stores at … offer excellent service to their cus-tomers. .070 .004 .882 .115 .182 .096 .110 .066
Stores at … are known for offering excellent service. .004 -.013 .867 .161 .096 .065 .223 .081
Stores at … always offer very good service at each visit. .050 .025 .859 .164 .133 .098 .128 .063
Enthusiasm (α =.88) D'Astous and Lévesque (2003)
Dull / Bright. .041 .037 .099 .904 .067 .062 .011 .058 Unlively/Lively. .078 -.018 .128 .869 .072 .139 -.032 .013 Drab / Colorful. -.022 .055 .160 .849 -.036 .029 .029 -.088
Patronage intentions (α =.87) I intend to revisit the … Center. .108 .084 .170 .027 .878 -.008 .139 .020 In the future, it is likely that I will buy products at … . .096 .061 .111 -.015 .858 .071 .180 .098
I would gladly buy gifts at … . .090 .027 .122 .103 .806 .234 .122 .066 Hedonist response (α =.81) Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994)
This shopping trip truly felt like an escape. .039 .097 .120 .068 .079 .861 .041 .005 Compared with other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable. .064 .070 .149 .076 .143 .847 .065 .185
I enjoyed being immersed in exciting new prod-ucts. .277 .100 -.026 .102 .052 .709 .151 .018
Product quality (α =.81) It is very likely that items bought at … will be of extremely high quality. .022 .113 .188 .004 .095 .119 .830 .044
Overall, … sells high quality merchandise. .091 .240 .205 .037 .229 .149 .769 .010 When shopping at … , I expect to see high qual-ity merchandise. .107 .204 .111 -.038 .185 .011 .704 .073
Utilitarian response (α =.70) Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994)
While shopping, I found just the item(s) I was looking for. .032 -.003 .095 .046 .078 .118 .100 .849
I accomplished just what I wanted to do on this shopping trip. .050 -.051 -.044 .011 .021 .075 .172 .807
I couldn't buy what I really needed. .067 -.084 -.203 .107 -.083 .036 .306 -.560
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Figure 2: Tested Model
Table 2: Total Effects on Patronage Intentions
Independent variables Standardized coefficients
Z-value
1. Importance of being well-dressed .239 3.336 2. Sophistication .108 2.847 3. Enthusiasm .154 3.562 4. Merchandise quality .324 4.251 5. Service quality .256 3.620 6. Hedonist response .170 2.380 7. Utilitarian response .629 2.135
Shoppers' Fashion Ante-cedents: Being well-dressed
Retail Atmosphere: Mall Personality
Retail Quality: Mer-chandise and Service
Shoppers' Re-sponse: Hedonic/ Utilitarian values
Behavior: Patronage Inten-tions
H1a
Fashion Orienta-tion
Sophis-tication
Enthusi-asm
Product quality
Service quality
Intention
Hedonic response
Utilitar-ian response
H1b
H2a
H2b
H3b
H3a
H4a
H4b
H5a
H5b
H6a
H6b
Figure 3: Tested Model with Significant Paths Standardized Coefficients (Z-value)
Method: ML Chi-Square: 278.954 DF: 177 CFI: .966 Std RMR: .054 RMSEA: .046
Figure 4: Competing Model
Standardized Coefficients (Z-value)
Method: ML Chi-Square: 300.470 DF: 236 CFI: .976 Std RMR: .054 RMSEA: .032
.21 (2.63)
Sophis-tication
Enthusi-asm
Prod. quality
Fashion
.20 (3.26) .17 (2.38)
.14 (2.08) .43 (6.48)
.33 (4.91)
.20 (2.63)
.46 (2.05)
.35 (1.91)
.17 (2.38)
.63 (2.14)
Service quality
Utilitar-ian response
Intention
Hedonic response
Sophis-tication
Service quality
Intention
Hedonic response
Utilitar-ian response
.43 (6.39)
.34 (5.03)
.26 (3.43)
.21 (2.79)
.50 (2.32)
.42 (2.24)
.20 (3.01)
.64 (2.44) Enthusi-asm
Prod. quality
.43 (5.42)
.43 (5.31)