Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Understanding on-the-go consumption: Identifying and quantifying its

determinants
Sabine Benoit (née Moeller) a,n, Tobias Schaefers b, Raphael Heider c
a
Marketing, University of Surrey, Surrey Business School, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
b
Technology and Industrial Goods Marketing, Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social Sciences, TU Dortmund University, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
c
CMO, Wohnambiente Heider–Heinevetter, Koenigswinterer Strasse 319, 53639 Koenigswinter, Germany

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although the amount of food and beverages consumed on-the-go has been increasing, existing research
Received 28 August 2015 has not sufficiently examined this behavior. This study uses a mixed methods design with a qualitative
Received in revised form study to identify four determinants of on-the-go consumption: time pressure, price consciousness,
9 March 2016
health orientation, and enjoyment. Combining the qualitative results with Behavioral Decision Theory,
Accepted 10 March 2016
eight hypotheses are derived about the influence of the four determinants as well as their interrelations.
Available online 25 March 2016
Hypotheses testing and predictive validity assessment are based on two large-scale consumer samples,
Keywords: one main study and one validation study. The results confirm a significant influence of utilitarian de-
Food consumption terminants (time pressure and price consciousness), though they are less important than the hedonic
Retail services
determinant. Implications for retail managers are presented, as these results challenge conventional
Time pressure
practices. Moreover, existing theory is extended beyond a distinction between utilitarian and hedonic
Price consciousness
Health orientation motives by regarding health orientation as a hybrid determinant of on-the-go consumption.
Structural equation modeling & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction place in virtually any location (e.g., at home, in an office, in a

The amount of food and drinks consumed on-the-go has in-
creased enormously worldwide (Blisard et al., 2002; Heider and
Moeller, 2012; Odesser-Torpey, 2013). This trend is generally as-
cribed to increasing desire for quick and easy consumption. On-
the-go consumption involves the purchase and consumption of
food and beverages while in transit from one place to another,
such as grabbing a sandwich at a train station and eating it on the
train, drinking coffee on the walk to work, or stopping at a drive-
through window at a fast-food restaurant during car travel. The
common characteristic is that purchase and consumption occur
while consumers are in transit.
Despite the spread and ubiquity of this phenomemon, research
into on-the-go consumption is sparse (with a few exceptions e.g.
Binkley, 2006; Heider and Moeller, 2012) and often fails to dis-
tinguish it from two similar patterns, namely consumption of
convenience food and away-from-home consumption (see Fig. 1).
Although both consumption of convenience food and on-the-go
consumption refer to similar types of food (i.e., ready-made; Car-
rigan and Szmigin, 2006), convenience food consumption can take
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: s.benoit@surrey.ac.uk (S. Benoit (née Moeller)),
tobias.schaefers@udo.edu (T. Schaefers),
raphael-heider@wohnambiente.de (R. Heider).
restaurant), as the term does not involve a spatial specification.
Away-from-home consumption, in contrast, defines the place of
consumption but not the type of food; it therefore comprises the
consumption of any food or beverage outside consumers’ homes
(USDA, 2013). Thus, it includes on-the-go consumption as well as
more time-intensive and usually more social consumption in full-
service restaurants (e.g. Ekinci, 2008). Because on-the-go con-
sumption represents a particular type of away-from-home con-
sumption and involves distinct consumption patterns, we argue
that it requires separate investigation. While most existing re-
search considers away-from-home consumption in general (e.g.,
Richards et al., 2012), we intend to enhance existing literature by
clearly defining the scope of these interlinked phenomena.
In an effort to understand what influences the decision to
consume on-the-go, we seek to identify and validate determinants
of on-the-go consumption by adopting a mixed methods design.
Based on a qualitative study and drawing from Behavioral Decision
Theory (Khan et al., 2005), we identify time pressure and price
consciousness as two utilitarian determinants of on-the-go con-
sumption, enjoyment as a hedonic determinant, and health or-
ientation as a hybrid determinant. While prior research pre-
dominantly takes a utilitarian perspective and cites time scarcity
as the main driver of away-from-home consumption (e.g., Fan
et al., 2007; Gofton, 1995; Narine and Badrie, 2007), the results of
our qualitative study suggest a more nuanced perspective.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.03.003
0969-6989/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
Fig. 1. Defining on-the-go consumption and related concepts.
To test the influences of the four determinants, we use quan-
titative data from a consumer sample (n ¼805) for analyzing a
structural equation model. In addition to the direct effects on the
consumption of food and drinks on-the-go, the model also ac-
counts for interdependencies between the four determinants.
Thereby, consumptive behavior in general and food consumption
in particular relate to different, sometimes contradicting goals
(Dhar and Wertenbroch, 2000; Ryu et al., 2010; Van Doorn and
Verhoef, 2011). For instance, prior studies found health orientation
among consumers led to lower price consciousness (Laroche et al.,
2001). Our model thus offers a more comprehensive investigation
by determining whether time pressure, health orientation, and
enjoyment influence price consciousness, and whether time
pressure influences health orientation. Finally, we validate the
quantitative results with a second consumer sample (n2 ¼393),
thereby providing evidence for the generalizability of our findings.
Overall, our research contributes to the existing literature by
identifying determinants of on-the-go consumption and by testing
their relevance and interrelations. We thus provide a more com-
prehensive view of on-the-go consumption that offers valuable
information for retailers seeking to benefit from this growing
market.
After laying a conceptual foundation for the terminology of on-
the-go consumption and related constructs, we describe the the-
oretical background of Behavioral Decision Theory as well as the
related concepts of utilitarian and hedonic motives for consump-
tion. We then present our qualitative study, which we conducted
to identify relevant determinants of on-the-go consumption.
Building on these qualitative insights and drawing from related
literature, we deduce eight hypotheses that we test in two quan-
titative studies. Finally, we discuss the results and avenues for
further research.
2. Conceptual background
Investigations into the consumption of food away from home
(FAFH) usually involve comparisons of consumption at home
versus outside the home (e.g., Nayga, 1996) or address the impact
of FAFH on diets and obesity (e.g., Burton et al., 2009; Richards
et al., 2012). Both of these streams of research reflect the
33
enormous growth rates in expenditures for FAFH, while also re-
flecting substantial decreases in expenditures for food consumed
at home (USDA, 2013), and the increasing rates of obesity in many
Western cultures (e.g., Stein and Colditz, 2004). However, the
USDA statistics combine data from a range of retail channels and
subsume diverse sites for consumption under the FAFH label, such
as eating and drinking establishments, hotels and motels, retail
stores and direct sales outlets, recreational sites, as well as schools
and colleges. Although these situations differ substantially, re-
searchers–with a few notable exceptions (e.g., Binkley, 2006,
Heider and Moeller, 2012)—have not differentiated FAFH from
related concepts.
As we noted in the Introduction, on-the-go consumption occurs
when consumers are in transit and consume food and/or bev-
erages along the way. The objective of their trip is thus not the act
of eating; consumption occurs, but primarily as a side activity. This
differs from both consumption at consumers’ homes and situa-
tions in which the objective of the trip is to consume food and
beverages, so that transit is a means to the end of consuming at a
specific place (e.g., a restaurant). On-the-go consumption thus
represents a special form of FAFH consumption. The latter en-
compasses a much wider range that also includes the time-in-
tensive consumption of meals at full-service restaurants. Further-
more, unlike on-the-go consumption, examinations of con-
venience food consumption focus solely on the products being
consumed, regardless of the situation. Although consumers often
purchase convenience food to be consumed on the go, such food
can also be purchased for consumption at home, which would not
be classified as on-the-go consumption. Fig. 1 provides examples
of these different situations in on-the-go consumption and related
concepts.
3. Theoretical background
How individuals decide to consume specific products in specific
contexts is described by the models and concepts known as Be-
havioral Decision Theory (BDT) (Khan et al., 2005; Takemura,
2014). The descriptive facets of BDT consider that consumers do
not only decide rationally, but also make emotional decisions
based on experiential desires. The two concepts commonly used to
34 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42

describe these types of considerations in decision-making are Table 1

utilitarian and hedonic motives (e.g., Babin et al., 1994; Jones et al., Description of the focus group participants.
2006, Khan et al., 2005; Schröder and Zaharia, 2008). Utilitarian
Respondent Gender Age group Occupational background
motives are task-related and functional and result in rational,
cognitively-driven purchasing behavior that seeks efficiency, va- Focus group GER1
lue-for-money, or time saving (Babin et al., 1994; Ryu et al., 2010). GER 1_1 Female 30–50 Banking
In contrast, hedonic motives posit that consumers are motivated to GER 1_2 Female 30–50 Consumer protection
GER 1_3 Female 30–50 Housewife
obtain a product or service by the desire for a specific entertaining GER 1_4 Female 30–50 Retailing
experience (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Babin et al., 1994). The GER 1_5 Female 30–50 Airport
distinction between these two types of motives applies to con- GER 1_6 Male 450 Retired
sumer behavior in general and food consumption in particular GER 1_7 Female 450 Retired
GER 1_8 Female 450 Not employed
(Cervellon et al., 2015; Ryu et al., 2010; Van Doorn and Verhoef,
GER 1_9 Female 450 Housewife
2011). GER 1_10 Male 450 Retired
Hedonic and utilitarian motives often contradict each other
Focus group GER2
(e.g., Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011). Research into consumer be- GER 2_1 Male o 30 Student
havior thus needs to consider the resulting tradeoffs in decision- GER 2_2 Male o 30 Education
making processes (Dhar and Wertenbroch 2000; Khan et al., GER 2_3 Male o 30 Student
2005). The conflict between hedonic and utilitarian motives is GER 2_4 Male o 30 Fast moving consumer goods
GER 2_5 Female o 30 Education
explained by time-inconsistent preferences (Hoch and Loewen-
GER 2_6 Male 30–50 Retailing
stein, 1991). Specifically, hedonic consumption is usually related to GER 2_7 Female 30–50 Administration
immediate pleasure, whereas utilitarian consumption carries more
Focus group NL
long-term benefits (Khan et al., 2005). Thus, the tradeoffs between RB Male o 30 Student
utilitarian and hedonic motives are essentially tradeoffs between RC Female o 30 Student
short-term and long-term benefits. RD Female 30–50 NGO
In line with BDT, we apply the distinction between utilitarian RA Male 450 Retired
RE Female 450 Housewife
and hedonic motives in identifying determinants of on-the-go
RF Female 450 Education
consumption. Moreover, to account for tradeoffs caused by time- RG Male 450 IT
inconsistent preferences, we also investigate interdependencies
between determinants to provide a more comprehensive ex-
planation of consumers’ decision to consume on the go. audio and video recorded. One researcher read through the three
transcripts multiple times and defined coding categories. Among
the superordinate, non-situational aspects mentioned in connec-
4. Qualitative study tion with on-the-go consumption, four determinants emerged:
time pressure, price consciousness, enjoyment, and health or-
As prior research has not sufficiently addressed on-the-go ientation. The remaining aspects related mostly to special situa-
consumption, we adopted a mixed methods design and started tions for consumption and were not included in the coding sheet.
with a qualitative study to provide an empirical foundation for our The coding sheet defined the scope of the constructs based on
model. We then combined this exploratory empirical study, with prior literature on food consumption in general.
existing literature to derive hypotheses and create instruments for To code the transcripts, we first subdivided them into text
our quantitative measures, as suggested by Srnka and Koeszegi segments. Each segment represented one person talking until he
(2007). or she finished or was interrupted by another person. The seg-
We conducted three interviews with focus groups, each with ments in which an interviewer commented were identified and
around eight consumers, to explore factors that influence on-the- marked for exclusion from the coding exercise. Table 2 sum-
go consumption. To capture a wide range of opinions, we em- marizes the number of interviewer and respondent comments in
ployed maximum variation judgment sampling (Marshall, 1996): each focus group. In the subsequent independent coding task,
Two focus groups were conducted in Germany (GER1 and GER2)— which two researchers performed independently using the coding
where we also conducted the subsequent quantitative study–and a sheet developed by the first researcher, the aim was to identify
third focus group was conducted in the Netherlands (NL). This whether each segment contained any mentions of price orienta-
ensures that our model is not calibrated to just one country. The tion, health orientation, time pressure, and/or enjoyment. We
respondents were recruited through an advertisement in a obtained four dichotomous variables, for which a value of 0 re-
newspaper, a flyer at the university and by personal recruitment. presented no mention of the topic and 1 indicated that the topic
In addition to this national diversity, our respondents varied in had been mentioned in the respective text segment. Thus, the
their occupational background, gender (10 males, 24 females), and possible codes ranged from an extreme of no mention of any of the
age (see Table 1). The two German focus groups deliberately dif- topics (0,0,0,0) to mentions of all topics (1,1,1,1).
fered by age groups (GER1: 30 to above 50 years; GER2: below 30– These four dichotomous variables were used to calculate Kappa
50 years) to enhance freedom of expression and to combat the statistics of inter-coder agreement, that is, the proportion of joint
possibility that on-the-go consumption was perceived as stereo- judgments of fractions in which there is agreement after chance
typical for younger consumers. In line with our assumptions, all agreement has been excluded (Cohen, 1960). The upper value, or
participants had an idea about and at least some experience with perfect agreement, is 1.00. For three out of twelve focus group-
on-the-go consumption and were therefore judged to be eligible construct combinations, we obtained values between 0.61 and
to participate in the focus groups. 0.80, indicating substantial agreement, and nine values between
The same interview guideline was used for all three focus group 0.81 and 1, indicating nearly perfect agreement (Landis and Koch,
interviews. The two German focus groups were moderated by one 1977). With this procedure, we followed existing recommenda-
of the authors. The focus group in the Netherlands, although tions to apply a systematic design to the data collection, maintain
conducted in English, was moderated by a Dutch academic scholar. a structured procedure and documentation of the data analysis,
The data analysis included several steps. The interviews were and include multi-person involvement and quality checks (Srnka
 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42 35

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and inter-coder agreement results.

Focus group Construct Respondent comments Interviewer comments Total mentions (coder 1/2) Kappa p-Value

GER1 Time pressure (TP) 300 143 17/19 0.823 0.000

Price orientation (PO) 13/12 0.875 0.000
Enjoyment (ENJ) 18/22 0.732 0.000
Health orientation (HO) 18/21 0.863 0.000
GER2 Time pressure (TP) 201 90 12/12 0.823 0.000
Price orientation (PO) 11/10 0.849 0.000
Enjoyment (ENJ) 19/21 0.889 0.000
Health orientation (HO) 19/17 0.939 0.000
NL Time pressure (TP) 428 270 13/17 0.779 0.000
Price orientation (PO) 9/11 0.898 0.000
Enjoyment (ENJ) 26/39 0.697 0.000
Health orientation (HO) 20/21 0.974 0.000
Sum 929 Sum 503 Mean 0.845

and Koeszegi, 2007).
The results provided by coders A and B were similar in that
they counted 33 and 33 comments related to pricing, 42 and 48
mentions of time pressure issues, 63 and 82 indications of en-
joyment of on-the-go consumption, and 57 and 59 mentions of
health topics (see Table 2).
The interpretation of the results was based on the outlined
theoretical foundation (see Section 3), specifically the distinction
between utilitarian and hedonic motives (e.g., Babin et al., 1994) as
well as the fact that consumers make tradeoffs between conflict-
ing motives (Khan et al., 2005). While time pressure and price
consciousness represent utilitarian motives, as both relate to
functional benefits that are cognitively-driven, enjoyment re-
presents a hedonic motive that emanates from experiential needs.
The statements participants made about health orientation, how-
ever, were less clear (see Section 5.4 for detailed transcripts).
Specifically, mentions of health issues exhibited mixed connota-
tions. Some respondents revealed a traditional, utilitarian view of
health orientation as striving for the absence of illness (Bloch,
1984). These individuals avoided on-the-go consumption for
functional, long-term benefits. For example, as many products
offered on-the-go contain relatively high levels of fat. Other re-
spondents suggested a hedonic short-term perspective, in which
well-being was an element of a healthy lifestyle mentioned in
relation to on-the-go consumption. We therefore interpret health
orientation as a hybrid determinant with both utilitarian and he-
donic elements.
Beyond the mere identification of these determinants and their
classification as utilitarian and hedonic, we used the qualitative
results from the focus groups to deduce hypotheses to be tested in
a quantitative study.
5. Model development
The four determinants of on-the-go consumption-price con-
sciousness and time pressure as utilitarian determinants, enjoy-
ment as a hedonic determinant, and health orientation as a hybrid
determinant-also appear in general literature on food consump-
tion and channel choice, thereby supporting the findings of our
qualitative study. Thus, we predict effects of these four determi-
nants on the basis of both existing literature on general food
consumption and channel choice as well as our own qualitative
findings. Moreover, we offer hypotheses about the inter-
dependencies among the four determinants.
5.1. Price consciousness
Price consciousness is the degree to which consumers pay
attention to or compare the prices of items (Ailawadi et al., 2001).
Prior research indicates that it is a major determinant of (food)
shopping in general (Judd et al., 2014), though it is also context
dependent. For unbranded staple foods (e.g., sugar), price elasticity
is low, whereas it is higher for branded products with greater
value (e.g., soft drinks, juice, meat; Andreyeva et al., 2010). The
price elasticity of food consumed away from home is higher than
that of food consumed at home (Andreyeva et al., 2010), in line
with Wakefield and Inman's (2003) suggestion that price con-
sciousness is weaker in contexts of social consumption.
Our focus groups suggested a similar effect for on-the-go con-
sumption. Participants explained how price consciousness barred
their on-the-go consumption in comments such as, “No one is
forced to buy…. I personally would be too cheap to do it” (female,
39), “Consuming on-the-go is just too expensive” (female, 44), and
“At home … it is also cheaper” (female, 46). Overall, the price was
mentioned in relation to on-the-go consumption indicating that
the rewards from being conscious of price were mostly utilitarian.
In line with BDT, the need for the long-term, functional benefit of
saving money can be satisfied by refraining from consuming on-
the-go, as the items offered in outlets typical for on-the-go con-
sumption are characterized by prices above average (Heider and
Moeller 2012; Koistinen and Jarvinen, 2009). We thus anticipate
that consumers who are more conscious of price are less likely to
consume on the go.
H1. : consumers’ price consciousness decreases their on-the-go
consumption.
5.2. Time pressure
Time pressure refers to consumers’ general feeling of con-
striction with regards to the time available to perform a certain
task (Iyer, 1989). Time-pressed consumers seek consumption ha-
bits that save them time (Anderson, 1971). For food preparation
and consumption, two key time-saving mechanisms are (1) con-
suming convenience food (mostly at home) (e.g., Botonaki et al.,
2009) and (2) consuming FAFH (e.g., Carrigan and Szmigin, 2006).
Consumers eat FAFH because they cannot find or do not want to
invest the time to prepare it (Narine and Badrie, 2007). In turn,
they spend more money for FAFH as their available time decreases
(Fan et al., 2007). Binkley (2006, p. 389) asserts that time pressure
has a “primary role in food away-from-home demand.” However,
most investigations of time pressure focus on general FAFH con-
sumption (e.g., O′Bornick, 2002) without considering the pecu-
liarities of on-the-go consumption. Stewart et al. (2004) suggest
that all consumption that takes place away from home, but
especially on-the-go consumption can ease consumers’ time
pressure. This differentiation is sensible; eating out in traditional
36 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
fine dining restaurants should take longer than consumption on-
the-go (Ekinci, 2008).
According to BDT, time pressure, as a utilitarian determinant, is
linked to task-oriented, functional benefits. Our qualitative find-
ings indicate that these benefits can be achieved by consuming on-
the-go. One participant's (female, 18) statement is characteristic:
“If I have no time I don't eat at home but on-the-go.… Well, it's
usually a lack of time.” Two male participants, age 25 and 28 years
respectively, similarly emphasized time, noting they ate on-the-go
“just because of a lack of time. Because I do not find the time” or
because “Either I want to eat unhurriedly, then at home–and if I
have no time, then on-the-go.” An older respondent similarly in-
dicated: “We are often away from home and then we are too late
to do our own cooking, and then it is often the easy choice: A
snack bar or a well-known fast food restaurant on the way” (male,
59). Participants also emphasized the time needed to prepare
foods as a positive influence on their on-the-go consumption: “I
consume on-the-go because I'm hungry and because I had too
little time to bring something decent with me” (male, 20). In line
with both our qualitative study and prior research, we
hypothesize:
H2. : consumers' perceived time pressure increases their on-the-
go consumption.
5.3. Enjoyment
Enjoyment satisfies hedonic motivations related to pleasure,
entertainment, and fun (Babin et al., 1994). For this study, we
define enjoyment as the degree of pleasure, entertainment, and
fun consumers derive from purchasing and consuming food or
beverages on-the-go. Enjoyment is a relevant determinant of
shopping and consumption overall (Jones et al., 2006), usually
focused on the purchasing process or underlying products. Aer-
tsens et al. (2009) identify enjoyment-creating taste as a driver of
the purchase and consumption of organic food. Snacks or food
offered on-the-go also can serve as a source of enjoyment (O′
Bornick, 2002). Because products offered for on-the-go con-
sumption tend to be high in sugar and fat (Richards et al., 2007),
they also usually offer immediate intensive tastes and may be
enjoyed more (Raghunathan et al., 2006).
In our focus groups, enjoyment represents the most frequently
mentioned determinant. Both the short-term benefits of hedonic
motives described by BDT, as well as the sources of enjoyment
identified in prior literature (i.e., outlets, products, process) ap-
peared in our focus group interviews. For example, “If you're un-
lucky, you're standing in a traffic jam and then it can be nice to be
able to just take something for a short moment of time” (male, 49).
One participant (male, 28) mentioned lifestyle aspects that he
associates with on-the-go consumption: “Walking around with a
Starbucks cup is nice somehow.” Another respondent (male, 32)
went even further, referring to experiential aspects: “On-the-go
consumption is novel, entertaining. It is a major event, an excep-
tion to routine. I dare to say I enjoy it.” Moreover, the products
available for on-the-go consumption created enjoyment among
consumers too: “I just have a look: What looks good, what looks
clean…. The eye is pleased…. For example, they offer fruit like in a
market hall and first-class delicatessen” (female, 59). In summary,
consumers’ on-the-go consumption should increase with the de-
gree of enjoyment they derive from visiting on-the-go outlets and
consuming the products offered. Thus, we hypothesize:
H3. : consumers' enjoyment of consuming along the way increases
their on-the-go consumption.
5.4. Health orientation
Health orientation pertains to the relevance of a balanced,
healthy diet for a consumer (Kraft and Goodell, 1993) and is a
major societal trend (e.g., Baker et al., 2004). Two streams of lit-
erature are relevant here: 1) Research into the influences of health
orientation on food choice and 2) studies of outlet choices. Health
orientation influences food choice by leading consumers to choose
products that they perceive as favorable for their health (Prasad
et al., 2008). Especially in developed countries, demand for healthy
food items is growing (Baker et al., 2004). Health orientation thus
has emerged as one of the most important determinants of food
choice (Lappalainen et al., 1998), promoting fruit and vegetable
consumption and inhibiting the consumption of fast and con-
venience food (Lucan et al., 2010; Carrigan and Szmigin (2006)
conclude that despite some evidence to the contrary, the notion
that convenience food is of lower quality, less nutritionally ac-
ceptable, and a poor substitute for home cooking persists. Health
orientation thus should influence on-the-go consumption, as the
available items–particularly fast or convenience food–imply high
calorie intake and are perceived as less healthy (Chandon and
Wansink, 2007).
Our focus groups affirmed the importance of health orientation
for on-the-go consumption. Participants pointed out that they try
to buy healthy products when they consume on the go: “When I
buy something when I'm on the road, then I try to eat something
healthy” (male, 20) or “I try to choose something healthy. They
have those fruit breads or muesli bars; I want this kind of product”
(female, 18). Consumers also indicated that they wanted “trans-
parency over the food they buy … including organic versus not
organic” (male, 32). They claimed they would “pay a lot of atten-
tion to what ingredients are listed” (female, 58). Some participants
cited the opportunity to obtain healthy products as a precondition
of their engagement in on-the-go consumption, so that “It has to
be healthy. You will not see me eating a greasy snack. No” (male,
69). A female respondent (71) added, “I will take something only
when I think it is healthy.” The findings from prior literature, in
combination with the focus group interviews related to on-the-go
consumption, thus suggest that health orientation inhibits on-the-
go consumption. We hypothesize in turn:
H4. : consumers' health orientation decreases their on-the-go
consumption.
5.5. Interrelations between determinants
In addition to these direct effects, we investigate inter-
dependencies among the identified determinants to account for
tradeoffs caused by time-inconsistent preferences. Time pressure
likely increases perceived search costs for desirable aspects, such
as specific products or low prices (Becker, 1965). Consumers often
feel they need to make a tradeoff between time and healthy pro-
ducts or good prices (Judd et al., 2014). Because time pressure
shifts evaluations of price and quality (Suri and Monroe, 2003),
consumers who experience this pressure accept non-optimal deals
more frequently (Ibanez et al., 2009). Time pressure similarly de-
creases consumption of healthy food (Judd et al., 2014).
The results from our focus group interviews suggest that such
effects hold for on-the-go consumption, too. One respondent
(male, 63) explained, “Well, when you search for the ‘right thing’
and want the quality to be right, it takes a long time. So, then it is
again the expenditure of time you have to consider.” Another
participant (female, 45) invests time to find outlets that provide
healthy food alternatives: “The times that you were dependent on
 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
unhealthy food at motorway service areas are over. Nowadays,
they offer anything. Even ‘vegetable buffets.’ You just have to look
for the right service area.” Accordingly, we expect time pressure to
have negative influences on both health orientation and price
consciousness.
H5. : consumers' perceived time pressure decreases their (a) price
consciousness and (b) health orientation during their on-the-go
consumption.
Enjoyment represents an added value for consumers (Babin
et al., 1994), so consumers should be willing to pay premiums for
consumptive experiences that elicit enjoyment (Wakefield and
Inman, 2003). Accordingly, one participant (female, 28) indicated
that she did not care about prices, because she enjoyed on-the-go
consumption: “If I have to change trains and got half an hour or so,
I enjoy walking around, looking for something nice to get. And
then the price is not so important to me.” We thus predict:
H6. : consumers' perceived enjoyment decreases their price con-
sciousness during on-the-go consumption.
Previous studies show that health-oriented consumers select
products that they perceive as beneficial for their health and avoid
detrimental products (Botonaki et al., 2009). For example, health
orientation leads consumers to purchase organic products, which
tend to be more expensive, thus implying an increased willingness
to pay (Laroche et al., 2001). A statement from a focus group
participant summarizes this effect: “If you do not want to eat
unhealthy stuff, you can have better alternatives. Provided you are
prepared to afford it; it is an indulgence” (male, 28). Therefore,.
H7. : consumers' health orientation decreases their price con-
sciousness during on-the-go consumption.
The full research model that includes both the direct effects of
the determinants of consumers' on-the-go consumption as well as
the hypothesized interrelations appears in Fig. 2.
6. Quantitative study
For the employed measures, we turned to existing scales, then
refined them according to our literature review and qualitative
study, and adapted them to the context of our study. All measures,
as listed in Table 3, used five-point Likert scales, anchored by
“totally disagree” and “totally agree”.
To detect as much optimization potential of our questionnaire as
possible, we employed two different pre-testing methods: expert panels
and conventional pre-testing. Since expert panels have been shown to
be the most effective method (Presser and Blair, 1994), we pre-tested
our questionnaire with two sets of experts (Czaja, 1998): (1) four experts
on the investigated subject, specifically, employees of a European retail
company supplying food and beverages for on-the-go consumption to
convenience stores; and (2) three questionnaire experts with an aca-
demic background who regularly conduct empirical studies from the
network of the lead author. The industry experts’ main input consisted
of recommendations to reduce ambiguity in the questionnaire wording,
questioning the suitability of certain answer categories, and assessing
the general face validity of the questionnaire. The academic experts
gave recommendations regarding potential issues with convergent and
discriminant validity of certain items. Because these pre-tests led to
some changes and active discussion about the questions (Czaja, 1998),
we pre-tested the questionnaire with the conventional pre-testing
method with two potential respondents (Dillman, 2000). This led to
only a few minor changes, leaving the final operationalizations shown
in Table 3. Finally, we carefully checked the data from the first 100
survey participants to ensure the data collection was going as planned.
37
In the introductory text and before responding to the items,
respondents were asked to think of the last situation in which they
had consumed on-the-go. This ensured that even for more general
established scales (e.g., price consciousness) respondents were
aware of the context of on-the-go consumption.
We employed a self-administered online questionnaire and
collected data via the online panel of a professional market re-
search firm. Panel members had agreed to participate in surveys in
return for small monetary incentives. To address issues such as
recruitment bias and conditioning bias (Dennis, 2001), the panel is
actively managed and continuously refreshed via online and off-
line recruitment, and the firm follows ESOMAR (2012, 2015)
standards. For the main study, we gathered responses from 805
German consumers. The sample used quotas to make it re-
presentative of the German population in terms of gender (48.7%
male), age (M ¼ 41 years, SD ¼ 13.83), and employment status.
Furthermore, to assess the predictive validity of our model
(Woodside, 2013) the same panel firm recruited 393 different re-
spondents with similar characteristics (49.9% male; Mage ¼39.5
years, SD ¼13.01) that were used as a validation sample. There
were no significant differences between the two samples with
regards to respondents’ mean age (t¼1.855, p ¼0.06) as well as the
distribution across age groups (p ¼0.13) and gender (p ¼0.70).
Structural equation modeling with Mplus 7.11 (Muthén and
Muthén, 2012) was used to test the hypotheses. Because the as-
sumption of multivariate normality for the observed variables did
not hold, we applied Satorra-Bentler corrected chi-square (Satorra
and Bentler, 1988) and robust standard errors using maximum
likelihood estimation. To assess the measurement models, we used
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results confirmed the hy-
pothesized factor structure in both the main and the validation
sample. Moreover, we evaluated the measurement models for
convergent and discriminant validity, as well as reliability. All of the
employed scales exhibited adequate psychometric properties (see
Table 3): Indicator reliabilities exceeded 0.4 (Bagozzi and Baum-
gartner, 1994) and the coefficient alphas as well as the construct
reliabilities were above 0.7 (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996).
Further evaluation of convergent validity showed that the
average variance extracted (AVE) satisfied the 0.5 criterion (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). A comparison with squared correlations of the
latent variables also revealed that they did not exceed the AVE,
indicating adequate levels of discriminant validity (see Table 4).
Overall, the measurement models for both the main and the va-
lidation sample showed good fit.
We considered several criteria to evaluate the structural model
fit (Fig. 2). The ratio of Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square to degrees
of freedom was 1.490 (validation sample: 1.719), indicating a very
good fit of the model to the data (Kline, 2005). The root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root
mean residual (SRMR) both were below 0.05, whereas the com-
parative fit indices were above their generally accepted criteria
(Hu and Bentler, 1999). The coefficient of determination (R2) for
the endogenous on-the-go consumption variable was 0.434 (vali-
dation sample: 0.470), indicating that a sufficient part of the var-
iance was explained. Thus, the structural model fit the data well.
We compared the hypothesized model with two base models.
The first base model (A) included only the direct paths between
the determinants and on-the-go consumption (omitting H5–,H7).
Chi-square difference testing1 and comparisons of the other fit
indicators revealed that the hypothesized model (H1–H7) fit the
data significantly better than did the base model (Δχ2(5) ¼85.561,
1
A difference between two Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square values is not
distributed as a chi-square. Therefore, our chi-square difference test was based on
the corrected scaled difference chi-square statistic, as described by Satorra and
Bentler (1999).
38 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42

(0.122)
( 0.175**)
( 0.105*)

( 0.177**) (0.279**)

(0.186)**
(0.470)
( 0.190**)
(0.524**)

( 0.059 ns)

(0.036)

(in brackets):
p p

p *p ;

Fig. 2. Model results.

Table 3
Items and reliability measures.

Cronbach's alpha Construct reliability Mean SD Factor loadings Indicator reliability

Time pressure (adapted from Iyer, 1989) 0.752 0.754

0.746 0.748
I rarely have enough time to eat my meals in peace. 2.673 1.180 0.750 0.562
2.636 1.194 0.693 0.481
When I buy groceries I'm usually in a hurry. 2.884 1.086 0.644 0.415
2.751 1.145 0.706 0.498
I often feel pressed for time in my everyday life 3.301 1.138 0.735 0.540
3.140 1.138 0.715 0.488
Enjoyment (adapted from Babin et al., 1994; Ryu et al., 2010) 0.763 0.765
0.781 0.786
It contributes to my life's pleasures that I can buy food and beverages to go. 3.379 1.092 0.789 0.622
3.173 1.148 0.736 0.541
Recently I have enjoyed being able to buy food or beverages on-the-go. 3.605 0.966 0.727 0.528
3.435 1.036 0.799 0.639
I felt good consuming food and drinks on-the-go. 3.617 0.912 0.647 0.418
3.372 1.002 0.689 0.474
Health orientation (adapted from Kraft and Goodell, 1993) 0.830 0.836
0.854 0.861
It is important to me that the food and drinks I buy on-the-go are healthy. 3.547 1.017 0.828 0.685
3.623 0.998 0.841 0.708
I pay attention to a balanced diet when buying food and drinks to go. 3.550 1.045 0.808 0.654
3.275 1.069 0.889 0.790
I pay attention to the nutritional facts on the label when buying food to go. 3.145 1.223 0.744 0.447
3.081 1.175 0.727 0.528
Price consciousness (adapted from Ailawadi et al., 2001) 0.856 0.861
0.919 0.921
When I buy groceries I pay attention to the price. 4.270 0.844 0.732 0.535
4.155 0.931 0.851 0.725
I pay attention to the prices of minor items, too. 4.144 0.934 0.884 0.782
4.081 0.986 0.969 0.939
I compare prices for minor items, too. 4.050 0.999 0.839 0.704
4.053 0.982 0.850 0.722
On-the-go consumption 0.831 0.837
0.879 0.883
When I'm out and about, I regularly buy something to eat or to drink along the way. 3.576 1.117 0.886 0.785
3.707 1.171 0.906 0.821
I often spontaneously decide to buy some food or drinks to go. 3.943 1.112 0.663 0.439
3.947 1.090 0.735 0.541
In the near future I will continue to regularly buy something to eat or drink along the way. 3.668 1.143 0.821 0.675
3.715 1.163 0.889 0.790

CFA model fit main sample: SBχ2 ¼ 114.544; df ¼80; p ¼0.007; χ2/df¼ 1.432; CFI¼ 0.992; NNFI ¼ 0.989; RMSEA ¼0.023; SRMR ¼ 0.026
CFA model fit validation sample: SBχ2 ¼136.502; df ¼ 80; p ¼ 0.0001; χ2/df¼ 1.706; CFI¼ 0.979; NNFI ¼0.972; RMSEA ¼0.042; SRMR¼ 0.039
Notes: All items were measured on five-point Likert scales, anchored by “totally disagree” (1) and “totally agree” (5). The first value in each cell indicates the main study
sample (n ¼805), and the second value in italics is from the validation sample (n¼393).
 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42 39

Table 4
Discriminant validity assessment.

Factor Time pressure Health orientation Price consciousness Enjoyment On-the-go consumption

Time pressure 0.506

0.497
Health orientation 0.042 0.631
0.038 0.675
Price consciousness 0.021 0.078 0.674
0.061 0.044 0.795
Enjoyment 0.025 0.007 0.012 0.523
0.036 0.005 0.039 0.551
On-the-go consumption 0.077 0.007 0.084 0.353 0.633
0.174 0.012 0.085 0.353 0.717

Notes: the average variance extracted is on the diagonal (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Squared correlations are below the diagonal. The first value in each cell indicates the
main study sample (n¼ 805), and the second value in italics refers to the validation sample (n¼ 393).

Table 5
Path coefficient comparisons.

Main study sample Validation sample Comparison

Path Std. estimate S.E. p Std. estimate S.E. p t

Time pressure - Price consciousness  0.073 0.043 0.089  0.175 0.056 o 0.01 1.457
Time pressure - Health orientation  0.202 0.046 o 0.01  0.190 0.058 o 0.01  0.162
Time pressure - On-the-go cons. 0.156 0.038 o 0.01 0.279 0.053 o 0.01  1.898
Enjoyment - Price consciousness  0.113 0.042 o 0.01  0.177 0.053 o 0.01 0.944
Enjoyment - On-the-go consumption 0.549 0.035 o 0.01 0.524 0.046 o 0.01 0.436
Price consciousness - on-the-go cons.  0.196 0.033 o 0.01  0.105 0.043 o 0.05  1.688
Health orient.-Price consciousness 0.271 0.041 o 0.01 0.186 0.059 o 0.01 1.179
Health orient.-On-the-go cons.  0.027 0.039 .482  0.059 0.049 .228 0.513

p o0.001). The second comparison involved another base model
(B), from which we omitted the direct paths between time pres-
sure and on-the-go consumption (H2) and between enjoyment
and on-the-go consumption (H3). Again, our hypothesized model
showed a significantly better model fit (Δχ2(3) ¼189.378,
p o0.001). Finally, predictive validity of our model was supported
based on comparing the results for the main and the validation
sample. Both the measurement model indices (Tables 3 and 4) and
the structural model fit indices (Fig. 2) revealed that the model fit
both samples equally well.
7. Results
The utilitarian determinants, price consciousness and time
pressure, as well as the hedonic determinant enjoyment sig-
nificantly influence consumers’ on-the-go consumption in both
samples. In support of H1, price consciousness negatively impacts
on-the-go consumption (main sample path coefficient ¼ 0.196;
validation sample path coefficient ¼  0.105), such that more
price-sensitive people consume less on the go. The estimations
also show that time pressure (0.156; 0.279) and enjoyment (0.549;
0.524) positively influence on-the-go consumption, supporting H2
and H3. The path from health orientation to on-the-go consump-
tion is not significant in both samples (p 40.1), leading us to reject
H4: Health orientation neither inhibits nor drives on-the-go con-
sumption, which supports the mixed results found in the quali-
tative study.
Regarding the effects between determinants, three of the four
paths exhibit similar results in both samples. For the main sample,
no significant relationship between the two utilitarian determi-
nants, time pressure and price consciousness, is evident, but the
results from the validation sample reveal a significant negative
effect (  0.175). We interpret this as partial support for H5a. Time
pressure negatively influences health orientation in both samples
(  0.202,  0.190), supporting H5b. Furthermore, although time
pressure does not reduce price consciousness, enjoyment does.
The effect of enjoyment on price consciousness is significant and
negative in both samples (  0.113,  0.177), supporting H6.
We anticipated that more health-oriented consumers would be
less price-conscious. However, in contrast to the hypothesized
negative effect of health orientation on price consciousness, we
found relatively strong positive effects in both samples (0.271,
0.186), such that increasing levels of health orientation coincided
with increasing levels of price consciousness. We must thus reject
H7 and discuss some possible reasons for this finding in the fol-
lowing section.
For a more detailed comparison between the two samples, we
compared the path coefficients based on Chin (2000). As illu-
strated in Table 5, the differences in path coefficient magnitude do
not reach statistical significance. This finding provides further
evidence for the generalizability of our findings.
8. Discussion
This study investigated utilitarian (time pressure, price con-
sciousness), hedonic (enjoyment), and hybrid (health orientation)
determinants of consumers’ on-the-go consumption, as well as
effects across these determinants. We thus contribute to research
by identifying and quantifying the determinants of on-the-go
consumption. Including not only utilitarian determinants that are
linked to long-term benefits, but also hybrid and hedonic de-
terminants that are linked to short-term benefits, we propose a
model that more accurately represents consumptive reality.
To ensure the model's predictive validity, we gathered two
samples and reassessed the model with data from a second survey
(Woodside, 2013). With one exception, the results from the vali-
dation study confirmed the results from the main study in not only
direction and significance but also in coefficient magnitude (see
Table 5).
In order to better understand the determinants of on-the-go
40 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
consumption, it is important to investigate their inter-
dependencies and to assess their effects on each other, thereby
acknowledging the complexity of the decision to consume on-the-
go. In line with BDT, we distinguished between utilitarian and
hedonic determinants, but also accounted for tradeoffs consumers
have to make in decisions about consumption (Khan et al., 2005;
Ryu et al., 2010; Van Doorn and Verhoef, 2011). For the main
sample, we confirmed five of our eight hypotheses. More precisely,
time pressure and enjoyment drive on-the-go consumption, but
price consciousness acts as a barrier. Enjoyment emerged as the
strongest determinant, followed by price consciousness; time
pressure had the weakest direct effect. Moreover, price con-
sciousness was significantly weakened by enjoyment and
strengthened by health orientation.
Across both samples, the assumption of a negative effect of
health orientation on on-the-go consumption (H4) needed to be
rejected. In contrast to the assumed perception of food offered for
on-the-go consumption as unhealthy (Binkley, 2006), our results
suggest increased recognition of health-related products offered
for on-the-go consumption. Fast food outlets, long criticized for
offering unhealthy food, have started to provide healthier menu
options, such as fruit and salads. Moreover, the amount of healthy
snacks offered by food retailers continues to increase (Hsieh and
Stiegert, 2012). Thus, consumers may be able to cater to their
health orientation in consuming on-the-go just as well as in other
consumptive contexts, in which case health orientation no longer
offers a reason to refrain from consuming on-the-go. Overall, these
findings suggest further investigations of the link between health
orientation and price consciousness.
For H5a, we found no support in the main study but con-
firmation in the validation study. In line with existing literature,
we expected increasing time pressure to decrease price con-
sciousness for on-the-go consumption, because time pressure in-
creases the subjective search costs required to find favorable pri-
ces. However, at least in the main study, time pressure did not
significantly decrease price consciousness; we posit that perhaps
other variables, such as character traits, explain price conscious-
ness better than situational variables. Moreover, the general eco-
nomic situation might affect price consciousness, independent of
the value of time. Further research is needed to test this link,
which seems widely accepted in literature (e.g., Ibanez et al., 2009;
Suri and Monroe, 2003).
We found support, however, for H5b, in that time pressure
negatively influences health orientation in both samples. This re-
sult implies that consumers who are pressed for time stick to their
habits by paying attention to prices and comparing them, but
make tradeoffs when it comes to a healthy diet. We posit that
spending more money–by not paying attention to prices–leads to
an immediate, highly salient result, whereas the effects of not
paying attention to a healthy diet appear more long term or are
less salient.
We also did not expect the result we found for H7; instead, we
assumed that health orientation would decrease price conscious-
ness because of more willingness to pay for healthy products. Al-
though these two variables are linked, increasing health orienta-
tion actually aligns with increased, instead of decreased, price
consciousness. One reason for this remarkable finding may be that
healthy products are not necessarily more expensive. Consumers
can learn that if they want to consume healthy foods, they do not
need to pay a premium. Increased promotional activities related to
the price-worthiness of healthy products might support this shift.
For example, health-related promotional activities associated with
on-the-go consumption have been a major focus of fast food
outlets in the past decade (Botterill and Kline, 2007), as they seek
to change consumers’ perceptions of the healthiness of the pro-
ducts they offer (Adams, 2005).
9. Implications, theoretical contributions, limitations, and
further research directions
Changes in food consumption habits, including a rise in on-the-
go consumption, are prevalent (e.g., Binkley, 2006; USDA, 2013).
We investigated different factors that influence consumers’ on-
the-go consumption and obtained findings that are relevant for
retailers, the food industry, and researchers. First, for retailers and
industry actors offering on-the-go food and beverages, the results
imply that instead of focusing on utilitarian, long-term motives for
consumption, they should instead address consumers’ hedonic,
short-term motives. Our focus groups identified two utilitarian
determinants (time pressure and price consciousness) that were
mentioned as often as the hedonic determinant enjoyment. In
contrast, our quantitative study showed that even when we
combined both utilitarian determinants, their impact was smaller
than that of the hedonic determinant. Thus, short-term benefits
appear to play an important role in decision making for on-the-go
consumption. Therefore, merely listening to consumers, without
further analysis, might lead retailers in the wrong direction of
focusing on utilitarian aspects of on-the-go consumption.
Second, and in contrast to conventional wisdom, the utilitarian
motive, time pressure, did not emerge as the most important de-
terminant of consuming on-the-go. Although it has an effect, we
did not find it to be as decisive as enjoyment or price conscious-
ness. Despite being the focus for many years, creating a competi-
tive advantage based on offers that ease time pressure appears
increasingly difficult, especially because many retail formats al-
ready promote this benefit (O'Bornick, 2002).
Third, instead of time pressure, enjoyment is the most im-
portant direct determinant of on-the-go consumption. Thus, the
short-term benefits of enjoying on-the-go consumption appear to
be predominantly driving consumers’ decision making. In-
vestigating the interrelations between the determinants also in-
dicates that although all determinants have direct effects on on-
the-go consumption, only enjoyment has the capacity to influence
on-the-go consumption indirectly, through a decrease in price
consciousness. Thus, creating enjoyable on-the-go consumption is
key for increasing demand. With respect to the offered products,
retailers should enhance their variability and fashionable style.
Enhanced product quality might also intrigue consumers; for ex-
ample, pre-packed and ready-made sandwiches could be replaced
by products prepared on-site. Consumers then would be able to
observe some of the preparation process, which might increase
their enjoyment. Retailers also should seek to create an enjoyable
ambience (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003); for example, both our
interviewees and Brembeck (2005) note that some consumers visit
fast food outlets such as McDonald's because of renovations to
their interior. Other outlets, such as convenience stores or petrol
stations, could follow a similar route.
Fourth, retailers also should attend to the inhibiting effects of
price consciousness. Pricing increasingly represents a challenge for
retail formats that previously have offered products at price pre-
miums (e.g., petrol stations, convenience shops; Heider and
Moeller 2012; Koistinen and Jarvinen, 2009). Traditional retailers
such as supermarkets have adapted their offerings to support on-
the-go consumption, so price-sensitive consumers can relatively
easily patronize these outlets. Specialized retailers that need to
compete with traditional retailers should reconsider their value
proposition, if they hope to continue benefiting from rising on-
the-go consumption.
Fifth, the findings regarding health orientation fail to mitigate
price consciousness, and instead, both variables develop in the
same direction. Even though this finding demands further re-
search, it hints that consumers do not perceive health orientation
and price consciousness as trade-offs. Conventional wisdom
 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
suggests that more health-oriented customers are less price con-
scious, because the added value of a health-oriented product
seemingly should shift their willingness to pay (less price con-
sciousness). However, our results suggest that health-oriented
food might be a hygiene factor that modern consumers simply
expect, particularly for on-the-go consumption. This realization is
important for retail managers who must make product and pricing
decisions.
Overall, it appears consumers thus choose to consume on-the-
go not because they have to but because they want to. For retailers
in on-the-go consumption markets (e.g., convenience stores,
kiosks, petrol stations), this finding requires a change in their
mental approach. Many of these retailers have not faced much
competition (e.g., at airports, train stations, or motorways), either
because of time (i.e., opening hours) or location (i.e., the only
outlet around). Because outlets selling products for on-the-go
consumption are increasing, established outlets confront greater
pressures to adapt, and our study can help them recalibrate.
From a conceptual and theoretical perspective, we offer the
following four contributions. First, we investigate the increasingly
relevant behavior of on-the-go consumption, which is with some
exceptions (Binkley, 2006; Heider and Moeller 2012) relatively
novel in academic research. Our study defines on-the-go con-
sumption and explicates how it differs from previously considered,
more general forms of food consumption.
Second, based on BDT and the idea that consumer behavior
depends on both hedonic and utilitarian motives, our qualitative
study identifies the key determinants associated with this parti-
cular consumptive behavior. We encourage other researchers to
follow recent developments (Ryu et al., 2010; Van Doorn and
Verhoef, 2011) and investigate both types of motives, particularly
in the context of food consumption.
Third, based on our qualitative results, we proposed health
orientation to be a hybrid determinant of consumptive behavior
that combines both hedonic and utilitarian motives. The finding
that health orientation does not exert a significant influence on
on-the-go consumption can be regarded as support for this per-
spective. At the same time, this result, together with the findings
of our focus groups, suggests that for different consumers, health
orientation may be either utilitarian or hedonic. Individual dif-
ferences variables should thus moderate the effect that this de-
terminant. Thus, our results expand the generalizing perspective
of BDT and thus warrant further theory building.
Fourth, although mixed methods research is still the exception
rather than the norm in marketing (Harrison and Reilly, 2011), we
recommend its use. As applied herein, conducting a qualitative
study first enriched our understanding, enhanced our tested
model, and provided us with a foundation for improved research
quality. We believe that including qualitatively deduced determi-
nants also creates a more precise model of consumer behavior
rooted in reality, thereby increasing the relevance of the academic
results for managers. In general, a mixed method approach can
(1) offset the weaknesses of both quantitative and qualitative ap-
proaches, (2) provide more comprehensive evidence, and (3) an-
swer questions that cannot be answered by either approach alone
(Creswell and Clark, 2011).
Even though our approach to research was comprehensive and
carefully conducted, the following limitations apply to interpreting
the results. First, the focus on on-the-go consumption, although
being a conceptual strength of our study, limits the generalizability
of our results. Second, consumption on-the-go depends strongly
on situational variables, such as hunger or the availability of sui-
table products or channels. While we investigate general pre-
ferences, it would be worthwhile to expand our model by in-
vestigating situational factors at the point of sale. Third, in the
validation sample, one path did not support the result from the
41
main sample (i.e., link of time pressure to price consciousness).
These contradictory results might imply that retailers, even for on-
the-go consumption, take such clear positions that consumers do
not perceive price-conscious purchases as time consuming. This
claim offers an interesting avenue for future research. Fourth, we
did not focus on specific retailers or channels; it might be inter-
esting to replicate our study in specific channels, such as fast food
restaurants, convenience stores, or traditional retailers that have
increased their on-the-go offerings. Fifth, although our qualitative
study included a Dutch focus group, our quantitative investigation
is based on a German sample. Additional research should validate
our results in other countries. Sixth, beyond the influence of the
main determinants (e.g., health orientation, time pressure), we
have investigated interdependencies to account for tradeoffs
caused by time-inconsistent preferences (e.g., immediate effect of
time pressure versus long-term effect of health orientation). For
more detailed insights, however, these tradeoffs should be in-
vestigated with conjoint studies, which are more commonly used
for such research questions.
References
Adams, R., 2005. Fast food, obesity, and tort reform: an examination of industry
responsibility for public health. Bus. Soc. Rev. 110 (3), 297–320.
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., Huylenbroeck, G. van, 2009. Personal
determinants of organic food consumption: a review. Br. Food J. 111 (10),
1140–1167.
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S.A., Gedenk, K., 2001. Pursuing the value-conscious con-
sumer: store brands versus national brand promotions. J. Mark. 65 (1), 71–89.
Anderson Jr., W.T., 1971. Identifying the convenience-oriented consumer. J. Mark.
Res. 8 (2), 179–183.
Andreyeva, T., Long, M.W., Brownell, K.D., 2010. The impact of food prices on
consumption: a systematic review of research on the price elasticity of demand
for food. Am. J. Public Health. 100 (2), 216–222.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 79 (2),
77–95.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H., 1994. The evaluation of structural equation models
and hypothesis testing. In: Bagozzi, R.P. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research.
Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, pp. 386–422.
Baker, S., Thompson, K.E., Engelken, J., Huntley, K., 2004. Mapping the values
driving organic food choice: Germany vs. the UK. Eur. J. Mark. 38 (8), 995–1012.
Baumgartner, H., Homburg, C., 1996. Applications of structural equation modeling
in marketing and consumer research: a review. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13 (2),
139–161.
Becker, G.S., 1965. A theory of the allocation of time. Econ. J. 75 (299), 493–517.
Binkley, J.K., 2006. The effect of demographic, economic, and nutrition factors on
the frequency of food away-from-home. J. Consum. Aff. 40 (2), 372–391.
Blisard, N., Lin, B.-H., Cromartie, J., Ballenger, N., 2002. America's changing appetite:
food consumption and spending to 2020. Food Rev. 25 (1), 2–9.
Bloch, P.H., 1984. The wellness movement: imperatives for health care marketers. J.
Health Care Mark. 4 (1), 9–16.
Botonaki, A., Natos, D., Mattas, K., 2009. Exploring convenience food consumption
through a structural equation model. J. Food Prod. Mark. 15 (1), 64–79.
Botterill, J., Kline, S., 2007. From McLibel to McLettuce: childhood, spin and re-
branding. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2 (1), 74–97.
Brembeck, H., 2005. Home to McDonald's: upholding the family dinner with the
help of McDonald's. Food Cult. Soc.: Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. 8 (2), 215–226.
Burton, S., Howlett, E., Tangari, A. Heintz, 2009. Food for thought: how will the
nutrition labeling of quick service restaurant menu items influence consumers
product evaluations. purchase intentions, and choices? J. Retail. 85 (3),
258–273.
Carrigan, M., Szmigin, I., 2006. ‘Mothers of invention’: maternal empowerment and
convenience consumption. Eur. J. Mark. 40 (9/10), 1122–1142.
Cervellon, M.-C., Sylvie, J., Ngobo, P.-V., 2015. Shopping orientations as antecedents
to channel choice in the french grocery multichannel landscape. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 27, 31–51.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., 2007. The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant
health claims: lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption in-
tentions. J. Consum. Res. 34 (3), 301–314.
W.W., Chin, 2000. Frequently Asked Questions – Partial Least Squares & PLS-Graph.
(Electronically published on) 〈http://disc-nt.cba.uh.edu/chin/plsfaq/plsfaq.htm〉
(access October 2013).
Cohen, J., 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas.
20 (1), 37–46.
Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P., 2011. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Re-
search. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
42 S. Benoit et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 31 (2016) 32–42
Czaja, R., 1998. Questionnaire pretesting comes of age. Mark. Bull. 9, 52–66.
Dennis, J.M., 2001. Are internet panels creating professional respondents? Mark.
Res. 13 (2), 34–38.
Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian
goods. J. Mark. Res. 37 (1), 60–71.
Dillman, D., 2000. Constructing the Questionnaire. Mail and Internet Surveys. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Ekinci, Y., 2008. An extended model of the antecedents and consequences of con-
sumer satisfaction for hospitality services. Eur. J. Mark. 42 (1/2), 35–68.
ESOMAR, 2012. 28 Questions to Help Research Buyers of Online samples. (Elec-
tronically published on): 〈www.esomar.org/knowledge-and-standards/re
search-resources/28-questions-on-online-sampling.php〉 (access July 2015),
ESOMAR, Amsterdam.
ESOMAR, 2015. ESOMAR/GRBN Guideline for Online Sample Quality. (Electronically
published on): 〈https://www.esomar.org/knowledge-and-standards/codes-
and-guidelines/guideline-on-online-sample-quality.php〉 (access July 2015),
ESOMAR, Amsterdam.
Fan, J.X., Brown, B.B., Kowaleski-Jones, L., Smith, K.R., Zick, C.D., 2007. Household
food expenditure patterns: a cluster analysis. Mon. Labor Rev. 130 (4), 38–51.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Gofton, L., 1995. Dollar rich and time poor?: some problems in interpreting chan-
ging food habits. Br. Food J. 97 (10), 11–16.
Harrison, R.L., Reilly, T.M., 2011. Mixed method designs in marketing research. Qual.
Mark. Res.: Int. J. 14 (1), 7–26.
Heider, R., Moeller, S., 2012. Outlet patronage in on-the-go consumption: an ana-
lysis of patronage preference drivers for convenience outlets versus traditional
retail outlets. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (3), 313–324.
Hoch, S.J., Loewenstein, G.F., 1991. Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer
self-control. J. Consum. Res. 17 (4), 492–507.
Hsieh, M.-F., Stiegert, K.W., 2012. Store format choice in organic food consumption.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 94 (2), 307–313.
Hu, L.-T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6 (1),
1–55.
Ibanez, M., Czermak, S., Sutter, M., 2009. Searching for a Better deal – on the in-
fluence of group decision making, time pressure and gender on search beha-
vior. J. Econ. Psychol. 30 (1), 1–10.
Iyer, E.S., 1989. Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment and
time pressure. J. Retail. 65 (1), 40–57.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., Arnold, M.J., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value: investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 59 (9),
974–981.
Judd, S.M., Newton, J., Newton, F., Ewing, M., 2014. When nutritional guidelines and
life collide: family fruit and vegetable socialisation practices in low socio-eco-
nomic communities. J. Mark. Manag. 30 (15–16), 1625–1653.
Khan, U., Dhar, R., Wertenbroch, K., 2005. A behavioral decision theoretic per-
spective on hedonic and utilitarian choice. In: Ratneshwar, S., Mick, D.G. (Eds.),
Inside Consumption: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, Goals, and
Desires. Routledge, Oxon, UK, pp. 144–165.
Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford,
New York.
Koistinen, K., Jarvinen, R., 2009. Consumer observations on channel choices-com-
petitive strategies in finnish grocery retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 16,
260–270.
Kraft, F.B., Goodell, P.W., 1993. Identifying the health conscious consumer. J. Health
Care Mark. 13 (3), 18–25.
Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for catego-
rical data. Biometrics 33 (1), 159–174.
Lappalainen, R., Kearney, J., Gibney, M., 1998. A Pan-European survey of consumer
attitudes to food, nutrition and health: an overview. Food Qual. Prefer. 9 (6),
467–478.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., Barbaro-Forleo, G., 2001. Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J. Consum. Mark. 18
(6), 503–520.
Lucan, S.C., Barg, F.K., Long, J.A., 2010. Promoters and barriers to fruit, vegetable, and
fast-food consumption among urban, low-income African Americans—a quali-
tative approach. Am. J. Public Health 100 (4), 631–635.
Marshall, M.N., 1996. Sampling for qualitative research. Fam. Pract. 13 (6), 522–525.
Muthén, L.K., Muthén, B.O., 2012. Mplus User's Guide, Seventh edition. Muthén &
Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
Narine, T., Badrie, N., 2007. Influential factors affecting food choices of consumers
when eating outside the household in Trinidad, West Indies. J. Food Prod. Mark.
13 (1), 19–29.
Nayga Jr., R.M., 1996. Analysis of food away from home expenditures by meal oc-
casion. Agribusiness 12 (5), 421–427.
M., O’Bornick, 2002. Next Generation Convenience Food and Drinks Volume One:
Growth Strategies, Market Drivers and NPD, and Volume Two: Occasion, Lo-
cation and On-The-Go Research report. Reuters Consumer Insights Business
Report.
Odesser-Torpey, M., 2013. Grab-And-Go continues to grow. Conv. Store Decis. 2013,
38–41.
Prasad, A., Stijnev, A., Zhang, Q., 2008. What can grocery basked data tell us about
health consciousness? Int. J. Res. Mark. 25 (4), 301–309.
Presser, S., Blair, J., 1994. Do different pre-testing methods produce different re-
sults? Sociol. Methodol. 43, 73–104.
Raghunathan, R., Walker Naylor, R., Hoyer, W.D., 2006. The unhealthy ¼ tasty in-
tuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food pro-
ducts. J. Mark. 70 (4), 170–184.
Richards, T.J., Patterson, P.M., Hamilton, S.F., 2007. Fast food, addiction, and market
power. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 32 (3), 425–447.
Richards, T., Mancino, L., Nganje, W., 2012. Nutrient demand in food away from
home. Forum Health Econ. Policy 15 (2), 1–29.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Jang, S., 2010. Relationships among hedonic and utilitarian values,
satisfaction and behavioral intentions in the fast-casual restaurant industry. Int.
J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 22 (3), 416–432.
Satorra, A., Bentler, P.M., 1988. Scaling Corrections for Chi-Square Statistics in
Covariance Structure Analysis, in: American Statistical Association 1988 Pro-
ceedings of the Business and Economics Section. American Statistical Associa-
tion, Alexandria, VA, pp. 308–313.
Satorra, A., Bentler, P.M., 1999. A Scaled Difference Chi-square Test Statistic for
Moment Structure Analysis, Department of Statistics Papers, Department of
Statistics, UCLA. (available at) 〈http://escholarship.org/uc/item/23c604tb〉 (ac-
cessed August 2014).
Schröder, H., Zaharia, S., 2008. Linking multi-channel customer behavior with
shopping motives: an empirical investigation of a German retailer. J. Retail.
Consum. Serv. 15, 452–468.
Srnka, K.J., Koeszegi, S.T., 2007. From words to numbers: how to transform quali-
tative data into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Bus. Rev. 59 (1),
29–57.
Stein, C.J., Colditz, G.A., 2004. The epidemic of obesity. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 89
(6), 2522–2525.
Stewart, H., Blisard, N., Bhuyan, S., and Nayga, R.M., Jr., 2004. The Demand for Food
Away-from-Home: Full-Service or Fast Food?, in: Agricultural Economic Report,
No. AER-829, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Suri, R., Monroe, K.B., 2003. The effects of time constraints on consumers’ judg-
ments of prices and products. J. Consum. Res. 30 (1), 92–104.
Takemura, K., 2014. Behavioral Decision Theory. Springer, Tokyo.
USDA, 2013. Food Expenditure Data, (available at) 〈http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/food-expenditures〉 (accessed October 2013).
Van Doorn, J., Verhoef, P.C., 2011. Willingness to pay for organic products: differ-
ences between virtue and vice foods. Int. J. Res. Mark. 28 (3), 167–180.
Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 2003. Situational price sensitivity: the role of con-
sumption occasion, social context and income. J. Retail. 79 (4), 199–212.
Woodside, A.G., 2013. Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms:
calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking
in data analysis and crafting theory. J. Bus. Res. 66 (4), 463–472.