Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics: Article Information

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics
Exploring online and offline shopping motivational values in Malaysia

Rachel Mei Ming Wong, Shiet Ching Wong, Guek Nee Ke,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Rachel Mei Ming Wong, Shiet Ching Wong, Guek Nee Ke, "Exploring online and offline shopping motivational values in
Malaysia", Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2016-0197
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2016-0197
Downloaded on: 21 February 2018, At: 16:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 16:28 21 February 2018 (PT)
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Introduction
The evolution of a Malaysian shopper’s lifestyle has reflected the social and economic
changes of the developing nation over the years. Overall income level has risen from
RM1566 in 1992 to RM6141 in 2014, and average household expenditure from RM1161 in
1993 to RM4585 in 2014 (Economics Planning Unit, 2015). Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) usage has increased concurrently, with individual internet users rising
from 57.0% in 2013 to 71.1% in 2015, and households with internet access from 58.6% in
2013 to 70.1% in 2015 (Department of Statistics, 2016). These domestic drivers, along with
an increasingly globalized environment, have resulted in Malaysians recognizing the need for
better quality education that improves ICT literacy. The Malaysian Education Blueprint is a
prominent initiative by the Ministry of Education that seeks to address this need by
integrating relevant learning materials into the national curriculum (Ministry of Education,
2012).
Accompanying these advancements is the introduction of the Economic
Transformation Program (ETP), launched by the Malaysian government as part of its
comprehensive plan to turn Malaysia into a high income economy by the year 2020. The
policies implemented has created a conducive environment for the economy to expand
rapidly, with the Wholesale and Retail Industry reporting a RM1007 billion sales value in
2015 as compared to RM622 billion in 2009 (PEMANDU, 2016). This prediction of an
upward trend in online shopping has been highlighted frequently in numerous media outlets.
Government estimates suggest that the online shopping market segment is also expected to
further develop from its current estimated worth of RM7 billion for both products and
services (PEMANDU, 2016).

But it’s not all one-way traffic in favour of online shopping. There are approximately
932 units of shopping complexes throughout Malaysia, with a total retail space of 13, 828,
953 square meters in 2015, as compared to the total retail space of 12, 978, 499 square metres
in 2014 (National Property Information Center, 2015). The increased presence of shopping
complexes has improved the shopper’s accessibility to physical stores, making it more
convenient for shoppers. Moreover, although e-commerce is expected to be one of the key
drivers of the digital economy, progress in Malaysia is dampened by the relatively slow
internet speed (Chong, 2016).
Oftentimes, practitioners wish to understand the shopper’s motivational values in
order to improve their retail strategies (Hong, 2015; Kacen and Lee, 2002). Contrastingly,
marketing scholars study shopping motivational values as the antecedent of buying behaviour
(Mokhlis and Salleh, 2009; Rose et al., 2012).
Despite the availability of various retail channels, the majority of studies in Malaysia
examine shopping motivational values from a singular retail channel and little consideration
is placed on comparing the shopping motivational values on a similar platform (Ahmed et al.,
2007; Karim et al., 2013).
Research has observed the differences in shopping motivational values in different
retail channels. For instance, an offline store’s attractiveness may be reported to be directly
related to properties such as product arrangement or layout (Budisantoso, Bhati, Bradshaw
and Tang, 2016). In an online store’s context, the equivalent may be the webpage layout or
ease of navigation (Wu, Lee, Fu and Wang, 2013). However, both relate to the store’s
atmospherics and are merely translated in different ways. In other words, it can be said that
the differences observed are merely superficial representations of one underlying quality.
This study intends to identify shopping motivational values that are based on
prominent theories and compatible in both shopping channels. By doing so, it is believed that
both practitioners and scholars would benefit through a better understanding of present day
consumer’s behaviour. Further analysis would identify any differences between the shopping
motivational values based on shopping channels, gender, and age group.
Literature review1
Shopping motivation theories
Motivation is oftentimes reflected in theory as being a unitary phenomenon, but that is
hardly the case. Individuals do not only vary in terms of the amount of motivation, but in the
types. Multiple researches has proposed shopping motivation as distinct factors (Koo, Kim &
Lee, 2008; Wagnar & Rudolph, 2010; Rajamma, Paswan & Ganesh, 2007). these studies
conceptualize the factors through a very specific circumstances, and as a result, the
applicability the factors in other contexts are limited. As a result, it may be more appropriate
to utilize a better established theory when discussing shopping motivation theories.
A rich body of literature acknowledges that a shopper’s experience can be reflected
upon as either representing a need to fulfil a task or desired recreational activity (Jacoby et
al., 1976). This two-fold nature of shopping has yielded differing nomenclature such as
utilitarian vs. hedonic (Babin et al., 1994) or non-purchase vs. instrumental shopping
motivation (Nataraajan & Goff, 1992).
1
EC: Literature needs substantial improvement. There are lack of discussion of different theories […]
however, the theories have not adequately explained.
The hedonic-utilitarian theory has been substantiated and utilized in a myriad of
marketing contexts, such as understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions (Chiu,
Wang, Fang and Huang, 2014), retailer loyalty (Anderson, Knight, Pookulangara and Josiam,
2014), airport shopping behaviour (Chung, 2015), and the prediction of word of mouth
(Carpenter, Sirakaya-Turk and Meng, 2016). Its applicability in various contexts makes it a
suitable and appropriate way to categorize shopping motivation, and provides ample potential
research avenues. This is particularly true when compared to the theory proposed by
Nataraajan & Goff (1992), which mainly focuses on compulsiveness in a shopper, rather than
the shopping experience as a whole.
Under the theory prescribed by Babin et al. (1994), shoppers have been shown to
attach two distinct functions to their shopping experience: hedonic and utilitarian values. The
former refers to the experiential component of shopping, hedonic shoppers are focused on the
emotional elements of a shopping experience (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Morgansky and
Cude, 2000; Morschett et al., 2005; Rick et al., 2014). There is active deliberation between
the values that are attached to the shopping experience, and this would influence the eventual
shopping outcome (Kang and Park-Poaps, 2010; Roy and Ng, 2012). Shopping from a
hedonic perspective may play important affective roles such as relationship management
(Borges, Chebat and Babin, 2010), and fulfilling the shopper’s emotional needs.
Contrastingly, the task-orientated focus of the latter value of utilitarianism disregards
the personal gratification that can be attained through the shopping experience. Utilitarian
shoppers are likely to assess the shopping experience by its functional benefits rather than the
sensations elicited. This utilitarianism can be perceived from tangible and intangible aspects,
but the main feature would be its importance over any hedonistic contributions.
Nonetheless, there are certain restrictions that can be derived from this model. In
particular, the psychological processes that are involved in the evaluation of the shopping
experience is at times overlooked. It is implied that shoppers would make relatively absolute
judgments regarding a particular product or service, constraining them to either possessing
hedonic or utilitarian features. Moreover, there is no emphasis on the role of personal
involvement as a determining factor in the evaluation of the shopping experience. In order to

address these concerns, the possible integration of a relevant psychological model would be
discussed.
Dual-process theory
From a psychological perspective, this generic distinction of shopping motivation is
congruent in research that investigates extrinsic (i.e. activity that is required by external
circumstances) and intrinsic (i.e. activity that is engaged for personal enjoyment) motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). However, the more important question to consider is the dual-processes
that are involved in this categorizations.
The foundations of dual-process theory can be traced back to Evans (1975) theory that
posits two distinct types of processes: heuristic and analytic processes. In the heuristic
process, individuals select information that is relevant to the situation they are currently
presiding, and neglects the irrelevant information. The subsequent process (i.e. analytic
process) involves further analysis of the relevant information chosen during the heuristic
process, resulting in a final judgment about the situation. Rather than suggesting two separate
processes, there is a more hierarchical approach to the dual-process theory.
A different interpretation was adopted in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of
persuasion, proposed by Petty & Cacioppo (1986). It is a framework that accounts for the
diverse results observed in attitude change research and provides an insight into the
psychological processes that influence the attitude formation in an individual, which in this
case is the shopper’s motivational values. this ideation suggests that persuasion may be
influenced by intense scrutiny or extremely superficial thinking.
The ELM proposes two major routes to persuasion: the central and peripheral route.
In the central route, persuasion is the result of careful and thoughtful consideration of all
information presented that are relevant to a particular object or issue (Petty and Cacioppo,
1984). Elaboration likelihood is high when a person is both motivated and able to process
information about the attitude object. Results of attitude change are expected to be enduring,
resistant, and predictive of behaviour.
In the peripheral route, persuasion is the result of a person’s association with the
stimulus’ positive or negative cues, and there is limited active thinking. Decisions made
through this route are generally thought as unrelated to the logical quality of the information
provided.
Support for the effectiveness of the ELM can be found in both marketing (Ho and
Bodoff, 2014; Brinol, Rucker, and Petty, 2015) and psychological contexts (Li, 2013; Jones,
Sinclair and Courneya, 2003). An appealing feature of this model is the lack of forceful
acceptance of a singular view of attitude formation or change. Researchers utilizing this
model are encouraged to understand the circumstances under which each of the two routes of
attitude formation and change is most likely to occur.
Present study
The present research framework intends to account for the formation of cognitive and
affective dimensions in a shopper’s motivational values. By integrating the psychological
theory of ELM with the shopping motivational theory of hedonic and utilitarian motivations,
there is the possibility for an even better understanding of shopper’s motivational values.
Moreover, the values presented are translated to both online and offline shopping context,
allowing for better comparison and understanding for both scholars and practitioners alike.
A summary of the shopping motivational values discussed is presented in Table I.
[Insert Table I here]
Essential Values
The first set of values are associated with the utilitarian view of shopping, which
presents the idea that shopping is a means to an end and there is a need for shoppers to
cognitively evaluate the experience. This perspective is reflected in the ELM’s central route
of persuasion, which similarly posits that there is a high level of shopper involvement as they
evaluate information that is presented to them.
Accurate product information, low risk of purchasing or receiving low quality
products, and value for money appear to be related to the more corporeal, functional aspect of
shopping. A shopper who experiences cognitive dissonances may regret their purchase
decision and may seek to rectify the situation by returning the product (Powers and Jack,
2013). Cognitive dissonance may also arise from situations where shoppers risk receiving
low quality products as a result of their purchases (Javadi et al., 2012), and their additional
need to seek options that would have the best value for money. As a result, some shoppers
would rather spend more time travelling to an offline store rather than pay for the delivery
fees in an online store (Huang and Oppewal, 2006).
In contrast, perceived product credibility, low financial risk, reliable customer service,
high personal data confidentiality, convenience, and pleasant environment are the intangible
aspects of the shopping process that shopper’s experience. Shopper’s would be reluctant to
purchase products if they are unable to receive adequate product information (Flanigan et al.,
2014), but a myriad of reasons that are involved in this process. The shopper’s sense of
security is one of the most prevalent themes and builds upon the trust between the shopper
and retailer. This concern by be alleviated through various means, such as providing a third-
party reassurance seal on a payment method (Kim and Kim, 2011). Another manner would be
through providing a reliable customer service, in order for shoppers to feel that their needs
and concerns are met, especially in an online shopping context (Abbes and Goudey, 2015).
By ensuring that this sense of security is maintained, there is a strong positive effect on the
shopper’s perception of credibility (Toufaily et al., 2013). The relative advantage a shopper’s
experiences when choosing a shopping channel may be an important store attribute that
influences the shopper’s decision making process, and can be in the form of the atmospheric
quality of stores. In some cases, this can be the store’s arrangement or user-friendly website
layout (Vrechopoulos, et al., 2004).
There is a high level of individual cognition that is necessary for the evaluation of the
shopping experience at this level, and certain logical inferences can be made at this stage.
Shoppers would behave and exhibit an attitude that is supported by the information, further
supporting the framework that the central route described by the ELM is associated with the
utilitarian values described.
Gratification Values
Transitioning from the utilitarian function of shopping, the hedonic function is
prevalent in these set of values where shoppers undertake the peripheral route of persuasion,
evaluating an object or experience based on the positive and negative cues they receive.
Hedonic values in this level emphasize affective attributes that can be elicited in a shopping
experience. Self-gratification themes are also present, such as the focus on the shopper’s
expectations of themselves and the perception of others on them.

Increasing one’s social status, increasing one’s prestige, and receiving respect from
others are often motivators when a shopper wishes to attain a higher position on a social
level. By purchasing a brand-name product over cheaper alternatives, shoppers would believe
that they would be perceived favourably in a social setting (Bao et al., 2003). Certain
motivators can be culturally embedded, such as the notion of prestige, which often presents
itself in a horizontally individualistic society whereby the individual strives to be distinct

without aspiring for an elevated status (Lee and Choi, 2005). It is also possible that a shopper
may be more interested in social comparisons with those that they are familiar with rather
than emphasizing their own shopping-related self-confidence (Cleaver et al., 2015).
Moreover, increasing self-respect, improving one’s emotion, increasing self-
fulfilment, increasing one’s brand loyalty, increasing one’s independence, and increasing
self-achievement are revealed to be important in the shopper’s view of themselves. Shoppers
driven by the need to feel fulfilled and accomplished after a shopping experience may use
shopping as an emotional regulator (Babin et al., 1994). Recurring instances can influence the
shopper’s behaviour, such as increasing their brand loyalty. Whilst it can be for practical
reasons (Evanschitzky et al., 2012), brand loyalty may arise from affective reasons such as
nostalgia that are attached to a particular brand (Shields and Johnson, 2016). This level of
sentiment may additionally reinforce the shopper’s sense of independence, as shoppers posit
that shopping was one of their first unsupervised activities and considered a rite of passage
(Griffith, 2003).
By focusing on the affective contributions of the shopping experience, shoppers will
rely less on the logical arguments presented and make simple deductions in order to reduce
mental effort. Attitude in this case can be temporarily changed, but it would be less enduring
than if the central route was used.

Hypothesis testing
Studies offer conflicting results in terms of which shopping channels would better
benefit the shopper, most likely due to the fact that there have been limited researches on
attributes that are compatible on both shopping channels. Proponents of online shopping
argue that recent developments have improved the online shopping environment, such as
including third-party payment certifications to negate the financial risk related to payment
(Kim and Kim, 2011). The rise of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) has also acted as an
effective marketing strategy (Lee and Youn, 2009). Nonetheless, researchers have suggested
that offline shopping has a distinctive advantage over online shopping in attributes such as
the presence of tangible security and shopping enjoyment that comes from social interactions
absent in online shopping (Carpenter and Moore, 2006; Hart and Dale, 2014).
Thus, H1 is formulated:
H1. Shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more important
when shopping offline than online.
Gender may potentially influence a shopper’s perspective towards shopping
motivational theory. This is likely due to factors such as differences in information
processing and risk-taking behaviour, or even gender role socializations (Dittmar et al. 2004;
Ganesan-Lim et al. 2008; Mattila et al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2012).
When comparing male and female shoppers, it can be seen that men are more task-
oriented, while women are more process-oriented (Zhou et al., 2014). In an offline shopping
context, outcome-focused men are more likely to prioritize utilitarian aspects of shopping
(e.g. parking availability, checkout line, etc), as they would focus on efficiency (Mattila et al.,
2003). This behaviour is also present in an online shopping context. However, when taking
into account experiential shoppers, gender does not seem to have an effect, given that
shoppers are more oriented towards the experience itself. The gratification they receive
comes from the affective perspective, and is a dominant feature than the actual purchase of
products. Given that most of the shopping malls in Malaysia focuses on the experiential
aspect, it could be assumed that shoppers would prioritize the motivational values when
shopping offline than online.
Thus, H2 is formulated as:

H2a. Female shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more
important when shopping offline than online.
H2b. Male shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more
important when shopping offline than online.
Age-related differences in consumer behaviour can be attributed to the physical and
cognitive aging processes that occurs throughout an individual’s life (Sharma et al. 2012). It
can be deduced that an older shopper’s decision making process and habits might differ from
their younger counterparts (Cole et al., 2008). Studies suggest that older shoppers would
require more information, and rely on heuristic forms of processing (Ganesan-Lim et al.
2008; Yoon et al. 2005) when intending to purchase a product online. On the other hand,
shoppers with more experience in online shopping, usually the younger shoppers, would be
capable of making similar decision with relatively less information (Cheung et al. 2014;
Sharma et al. 2012).
This difference in information processes can be viewed differently when considering
shopping from an experiential perspective. Experiential shoppers do not have a specific
purchase goal when they are shopping online, and view the act of even browsing as an
experience, rather than a means to obtain a product or service (Kukar-Kinney & Close 2010).
It can be presumed that with the availability of information, both online and offline, the age
of shoppers would have limited effect on their decision-making process.
Thus, H3 is formulated as:
H3a. Shoppers aged 35 and below would perceive shopping motivational values to be
more important when shopping offline than online

H3b. Shoppers aged 35 and above would perceive shopping motivational values to be
more important when shopping offline than online.
Methodology
Research design
A qualitative design2 framework was adopted to identify the online and offline
shopping motivational values of Malaysian shoppers. Qualitative methods are suitable when
the research process is at its preliminary stage, as it would provide the data that would
contribute to the eventual development of adequate quantification.
For this research, a questionnaire survey3 approach was utilized. It is advantageous
when a variable is measured quantitatively, as an extensive range of arithmetic operations can
be carried out in order to compare various hypotheses. The consistency achieved by the
minimization of variability provides statistical data that allows for better interpretation of
participants scores. The consistency mentioned can pertain to the use of identical material,
administration procedure and scoring methods that is only applicable when employing a
questionnaire survey approach.
2
EC: What was the justification for the methods selected?
3
EC: Why questionnaire chosen as the data collection tool?
The variables4 identified in this research are the demographic variables (i.e. age and
gender), as well as the shopping channels (i.e. online and offline shopping).
Shopping Motivational Value Questionnaire (SMVQ)
For this research, the Shopping Motivational Value Questionnaire (SMVQ) was
developed by the authors by incorporating the key motivational values reported in literature5
(refer to Table I). The questionnaire was developed as there was no suitable questionnaire at
the time of research that would compare shopping motivational values from an online or
offline shopping perspective6.
The initial version of the questionnaire consisted of seven sections, with the first
pertaining to the participant’s demographic profile, followed by the second section which
focused on the participants shopping habits such as preferred shopping mode and average
hours spent in online and offline stores.
The subsequent sections comprised of 25-items assessed the respondent’s perception
towards motivational values in both shopping channels. These individual items were
clustered according to the values they represented. An opening prompt (i.e. ‘How important
are these factors to you when shopping?’) was included for participants at the top of each
section. A 7-point Likert scale (anchored between 1: Strongly Disagree to 7: Strongly Agree)
was adopted where participants were asked to rate the extent of importance of each item
when shopping online and offline.
Pilot test
4
EC: Exactly what variables/ factors were measured?
5
EC: Where were the questions sourced?
6
EC: How the survey instrument was developed/ selected
Before the full scale implementation and subsequent analysis, a pilot test was
conducted7. A retail industry expert was consulted regarding item’s applicability from a
business perspective, whilst ten individuals were randomly selected to evaluate the item’s
applicability from a consumer perspective. Feedback suggested that participants would
overlook the preceding statements and instructions, and there is a lack of clarity in the
description of one particular item. In response, an additional prompt (‘[Item] is important to

me when shopping online/ offline’) and a reminder to read all the instructions carefully was
added into the survey invitation letter. The item in question was also rephrased based on the
input (‘Low Product Quality Risk’ to ‘Low Risk Receiving/ Purchasing Low Quality
Products’).
Sampling and data collection
In this research, a non-probability sampling was adopted, with a purposive sampling
technique (Howitt & Cramer, 2011)8. This sampling technique was chosen to ensure that the
researcher-developed questionnaire can be validated, and that the selection criteria would be
fulfilled9. The criteria used to select participants10, were as follows: 1) must be Malaysians
aged 21 years and above, 2) must have had experience in shopping online and offline, and 3)
live or work in a major city. The reason for the last criteria is due to the fact that the internet
connection is relatively better in the city area than rural locations, resulting in an increased
chance that participants would have engaged in both online and offline shopping.
7
EC: How were the questions prepared for the study?
8
EC: What sampling technique was used?
9
EC: Why sampling technique was used?
10
EC: How the 300+ participants were chosen, why?
In order to engage participants, an introductory email was sent to each respondent
through professional and social networking websites to explain and make the objectives of
the research clear. Participants who were interested could click on the online link provided at
the end of the email that would direct them to the self-administered questionnaire. Consent
would be obtained prior to the collection of responses, and participants who refused would
not be allowed to participate. The researchers decided to distribute the questionnaire through
an online medium in order to reach a more geographically diverse set of participants (Evan
and Muthers, 2005).
A total of 306 participants provided their responses after a data collection period of
approximately 6 weeks. Though the sample size was relatively small, it is sufficient for an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Yong and Pearce, 2013), which is important for validating
the questionnaire11. Additionally, the quality of the responses was considered to be highly
reliable for the analysis due to the relevant industry experiences, personal level interactions,
and clear understanding of the questionnaires among the respondents (Vaus, 2001).
Analysis and findings
Overall, the participants were all Malaysians aged 21 years and above, and from
major cities such as Kuala Lumpur, Penang, and Sarawak. Demographically, 63% were
female, and 37% were male, with 56% of participants below the age of 35 and 44% above the
age of 35. The majority of the sample were working adults of Chinese descent with
undergraduate qualifications. The average time spent on both online and offline stores was
less than 7 hours (a week). This demographic information is presented in Table II. The
11
EC: The participants no. may not be adequate
research was designed to be used with two statistical techniques, namely factor analysis and
pairwise t-tests, which will be discussed below.
[Insert Table II here]
Factor analysis
As the SMVQ is a new scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to
identify the underlying relationships between measured variables (Hayton et al., 2004). A
preliminary assessment of the data’s suitability revealed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy value that exceeded the recommended value of 0.6 (KMO =
0.907), indicating that the strength of the relationships among variables was high (Kaiser,
1974). Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which tests the overall significant of all the correlations
within the correlation matrix, was significant (p < 0.01), and a visual inspection of the
correlation matrix revealed coefficients above 0.3.
A principal component analysis (PCA) with a Promax rotation (oblique) was
performed for the additional generation of a pattern and structure matrix that provided a more
accurate representation of the items complexity (Ford et al., 1986). Only factors with
eigenvalues greater that 1 were extracted, and items with communalities above 0.5 and factor
loadings above 0.4 were retained.
The results of the EFA initially revealed a four-factor model but one factor with 3-
items was removed due to the item’s low communality and cross loadings. The resulting
three-factor model that explained 63.8% of the total variance was deemed to be more
appropriate. This additional factor was labelled Societal Values and had characteristics of
both hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives.
The first factor (Gratification Values) was robust, with a high eigenvalue of 8.41, and
it accounted for 38% of the variance in the data. Factor two (Essential Values) had an
eigenvalue of 3.87 and accounted for a further 17.6% of the variance. The eigenvalue for
factor three (Societal Value) was 1.75 accounting for a further 8% of the variance. These
three factors have Cronbach α-values above 0.8, exceeding the conventional recommendation
of 0.6 (Nunnally, 1978). The factor analysis and reliability results are displayed in Table III.
The obtained correlation matrix is found in Appendix A.
[Insert Table III here]

Overall, the factor analysis for the SMVQ items revealed that from all items with the
same response scale, only three items did not load onto a factor. In summary, the three factors
found were Gratification Values, Essential Values, and Societal Values. The final version of
the questionnaire after being subjected to the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is found in
Appendix B12.
Pairwise t-test
A pairwise t-test was used to determine if there were differences between the
shopping motivational values based on shopping channel, gender, and age group. The results
of the test are presented in Table IV.
[Insert Table IV here]
The scores for each item within each value were first added together based on the
shopping channel to create an overall score for each value (e.g. Gratification Online and
Gratification Offline). The two sets of scores were then subjected to pairwise t-tests and the
results indicate that Gratification Values Offline (M = 44.967, t = -11.799, p < 0.01),
12
EC: Ideally, a copy of the survey instrument should be provided. This would assist the reader in
understanding the extent and nature of the questions asked.
Essential Values Offline (M = 48.964, t = -15.492, p < 0.01), and Societal Values Offline (M
= 17.983, t = -5.968, p < 0.01) were statistically higher from their online counterparts. The
shopping motivational values were perceived differently depending on shopping channel,
with greater importance placed on the values when shopping offline than online. Hence,
Hypothesis 1 is supported.
The data was filtered by gender before a pairwise t-test comparing the values online
and offline scores was conducted. The results revealed that for females, Gratification Values
Offline (M = 44.781, t = -9.557, p < 0.01), Essential Values Offline (M = 48.708, t = -12.922,
p < 0.01), and Societal Values Offline (M = 17.890, t = -5.219, p < 0.01) were higher than the
online counterparts. Similarly, the male scores for Gratification Values Offline (M = 45.280, t
= -6.902, p < 0.01), Essential Values Offline (M = 49.394, t = -8.642, p < 0.01), and Societal
Values Offline (M = 18.140, t = -2.954, p < 0.01) were higher than the online counterparts.
Shoppers perceive the shopping motivational values to be more important when shopping
offline than online. Hence, Hypothesis 2a and 2b are supported.
The data to be filtered by age before another pairwise t-test was conducted to compare
the values online and offline scores. The results revealed that for those under the age of 35,
Gratification Values Offline (M = 44.836, t = -8.220, p < 0.01), Essential Values Offline (M
= 48.578, t = -10.596, p < 0.01), and Societal Values Offline (M = 18.187, t = -4.686, p <
0.01) were higher than the online counterparts. Similarly, the scores for respondents above
the age of 35 revealed that Gratification Values Offline (M = 45.133, t = -8.500, p < 0.01),
Essential Values Offline (M = 49.451, t = -11.446, p < 0.01), and Societal Values Offline (M
= 17.725, t = -3.689, p < 0.01) are higher than the online counterparts. Shoppers perceive the
shopping motivational values to be more important when shopping offline than online.
Hence, Hypothesis 3a and 3b are supported.

Further pairwise t-tests were also conducted across gender and age. Results indicated
that males under the age of 35, Gratification Values Offline (M = 44.69, t = -3.69, p <0.01),
and Essential Values Offline (M = 49.19, t = -5.35, p = 0.00) were higher than their online
counterparts. Results also indicated that for males above the age of 35, Gratification Values
Offline (M =45.91, t = -6.21, p = 0.00), Essential Values Offline (M = 49.62, t = -6.96, p =
0.00), and Societal Values Offline (M = 18.11, t = -2.90, p < 0.01) were significantly higher
than their online counterparts. Interestingly, it was reversed for females. Results indicate that
for females under 35, Gratification Values Offline (M =44.91, t = -7.50, p = 0.00), Essential
Values Offline (M = 48.26, t = -9.27, p = 0.00), and Societal Values Offline (M = 18.20, t = -
4.68, p < 0.01) were significantly higher than their online counterparts. For females above 35,
only Gratification Values Offline (M = 44.60, t = -5.96, p < 0.01) and Essential Values
Offline (M = 49.34, t = -9.05, p < 0.01) were significantly higher than their online
counterparts.
An additional set of independent t-tests were conducted to see if there were
differences across gender and age. The results indicated that all differences were not
significant.
Discussion and Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to identify the shopping motivational values of online
and offline Malaysian shoppers, and determine if there were differences between the
shopping motivational values based on shopping channel, gender, and age group. The results
indicated that there is an overall predisposition for respondents of both genders and age
groups to place importance on the shopping motivational values when shopping offline.
Factor analysis
The factor analysis supported the development of Gratification and Essential Values,
suggesting these two set of values are important to both online and offline shoppers alike.
Interestingly, an additional set of values were revealed besides Gratification and Essential
Values.
The third factor extracted in this study, labelled as Societal Values, suggests a
combination of both hedonic and utilitarian values that can be processed either through the
central or peripheral route as suggested by the ELM. The element of social interaction is
strong within this factor, and suggests that a shopper’s social ‘others’ that may influence the
shopper’s perception of the shopping experience. The two main groups of social others in this
case are the shopper’s friends and family. These social others may influence the shopper at
two different stages of the shopping process: criticism after shopping and opinion during
shopping. Both instances in the case of family is shown to affect customer satisfaction and
consequently repurchase intention, which may result in a less enjoyable shopping experience
(Al-Refaie et al., 2012; Borges et al., 2010). On the other hand, younger shoppers are seen to
be more susceptible to their friends, and in certain cases may extend to online reviewers
(Mangleburg et al., 2004; Obal and Kunz, 2016; Sasmita and Suki, 2015).
Hypothesis testing
Overall, the results indicated that shoppers perceive all the shopping motivational
values (Gratification, Essential, and Societal) to be more important when shopping offline,
regardless of age or gender group.

Gender studies13 suggest that male shopping habits differ from females due to
superior technological skills and view of shopping as a feminine activity (Hasan, 2010;
Kuruvilla et al., 2009; Van Slyke et al., 2002). However, studies have indicated that both
males and females do enjoy offline shopping for similar reasons, such as bargain hunting and
entertainment shopping (Kotze et al., 2012; Otnes and McGrath, 2001). Females emphasize
on the enjoyment aspect of shopping lacking in online shopping and perceive a higher risk
when shopping online (Dittmar et al., 2004; Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2004). Contrastingly,
males are more concerned about the loss of fun when shopping online and the chances of
developing addictive buying patterns (Dittmar et al., 2004; Hansen and Jensen, 2009). These
two concerns of both genders are fulfilled by the evolving roles of shopping malls in
Malaysia. In order to remain competitive, shopping complexes have begun to embrace
thematic and experiential shopping to satisfy shoppers (Tourism Malaysia, 2015). As
mentioned, the growth in the retail space indicates that not only is the demand for offline
shopping is strong, the function of the shopping mall has evolved to be a place for social and
recreational activity. This shift in function not only allows developers to remain competitive,
but solidify the preference of offline shopping for both genders.
Age has reported to influence shopping behaviour with the consideration that younger
individuals are more technologically savvy and have more experience with the internet than
their older cohorts (Hernandez et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2012). Yet, Passyn et al. (2011)
pointed out both older and younger shoppers share the same major concern of privacy and
security risks. While younger shoppers are concerned about the socialization aspect that is
prominent in offline shopping (Noble et al., 2009), their older counterparts emphasize on the
13
EC: The analysis and relevant discussion lack comprehensiveness. The research findings should be
compared with existing research findings
overall in-store service and retail experience that they would receive when shopping offline
(Kohijoki and Marjanen, 2013; Parment 2013). This preference for offline shopping is
compounded by the limited high-speed internet available. In an Asia Pacific context, South
Korea has the highest average connection speed of 23.6Mbps, a stark contrast to Malaysia’s
4.3Mbps (Akamai, 2015).

Academic contributions
This study has contributed academically by having identified shopping motivational
values through the Shopping Motivational Value Questionnaire that measures shopping
motivational values that are compatible on both online and offline shopping. Whilst most
studies develop their motivational values from either shopping contexts, the constantly
evolving shopper lifestyle would create unique situations whereby it is important to

understand shoppers who engage in both online and offline shopping. As discussed earlier,
some traits have an underlying theme, and this is not often identified by researchers.
Additionally, the integration of the ELM would provide an insight of the psychological
processes that shoppers undergo when evaluating a shopping experience and how it may be
affected by other factors.
Practical implications
The development of shopping motivational values that are compatible in both retail
channels is an advantageous pursuit for both marketers and scholars. For the former, retail
strategies are oftentimes dependent on how well the business understands their consumers,
and by identifying shopping motivational values that are compatible for both shopping
channels, there is the opportunity to make a more accurate gauge of consumer behaviour.
Moreover, a better understanding of shopper’s motivational values would be very useful to
explaining the diversity of consumer behaviour and for designing marketing strategies
appropriate to varied circumstances.
Retailers may use this information to determine if diversifying their present retail
channels to reach their target shoppers (Fornari et al., 2016; Verhoef et al., 2015).
Internationally, entering a new market is a daunting task, and a better understanding of

shopping motivational values aids in strategic planning, particularly which retail channel they
may transfer their brand value to in order to appeal to the market (Hamzah et al., 2014).
Domestically, retailers could fine-tune their diversification strategy in order to
determine if they should expand their presence online or offline. A brand that is well known
for their physical stores may wish to have an online store to capture a bigger shopper market.
In contrast, an online store may wish to open a physical store to capture offline shoppers.
Understanding the shopper’s motivational value can also allow them to adapt to certain
preferences, such as providing reliable customer service to answer any online shopper’s
queries or provide a convenient waiting area for their offline outlets.
From a marketing view, understanding shopping motivational values also aids in
marketing strategies, as knowing that Malaysian shoppers have an overall preference for
offline shopping would allow for better strategies to be developed. Nielsen (2014) reported
that Malaysian’s commonly review the product online before purchasing, so offline retailers
can focus on improving their online presence in order to capture the market (Groff, 2014).
Economic significance
Understanding the importance of a shopper’s motivational values can have an impact
in the policy-making process. As mentioned earlier, the development of the online shopping
arena is a government goal, but its progress is impeded by the underdeveloped consumer
protection policies which give rise to fraudulent and unfair practices by businesses. By
reinforcing the importance of the shopping motivational values such as financial security,
government policy-making bodies are able to further develop consumer-centred protection
policies, and thus encourage shoppers to engage in online shopping.

Academic implications14
Academically, this study provides some preliminary data on the shopping
motivational values of Malaysian shoppers. Previous studies often focus on a Western
population, or would oftentimes provide a general categorization of Asian shoppers to
include Malaysians. This method of generalization would be inaccurate, as different Asian
countries would have differing reasons as to why they would prefer offline or online
shopping. As such, this study provides future researchers an opportunity to further study and
expand existing knowledge about Malaysian shopper’s shopping motivational value.
Limitations and future research
This study has various limitations that should be taken into consideration when
interpreting its result.
First, the present study’s sample demographics are fully Malaysian and from urban
cities, thus clearly not generalizable to all populations of Western and even Malaysian
consumers. Future research should consider a broader demographic profile representing the
ethnic groups, occupation and shopping mode preference as well as other countries in the
Asia-pacific region.
Respondents were required to give a score for the importance of the items based on an
overall shopping experience rather than the specific goods or services. However, evidence
has suggested various instances when further research would be required to ascertain
shopper’s perception of importance of these values. Product category (e.g. digital vs. non-
digital) has been shown to influence the shopper’s perception of risk whilst perception may
14
EC: The authors need to expend this section too.
be influenced but its impact is stronger for services than products (Shobeiri, et al., 2015; Dai
et al., 2014). The shopper’s view of utilitarian and hedonic value on a specific product has
also been shown to influence channel preference (Kushwaha and Shankar, 2013). It is
suggested that for future studies, the shopper’s perception of the shopping motivational
values for various products and services be analysed in order to establish a more
comprehensive view on the shopper’s motivational value.

This study has identified shopping motivational values based on two distinct shopping
channels. However, other shopping channels were not included, such as mobile shopping,
which has shown to be convenient and accessible for shoppers (Holmes et al., 2014). Given
that Malaysia ranks sixth in the top 10 markets that use mobile phones to shop (Nielsen,
2014), it would be pertinent to include this shopping channel in future research to gain further
insight into the shopper’s perception of motivational values and the influence of these
shopping channels on the final decision-making process.
Future research may also take into account the cultural differences between Asian and
Western shoppers. The phenomena of showrooming and webrooming are one the rise,
whereby shoppers would browse offline prior to buying online or browsing online prior to
buying from an offline store, respectively. These phenomena can be said to reflect a lack in
the shopping experience, be it in the online or offline store. How contemporary shoppers
attempt to improve the shortcomings can eventually lead to a change in how they approach
the shopping experience, and how they would process the information that is provided to
them and eventually the decision-making process (Nesar and Sabir, 2016; Reid, Ross and
Vignali, 2016; Flavian, Gurrea and Orus, 2016).

References
Abbes, M. and Goudey, A. (2015), “How salespersons induce trust between consumers and
retailers: The case of French well-being stores”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 43 No. 12, pp.1104-1125.
Ahmed, Z.U., Ghingold, M. and Dahari, Z. (2007), “Malaysian shopping mall behavior: an
exploratory study”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp.331-348.
Akamai (2015), “State of the internet: Q1 2015 report”, available at:

https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/akamai-
state-of-the-internet-report-q1-2015.pdf (accessed 2 August 2016).
Al-Debei, M.M., Akroush, M.N. and Ashouri, M.I. (2015), “Consumer attitudes towards
online shopping: the effects of trust, perceived benefits, and perceived web
quality”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp.707-733.
Al-Refaie, A., Jalham, I.S. and Li, M.H.C. (2012), “Factors influencing the repurchase
intention and customer satisfaction: a case of Jordanian telecom
companies”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 10
No. 3), pp.374-387.
Anderson, K. C., Knight, D. K., Pookulangara, S., & Josiam, B. (2014). Influence of hedonic
and utilitarian motivations on retailer loyalty and purchase intention: a facebook
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), 773-779.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping motivations”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp.77-95.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No.4, pp.644-
656.
Bao, Y., Zhou, K.Z. and Su, C. (2003), “Face consciousness and risk aversion: do they affect
consumer decision-making?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 8, p.733.
Best, D., Day, E., McCarthy, T., Darlington, I. and Pinchbeck, K. (2008), “The Hierarchy of
Needs and care planning in addiction services: What Maslow can tell us about
addressing competing priorities?”, Addiction Research & Theory, Vol. 16 No.4,
pp.305-307.
Borges, A., Chebat, J.C. and Babin, B.J. (2010), “Does a companion always enhance the
shopping experience?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp.294-299.
Brinol, P., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2015). Naïve theories about persuasion:
implications for information processing and consumer attitude change. International
Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 85-106.
Brown, K. and Cullen, C. (2006), “Maslow's hierarchy of needs used to measure motivation
for religious behaviour”, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.99-108.
Budisantoso, T., Bhati, A., Bradshaw, A., & Tang, C. M. (2016). Hedonic Shopping
Motivation: Does It Really Matter?. In Development of Tourism and the Hospitality
Industry in Southeast Asia (pp. 51-64). Springer Singapore.
Bui, M. and Kemp, E. (2013), “E-tail emotion regulation: examining online hedonic product
purchases”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 41 No.
2, pp.155-170.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1984). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. NA-
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11.
Carpenter, J. M., Sirakaya-Turk, E., & Meng, F. (2016). Efficacy of Hedonic Shopping Value
in Predicting Word of Mouth.
Carpenter, J.M. and Moore, M. (2006), “Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail
format choice in the US grocery market”, International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp.434-452.
Cavusgil, E. and Kim, D. (2014), “Hedonic vs. utilitarian perspective of retail store loyalty:
Insights from a national study of households”, Kilts Booth Marketing Series Paper,
(1-020).
Cheung, C. M., Xiao, B. S., & Liu, I. L. (2014). Do actions speak louder than voices? The
signaling role of social information cues in influencing consumer purchase
decisions. Decision Support Systems, 65, 50-58.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2002), “Hedonic and utilitarian
motivations for online retail shopping behaviour”, Journal of retailing, Vol. 77 No. 4,
pp.511-535.
Chiu, C. M., Wang, E. T., Fang, Y. H., & Huang, H. Y. (2014). Understanding customers'
repeat purchase intentions in B2C e‐commerce: the roles of utilitarian value, hedonic
value and perceived risk. Information Systems Journal, 24(1), 85-114.
Chong, J. (2016, June 20). Slow Internet speeds damping Malaysia’s digital economy
aspirations: MDEC CEO. Retrieved from https://www.digitalnewsasia.com/digital-

economy/slow-internet-speeds-damping-malaysias-digital-economy-aspirations-
mdec-ceo
Chung, Y. S. (2015). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping values in airport shopping

behavior. Journal of Air Transport Management, 49, 28-34.
Cleaver, M., Jo, M.S. and Muller, T.E. (2015), “Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures:
Shopping for Prestige in Australia, in Proceedings of the 1998 Multicultural
Marketing Conference, Springer International Publishing, pp. 530-534.
Close, A.G. and Kukar-Kinney, M. (2010), “Beyond buying: Motivations behind consumers'
online shopping cart use”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 9, pp.986-992.
Cole, C., Laurent, G., Drolet, A., Ebert, J., Gutchess, A., Lambert-Pandraud, R., ... & Peters,
E. (2008). Decision making and brand choice by older consumers. Marketing
Letters, 19(3-4), 355-365.
Compeau, L.D., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D. and Reynolds, K. (2016), “Expressing and
defining self and relationships through everyday shopping experiences”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp.1035-1042.
Dai, B., Forsythe, S. and Kwon, W.S. (2014), “The impact of online shopping experience on
risk perceptions and online purchase intentions: does product category
matter?”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, p.13.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268
Department of Statistics (2016), “ICT use and access by individuals and households survey
report, Malaysia, 2015”, available at:
https://www.statistics.gov.my/index.php?r=column/cthemeByCat&cat=395&bul_id=
Q3l3WXJFbG1PNjRwcHZQTVlSR1UrQT09&menu_id=amVoWU54UTl0a21NWm
dhMjFMMWcyZz09 (accessed 9 August 2016).
Dittmar, H., Long, K. and Meek, R. (2004), “Buying on the Internet: Gender differences in
on-line and conventional buying motivations”, Sex Roles, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp.423-444.
Dittmar, H., Long, K., & Meek, R. (2004). Buying on the Internet: Gender differences in on-
line and conventional buying motivations. Sex roles, 50(5-6), 423-444.
Economic Planning Unit (2015), “Mean monthly gross household income by ethnic group,
strata and state, Malaysia, 1970-2014”, available at:
http://www.epu.gov.my/documents/10124/f34c4fb1-cbf4-4390-a497-9833f3e2225d
(accessed 4 August 2016).
El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J.C. and Sirgy, M.J. (2013), “Shopping well-being at the mall:
Construct, antecedents, and consequences”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
No. 7, pp.856-863.
El-Adly, M. I. (2007), “Shopping malls attractiveness: a segmentation

approach”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No.
11, pp.936-950.
Evans, J. S. B. (1984). Heuristic and analytic processes in reasoning. British Journal of

Psychology, 75(4), 451-468.
Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. (2005), “The value of online surveys”, Internet research, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp.195-219.
Evanschitzky, H., Ramaseshan, B., Woisetschläger, D.M., Richelsen, V., Blut, M. and
Backhaus, C. (2012), “Consequences of customer loyalty to the loyalty program and
to the company”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp.625-638.
Flanagin, A.J., Metzger, M.J., Pure, R., Markov, A. and Hartsell, E. (2014), “Mitigating risk
in ecommerce transactions: perceptions of information credibility and the role of user-
generated ratings in product quality and purchase intention”, Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp.1-23.
Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., & Orús, C. (2016). Choice confidence in the webrooming purchase
process: The impact of online positive reviews and the motivation to touch. Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, 15(5), 459-476.
Folkes, V.S. and Kiesler, T. (1991), “Social cognition: Consumers’ inferences about the self
and others”, Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Vol.3, pp.281-315.
Ford, J.K., MacCallum, R.C. and Tait, M. (1986), “The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp.291-314.
Fornari, E., Fornari, D., Grandi, S., Menegatti, M. and Hofacker, C.F. (2016), “Adding store
to web: migration and synergy effects in multi-channel retailing”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 44 No. 6.
Ganesan-Lim, C., Russell-Bennett, R., & Dagger, T. (2008). The impact of service contact
type and demographic characteristics on service quality perceptions. Journal of
services Marketing, 22(7), 550-561.
Garbarino, E. and Strahilevitz, M. (2004), “Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying
online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol, 57 No.7, pp.768-775.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Clark, R.A. (2012), “Materialism, status consumption, and consumer
independence”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 152 No.1, pp.43-60.
Griffith, D.A. (2003), “Intimacy, rites of passage and social support: symbolic meaning from
lifetime shopping experiences”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and
Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp.263-278.
Groff, J.R. (2014), “Online advertising: the impact of browsing behavior on brand recall”,
Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas.
Ha, S. and Stoel, L. (2012), “Online apparel retailing: roles of e-shopping quality and
experiential e-shopping motives”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp.197-215.
Hajli, N., Lin, X., Featherman, M.S. and Wang, Y. (2014), “Social word of mouth: How trust
develops in the market”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 56 No. 5,
pp.673-689.
Hamzah, Z.L., Alwi, S.F.S. and Othman, M.N. (2014), “Designing corporate brand
experience in an online context: A qualitative insight”, Journal of Business
Hansen, T. (2005), “Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant

analysis”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp.101-121.
Hansen, T. and Jensen, J. M. (2009), “Shopping orientation and online clothing purchases:
the role of gender and purchase situation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43
No. 10, pp.1154-1170.
Hart, P.M. and Dale, R. (2014), “With or without you: The positive and negative influence of
retail companions”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp.780-787.
Hasan, B. (2010), “Exploring gender differences in online shopping attitude”, Computers in

Human Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp.597-601.
Hayton, J.C., Allen, D.G. and Scarpello, V. (2004), “Factor retention decisions in exploratory
factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp.191-205.
Hernández, B., Jiménez, J. and José Martín, M. (2011), “Age, gender and income: do they
really moderate online shopping behaviour?”, Online Information Review, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp.113-133.
Ho, S. Y., & Bodoff, D. (2014). The effects of Web personalization on user attitude and
behavior: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and consumer search
theory. MIS quarterly, 38(2), 497-520.
Holmes, A., Byrne, A. and Rowley, J. (2013), “Mobile shopping behaviour: insights into
attitudes, shopping process involvement and location”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp.25-39.
Hong, I. B. (2015), “Understanding the consumer’s online merchant selection process: The
roles of product involvement, perceived risk, and trust expectation”, International
Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No.3, pp. 322-336.
Howitt. D & Cramer, D. (2011). Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology. (3rd ed.).
Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall.
Hsiao, M.H. (2009), “Shopping mode choice: Physical store shopping versus e-
shopping”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp.86-95.
Hsu, C.L., Chuan-Chuan Lin, J. and Chiang, H.S. (2013), “The effects of blogger
recommendations on customers' online shopping intentions”, Internet Research, Vol.
23 No. 1, pp.69-88.
Huang, Y. and Oppewal, H. (2006), “Why consumers hesitate to shop online: An

experimental choice analysis of grocery shopping and the role of delivery
fees”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp.334-353.
Jacoby, J., Szybillo, G. J., & Berning, C. K. (1976). Time and consumer behavior: An
interdisciplinary overview. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 320-339.
Javadi, M.H.M., Dolatabadi, H.R., Nourbakhsh, M., Poursaeedi, A. and Asadollahi, A.R.
(2012), “An analysis of factors affecting on online shopping behavior of
consumers”, International Journal of Marketing Studies, Vol. 4 No. 5, p.81.
Jerome, N. (2013), “Application of the Maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and
implications on organizational culture, human resource and employee’s
performance”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp.39-45.
Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and
message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of
the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33(1), 179-196.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E. and Arnold, M.J. (2006), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes”, Journal of Business
Kacen, J.J. and Lee, J.A. (2002), “The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp.163-176.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974), “An index of factorial simplicity”, Psychometrika, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.31-
36.
Kang, J. and Park-Poaps, H. (2010), “Hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivations of fashion
leadership”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.312-328.
Karim, A. J., Kumar, M. and Abd Rahman, S. (2013), “Measuring shopping values of
Malaysian retail consumers”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol.
25 No. 2, pp.200-224.
Khor, E.T. (2010), “Factors Influencing Consumer Buying Behavior of Luxury Branded
Goods”, Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Kim, K. and Kim, J. (2011), “Third-party privacy certification as an online advertising

strategy: An investigation of the factors affecting the relationship between third-party
certification and initial trust”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp.145-158.
Kohijoki, A.M. and Marjanen, H. (2013), “The effect of age on shopping orientation—choice
orientation types of the ageing shoppers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.165-172.
Koo, D. M., Kim, J. J., & Lee, S. H. (2008). Personal values as underlying motives of
shopping online. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 20(2), 156-173.
Kotzé, T., North, E., Stols, M. and Venter, L. (2012), “Gender differences in sources of
shopping enjoyment”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp.416-424
Kukar-Kinney, M., & Close, A. G. (2010). The determinants of consumers’ online shopping
cart abandonment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(2), 240-250.
Kuruvilla, S.J., Joshi, N. and Shah, N. (2009), “Do men and women really shop differently?
An exploration of gender differences in mall shopping in India”, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp.715-723.
Kushwaha, T. and Shankar, V. (2013), “Are multichannel customers really more valuable?
The moderating role of product category characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
77 No. 4, pp.67-85.
Lee, M. and Youn, S. (2009), “Electronic word of mouth (eWOM) How eWOM platforms
influence consumer product judgement”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28
No.3, pp.473-499.
Lee, W.N. and Choi, S.M. (2005), “The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and
collectivism in online consumers’ responses toward persuasive communication on the
Web”, Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp.317-336.
Li, C. Y. (2013). Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical

extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in

Human Behavior, 29(1), 264-275.
Lian, J.W. and Yen, D.C. (2014), “Online shopping drivers and barriers for older adults: Age
and gender differences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 37, pp.133-143.
Liao, J. and Wang, L. (2009), “Face as a mediator of the relationship between material value
and brand consciousness”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp.987-1001.
Lindsey-Mullikin, J. and Munger, J.L. (2011), “Companion shoppers and the consumer
shopping experience”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.7-27.
Mangleburg, T.F., Doney, P.M. and Bristol, T. (2004), “Shopping with friends and teens’
susceptibility to peer influence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp.101-116.
Maslow, A.H. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No.
4, p.370.
Mattila, M., Karjaluoto, H., & Pento, T. (2003). Internet banking adoption among mature
customers: early majority or laggards?. Journal of services marketing, 17(5), 514-528.
Ministry of Education (2012), “Preliminary report Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025”,

available at: http://www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-
Eng.pdf (accessed 4 August 2016).
Mokhlis, S. and Salleh, H.S. (2009), “Decision-making styles of young Malay, Chinese and
Indian consumers in Malaysia”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 5 No.12, p.50.
Moran, B. (2015), “Effect of Stress, Materialism and External Stimuli on Online Impulse
Buying”, Journal of Research for Consumers, Vol. 27, p.26.
Morganosky, M.A. and Cude, B.J. (2000), “Consumer response to online grocery
shopping”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28 No.1,
pp.17-26.
Morschett, D., Swoboda, B. and Foscht, T. (2005), “Perception of store attributes and overall
attitude towards grocery retailers: The role of shopping motives”, The International
Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp.423-447.
Nataraajan, R., & Goff, B. G. (1992). Manifestations of compulsiveness in the consumer‐

marketplace domain. Psychology & Marketing, 9(1), 31-44.
National Property Information Center (2015), “Property Stock Report 2015”, available at:
http://napic.jpph.gov.my/portal/web/guest/publication (accessed 15 August 2016).
Nesar, S., & Sabir, L. B. (2016). Evaluation of Customer Preferences on Showrooming and
Webrooming: An Empirical Study. Al-Barkaat Journal of Finance &
Management, 8(1), 50-67.
Nielsen (2014), “Malaysians rank among the world’s most avid online shoppers”, available
at: http://www.nielsen.com/my/en/press-room/2014/e-commerce.html (accessed 9
August 2016).
Nilsson, E., Gärling, T., Marell, A. and Nordvall, A.C. (2015), “Importance ratings of
grocery store attributes”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp.63-91.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. and Phillips, J. (2009), “What drives college-age Generation Y
consumers?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp.617-628.
Nunnally, J. (1978), Psychometric methods, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Obal, M. and Kunz, W. (2016), “Cross-cultural differences in uses of online

experts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No.3, pp.1148-1156.
Otnes, C. and McGrath, M.A. (2001), “Perceptions and realities of male shopping
behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No.1, pp.111-137.
Parment, A. (2013), “Generation Y vs. Baby Boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer

involvement and implications for retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.189-199.
Passyn, K.A., Diriker, M. and Settle, R.B. (2011), “Images of online versus store shopping:
Have the attitudes of men and women, young and old really changed?”, Journal of
Business & Economics Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, p.99.
PEMANDU (2016), “Economic transformation programme annual report 2015”, available at:
https://www.pemandu.gov.my/assets/publications/annual-
reports/ENG_PEMANDU_NTP_AR2015_260416.pdf (accessed 4 August 2016).
Powers, T.L. and Jack, E.P. (2013), “The influence of cognitive dissonance on retail product
returns”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp.724-735.
Rajamma, R. K., Paswan, A. K., & Ganesh, G. (2007). Services purchased at brick and
mortar versus online stores, and shopping motivation. Journal of Services
Marketing, 21(3), 200-212.
Rasmus, K. and Nielsen, N.A. (2005), “Online grocery retailing: what do consumer
think”, Internet Research, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp.335-352.
Reid, L. F., Ross, H. F., & Vignali, G. (2016). An exploration of the relationship between
product selection criteria and engagement with'show-rooming'and'web-rooming'in the
consumer's decision-making process. International Journal of Business and
Globalisation, 17(3), 364-383.
Rick, S., Pereira, B. and Burson, K.A. (2014), “The benefits of retail therapy: making
purchase decisions reduces residual sadness”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol.
24 No. 3, pp.373-380.
Rose, S., Clark, M., Samouel, P. and Hair, N. (2012), “Online customer experience in e-
retailing: an empirical model of antecedents and outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol.
88 No. 2, pp.308-322.
Roy, R. and Ng, S. (2012), “Regulatory focus and preference reversal between hedonic and
utilitarian consumption”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 11 No.1, pp.81-88.
Sadri, G. and Bowen, C.R. (2011), “Meeting employee requirements: Maslow's hierarchy of
needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff”, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 43 No. 10,
pp.44-49.
Sasmita, J. and Mohd Suki, N. (2015), “Young consumers’ insights on brand equity: Effects
of brand association, brand loyalty, brand awareness, and brand image”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp.276-292.
Sharma, P., Chen, I. S., & Luk, S. T. (2012). Gender and age as moderators in the service
evaluation process. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(2), 102-114.
Shields, A.B. and Johnson, J.W. (2016), “Childhood brand nostalgia: A new
conceptualization and scale development”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 359-369.
Shobeiri, S., Mazaheri, E. and Laroche, M. (2015), “Shopping online for goods vs. services:
where do experiential features help more?”, International Journal of Consumer
Studies, Vol 39. No. 2, pp.172-179.
Sirgy, M.J., Lee, D.J., Grace, B.Y., Gurel-Atay, E., Tidwell, J. and Ekici, A. (2016), “Self-
expressiveness in shopping”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30,
pp.292-299.
Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Teichmann, K. (2013), “Is luxury just a female thing? The role of
gender in luxury brand consumption”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 7,
pp.889-896.
Tikkanen, I. (2007), “Maslow's hierarchy and food tourism in Finland: five cases”, British
Food Journal, Vol. 109 No.9, pp.721-734.
Toufaily, E., Souiden, N. and Ladhari, R. (2013), “Consumer trust toward retail websites:
Comparison between pure click and click-and-brick retailers”, Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp.538-548.
Tourism Malaysia (2015), “Malaysia’s shopping landscape with main and new shopping
precincts), available at: http://www.tourism.gov.my/pdf/uploads/9a3b9971-5a41-4faa-
b31e-41aa32b9cd06.pdf (accessed 10 August 2016).
Urwiler, R. and Frolick, M.N. (2008), “The IT value hierarchy: Using Maslow's hierarchy of
needs as a metaphor for gauging the maturity level of information technology use
within competitive organizations”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp.83-88.
Van Slyke, C., Comunale, C.L. and Belanger, F. (2002), “Gender differences in perceptions
of web-based shopping”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp.82-86.
Vaus, D.A. (2001). Research Design in Social Science. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K. and Inman, J.J. (2015), “From multi-channel retailing to omni-
channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 91 No. 2, pp.174-181.
Vrechopoulos, A.P., O’Keefe, R.M., Doukidis, G.I. and Siomkos, G.J. (2004), “Virtual store
layout: an experimental comparison in the context of grocery retail”, Journal of

Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp.13-22.
Wagner, T. and Rudolph, T. (2010), “Towards a hierarchical theory of shopping

motivation”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp.415-429.
Wagner, T., & Rudolph, T. (2010). Towards a hierarchical theory of shopping

motivation. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(5), 415-429.
Wan, Y., Nakayama, M. and Sutcliffe, N. (2012), “The impact of age and shopping
experiences on the classification of search, experience, and credence goods in online
shopping”, Information Systems and e-Business Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp.135-
148.
Wang, Y. and Griskevicius, V. (2014), “Conspicuous consumption, relationships, and rivals:

Women's luxury products as signals to other women”, Journal of Consumer
Xin, H., Techatassanasoontorn, A.A. and Tan, F.B. (2015), “Antecedents of consumer trust in
mobile payment adoption”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 55 No. 4,
pp.1-10.
Yavas, U. (2003), “A multi-attribute approach to understanding shopper

segments”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No.
11, pp.541-548.
Yong, A.G. and Pearce, S. (2013), “A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on
exploratory factor analysis”, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp.79-94.
Yoon, C., Laurent, G., Fung, H. H., Gonzalez, R., Gutchess, A. H., Hedden, T., ... & Skurnik,
I. (2005). Cognition, persuasion and decision making in older consumers. Marketing
Letters, 16(3), 429-441.
Zhang, B. and Kim, J.H. (2013), “Luxury fashion consumption in China: Factors affecting
attitude and purchase intent”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp.68-79.
Zhang, Z., Ye, Q. and Law, R. (2011), “Determinants of hotel room price: An exploration of
travelers' hierarchy of accommodation needs”. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management Vol. 23 No. 7, pp.972-981.
Zhou, T., Lu, Y., & Wang, B. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Chinese Consumers’
Increased vs. Decreased Online Purchases. In E-Commerce for Organizational
Development and Competitive Advantage (pp. 40-57). IGI Global.
Zhou, Z., Jin, X. L., & Fang, Y. (2014). Moderating role of gender in the relationships
between perceived benefits and satisfaction in social virtual world
continuance. decision support systems, 65, 69-79.
Table I. Shopping motivational value identification
Hedonic/ utilitarian Elaboration Likelihood Model Present Study

(Babin, 1994) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1984)
Items Source
Carpenter and Moore, 2006;
Hansen, 2005;
Huang and Oppewal, 2006;
Convenience Morgansky and Cude, 2000;
Nilsson et al., 2015;
Rasmus and Nielsen, 2005;
Vrechopoulos et al., 2004.

Hansen, 2005;
Utilitarian: Central: Hsiao, 2009;
Represents one’s cognitive, high level of message Value for money
Huang and Oppewal, 2006;
goal-oriented shopping elaboration in which a great Morschett et al., 2005;
experience amount of cognition Rasmus and Nielsen, 2005.

Hansen, 2005;
Variety in product Huang and Oppewal, 2006;
Morschett et al., 2005;
Rasmus and Nielsen, 2005
Reliable customer service Ha and Stoel, 2012;
Hansen, 2005
Al-Debei et al., 2015;

El-Adly, 2007;
Pleasant environment quality
El Hedhli et al., 2013;
Yavas, 2003
Javadi et al., 2012;
Low financial risk
Kim and Kim, 2011
Javadi et al., 2012;
Low risk of inferior product
Xin et al., 2015
Abbes and Goudey, 2015;
Accurate product information
Hajli et al., 2014
Al-Debei et al., 2015;
Hajli et al., 2014;
Hsu et al., 2013;
Perceived product credibility Javadi et al., 2012;
Kim and Kim, 2011;
Toufaily et al., 2013;
Xin et al., 2015
Ha and Stoel, 2012;

High personal data
Toufaily et al., 2013;
confidentiality
Yavas, 2003
Borges et al., 2010;
Managing relationships
Compeau et al., 2016
Bui and Kemp, 2013;
Opinion of family (during)
Lindsey-Mullikin and Munger,
2011

Bui and Kemp, 2013;
Opinion of friends (during)
Lindsey-Mullikin and Munger,
2011
Criticsim risk from family (after)
Compeau et al., 2016
Criticsim risk from friends Borges et al., 2010;
(after) Compeau et al., 2016
Enhancing experience through
Compeau et al., 2016;
social interaction
Hart and Dale, 2014
Peripheral:
Increasing self-achievement Jones et al., 2006
simple inference about the
Hedonic: merits of the advocated Moran, 2015;
Increasing one's social status
Represents one’s affective, position. The cues received by Zhang and Kim, 2013
experiential shopping the individual under the Moran, 2015;
experience peripheral route are generally Increasing one's prestige
Zhang and Kim, 2013
unrelated to the logical quality Receiving respect from others Moran, 2015
of the stimulus.
Increasing one's independence Griffith, 2003
Increasing self-respect Sirgy et al., 2016
Jones et al., 2006;
Incresing self-fulfillment
Sirgy et al., 2016
Bui and Kemp, 2013;
Improving one's emotion
Moran, 2015
Increasing one's brand loyalty Jones et al., 2006
Table II. Respondent’s demographic profile
Frequency
Category Percentage
(N = 306)
Gender
Male 114 37.3
Female 192 62.7
Age
Less than 35 years old 171 55.9
More than 35 years old 165 44.1
Ethnicity
Malay 33 10.9
Chinese 233 76.1
Indian 23 7.5
Others 17 5.6
Education level
High school 35 11.4
Undergraduate 199 65.0
Postgraduate 72 23.5
Occupation
Student 45 14.7
Working adult 249 81.4
Others 12 3.9
Preferred mode of shopping
Online 76 24.8
Offline 230 75.2
Average hours spent in online stores (weekly)
Less than 7 hours 253 82.7
7-14 hours 44 14.4
21-28 hours 5 1.6
More than 28 hours 4 1.3
Average hours spent in offline stores (weekly)
Less than 7 hours 216 70.6
7-14 hours 80 26.1
21-28 hours 9 2.9
More than 28 hours 1 0.3
Table III. Factor analysis results
Factor Factor Factor

Items Communalities
1 2 3
Factor 1: Gratification Values
F6 Increasing one’s social status 0.872 0.709
F3 Increasing self-respect 0.871 0.756
F2 Increasing one’s prestige 0.858 0.722
F8 Receiving respect from others 0.835 0.685
F4 Improving one’s emotion 0.831 0.677
F7 Increasing self-fulfilment 0.780 0.616

F9 Increasing one’s brand loyalty 0.778 0.580
F5 Increasing one’s independence 0.707 0.578
F1 Increasing self-achievement 0.677 0.574
Factor 2: Essential Values
D4 Accurate product information 0.845 0.707
D5 Perceived product credibility 0.843 0.698
D2 Low financial risk 0.808 0.623
D3 Low risk of inferior product 0.788 0.584
C4 Reliable customer service 0.773 0.615
D6 High personal data confidentiality 0.757 0.593
C2 Value for money 0.726 0.546
C1 Convenience 0.688 0.473
D1 Pleasant environment 0.669 0.528
Factor 3: Societal Values
E2 Criticism risk from family (After 0.938 0.764
shopping)
E3 Criticism risk from friends (After 0.881 0.748
shopping)
E5 Opinion of family (During 0.719 0.655
shopping)
E6 Opinion of friends (During 0.611 0.596
shopping)
% of variance explained 38.229 17.582 7.947
Eigenvalues 8.410 3.868 1.748
Cronbach’s α-values 0.931 0.915 0.839
Table IV. Pairwise t-test result

Online Offline
Variables t-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Values (N=306)
Gratification 37.104 11.669 44.967 10.318 -11.799**
Essential 38.977 10.298 48.964 6.113 -15.492**
Societal 16.333 4.934 17.983 4.358 -5.968**
Female (N=192)
Gratification 36.593 11.321 44.781 9.681 -9.557**
Essential 38.411 10.266 48.708 6.088 -12.922**
Societal 16.005 2.033 17.890 4.462 -5.219**
Male (N=114)
Gratification 37.964 12.235 45.280 11.349 -6.902**
Essential 39.929 10.328 49.394 6.158 -8.642**
Societal 16.886 4.735 18.140 4.192 -2.954**
Age <35 (N=171)
Gratification 37.818 11.522 44.836 10.522 -8.220**
Essential 39.543 9.943 48.578 6.003 -10.596**
Societal 16.356 4.893 18.187 4.246 -4.686**
Age >35 (N=135)
Gratification 36.200 11.832 45.133 10.091 -8.500**
Essential 38.259 10.725 49.451 6.237 -11.446**
Societal 16.303 5.004 17.725 4.497 -3.689**
Male <35 (N = 59)
Gratification 39.44 12.56 44.69 11.53 -3.69*
Essential 40.86 10.40 49.19 5.94 -5.35**
Societal 17.05 5.39 18.17 4.39 -1.62(0.110)
Male >35 (N = 55)

Gratification 36.38 11.79 45.91 11.23 -6.21**
Essential 38.93 10.25 49.62 6.43 -6.96**
Societal 16.71 3.96 18.11 4.01 -2.90*
Female <35 (N = 112)
Gratification 36.96 10.90 44.91 10.00 -7.50**
Essential 38.85 9.67 48.26 6.04 -9.27**
Societal 15.99 4.59 18.20 4.19 -4.68**
Female >35 (N = 80)
Gratification 36.08 11.94 44.60 9.27 -5.96**
Essential 37.80 11.08 49.34 6.14 -9.05**
Societal 16.03 5.62 17.46 4.81 -2.56(0.12)
Note: * p < .001, ** p = 0.000
Appendix A
Correlation matrix
Items F6 F3 F2 F8 F4 F7 F9 F5 F1 D4 D5 D2 D3 C4 D6 C2 C1 D1 E2 E3 E5 E6
F6
F3 .669
F2 .884 .671 `
F8 .744 .711 .758
F4 .621 .650 .632 .592
F7 .456 .653 .472 .465 .682
F9 .567 .590 .583 .600 .636 .560
F5 .525 .717 .545 .512 .520 .649 .461
F1 .548 .639 .538 .512 .607 .626 .453 .590
D4 .165 .215 .211 .148 .197 .308 .129 .247 .330
D5 .189 .184 .202 .141 .196 .306 .145 .261 .281 .730
D2 .183 .210 .204 .140 .173 .249 .093 .228 .211 .616 .615
D3 .115 .140 .136 .078 .100 .200 .056 .185 .182 .589 .616 .562
C4 .173 .150 .190 .189 .177 .192 .103 .208 .255 .593 .588 .604 .543
D6 .213 .219 .224 .202 .211 .270 .175 .285 .269 .632 .592 .574 .554 .598
C2 .154 .227 .174 .127 .267 .334 .172 .254 .243 .550 .556 .483 .470 .488 .499
C1 .160 .185 .159 .112 .216 .277 .167 .264 .229 .519 .500 .430 .422 .446 .396 .564
D1 .228 .256 .266 .217 .260 .338 .205 .286 .278 .525 .525 .524 .455 .523 .461 .525 .481
E2 .209 .296 .240 .255 .271 .203 .199 .290 .336 .178 .147 .066 .117 .160 .127 .183 .087 .195
E3 .333 .389 .354 .338 .304 .218 .296 .316 .345 .195 .186 .128 .158 .221 .178 .185 .121 .185 .785
E5 .345 .369 .368 .359 .375 .288 .404 .383 .375 .283 .273 .199 .224 .325 .314 .299 .159 .333 .502 .501
E6 .424 .425 .460 .466 .436 .324 .417 .419 .407 .196 .217 .218 .193 .256 .235 .183 .143 .346 .429 .456 0.718
Appendix B
Shopping Motivational Value Questionnaire
Section A. Demographics
1. What is your age?

21 to 34 years 35 to 49 years 50 to 64 years
2. What is your gender?

Male Female
3. What is your ethnicity?

Malay Chinese Indian Others
4. What is your occupation?

Student Working adult Others
5. What is your highest education level?

High school Undergraduate Postgraduate
Section B. General shopping habits
This section of the questionnaire consists of 3 questions that are related to your general shopping
habits. Kindly select ONE (1) option.
1. What is your preferred mode of shopping?

Online Physical (i.e. in-store)
2. On average, how long do you spend perusing online store websites per week?
Less than 7 hours 7-14 hours 21-28 hours More than 28 hours
3. On average, how long do you spend in physical stores per week?

Less than 7 hours 7-14 hours 21-28 hours More than 28 hours
Please contact the corresponding author for permission to use.

Section C. Gratification Values
This section of the questionnaire is about the factors which you consider are important when you are
shopping for yourself. Kindly indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following
factors.
1. Increasing one’s social status (i.e. standing in the community) by purchasing a particular brand
Strongly Neutral Strongly
disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Increasing one’s sense of self-respect (e.g. confidence and pride) through shopping
disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Increasing one’s prestige (e.g. prominence) by a particular brand

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Receiving respect from others through purchases

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Improving one’s emotional state through shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. Increasing one’s sense of self-fulfillment through shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Increasing one’s brand loyalty through shopping
disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Increasing one’s sense of independence through shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Increasing one’s sense of achievement through shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section D. Essential Values
shopping in general. Kindly indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following factors.
1. Accurate product information

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Perceived credibility of products


disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Low financial risk during payment

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Low risk of receiving or purchasing low quality products

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. Reliable customer service

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. High confidentiality of personal data

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Value for money
disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8. Convenience
disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
9. Pleasant environment quality

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Section E. Societal Values
shopping with others OR for others. Kindly indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the
following factors.
1. Criticism risk from family members after shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2. Criticism risk from friends after shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3. Opinion of family members during shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
4. Opinion of friends during shopping

disagree agree
Online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Offline 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics: Article Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics: Article Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics

Exploring online and offline shopping motivational values in Malaysia

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Accompanying these advancements is the introduction of the Economic

Transformation Program (ETP), launched by the Malaysian government as part of its

2015 as compared to RM622 billion in 2009 (PEMANDU, 2016). This prediction of an

services (PEMANDU, 2016).

internet speed (Chong, 2016).

Oftentimes, practitioners wish to understand the shopper’s motivational values in

(Mokhlis and Salleh, 2009; Rose et al., 2012).

2007; Karim et al., 2013).

Research has observed the differences in shopping motivational values in different

related to properties such as product arrangement or layout (Budisantoso, Bhati, Bradshaw

motivational values based on shopping channels, gender, and age group.

Shopping motivation theories

Motivation is oftentimes reflected in theory as being a unitary phenomenon, but that is

to utilize a better established theory when discussing shopping motivation theories.

A rich body of literature acknowledges that a shopper’s experience can be reflected

motivation (Nataraajan & Goff, 1992).

marketing contexts, such as understanding customers’ repeat purchase intentions (Chiu,

the shopping experience as a whole.

Contrastingly, the task-orientated focus of the latter value of utilitarianism disregards

judgments regarding a particular product or service, constraining them to either possessing

hedonic or utilitarian features. Moreover, there is no emphasis on the role of personal

involvement as a determining factor in the evaluation of the shopping experience. In order to

From a psychological perspective, this generic distinction of shopping motivation is

that are involved in this categorizations.

processes, there is a more hierarchical approach to the dual-process theory.

A different interpretation was adopted in the Elaboration Likelihood Model of

influenced by intense scrutiny or extremely superficial thinking.

resistant, and predictive of behaviour.

acceptance of a singular view of attitude formation or change. Researchers utilizing this

attitude formation and change is most likely to occur.

affective dimensions in a shopper’s motivational values. By integrating the psychological

A summary of the shopping motivational values discussed is presented in Table I.

[Insert Table I here]

evaluate information that is presented to them.

Accurate product information, low risk of purchasing or receiving low quality

fees in an online store (Huang and Oppewal, 2006).

layout (Vrechopoulos, et al., 2004).

utilitarian values described.

Transitioning from the utilitarian function of shopping, the hedonic function is

expectations of themselves and the perception of others on them.

itself in a horizontally individualistic society whereby the individual strives to be distinct

than emphasizing their own shopping-related self-confidence (Cleaver et al., 2015).

Moreover, increasing self-respect, improving one’s emotion, increasing self-

self-achievement are revealed to be important in the shopper’s view of themselves. Shoppers

By focusing on the affective contributions of the shopping experience, shoppers will

than if the central route was used.

H1. Shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more important

when shopping offline than online.

Gender may potentially influence a shopper’s perspective towards shopping

motivational theory. This is likely due to factors such as differences in information

Ganesan-Lim et al. 2008; Mattila et al. 2003; Sharma et al. 2012).

shopping offline than online.

Thus, H2 is formulated as:

H2a. Female shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more

important when shopping offline than online.

H2b. Male shoppers would perceive shopping motivational values to be more

important when shopping offline than online.

Age-related differences in consumer behaviour can be attributed to the physical and

Sharma et al. 2012).