Journal of Global Marketing, 27:226–246, 2014

Copyright c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0891-1762 print / 1528-6975 online
DOI: 10.1080/08911762.2014.909553

Shopping Value, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions:

A Sociodemographic and Interproduct Category Study
on Private Label Brands
Anubhav A. Mishra

ABSTRACT. Shopping value and consumer satisfaction research streams have witnessed significant
developments in the last decade. The present study has empirically examined the relationships among
utilitarian and hedonic value, satisfaction, and the resultant behavioural intentions in the context of
private label brands. It is also endeavored to find the moderating effect of certain sociodemographic
factors and product category on the above relationships. Indian consumers (n = 500) completed self-
administered surveys. The empirical findings have supported the conceptual model. The findings of
the present study have contributed towards the development of an organizing framework for these
relationships in an applied discipline such as retailing. The uniqueness of the study lies in the fact that
the relationships and moderating effects were examined in the context of private label branded products.

KEYWORDS. Utilitarian and hedonic value, consumer satisfaction, loyalty, word-of-mouth, intention
to switch, moderating and mediating effects, sociodemographics

INTRODUCTION effectively (Zeithaml, 1988), and converting a

Shopping value and consumer satisfaction
research streams have witnessed significant
developments in the last decade. The changes in
consumers’ shopping patterns and demands are
linked to the shifts and diversities in their shop-
ping value. From the point of view of consumers,
obtaining value is a fundamental shopping goal
and pivotal to all successful exchange transac-
tions (Holbrook, 1994). Therefore, marketers
must understand not only what their consumers
perceive as important in relation to shopping but
also how they are defining their shopping value.
This will enable them to focus their attention on
selecting a specific strategy for a particular mar-
ket segment, thereby channeling resources more
one-time consumer into a patronizing consumer.
Please see Figure 1 for the theoretical model.
Hallowell (1996) put forward that “satis-
faction is the consumer’s perception of the
value received in a transaction or relationship.”
Woodruff (1997) concluded that the concept of
consumer value suggests a strong relationship
to consumer satisfaction but still research is
lacking. While both value and satisfaction have
been separately investigated (Woodruff, 1997;
Zeithaml, 1988), the role that consumer value
plays in enhancing satisfaction has received lim-
ited attention (Day, 2002). Furthermore, Cronin,
Brady, and Hult (2000) have concluded that the
value-satisfaction research is still in its embry-
onic stage. Oliver (1999) has raised questions

Anubhav A. Mishra is an assistant professor in marketing, IBS Gurgaon, India.

Address correspondence to Anubhav A. Mishra, Marketing, IBS Gurgaon, Gurgaon, HR 122016, India.
Email: anubhav.am@ibsindia.org

226
 Anubhav A. Mishra 227

FIGURE 1. The Theoretical Model

Loyalty
Utilitarian
Value
H3 +
H1 +

H4 +

Satisfaction H5 + WOM

H7, H8,
H9, H10

H2 + H6 -

Hedonic Intention to
Value Switch

Gender,
Age,
Income and
Product
Category

Hypothesized Path

Hypothesized Moderation Path

Hypothesized Mediation Path

about the relationship between the two con-
cepts, by raising such worthwhile questions like,
“What is the relationship between satisfaction
and value?” and “Is satisfaction an antecedent or
a consequence of value?”
At the same time, large-format, modern retail
chains have established themselves by reaching
critical volumes, and the next step of the clas-
sical retail story has begun with the introduc-
tion of private label brands (PLBs) (Ailawadi,
2001; Corstjens & Lal, 2000). PLBs are brands
that are owned, controlled and sold exclusively
by a retailer (Baltas, 1997). The present sce-
nario is such that, PLBs have proliferated in a
number of product categories and have garnered
large market share. PLBs offer a large plethora of
value, among them, means to differentiate their
stores, achieve consumer loyalty, and increase
profitability.
For the past five decades, research on PLBs
has been of prime interest to academicians
and to marketers (Burt & Davies, 2010). An
assortment of studies has focused mainly on the
demographic, psychographic, and behavioral
characteristics of PLBs consumers (Glynn &
Chen, 2009; Martinez & Montaner, 2008). Since
228 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
the 1990s, a majority of the studies have looked
into the corporate-level factors: price differential
between PLBs and national brands; their promo-
tional intensity and category margins (Cotterill,
Putsis, & Dhar, 2000; Rajiv, Dutta, & Dhar,
2002); price sensitivity and quality perceptions
(Burt & Sparks, 2002; Gázquez-Abad &
Sanchez-Perez, 2009); favorable consumer
segments toward PLBs (Ailawadi, Pauwels, &
Steenkamp, 2008; Baltas & Argouslidis, 2007;
Gómez & Rubio, 2010); and optimal requisites
for the introduction of PLBs along financial and
category lines (Putsis & Dhar, 2001; Sayman &
Raju, 2004).
As these three research streams progressed,
however, parallels among them have not been
investigated. Past studies have focused on the
conceptual and empirical development of the
consumer value/loyalty framework (DeWulf,
Odekerken-Schröder, & Iacobucci, 2001;
Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). Others have sought
to investigate utilitarian versus hedonic shop-
ping value in upscale retail sectors: fashion
(Carpenter & Fairhurst, 2005), shopping in
malls and department stores (Rintamäki, Kanto,
Kuusela, & Spence, 2006; Teller, Reutterer,
& Schnedlitz, 2008), and online shopping
(Overby & Lee, 2006). It is worth mentioning
that consumer shopping value studies and a
majority of PLB research has been extensively
conducted within the United States (Cuneo,
Lopez, & Yagüe, 2012). Not much is known
about the way in which such value is derived
by consumers shopping in different and,
particularly, less-developed retail environments
(Griffin, Babin, & Modianos, 2000).
Furthermore, several researchers in the field
of consumer behavior (Parasuraman & Grewal,
2000; Peterson & Balasubramanian, 2002) have
contended consumer brand selection and PLB
loyalty to be underresearched perspectives. A
very considerable element that has been ignored
in this developing research stream is the ef-
fect of shopping value on consumer satisfaction
and the resultant post-purchase behavioral in-
tentions (i.e., loyalty, word of mouth [WOM]
communication, and intention to switch) with
respect to PLBs. Considering the growing sig-
nificance of PLBs in the retail industry, it is im-
perative to understand these relationships.
The objectives of this research are to fill this
gap and extend the current knowledge of this
relationship. These three perspectives have been
used to develop a conceptual framework. This
research aims to offer a better understanding of
some of the determinants of consumer satisfac-
tion and loyalty in the purchase of PLBs. It also
endeavors to probe the moderating effect of cer-
tain sociodemographic factors (gender, age, and
income), and product category on these relation-
ships. Toward this end, the research will focus
on three categories of PLB products (i.e., food
and grocery, apparel, and consumer durables).
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
AND HYPOTHESES
Utilitarian and Hedonic Shopping Value
Shopping value has extended itself beyond the
boundary of the physical product by character-
izing value as a consumer’s experience resulting
not from the acquisition of an object (i.e., goods,
service, person, place, thing, event, or idea) but
rather from the consumption of its services (i.e.,
its use or appreciation) (Holbrook, 1994). There-
fore, usefulness and an emotional appreciation of
shopping can indicate value. Thus, shopping ex-
perience can evoke value by either successfully
accomplishing its utilitarian goal or by provid-
ing hedonic enjoyment (Babin et al., 1994). This
brings us to the conclusion that to measure the
complete shopping experience, the hedonic as-
pect of shopping must also be considered along
with the functional, utilitarian side.
Several studies (Belk, 1979; Sherry, 1990)
have shown that both utilitarian and hedonic
values can be provided by the retailer during
the whole shopping experience. According to
(Babin et al., 1994, p. 654), “utilitarian shopping
value includes expressions of accomplishment
and/or disappointment over ability (inability) to
complete the shopping task.” For instance, a con-
sumer might be successful at finding the product
that motivated the shopping trip at the first store
visited and might also find that the product is
being offered at a discount. In such a scenario,
the utilitarian shopping value would be derived
from the consumer’s success at quickly finding
 Anubhav A. Mishra
the required product, and hedonic shopping
value would be created by the excitement as-
sociated with the discounted price. On the other
hand, hedonic consumption research has tended
to investigate products that strongly arouse emo-
tions and aesthetic experiences, such as litera-
ture, visual arts, and drama. In doing so, it has
focused on relatively extreme cases involving
feelings, fun, and fantasies such as those in the
purchase of games (Holbrook, Chestnut, Oliva,
& Greenleaf, 1984), adventure sports (Hopkin-
son & Pujari, 1999), performing arts (Caldwell,
2001), and music (Lacher, 1989), while over-
looking the less extreme emotional perspectives
of more ordinary consumption experiences. It is
based on the assumption that consumers obtain
intrinsic personal and emotional rewards from
different cues like variety of products being of-
fered (Wakefield & Barnes, 1996) and learning
new trends and entertainment while shopping
(Tauber, 1972). It can be defined as whether
a shopping experience in itself is stimulating
(characteristics such as smells, sights, memories
evoked by shopping, social interactions incurred
while shopping, etc.) regardless of the outcome
(e.g., if a purchase was made). Hedonic value
is derived from the joy and/or the excitement
of the shopping experience, or the escape from
everyday activities that is provided by shopping
(Carpenter, Moore & Fairhurst, 2005).
Consumer Satisfaction
There is a growth in research which indicates
about the advantageous outcomes of consumer
satisfaction in terms of both behavioral effects
such as loyalty, repurchase intention, complain-
ing behavior, WOM, and performance outcomes
such as profit. Westbrook and Reilly (1983,
p. 256) have defined it as “an emotional response
to the experiences provided by, associated with
particular products or services purchased, retail
outlets, or even molar patterns of behavior such
as shopping and buyer behavior, and the overall
marketplace.” It has been proved that satisfied
consumers have a propensity to be less price
sensitive, while at the same time they are more
willing to buy additional products, and tend to
be less influenced by competitors (Hansemark &
Albinsson, 2004). Satisfied consumers can also
229
be expected to tell others of their favorable expe-
riences and thus engage in positive WOM adver-
tising for the organization (File & Prince, 1992).
This affirmative WOM publicity is especially
advantageous in collectivist Asian cultures like
India, where social life is prearranged in such
a way so as to build social relationships with
others in the society.
Previous research on shopping value supports
its linkage to retail outcomes such as consumer
satisfaction and loyalty (Babin et al., 1994;
Dawson, Bloch, & Ridgway, 1990). Carpenter
and Fairhurst (2005) have concluded the pres-
ence of positive relationships between utilitarian
and hedonic shopping benefits, consumer satis-
faction, consumer loyalty, and WOM communi-
cation. Their study was unique due to the relative
newness of the context (i.e., retail branded prod-
ucts) in which the study was conducted. Based
on these evidences, it is hypothesized that the
same effect will hold in the context of PLBs:
H1: Consumer’s perception of utilitarian
shopping value has a positive relation-
ship with consumer’s satisfaction with the
PLBs.
H2: Consumer’s perception of hedonic shop-
ping value has a positive relationship with
consumer’s satisfaction with the PLBs.
Consumer Loyalty
Examination of consumers’ loyalty to PLBs
is increasingly important so as to better under-
stand their behavioral propensities and actions
(Hardesty & Bearden, 2009; Keller, 2008). Samli
(1989) has contended that consumer loyalty can
often serve as the distinctive advantage for firms
that operate in highly competitive industries like
retailing. Dick and Basu (1994) have defined
consumer loyalty as “the relationship between
relative attitude and repeat patronage.”
Both the academicians and practitioners con-
sider consumer loyalty to be important because
of its numerous benefits to the firm. These
include lower costs associated with retaining ex-
isting consumers than constantly recruiting new
ones especially within mature and competitive
markets like retailing (Ehrenberg & Goodhardt,
230 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
2000). Loyal consumers tend to outspend other
consumers by ratios that can range from 5:1 in
the hotel industry to 16:1 in the retail sector
(Bagozzi, Baumgartner, & Pieters, 1998). Shoe-
maker and Lewis (1999) have concluded that
loyal consumers are thought to act as informa-
tion channels, informally linking networks of
friends, relatives, and other potential customers
to the organization. Considering these benefits,
it is not surprising that a vast stream of research
has deliberated over the different antecedents of
loyalty.
Consumer satisfaction has been regularly
found to be a major antecedent to loyalty and
WOM communication (Bearden & Teel, 1983;
Ranaweera & Prabhu, 2003). Hallowell (1996)
concluded that satisfaction is related to con-
sumer loyalty and consumer loyalty is related
to the profitability of a firm. Carpenter and
Fairhurst (2005) confirmed that in the context of
PLBs, consumer loyalty plays a mediating role
in the link between consumer satisfaction and
WOM communication. Dick and Basu (1994)
have put forward that there are very few stud-
ies that have investigated the influence of loy-
alty on WOM. Thus, it is sought to believe that
delivering a satisfying shopping experience to
the consumers may lead to loyalty, and this will
lead to WOM communication. Based on these
evidences, it is hypothesized that the same effect
will hold in the context of PLBs:
H3: Consumer’s satisfaction with PLBs has a
positive relationship with consumer’s loy-
alty to the PLBs.
H4: Consumer’s loyalty to the PLBs will have
a significant mediating effect on the posi-
tive relationship between consumer’s sat-
isfaction and consumer’s WOM communi-
cation about the PLBs.
Word-of-Mouth Communication
Many of us must have already visited a
restaurant recommended by a friend or watched
a movie because it was recommended by a
friend or family. This influential and persua-
sive process is known to the marketers as WOM
communication. Arndt (1967, p. 190) has de-
fined WOM communication as “oral, person-
to-person communication between a perceived
non-commercial communicator and a receiver
concerning a brand, a product, or a service of-
fered for sale.” WOM has a strong influence on
consumer’s perceptions of product and service,
and in turn, this leads to changes in judgments,
value ratings, and the likelihood of purchase
(Bone, 1995).
The focus of traditional WOM studies has
been primarily directed towards the study of
WOM by opinion leaders (Haywood, 1989),
its effects on the diffusion of new products
(Czepiel, 1974), WOM in the context of infor-
mation search behavior (Tan & Dolich, 1983),
and the antecedents of WOM and its relation-
ship with satisfaction and commitment (Brown,
Barry, Dacin, & Gunst, 2005).
Paridon and colleagues (2006) studied the ef-
fect of income on shopping value, consumer self-
confidence, and WOM and concluded that self
confidence mediated the effects of hedonic and
utilitarian experiences on WOM. While much
more has been written, the foregoing gives a
sample of the types of research and approaches
that have been used to look at WOM. Thus, it
is hypothesized that the same effect will hold in
the context of PLBs.
H5: Consumer’s satisfaction with the PLBs
has a positive relationship with consumer’s
WOM communication about the PLBs.
Intention to Switch
While a range of consumer behaviors re-
lated to consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction
have been explored, one of the more promi-
nent among them has been consumers’ intention
to switch. Consumer’s intention to switch has
multiple damaging effects on the firm. Foremost
among the effects, is the threat of the reduction
of market share and profitability. Furthermore,
there is a possibility of negative WOM. It can be
defined as consumers’ intention to stop consum-
ing or change the brand of purchase (Keaveney,
1995). The importance of retaining consumers is
evident from the findings of previous studies that
have indicated that when consumers terminate
their relationships with the firm, the firm may
 Anubhav A. Mishra
incur high costs. Keaveney (1995) has pointed
towards the fact that when firms lose a consumer
they are not only losing future earnings and
incurring the cost of finding new consumers, but
they are also probably losing a loyal consumer,
which means giving up high margins. Over a
time period, loyal consumers increase their ex-
penditure with the firm, and they become less
price-sensitive.
The problem becomes more serious if con-
sumers’ greater access to information and their
growing capacity to choose the best option is
considered. Consumers are becoming increas-
ingly intolerant of inconsistency or mediocrity,
and they have the freedom to choose to dissolve
the relationship as soon as any problem arises.
In this respect, Roos (2002) has pointed out that
there are a few critical relationships that are more
likely to end because of their context, which in-
cludes the ability of competitors and consumers
to adapt to changes. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that the same effect will hold in the context of
PLBs:
H6: Consumer’s satisfaction with PLBs has
a negative relationship with their intention
to switch PLBs.
Moderating Effect of Sociodemographic
Variables and Product Category
Frank and colleagues (1972) raised a ques-
tion that whether consumer’s buying behaviour
was determined primarily by certain general
consumer characteristics such as consumer’s
personality, socioeconomic, and demographic
factors, or is it also determined by certain
product-specific characteristics. A thorough re-
view of the past research has suggested that
indeed there are variations in consumer’s buy-
ing behavior based on these two character-
istics (e.g., Mittal & Kamakura, 2001; Venn
& Fone, 2005). It has been found that con-
sumer characteristics moderate the relationship
between satisfaction and its resultant behav-
ioral outcomes (Homburg & Giering, 2001;
Mägi, 2003; Mittal & Kamakura, 2001). In the
context of PLBs, Richardson and colleagues
(1996) put forward that since PLBs are sold
at a lower price when compared with national
231
brands, the demographic status of the con-
sumers affects their propensity to purchase.
On the other hand, Baltas and Doyle (1998)
contend that many of the demographic findings
into the patronization of PLBs are mixed, un-
clear or outdated.
Given the contradictory findings, the present
study investigates the moderating effect of three
sociodemographic (gender, age, and income)
and one situational (product category) variables
on the hypothesized relationship. These vari-
ables have been specifically selected because a
stream of past research has shown each to af-
fect behavioral outcomes. A concise discussion
of each of these potential moderators and their
resultant effect follows.
Gender
Previously shopping was considered to be a
female activity. Females were more likely than
males to shop for specific items (such as food
and grocery, and apparel), while males were in
charge of shopping for specialized items (such
as life insurance, cars, and house maintenance).
However, it has been observed that these trends
have phased out as the roles of men and women
tend to overlap gradually (Darley & Smith,
1995). The social role theory posits that socially
men are expected to engage in risky behavior;
therefore, men are more willing to take more
risks when compared with females (Powell &
Ansic, 1997). Given the risky nature of switching
products and trying something new, men can be
said to be less likely to remain loyal if their satis-
faction levels go down. On the contrary, women
are expected to react comparatively less strongly
to changes in their satisfaction levels.
Since gender has been shown to affect the
process of consumption, it is likely that gen-
der differences exist in shopping value and con-
sumer satisfaction. Zeithaml (1988) has posited
that males and females differ in many aspects
of consumption and product choice. Mittal and
Kamakura (2001) and Homburg and Giering
(2001) have concluded that the relationship be-
tween satisfaction and repurchase behavior is
stronger for men when compared with women.
Chang, Burns, and Francis (2004) concluded that
the role of hedonic shopping value in shopping
232 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
experience satisfaction differed between males
and females. This has been further confirmed
by Carpenter and Moore (2009) that regardless
of the type of store, females perceived signifi-
cantly higher levels of hedonic shopping value
than males. Research has also found males to be
significantly lower than females in task orien-
tation (Kavussanu & Roberts, 2001), thus sug-
gesting that the utilitarian shopping value may
be lower for males. Thus, it is proposed that in
the context of PLBs:
H7: The relationship among shopping value,
consumer’s satisfaction and its behavioral
outcomes is significantly moderated by the
gender of the consumers.
Age
A review of the past literature emphasizes on
the importance of consumers’ age in the anal-
ysis of their behavior. Age has been shown to
moderate the relationship between satisfaction
and loyalty (Baumann et al., 2005; Homburg
& Giering, 2001). Consumers on the higher
side of age tend to be more loyal to a partic-
ular brand than younger consumers (Lambert-
Pandraud, Laurent, & Lapersonne, 2005).
However, the expected relationship between
age and loyalty is not universal. On the basis
of information processing theory, a few stud-
ies (Wilkes, 1992; Yoon, 1997) have concluded
that older consumers are more likely to rely on
heuristic or schema-based forms of information
processing and are less likely to seek new in-
formation and therefore, they can be expected
to rely on fewer decision making criteria, like
their perceived satisfaction. On the contrary, a
study by the American Association of Retired
Persons has found that older consumers are just
as apt to switching brands or experimenting with
alternative brands as are younger consumers (as
quoted in Moos, 2004). Mittal and Kamakura
(2001) confirmed that the relationship between
satisfaction scores and repurchase behavior for
is stronger for younger consumers than for older
consumers.
Quite a few studies have established that the
middle age segment is the most loyal. Even
though their results did not support the hypoth-
esis, Richardson and colleagues (1996) have
suggested that the experience of older shop-
pers increases their propensity to consider PLBs
as viable alternatives to national brands. Echo-
ing their assumptions, McGoldrick and Andre
(1997) have stated that loyal consumers are
more likely to belong to the middle-aged group.
Wright and Sparks (1999) have further laid sup-
port to this and affirmed to the existence high
loyalty in the 35–44 age-group. Homburg and
Giering (2001) have concluded that age mod-
erates the link between satisfaction with the
product and loyalty, such that they are stronger
for older consumers. On the contrary, Dick and
colleagues (1995) found that older shoppers
purchased national brands while younger con-
sumers favored PLBs. Mägi (2003) concluded
that age is not a significant moderator in the rela-
tionship between consumer satisfaction and loy-
alty in the case of food and grocery consumers.
On the basis of these theoretical reasoning and
the empirical evidence, the present study expects
that in the context of PLBs:
H8: The relationship among shopping value,
consumer’s satisfaction and its behavioral
outcomes is significantly moderated by the
age of the consumers.
Income
Investigating income differences has been a
prevailing subject in marketing due to its con-
structive contribution to the development of re-
tail strategies. The impact of income in relation
with utilitarian and hedonic value has been men-
tioned in previous studies (Bellenger, Steinberg,
& Stanton, 1976; Sit, Merrilees, & Birch, 2003).
A case in point, it has been concluded that low-
income consumers have a tendency to be ap-
pealed by the hedonic facet of shopping. On the
contrary, high-income consumers are attracted
more by the utilitarian dimension of shopping.
A large body of research has pointed to-
wards the negative linkage between income and
consumer loyalty (Korgaonkar, Lund, & Price,
1985; Zeithaml, 1985). Predictably, consumers
with higher incomes tend to easily switch prod-
ucts when they become dissatisfied or bored.
While on the other hand, consumers with low in-
come are quite probable to avoid search costs and
continue to patronize the product, even if their
 Anubhav A. Mishra
satisfaction levels decline. It is also evident that
when compared with high-income consumers,
they incur relatively higher opportunity costs
when switching products. As a result, maintain-
ing an unsatisfactory relationship can be pre-
ferred (in terms of overall utility) over searching
for and switching to a new product that has the
potential to turn out to be even worse (i.e., of-
fer less satisfaction) than the current one. It can
also be inferred that since income and education
are correlated, therefore, consumers with low
income are likely to prefer to avoid the “cost of
thinking” (Shugan, 1980) and use less decision-
making cues, such as satisfaction, when evaluat-
ing products.
Therefore, a change in the satisfaction level of
consumers with a low income is likely to result
in a greater change in loyalty levels than it would
for consumers with a higher income. This can be
ascribed to the fact that consumers with lower
income lack other variance-explaining informa-
tion cues, whereas consumers with higher in-
come search for information cues other than their
current satisfaction level to determine their re-
purchase intention. Additionally, Homburg and
Giering (2001) have found partial evidence of
the moderating effect of income on the rela-
tionship between satisfaction and loyalty. With
respect to these empirical results and the theo-
retical reasoning, it is hypothesized that in the
context of PLBs:
H9: The relationship among shopping value,
consumer’s satisfaction, and its behavioral
outcomes is significantly moderated by the
income of the consumers.
Product Category
Product categories may play an important role
in consumers’ evaluation of the hypothesized re-
lationships. A consumer usually starts judging a
product in order to find the benefits it brings and
the satisfaction it promises (Reynolds & Beatty,
1999). Generic or unbranded product, especially,
PLB products, would be enough to start such a
selection process. Way back in 1956, Cunning-
ham concluded that consumers were differen-
tially loyal to different products and this was
attributable to the products themselves and to the
existent differences in consumer’s attitudes to
233
different products. Wind and Frank (1969) con-
cluded that consumer’s loyalty differed across
different product categories. The analysis of con-
sumer buying behavior across product categories
requires the control for the similarity of the prod-
uct categories involved (Blattberg, Peacock, &
Sen, 1976). It follows the supposition that con-
sumer buying strategies will be similar if the
product categories are similar. Conversely, if the
product categories are dissimilar, consumer buy-
ing behavior is probable to be different. McNeill
and Wyeth (2011) suggest that product cate-
gory is the most important factor in determin-
ing choice between a private label and a branded
good.
Many consumer packaged goods categories
are dominated in terms of the number of avail-
able range of products by the PLB retailers.
Some of them have long product lines in mul-
tiple categories (i.e., food and grocery, con-
sumer durables, and apparel). For example,
Pantaloon Retail offers a wide range of PLB
products across these three product categories
by making use of well-recognized umbrella
brand names. Prior research in PLBs has exam-
ined not only generic grocery products but has
gone in depth to even examine confectionery,
specifically chocolate bars (Lybeck, Holmlund-
Rytkönen, & Sääksjärvi, 2006). Thus, the fol-
lowing is expected in the context of PLBs:
H10: The relationship among shopping value,
consumer’s satisfaction and its behavioral
outcomes is significantly moderated by the
category of PLBs.
METHOD
Measurement
A survey questionnaire to measure the rela-
tionships among the variables of this study and
also to collect demographic characteristics of the
respondents has been designed from measures
used in previous studies. All scales were devel-
oped and validated in previous research, and sub-
jected to psychometric assessment (all of which
had alphas >.7). A multi-item 5-point Likert-
type scale was used with the indicators rang-
ing from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In
234 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

order to gain objective views and guard against TABLE 1. Socio-demographics and
faulty assumptions, and detect any shortcomings consumers by product categories
in the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted
(n = 121). Frequency
Shopping value scale (15 items) was adapted Demographic Variable (n = 500) Percentage
from Babin et al. (1994) (e.g., “I could buy what
Age (in completed years)
I really needed,” “I enjoyed being engrossed in 18–25 153 30.6
exciting new products”). 26–35 187 37.4
Consumer satisfaction (four items) and con- 36–45 95 19.0
sumer loyalty (six items) scales were adapted 46–55 54 10.8
55 and above 11 2.2
from Reynolds and Beatty (1999) (e.g., “Over- Gender
all, I am satisfied with the product,” “Once I find Male 258 51.6
a product I like, I stick with it”). Female 242 48.4
WOM communication scale (6 items) was Marital Status
Married 279 55.8
adapted from Harrison-Walker (2001) (e.g., “I Unmarried 221 44.2
have told more people about that product than Educational Qualification
I have told about most other products,” “I Graduate 261 52.2
am proud to tell others that I purchase that Post Graduate 227 45.4
Others 12 2.4
product”). Employment Status
Consumers’ intention to switch scale (three Self Employment 93 18.6
items) was adapted from Athanassopoulos, Wage Employment 136 27.2
Gounaris, and Stathakopoulos (2001) (e.g., “In Professional 157 31.4
Student 87 17.4
the near future I intend to intensify my efforts to Others 27 5.4
find a better product,” “I have decided to switch Monthly Income (in Rs.)
to a different product”). Below 10,000 97 19.4
10,000–15,000 48 9.6
15,001–20,000 62 12.4
Participants and Procedure 20,001–25,000 145 29.0
Above 25,000 148 29.6
The study was conducted in February 2012 Product Category
in two metropolitan cities, New Delhi (situ- Food and Grocery 175 35.0
Consumer Durables 152 30.4
ated in the North Central region of India) and Apparel 173 34.6
Chennai (situated in the Southern region of In-
dia) so as to have a representative sample from
different geographical locations of India. A two-
step process was undertaken to reach at the target were screened to ensure that only those who had
sample. The first step was to identify the total actually made a PLB product purchase in the se-
number of selected PLB retail stores (top 2 re- lected product category from that particular PLB
tailers having the maximum depth of PLBs) in retailer in the past month were selected. The de-
each city. From this list, eight PLB retail stores mographic profile of the sample (see Table 1)
were selected on the basis of simple random was compared with that of the Indian population.
sampling in each of the three product categories The sample represented well the general Indian
located in the four geographical areas (north, population.
east, south, and west) of the two selected cities.
In these identified PLB retail stores, the data
RESULTS
were collected from a mall-intercept survey. Ev-
ery third consumer (n = 500) was approached Method of Analysis
by the researcher himself during different times
of the day and on different days of the week and The data analysis was directed to investi-
the weekend, so as to minimize periodicity and gate the existense of the proposed relationship.
noncoverage biases. No monetary incentive was First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was
offered for their participation. The respondents performed to test the measurement model
 Anubhav A. Mishra
and establish the unidimensionality of the
constructs. Thereafter, the proposed structural
model was estimated by using two different sta-
tistical methods so as to make sure that the
structural model was robust following Kujala
and Johnson’s (1993) recommendations. The
primary estimation method was partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS
SEM). Statistical software SmartPLS 2.0 was
used (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). Subse-
quently, a covariance based structural equation
modeling (CB SEM) analysis using the maxi-
mum likelihood estimation was performed with
the help of AMOS 16.0. Furthermore, a multi-
group SEM was performed to assess the mod-
erating effect of the sociodemographic variables
and product categories.
Validation of Constructs
Since previously established scales were
used, the reliability of the constructs was exam-
ined by using conventional methods. Cronbach’s
alpha of each construct exceeded the suggested
cut-off value of .70 (see Table 2). The psychome-
tric properties of the constructs were evaluated
by conducting CFA. Since all the items loaded
highly on their respective factors and the average
variance extracted (AVE) by the underlying la-
tent variables exceeded .50 (Fornell & Larcker,
1981), the case for convergent validity was sup-
ported (see Table 2). The AVE for each latent
variable exceeded the respective squared corre-
lation between the variables thus providing ev-
idence of discriminant validity. Consistent with
the different cut-off criteria provided in the lit-
erature (Hu & Bentler, 1999), it was concluded
that the hypothesized causal model was within
the acceptable range of all the fit statistics. The
classic goodness-of-fit index, chi-square was
χ 2 = 789.636 with 392 df (p > .05), CMIN
(χ 2/df ) = 2.014, GFI = .906, CFI = .944, and
RMSEA = .046. Based on these results, the mea-
surement model indicated an acceptable model
fit of the data.
Common Method Bias
Since the data were collected from single
source, there might be a possibility of risk that
common method bias may endanger the interpre-
235
tation of the results. In order to assess this bias,
the present study has made use of the Harman
one-factor test, and a CFA-based approach to
the one-factor test (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992).
The results of the Harman one-factor test re-
vealed that a single factor did not account for all
variables, suggesting that method bias does not
pose a serious threat to the data. Moreover, the
CFA-based approach provided similar results as
the traditional test.
Hypothesis Testing
Structural equation modeling using PLS SEM
and CB SEM was used to test all the hypotheses.
Please refer to Tables 3 to 8 for a summary of the
results of the hypotheses tests. The influence of
utilitarian and hedonic value on consumer satis-
faction is positive and significant. The findings
also support the influence of consumer satisfac-
tion on consumer loyalty, consumer WOM com-
munication, and consumer intention to switch.
Thus, H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6 are supported.
Mediating Effect
Mediation is said to exist when a predictor
(i.e., consumer satisfaction) affects a dependent
variable (i.e., WOM communication) indirectly
through an intervening variable (i.e., consumer
loyalty). Mediators tend to specify when certain
effects will hold. However, MacKinnon et al.
(2002) have reported that the frequently used
Baron and Kenny (1986) approach has the low-
est statistical power compared with other meth-
ods of mediation analysis because the Z statistic
tends to be asymmetric and highly skewed.
To correct for this asymmetry, the present
study followed the recommendations of Shrout
and Bolger (2002) that put forward a bootstrap
procedure to estimate the significance of the in-
direct effects. The results indicated that the in-
direct effect of consumer satisfaction to WOM
communication through consumer loyalty was
significant. The difference between the total and
the direct effects was .174 and a 95% BCa (bias
corrected and accelerated) bootstrap CI (confi-
dence interval) from .079 to .231 (= 0).
The results of PLS SEM produced a standard-
ized path estimate of 0.304 (t = 4.222). CB SEM
produced a standardized path estimate of .218
236 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

TABLE 2. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Standardized Cronbach’s
Construct Scale items loading Critical ratio alpha CR AVE

Utilitarian Value I accomplished just what I wanted .81 14.74 .85 .87 .83
to during that shopping trip.
I could buy what I really needed. .83 15.37
While shopping, I found just the .76 13.19
item(s) I was looking for.
I was disappointed because I had .61 1.00
to go to another store to
Hedonic Value That shopping trip was truly a joy. .73 9.51 .80 .81 .69
I continued to shop, not because I .69 8.20
had to, but because I wanted to.
That shopping trip truly felt like an .52 5.52
escape.
Compared to other things I could .71 8.96
have done, the time spent
shopping was truly enjoyable.
I enjoyed being engrossed in .77 10.72
exciting new products.
I enjoyed that shopping trip for its .66 7.88
own sake, not just for the items
I may have purchased.
I had a good time because I was .54 5.75
able to act on the ‘spur of the
moment.’
During the shopping trip, I felt the .61 6.83
excitement of the hunt.
While shopping, I was able to .56 6.01
forget my problems.
While shopping, I felt a sense of .65 7.69
adventure.
That shopping trip was a very .53 1.00
nice time out.
Consumer I am pleased with the product. .82 21.89 .89 .92 .75
Satisfaction
I am happy with the product. .83 21.33
I am contended with the product. .81 21.45
Overall, I am satisfied with the .82 1.00
product.
Consumer I am very loyal to that product. .78 18.18 .89 .91 .75
Loyalty
In the future, I plan to purchase .76 17.86
the same product.
I am very committed to .75 17.44
purchasing the same product.
I consider myself to be very loyal .73 16.90
to that product.
I have favorite products I buy over .71 19.57
and over again.
Once I find a product I like, I stick .81 1.00
with it.
Consumer WOM I mention that product to others .72 15.05 .86 .89 .79
quite frequently.
I have told more people about .69 14.75
that product than I have told
about most other products.
I do not miss an opportunity to tell .68 16.23
others about that product.
(Continued on next page)
 Anubhav A. Mishra 237

TABLE 2. Results of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Continued)

Standardized Cronbach’s
Construct Scale items loading Critical ratio alpha CR AVE

When I tell others about that .75 15.45

product, I tend to talk about the
product in great detail.
I have only good things to say .71 16.32
about that product.
I am proud to tell others that I .75 1.00
purchase that product.
Intention to In the near future I intend to .68 16.66 .84 .90 .76
Switch intensify my efforts to find a
better product.
In the last six months I have .90 16.39
thought very seriously to switch
to a different product.
I have decided to switch to a .84 1.00
different product.

Notes. Model fit statistics: χ2 = 789.636 (df = 392, p > .05), GFI = .906, CFI = .944, RMSEA = .046; AVE = average variance extracted,
CR = composite reliability.

(p < .05). However, to further confirm the signif-
icance of the mediation effect, Sobel’s test was
also conducted. It supported the case for a partial
mediating effect (z = 2.746, p < .01) indicating
that consumer’s loyalty partially mediated the
positive relationship between consumer’s satis-
faction and consumer’s WOM communication.
Based on the results, H4 was supported.
Moderating Effect of Gender
To examine the moderator effects in the struc-
tural model, the present study has made use of
the well-established multigroup analysis using
a two-step procedure. Gender was divided into
two intervals, male (n = 348) and female (n =
319). To begin with, an overall χ 2 difference test
between a constrained (equality restriction on all
six constructs across the subgroups) model and
a general unconstrained model (all six paths set
to vary freely across subgroups) was conducted
for each of the four moderator variables (Hom-
burg & Giering, 2001). The results lead to the
non-acceptance of the null hypothesis for each
of the four moderator variables (χ 2 ≥ 14.195,
df = 6, p < .01). This finding showed that all
the moderator variables were relevant and dis-
played measurement invariance. Therefore, the
specific moderating effect of each moderator on
all the relationships (i.e., paths) along with its
statistical significance and direction for each in-
dividual path was examined.
With regards to gender, the results showed
a significant moderating impact for all the six
effects (see Table 5). Since it was found that

TABLE 3. Hypotheses Tests–PLS SEM

Paths Structural coefficients SE t-Value Hypotheses

H1: Utilitarian value → consumer satisfaction 0.417 0.083 5.0204 Supported

H2: Hedonic value → consumer satisfaction 0.289 0.095 3.0421 Supported
H3: Consumer satisfaction → consumer loyalty 0.781 0.047 16.6172 Supported
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM communication 0.304 0.072 4.2222 Supported
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM communication 0.543 0.103 5.2718 Supported
H6: Consumer satisfaction → consumer’s intention to switch −0.686 0.132 5.1969 Supported
238 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING

TABLE 4. Hypotheses Tests–CB SEM

Paths Structural coefficients SE C.R. Hypotheses

H1: Utilitarian value → consumer satisfaction 0.489∗∗∗ 0.063 7.769 Supported

H2: Hedonic value → consumer satisfaction 0.353∗∗∗ 0.077 4.593 Supported
H3: Consumer satisfaction → consumer loyalty 0.801∗∗∗ 0.054 14.893 Supported
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM communication 0.218∗∗ 0.078 2.483 Supported
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM communication 0.616∗∗∗ 0.091 6.896 Supported
H6: Consumer satisfaction → consumer’s intention to switch −0.567∗∗∗ 0.061 −9.365 Supported
∗∗
p < 0.05. ∗∗∗ p < 0.01.

consumer loyalty had a partial mediating effect
on the positive relationship between consumer
satisfaction and consumer WOM communica-
tion, a moderated mediation analysis was per-
formed. The partial mediation was more promi-
nent for females (β = .348, p < .05) than for
males (β = .275, p < .05). Results of boot-
strap CIs corroborate these results. The differ-
ence between the total and the direct effects was
.167 and a 95% BCa bootstrap CI from .119
to .201 (= 0). Based on the results, H7 was
supported.
Table 6). The results for moderated mediation
showed that the partial mediation was more
prominent for age-group 2 (β = .284, p < .05)
and was followed by age-group 4 (β = .219, p <
.05). The results also revealed that this relation-
ship was not significant for age-group 1 (β =
.177, p > .1) and age-group 3 (β = –.009, p
> .1). Results of bootstrap CIs corroborate these
results. The difference between the total and the
direct effects was .218 and a 95% BCa boot-
strap CI from .103 to .224 (= 0). Based on these
results, H8 was supported.

Moderating Effect of Age Moderating Effect of Income

Age was divided into four mutually exclu-
sive intervals. These were age-group 1 = 18
to 25 years (n = 143), age-group 2 = 26 to
35 years (n = 187), age-group 3 = 36 to 45 years
(n = 159), and age-group 4 = 46 years and
older (n = 178). The results showed a significant
moderating impact for all the six effects (see
Income was divided into two mutually exclu-
sive intervals: low-income group = Rs. 20,000
and below (n = 276), and high-income group =
Rs. 20,001 and above (n = 391). The results
showed a significant moderating impact for all
the six effects (see Table 6). The results for
moderated mediation analysis showed that the

TABLE 5. Hypotheses Tests–Moderating Effect of Gender

Paths Male Female χ2 (df = 1) Hypotheses

H1: Utilitarian value →consumer satisfaction 0.421∗∗∗ 0.369∗∗∗ 4.176∗∗ Supported

H2: Hedonic value → consumer satisfaction 0.343∗∗∗ 0.396∗∗∗ 4.019∗∗ Supported
H3: Consumer satisfaction → consumer loyalty 0.819∗∗∗ 0.732∗∗∗ 7.151∗∗∗ Supported
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM communication 0.275∗∗ 0.348∗∗ 3.933∗∗ Supported
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM communication 0.534∗∗∗ 0.597∗∗∗ 5.397∗∗ Supported
H6: Consumer satisfaction → consumer’s intention to switch −0.529∗∗∗ −0.644∗∗∗ 9.622∗∗∗ Supported

Notes: χ2 (df = 6) for all constructs set equal across subgroups: 19.576∗∗ .
∗∗
p < 0.05. ∗∗∗ p < 0.01.
χ2 represents the difference in χ2 between the constrained and the free models for the path being tested with 1 degree of freedom.
A hypothesis is supported when at least five of six paths are significant.
 Anubhav A. Mishra 239

TABLE 6. Hypotheses Tests–Moderating Effect of Age

Structural coefficients
Paths 18 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 45 46 and above χ2 (df = 1) Hypotheses

H1: Utilitarian value → consumer 0.734∗∗∗ 0.831∗∗∗ 0.535∗∗ 0.067 ns 9.965∗∗∗ Supported
satisfaction
H2: Hedonic value → consumer 0.226∗∗ 0.516∗∗∗ 0.719∗∗∗ 0.029 ns 6.803∗∗∗ Supported
satisfaction
H3: Consumer satisfaction → 0.874∗∗∗ 0.812∗∗∗ 0.897∗∗∗ 0.443∗∗ 13.372∗∗∗ Supported
consumer loyalty
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM 0.177 ns 0.284∗∗ −0.009 ns 0.219∗∗ 3.997∗∗ Weak Support
communication
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM 0.614∗∗∗ 0.543∗∗∗ 0.721∗∗∗ 0.435∗ 7.676∗∗∗ Supported
communication
H6: Consumer satisfaction → −0.457∗∗∗ −0.425∗∗∗ −0.824∗∗∗ −0.416∗∗ 5.714∗∗ Supported
consumer’s intention to switch

Notes. χ2 (df = 6) for all constructs set equal across subgroups: 37.423∗∗ .
∗
p < 0.10. ∗ ∗ p < 0.05. ∗∗∗ p < 0.01. ns = not significant.
χ2 represents the difference in χ2 between the constrained and the free models for the path being tested with 1 degree of freedom.
A hypothesis is supported when at least five of six paths are significant and three subgroups are significant in each path.

partial mediation was more prominent for the
high-income group (β = .219, p < .05) than
for the low-income group (β = .181, p < .05).
Results of bootstrap CIs corroborate these re-
sults. The difference between the total and the
direct effects was .193 and a 95% BCa bootstrap
CI (confidence interval) from .93 to .181 (= 0).
Based on the results, H9 was supported.
Moderating Effect of Product Category
Three different product categories were se-
lected: group 1 = food and grocery (n = 233),
group 2 = consumer durables (n = 203), and
group 3 = apparel (n = 231). The results showed
a significant moderating impact for all the six ef-
fects (see Table 8). The results showed that the

TABLE 7. Hypotheses Tests–Moderating Effect of Income

Structural coefficients
Paths Low income High income χ2 (df = 1) Hypotheses

H1: Utilitarian value → consumer 0.458∗∗∗ 0.418∗∗∗ 5.572∗∗ Supported

satisfaction
H2: Hedonic value → consumer 0.299∗∗ 0.475∗∗ 6.007∗∗ Supported
satisfaction
H3: Consumer satisfaction → consumer 0.784∗∗∗ 0.697∗∗∗ 11.133∗∗∗ Supported
loyalty
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM 0.181∗∗ 0.219∗∗ 4.101∗∗ Supported
communication
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM 0.636∗∗∗ 0.603∗∗∗ 5.368∗∗ Supported
communication
H6: Consumer satisfaction → consumer’s −0.478∗∗∗ −0.595∗∗∗ 5.197∗∗ Supported
intention to switch

Notes. χ2 (df = 6) for all constructs set equal across subgroups: 29.951∗∗ .
∗∗
p < 0.05. ∗ ∗ ∗ p < 0.01.
χ2 represents the difference in χ2 between the constrained and the free models for the path being tested with 1 degree of freedom.
A hypothesis is supported when at least five of six paths are significant and three subgroups are significant in each path.
240 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
TABLE 8. Hypotheses Tests–Moderating Effect of Product Category
Paths
H1: Utilitarian value → consumer
satisfaction
H2: Hedonic value → consumer
satisfaction
H3: Consumer satisfaction → consumer
loyalty
H4: Consumer loyalty → WOM
communication
H5: Consumer satisfaction → WOM
communication
H6: Consumer satisfaction → consumer’s
intention to switch
Notes. χ2 (df = 6) for all constructs set equal across subgroups: 31.357∗ ∗ .
∗∗
p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ p < 0.01.
χ2 represents the difference in χ2 between the constrained and the free models for the path being tested with 1 degree of freedom.
A hypothesis is supported when at least five of six paths are significant and three subgroups are significant in each path.
partial mediation was more prominent for con-
sumer durables (β = .236, p < .05) and was
followed by apparel (β = .213, p < .05) and
food and grocery (β = .179, p < .05). Results of
bootstrap CIs corroborate these results. The dif-
ference between the total and the direct effects
was .197, and a 95% BCa bootstrap CI (confi-
dence interval) from .123 to .187 (= 0). Based
on these results, H10 was supported.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Main Effects
The objective of the present study was to ex-
amine the relationships among utilitarian and
hedonic value, consumer satisfaction and the re-
sultant behavioral intentions. It was also endeav-
ored to find the moderating effect of certain so-
ciodemographic factors and product category on
these relationships. The uniqueness of the study
lies in the fact that the relationships and mod-
erating effects were examined in the context of
PLBs.
The findings have supported the conceptual
model. In the context of PLBs, utilitarian
value has a greater positive effect on consumer
satisfaction than hedonic value. The sheer
value proposition of PLBs lies in their ability
Structural coefficients
Food and grocery Consumer durables Apparel Hypotheses
0.521∗∗∗ 0.631∗∗∗ 0.573∗∗∗ Supported
0.318∗∗ 0.353∗∗ 0.374∗∗∗ Supported
0.739∗∗∗ 0.601∗∗∗ 0.843∗∗∗ Supported
0.179∗∗ 0.236∗∗ 0.213∗∗ Supported
0.514∗∗∗ 0.535∗∗∗ 0.782∗∗∗ Supported
−0.441∗∗∗ −0.619∗∗∗ −0.400∗∗∗ Supported
to provide more of utilitarian benefits to the
consumers so as to compete with the national
brands. PLB retailers should lay emphasis on
providing the right product at the right place
and time. However, it must also be realized
that consumers also desire hedonic value from
the shopping experience such as excitement,
escapism, entertainment, fantasy, and fun.
They should also understand that important
outcomes such as satisfaction, loyalty, WOM
communication, and intention to switch are
linked to the provision of these values (Babin
et al., 1994; Cottet, Lichtle, & Plichon, 2006;
Lam, Shankar, Erramilli, & Murthy, 2004).
In the context of PLBs, consumer satisfaction
has a strong positive effect on consumer loy-
alty. Dick and Basu (1994) have also regarded
consumer satisfaction as a major determinant of
loyalty. Although it can be argued that other vari-
ables not examined in the present study might
also contribute to the formation of loyalty, sat-
isfaction appears to be an important antecedent.
Keeping this in view, PLB retailers should rec-
ognize that in order to create a loyal consumer
base, they must strive to satisfy the desires and
needs of the consumers. As envisaged, one way
in which this can be done is through the de-
livery of utilitarian and hedonic values. They
should also take into consideration the benefit
that consumer satisfaction provides by its link
 Anubhav A. Mishra
with WOM communication and consumer’s in-
tention to switch. Since conative variables me-
diate the relationship between affective and be-
havioral constructs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980),
consumer loyalty is also found to partially me-
diate the relationship between satisfaction and
behavioral intentions (Chiou & Droge, 2006).
Thus, the delivery of satisfying experiences can
lead to the formation of consumer loyalty, and
this in turn would lead to the consumer engag-
ing in WOM communication about the PLBs.
The results are in line with the findings of past
studies (e.g., Jones & Reynolds, 2006; Seiders,
Voss, Grewal, & Godfrey, 2005). It is also to
be noted that although many studies have found
that consumer satisfaction with a brand or seller
leads to future patronage intention, yet many
studies (e.g., Oliver, 1999; Stoel, Wickliffe, &
Kyu, 2004) have failed to provide a strong link-
age.
It is also confirmed that consumer satisfaction
has a positive effect on WOM communication.
Previous findings also indicate that satisfaction
is highly correlated with behavioural responses
such as positive WOM communication, and
repurchase intentions (e.g., Athanassopoulos
et al., 2001; Szymanski & Henard, 2001). It
was also attempted to ascertain the relationship
between consumer satisfaction and consumer’s
intention to switch the PLBs. The results have
confirmed a negative relationship among the two
constructs. This result is in line with the current
understanding of the relationship between the
two constructs in the literature (e.g., Bansal
& Taylor, 1999; Keaveney, 1995). Thus, the
more satisfied consumers are, the less are their
propensities to switch.
Moderating Effects
The hypothesized moderating effect of
gender on the whole relationship threw some
interesting insights. The results have supported
the findings of past studies and concluded
that there are variations in consumer’s buying
behavior. The results have confirmed the
findings of Chang et al. (2004) that the role of
hedonic shopping value in shopping experience
satisfaction differed between males and females.
Furthermore, the results have also validated the
241
findings of Carpenter and Moore (2009) that
regardless of the type of store, females perceived
significantly higher levels of hedonic shopping
value than did males. It has been found pre-
viously that gender moderates the relationship
between satisfaction and its resultant behavioral
outcomes (e.g., Baumann et al., 2005).
The findings support that since PLBs are sold
at a lower price compared with national brands,
the demographic status of the consumers af-
fects their propensity to purchase. On the other
hand, the findings have thrown more light on the
dilemma of Baltas and Doyle (1998) that many
of the demographic findings into the patroniz-
ing of PLBs are mixed, unclear or outdated.
The results have also substantiated the fact that
the risky nature of switching products and try-
ing something new, men can be said to be less
likely to remain loyal if their satisfaction levels
go down (Homburg & Giering, 2001; Mittal &
Kamakura, 2001). On the contrary, women are
expected to react comparatively less strongly to
changes in their satisfaction levels.
The moderating effect of age on the whole
relationship produced some mixed findings. The
older consumers (46 years and above) seemed
to be indifferent with the hedonic and utilitar-
ian aspects of consumer shopping value. On the
basis of the information processing theory, con-
sumers belonging to the older age group can
be expected to rely on fewer decision making
criteria, like their shopping value. Contrary to
the popular belief that consumers on the higher
side of age tend to be more loyal to a particu-
lar brand than younger consumers, the older age
group consumers demonstrated the lowest levels
of loyalty. They also showed weak propensity to
recommend the products. However, they were
the most disinclined to switch the products com-
pared with the younger age group.
Echoing the findings of previous studies
(McGoldrick & Andre, 1997; Wright & Sparks,
1999), the present study has also confirmed that
the middle age group consumers (36 to 45 years)
are the most loyal. When it comes to shopping
for PLBs, consumers in the youngest age group
(18 to 25 years) gave more importance to the
presence of utilitarian value than to the hedonic
value. Another peculiarity with this age group
was that the mediating effect of consumer
242 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
loyalty in the relationship between consumer
satisfaction and WOM communication was not
significant. Thus, for them being satisfied was
more important to recommend the products than
being loyal.
A major cause of concern for PLB retailers
is the older consumer’s indifference with utili-
tarian and hedonic values. The physical aspects
of the PLB stores should both make it easy for
them to move around the store with a utilitar-
ian orientation while simultaneously triggering
them with a hedonic orientation. It can also be
said that these consumers should be motivated
to enjoy shopping. They may therefore patron-
age stores with hedonic dimensions if they at the
same time are allowed to justify the shopping
(i.e., utilitarian shopping).
With regard to the moderating effect of in-
come, it was found that utilitarian value had a
profound positive effect on consumer satisfac-
tion for both income groups, albeit higher for
the lower-income group. This stands at contra-
diction with the findings of Sit and colleagues
(2003) that high-income consumers are attracted
more by the utilitarian dimension of shopping.
Hedonic value had more effect on consumer sat-
isfaction for the high-income group consumers.
It is also confirmed that a change in the satis-
faction level of consumers with a low income
is likely to result in a greater change in loy-
alty levels than it would for consumers with a
higher income. This can be ascribed to the fact
that consumers with lower-income lack other
variance-explaining information cues, whereas
consumers with higher-income search for infor-
mation cues other than their current satisfaction
level to determine their repurchase intention.
Additionally, Homburg and Giering (2001) have
found partial evidence of the moderating effect
of income on the relationship between consumer
satisfaction and loyalty.
Both categories of consumers tended to rec-
ommend the products, although it is slightly
higher for the low-income consumers. It is also
substantiated that consumers with higher in-
comes tend to easily switch products when they
become dissatisfied or bored. On the other hand,
consumers with low-income are quite probable
to avoid search costs and continue to patron-
ize the product, even if their satisfaction levels
decline. The improved quality and image of
PLBs appeal to consumers on the lower side of
income.
The last hypothesis intended to test the whole
conceptual relationship’s ability to be true for
different categories of PLBs. The positive ef-
fect of utilitarian value on consumer satisfaction
was the strongest in the consumer durables cate-
gory. The absolute price benefit that consumers
derive out of this purchase when compared
with national brands is the main reason behind
this finding. The same is the case for apparel.
The positive effect of hedonic value on con-
sumer satisfaction was the highest for the apparel
category.
Consumers tended to be the most loyal when
satisfied for the apparel category. It is also
important to note that the above relationship is
comparatively weaker for the consumer durables
category. The presence of a large number of
product options from national brands in this cat-
egory is hindering the formation of consumer
loyalty via the satisfaction route. This reason
can also be ascribed to the reason for having the
highest intention to switch in this category. Re-
garding the positive effect of consumer satisfac-
tion on WOM communication, again the apparel
category is the comprehensive winner.
The results have provided a validation of the
shopping value/loyalty framework in the con-
text of previously uninvestigated area–PLBs and
that too in an emerging economy like India.
Therefore, the findings help to begin the pro-
cess of organizing a robust model for under-
standing the link between shopping value and
related important outcome variables like con-
sumer satisfaction, consumer loyalty, consumer
WOM communication, and intention to switch
along with the moderating effects of sociode-
mographic variables and different product cate-
gories of PLB.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTION
The foregoing recommendations should be
considered in the light of some limitations. Al-
though, the respondents represented different ge-
ographical locations of the country, yet a more
 Anubhav A. Mishra
detailed study covering many tier-2 and tier-3
cities can be undertaken. It is also acknowl-
edged that there might be other variables apart
from utilitarian and hedonic values that affect
the satisfaction-loyalty-WOM communication
chain. Furthermore, it is also important to take
into consideration that the data were collected
only once. A longitudinal study that allows for
the comparison of the results over time was not
conducted. The findings reflect the respondent’s
attitudes, feelings, and behavior at a single point
in time.
As has been previously discussed, the cur-
rent body of research on shopping value/ loyalty
framework in the context of PLB retailing in
India is in an early stage of development. The
major emphasis of future research should be to
examine the effect of other facets of the retail
environment on the key outcomes of the present
study. For example, apart from shopping value,
other retail aspects like PLB merchandise assort-
ment, store atmosphere, music, scents, store lo-
cation, perceived human crowding, and waiting
time should be considered. Additionally, trust
and past consumer experience with PLBs may
also be an important influence on the constructs
under study. It is also thought that other moder-
ating variables like consumer’s education levels,
shopping mood, shopping role in the household,
and frequency of purchase of PLBs may also
help explain more variance in the outcome con-
structs.
Future research efforts can also focus on the
identification of particular personality, lifestyle,
or situational characteristics of the consumers
to segment them into meaningful and profitable
clusters. PLB retailers’ awareness of these dif-
ferent consumer profivles can help them im-
prove their products, store environment, and
communication approach. Further studies can
also apply the measures of shopping value across
different cultures such as Asian culture and
American culture and compare them. This would
contribute towards the understanding and as-
sessing of differences in different market con-
ditions. Country-specific measures can also be
developed to examine the constructs. Addition-
ally, replication studies focusing on different
types of retail stores can contribute towards the
generalizability across various types of retail
243
establishments. Finally, a qualitative analysis in
the form of personal interviews and focus groups
will be able to provide richer insights into con-
sumers’ PLB shopping behaviour, more specifi-
cally, the role of hedonic shopping value.
REFERENCES
Ailawadi, K. (2001). The retail power-performance conun-
drum: What have we learned? Journal of Retailing,
77(3), 299–318.
Ailawadi, K., Pauwels, K., & Steenkamp, J. (2008). Private-
label use and store loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72,
19–30.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Arndt, J. (1967). Role of product-related conversations in
the diffusion of a new product. Journal of Marketing
Research, 4, 291–295.
Athanassopoulos, A., Gounaris, S., & Stathakopoulos, V.
(2001). Behavioral responses to customer satisfaction:
An empirical study. European Journal of Marketing,
35, 687–707.
Babin, B., Darden, W., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or
fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value.
Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-
directed emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12(1), 1–26.
Baltas, G. (1997). Determinants of store brand choice: A be-
havioural analysis. Journal of Product and Brand Man-
agement, 6(5), 315–324.
Baltas, G., & Argouslidis, P. C. (2007). Consumer char-
acteristics and demand for store brands. International
Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 35,
328–341.
Baltas, G., & Doyle, P. (1998). An empirical analysis of pri-
vate brand demand recognizing heterogeneous prefer-
ences and choice dynamics. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 49(8), 790–798.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator–mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51(6),
1173–1182.
Bansal, H., & Taylor, S. (1999). The service provider
switching model (SPSM): A model of consumer switch-
ing behavior in the service industry. Journal of Service
Research, 2(2), 200–218.
Baumann, C., Burton, S., & Elliott, G. (2005). Determi-
nants of customer loyalty and share of wallet in retail
banking. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 9(3),
231–248.
Bearden, W., & Teel, J. (1983). Selected determinants of
consumer satisfaction and complaint reports. Journal of
Marketing Research, 20, 21–28.
244 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
Belk, R. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. In J. N. Sheth (Ed.),
Research in marketing (pp. 95–126). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Bellenger, D., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W. (1976). The
congruence of store image and self image. Journal of
Retailing, 52, 17–32.
Blattberg, R., Peacock, P., & Sen, S. (1976). Purchasing
strategies across product categories. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 3(3), 143–154.
Bone, P. (1995). Word-of-mouth effects on short-term and
long-term product judgments. Journal of Business Re-
search, 32(3), 213–223.
Brown, T., Barry, T., Dacin, P., & Gunst, R. (2005). Spread-
ing the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’
positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a
retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 33(2), 123–138.
Burt, S., & Davies, K. (2010). From the retail brands to the
retailer as a brand: Themes and issues in retail branding
research. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 38, 865–78.
Burt, S., & Sparks, L. (2002). Corporate branding, retail-
ing, and retail internationalization. Corporate Reputa-
tion Review, 5, 194–212.
Caldwell, M. (2001). Applying general living systems the-
ory to learn consumers’ sense making in attending per-
forming arts. Psychology & Marketing, 18(5), 497–511.
Carpenter, J., & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer shopping
value, satisfaction, and loyalty for retail apparel brands.
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(3),
256–269.
Carpenter, J., & Moore, M. (2009). Utilitarian and hedonic
shopping value in the US discount sector. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Service, 16(1), 68–74.
Carpenter, J., Moore, M., & Fairhurst, A. (2005). Consumer
shopping value for retail brands. Journal of Fashion
Marketing and Management, 9(1) 43–53.
Chang, E., Burns, L., & Francis, S. (2004). Gender differ-
ences in the dimensional structure of apparel shopping
satisfaction among Korean consumers: The role of he-
donic shopping value. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 22(4) 185–199.
Chiou, J.-S., & Droge, C. (2006). Service quality, trust, spe-
cific asset investment, and expertise: Direct and indirect
effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 613–627.
Corstjens, M., & Lal, R. (2000). Building store loyalty
through store brands. Journal of Marketing Research,
37(3), 281–291.
Cotterill, R., Putsis, W., & Dhar, R. (2000). Assessing the
competitive interaction between private labels and na-
tional brands. Journal of Business, 73, 109–137.
Cottet, P., Lichtle, M., & Plichon, V. (2006). The role of
value in services: A study in a retail environment. Jour-
nal of Consumer Marketing, 23(4), 219–227.
Cronin, J., Brady, M., & Hult, G. (2000). Assessing the ef-
fects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on con-
sumer behavioral intentions in service environments.
Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.
Cuneo, A., Lopez, P., & Yagüe, M. (2012). Measuring pri-
vate labels’ brand equity: A consumer perspective. Eu-
ropean Journal of Marketing, 46, 952–964.
Cunningham, R. (1956). Brand loyalty-what, where, how
much? Harvard Business Review, 34, 116–128.
Czepiel, J. (1974). Word-of-mouth processes in the dif-
fusion of a major technological innovation. Journal of
Marketing Research, 11(2), 172–180.
Darley, W., & Smith, R. (1995). Gender differences in in-
formation processing strategies: An empirical test of
the selectivity model in advertising response. Journal
of Advertising, 24(1), 41–59.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P., & Ridgway, N. (1990). Shopping
motives, emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal
of Retailing, 66(4), 408–427.
Day, E. (2002). The role of value in consumer satisfaction.
Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, 15, 22–32.
DeWulf, K., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Iacobucci, D.
(2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross-
country and cross-industry exploration. Journal of Mar-
keting, 65(4), 33–50.
Dick, A., & Basu, K. (1994). Consumer loyalty: Toward
an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–114.
Dick, A., Jain, A., & Richardson, P. (1995). Correlates
of store brand proneness: Some empirical observa-
tions. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 4(4),
15–22.
Ehrenberg, A., & Goodhart, G. (2000). New brands: Near
instant loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management,
16(6), 607–618.
File, K., & Prince, R. (1992). Positive word-of-mouth: Cus-
tomer satisfaction and buyer behaviour. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 10(1), 25–29.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and mea-
surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39–50.
Gázquez-Abad, J., & Sanchez-Perez, M. (2009). Char-
acterising the deal-proneness of consumers by anal-
ysis of price sensitivity and brand loyalty: An anal-
ysis in the retail environment. International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 19,
1–28.
Glynn, M., & Chen, S. (2009). Consumer-factor moderat-
ing private label brand success: Further empirical re-
sults. International Journal of Retail and Distribution
Management, 37, 896–914.
Griffin, M., Babin, B., & Modianos, D. (2000). Shopping
values of Russian consumers: The impact of habituation
in a developing economy. Journal of Retailing, 76(1),
33–52.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satis-
faction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical
 Anubhav A. Mishra
study. International Journal of Service Industry Man-
agement, 7(4), 27–42.
Hansemark, O., & Albinsson, M. (2004). Customer sat-
isfaction and retention: The experiences of individual
employees. Managing Service Quality, 14(1), 40–57.
Hardesty, D., & Bearden, W. (2009). Consumer behavior
and retailing. Journal of Retailing, 85, 239–244.
Harrison-Walker, L. (2001). The measurement of word-
of-mouth communication and an investigation of ser-
vice quality and customer commitment as potential
antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75.
Haywood, K. (1989). Managing word of mouth communi-
cations. Journal of Services Marketing, 3(2), 55–67.
Holbrook, M. (1994). The nature of customer value: an ax-
iology of services in the consumption experience. In R.
Rust & R. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions
in theory and practice (pp. 21–71). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Holbrook, M., Chestnut, R., Olivia, T., & Greenleaf, E.
(1984). Play as a consumption experience: The roles
of emotions, performance, and personality in the en-
joyment of games. Journal of Consumer Research, 11,
728–739.
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteris-
tics as moderators of the relationship between customer
satisfaction and loyalty-An empirical analysis. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 18(1), 43–66.
Hopkinson, G., & Pujari, D. (1999). A factor analytic study
of the sources of meaning in hedonic consumption. Eu-
ropean Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 273–294.
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. (1998). Fit indices in covariance
structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized
model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4),
424–453.
Jones, M., & Reynolds, K. (2006). The role of retailer in-
terest on shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 82(2),
115–126.
Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. (2001). Moral functioning
in sport: An achievement goal perspective. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23(1), 37–54.
Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer switching behavior in ser-
vice industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Mar-
keting, 59(2), 71–82.
Keller, K. 2008. Strategic brand management. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Korgaonkar, P., Lund, D., & Price, B. (1985). A structural
equations approach toward examination of store atti-
tude and store patronage behavior. Journal of Retailing,
61(2), 39–60.
Kujala, J., & Johnson, M. (1993). Price knowledge and
search behavior for habitual, low involvement food
purchase. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(2),
249–265.
Lacher, K. (1989). Hedonic consumption: Music as a prod-
uct. In T. Srull (Ed.), Advances in consumer research
(pp. 367–373). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
245
Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M., & Murthy, B. (2004).
Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching
costs: An illustration from a business-to-business ser-
vice context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 32(3), 293–311.
Lambert-Pandraud, R., Laurent, G., & Lapersonne, E.
(2005). Repeat purchasing of new automobiles by
older consumers: Empirical evidence and interpreta-
tions. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 97–113.
Lybeck, A., Holmlund-Rytkönen, M., & Sääksjärvi, M.
(2006). Store brands vs. manufacturer brands: Con-
sumer perceptions and buying of chocolate bars in
Finland. International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, 16, 471–492.
MacKinnon, D., Lockwood, C., Hoffman, J., West, S., &
Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test me-
diation and other intervening variable effects. Psycho-
logical Methods, 7(1), 83–104.
Mägi, A. (2003). Share of wallet in retailing: The effects of
customer satisfaction, loyalty cards and shopper char-
acteristics. Journal of Retailing, 79(2), 97–106.
Martinez, E., & Montaner, T. (2008). Characterisation of
Spanish store brand consumers. International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, 36, 477–493.
McFarlin, D., & Sweeney, P. (1992). Distributive and pro-
cedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal
and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management
Journal, 35, 626–637.
McGoldrick, P., & Andre, E. (1997). Consumer
misbehaviour-promiscuity or loyalty in grocery shop-
ping? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 4(2),
73–81.
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, repur-
chase intent, and repurchase behavior: Investigating the
moderating effect of customer characteristics. Journal
of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142.
Moos, B. (2004). Advertisers try to appeal to over-
50 boomers. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News,
1(October 31).
Oliver, R. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of
Marketing, 63, 33–44.
Overby, J., & Lee, E. (2006). The effects of utilitarian
and hedonic online shopping value on consumer pref-
erence and intentions. Journal of Business Research,
59(10-11), 1160–1166.
Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (2000). The impact of tech-
nology on the quality-value-loyalty chain: A research
agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
28(1), 168–174.
Paridon, T., Carraher, S., & Carraher, S. (2006). The in-
come effect in personal shopping value, consumer self-
confidence, and information sharing (word of mouth
communication) research. Academy of Marketing Stud-
ies Journal, 10(2), 107–124.
Peterson, R., & Balasubramanian, S. (2002). Retailing in
the 21st century: Reflections and prologue to research.
Journal of Retailing, 78(1), 9–16.
246 JOURNAL OF GLOBAL MARKETING
Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk
behaviour in financial decision making: An experimen-
tal analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6),
605–628.
Putsis, W., & Dhar, R. (2001). An empirical analysis of
the determinants of category expenditure. Journal of
Business Research, 52, 277–291.
Rajiv, S., Dutta, S., & Dhar, S. (2002). Asymmetric store
positioning and promotional advertising strategies: The-
ory and evidence. Marketing Science, 21, 74–96.
Ranaweera, C., & Prabhu, J. (2003). On the relative impor-
tance of customer satisfaction and trust as determinants
of customer retention and positive word of mouth. Jour-
nal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Market-
ing, 12, 82–90.
Reynolds, K., & Beatty, S. (1999). Customer benefits and
company consequences of customer-salesperson rela-
tionships in retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 11–32.
Richardson, P., Jain, A., & Dick, A. (1996). Household store
brand proneness: A framework. Journal of Retailing, 72,
159–185.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS
2.0. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.de.
Rintamäki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., & Spence, M.
(2006). Decomposing the value of department store
shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimen-
sions: Evidence from Finland. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 34(1), 6–24.
Roos, I. (2002). Methods of investigating critical incidents:
A comparative review. Journal of Service Research,
4(3), 193–204.
Samli, A. (1989). Retail marketing strategy: Planning, im-
plementation, and control. New York, NY: Quorum
Books.
Sayman, S., & Raju, J. (2004). How category characteristics
affect the number of store brands offered by the retailer:
A model and empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing,
80, 279–287.
Seiders, K., Voss, G., Grewal, D., & Godfrey, A. (2005). Do
satisfied customers buy more? Examining moderating
influences in a retailing context. Journal of Marketing,
69(4), 26–43.
Sherry, J. (1990). A sociocultural analysis of a Midwestern
American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(1), 13–30.
Shoemaker, S., & Lewis, R. C. (1999). Customer loyalty:
The future of hospitality marketing. International Jour-
nal of Hospitality Management, 18(4), 345–370.
Shrout, P., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental
and non-experimental studies: New procedures and rec-
ommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–45.
Shugan, S. (1980). The cost of thinking. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 7(2), 99–111.
Sit, J., Merrilees, B., & Birch, D. (2003). Entertainment-
seeking shopping centre patrons: The missing segments.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Man-
agement, 31(2), 80–94.
Szymanski, D., & Henard, D. (2001). Customer satis-
faction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(1),
16–35.
Tan, C., & Dolich, I. (1993). A comparative study of
consumer information seeking: Singapore versus US.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 11(3),
313–322.
Tauber, E. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Mar-
keting, 36(4), 46–49.
Teller, C., Reutterer, T., & Schnedlitz, P. (2008). He-
donic and utilitarian shopper types in evolved and
created retail agglomerations. International Review
of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18,
283–309.
Venn, S., & Fone, D. (2005). Assessing the influence of so-
ciodemographic factors and health status on expression
of satisfaction with gp services. Clinical Governance,
10(2), 118–125.
Wakefield, K., & Barnes, J. (1996). Retailing hedonic con-
sumption: A model of sales promotion of a leisure ser-
vice. Journal of Retailing, 72(4), 409–427.
Westbrook, R., & Reilly, M. (1983). Value-percept dispar-
ity: An alternative to the disconfirmation of expectations
theory of consumer satisfaction. In R. P. Bagozzi and A.
M. Tybout (Eds), Advances in consumer research. Ann
Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
Wilkes, R. (1992). A structural modeling approach to the
measurement and meaning of cognitive age. Journal of
Consumer Research, 19, 292–301.
Wind, Y., & Frank, R. (1969). Interproduct household loy-
alty to brands. Journal of Marketing Research, 6(4),
434–435.
Woodruff, R. (1997). Customer value: The next source for
competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 25(2), 139–153.
Wright, C., & Sparks, L. (1999). Loyalty saturation in re-
tailing: Exploring the end of retail loyalty cards? In-
ternational Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-
ment, 27(10), 429–439.
Yoon, C. (1997). Age differences in consumers’ processing
strategies: An investigation of moderating influences.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 329–342.
Zeithaml, V. (1985). The new demographics and mar-
ket fragmentation. Journal of Marketing, 49(3),
64–75.
Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, qual-
ity, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of
evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22.
Copyright of Journal of Global Marketing is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.