+Model

RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior

Rebecca Jen-Hui Wang a,∗ , Edward C. Malthouse b , Lakshman Krishnamurthi a
a Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Road, 4th Floor, Marketing Department, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
b Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications, 1845 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208, USA

Abstract
Mobile shopping (M-shopping) has become increasingly important in marketing and retailing. Using a unique dataset from an Internet-based
grocery retailer, we evaluate changes in customers’ spending behavior upon adopting M-shopping, i.e., using smartphones or tablets to compose,
modify, or place orders online. We find that order rate, i.e., number of orders placed per year, increases as customers adopt M-shopping. Especially
for low-spending customers, both their order rate and order size, i.e., the amount of the order in dollars, increase as they become accustomed
to M-shopping. In addition to the effect on customer’s spending behavior, we also find that M-shoppers tend to use mobile devices to shop for
habitual products that they already have a history of purchasing. We propose that customers utilize mobile devices because the technology provides
convenient access, which leads them to incorporate M-shopping into their habitual routines. Managerially, we recommend that firms should fully
leverage their mobile platforms, but they should also keep in mind that mobile devices may not be the most optimal channel for launching new
products or promoting products that require more consideration during the buying process.
© 2015 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mobile shopping adoption; Online grocery retail; Habitual purchases; Propensity score; Beta regression; Survival analysis

Introduction (Mulpuru et al. 2013). Deloitte Consulting (Brinker, Lobaugh,

Shopping or buying with a mobile device (M-shopping) has
become an increasingly important topic that has drawn much
attention in both industry and academia. According to eMarketer
(2014), there will be more than two billion smartphone users,
or one-quarter of the global population, by 2016. Forrester
Research (Husson et al. 2014) predicts that media companies
and retailers will receive more than 50% of online traffic from
mobile devices, and for the first time in history, Americans used
mobile devices to browse and shop more than they used PCs
on Thanksgiving Day, 2014, when mobile traffic accounted for
52.1% of all online traffic (IBM ExperienceOne). M-shopping
is also expected to grow substantially. While the forecast for
the overall retail revenue annual growth rate is 4% for 2015
through 2016, mobile commerce is estimated to grow at 21–29%
∗ Corresponding author at: 2001 Sheridan Road, 4th Floor, Marketing Depart-
ment, Evanston, IL 60208, USA. Tel.: +1 603 305 9003.
E-mail addresses: r-wang@kellogg.northwestern.edu (R.J.-H. Wang),
ecm@northwestern.edu (E.C. Malthouse), laksh@kellogg.northewstern.edu
(L. Krishnamurthi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
0022-4359/© 2015 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
and Paul 2012) predicts that $31 billion worth of retail revenues
will be transacted using mobile devices by 2016. Besides con-
ducting purchase transactions using mobile devices, customers
also use them to plan their pre-shopping activities such as finding
directions and store hours. (Google Shopper Marketing Council
2013). In short, the growth in M-shopping provides ample poten-
tial for marketers and advertisers.
However, even though M-shopping has become increasingly
prevalent amongst customers, there is still a lack of hard evidence
regarding its impact. To date, few academic research projects
have studied M-shopping’s implications on customer behavior
and firm strategies. Even though M-commerce is increasing,
firms do not yet know how to or even if they should respond: of
the surveyed businesses, 37% cite “lack of strategy” as the top
reason for not launching a mobile program (StrongView 2012).
Therefore, in this paper, we examine customer- and transaction-
level data from an Internet-based grocer to address this question:
what is the impact of M-shopping adoption on customers’ pur-
chase behavior, namely, order rate and order size? If M-shopping
were found to positively affect firm revenues, retailers should
prioritize their investment on supporting mobile platforms. We
also seek to answer this second question: what kind of products

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
do customers purchase when they M-shop? Understanding the
circumstances when mobile marketing strategies should be used
is helpful for both retailers and their brand partners.
This paper offers substantive contributions. By linking
customers’ online session data with their actual spending,
we provide quantified evidence that shows how M-shopping
impacts customers’ behavior. Given the increasing prevalence of
M-shopping in marketing and retailing, it is imperative to under-
stand how customers’ behavior could change and how firms
should respond. In addition to fulfilling this immediate man-
agerial need, we also present theories for understanding how
interacting with a firm via mobile devices can influence cus-
tomers’ brand loyalty and spending behavior. In the following
section, we provide a review of relevant literature and our con-
ceptualization. Next, we present the data and methods, which
employ propensity score matching to make causal inferences,
followed by the results. Finally, we discuss implications for
theory development and managerial insight.
Conceptual Framework
Overview
Before the proliferation of mobile devices, much of the lit-
erature on Internet grocery shopping compared the differences
between online and offline channels. This literature takes a con-
servative stand, proposing that shopping for groceries online
is often a result of “situational factors,” and its adoption may
cease once those circumstances change (Hand et al. 2009). Later
research suggests that customers make choices depending on
their transaction costs. Chintagunta, Chu, and Cebollada (2012)
show that customers take savings in transportation costs and time
into consideration when deciding whether to shop for groceries
online. Other studies examine the various buying strategies cus-
tomers undertake in different environments. Focusing on the
breakfast cereal category, Pozzi (2012) shows that customers
explore new brands more often in-store than online, and while it
is often considered that Internet shopping imposes lower search
costs, it does not allow customers to verify the quality of the
products. Our research differs from previous literature on online
grocery shopping in that we utilize data across all grocery prod-
uct categories. Additionally, given that our data comes from
a retailer whose storefront is only available online, we seek
to make comparisons between mobile and PC channels, using
Internet grocery shopping as our context of study.
By offering products through mobile applications (apps) and
mobile browsers, retailers seek to increase their storefront acces-
sibility and revenues. Interacting with customers via their mobile
devices is a desirable marketing approach because providing a
mobile app or website does not require buying media, unlike
traditional advertising or retailing. A firm, especially one that
already sells through the Internet, can utilize its existing infras-
tructure to support its mobile storefront. Extant research shows
that traditional tactics and price promotions that encourage
retention may in fact hurt the firm’s profits even though cus-
tomers generate revenues by repeated purchases (Reinartz and
Kumar 2000). On the other hand, a firm does not need to sacrifice
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
its profits to maintain customer relationships if mobile channels
can indeed increase customers’ order rate and order size.
How does M-shopping Adoption Affect Order Rate and
Order Size?
Current literature posits that mobile devices can be an
effective marketing tool because they have the follow-
ing five characteristics (Larivière et al. 2013; Shankar and
Balasubramanian 2009): (1) portability, (2) personal relation-
ships with owners, (3) networked, immediate information, (4)
textual and visual content, and (5) convergence of functions and
services, e.g., navigation and email. These characteristics allow
customers to create a “life on the screen” (Joy et al. 2009) and
interact with brands with ease on an “anytime, anywhere” basis
(Shankar et al. 2010). Because of their portable, personal nature,
unlike PCs, mobile devices are not only functional gadgets, but
“cultural objects” as well (Bell 2006; Shankar et al. 2010), and
the mobile lifestyle provides additional opportunities for brands
to build relationships with their customers and interact with them
on an intimate, frequent basis across time and space.
Industry studies suggest that offering mobile storefronts to
shoppers may lead to an increase in customer loyalty (Ask
et al. 2011). Google surveys show that 51% of customers
cite saving time as the leading driver of smartphone shop-
ping, and 42% cite convenience (Google Shopper Marketing
Council 2013). However, convenience is context-dependent.
Survey research by Paul et al. (2010) on tobacco usage shows
that making products readily available triggers more purchases.
They find that male and single customers tend to buy tobacco
from outlets with small storefronts such as gas stations or
convenience stores, suggesting that convenience does not nec-
essarily equate to more product choices or customer service. In
the context of mobile channels, we theorize that even though
mobile devices’ screen size and functionalities are limited
compared to PCs, given their temporal and spatial flexibility
(Barnes 2002; Kleijnen, de Ruyter, and Wetzels 2007; Okazaki
and Mendez 2013; Scharl, Dickinger, and Jurphy 2005), they
are sufficient to provide convenient access when customers
want to achieve specific goals or habitual needs that do not
require much search or cognition. Mobile convenience then
leads to purchase intentions and behavioral loyalty, as shown
in several extant studies based primarily on survey data (Jih
2007; Okazaki and Mendez 2013; Yang 2010; Yang and Kim
2012).
We theorize that mobile devices are an effective platform
for customers to develop habitual interactions with a retailer
because they provide convenience, which reinforces customers’
psychological and experiential state of being in a relationship
with the firm. Customers who interact with a firm via mobile
devices integrate its products or services into their routines. As
shown in our conceptual framework in Fig. 1, this integration
is reflected in the customers’ recurring mobile activities, which
then lead to repeated purchases from the firm.
Repeated behavior has been shown to form habits
(Verplanken 2006). In the context of M-shopping, we posit that
mobile technology is a superior platform for a firm to engender
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework. Note: Convenience of the mobile channel allows
customers to interact or shop with a firm with their mobile devices. As they
become accustomed to M-shopping, they increase their levels and frequencies
of interaction with the firm. This leads to increased order size and order rate.
Mobile orders, in particular, consist of habitual products, which customers are
already familiar with and have a history of purchasing.
habitual interaction from its customers because mobile devices
themselves are an integral part of the customers’ daily rou-
tines. Habitual interactions can be beneficial for a brand in a
competitive environment. As customers become dependent on
their habits, they rely on automatic thinking and cease to con-
sider alternatives (Fazio, Ledbetter, and Lowles-schwen 2000;
Fujii, Gärling, and Kitamura 2001). Other research has also
shown that touch interfaces on mobile devices enhance users’
perceived product ownership and thus increase their purchase
intentions (Brasel and Gips 2014). Additionally, habitual behav-
ior is reinforced by contexts and past performances (Neal et al.
2012). Thus, the more adept customers are with interacting
with a firm, the more likely they will continue to do so in the
future.
When customers interact with a retailer via mobile devices
in addition to traditional channels, a firm gains opportunities to
engage with them. Extant literature shows that customers who
shop from multiple channels have higher customer lifetime value
(Ansari, Mela, and Neslin 2008; Kumar and Venkatesan 2005;
Neslin and Shankar 2009; Venkatesan, Kumar, and Ravishanker
2007). One explanation for this positive impact on retailers’
revenues is that cross-channel availability increases access.
However, opening a mobile storefront is more than adding a
traditional offline or conventional PC-Internet channel. Because
of their enhanced digital mobility, mobile devices allow cus-
tomers to engage with a retailer through wireless sessions under
all types of temporal or spatial situations (Shankar et al. 2010).
As such, customers can utilize a retailer’s offerings as they go
about their daily lives. They can shop and modify their baskets
during these additional sessions made available through wireless
technology. We therefore posit the following:
H1. After customers adopt M-shopping, their order size
increases.
H2. After customers adopt M-shopping, their order rate
increases.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
3
Does M-shopping Adoption Affect Low-Spenders and
High-Spenders Differently?
In addition to the main effects posited in Hypotheses 1 and
2, we want to investigate whether the effect of M-shopping on
purchase behavior is greater for customers with low spending
than those with high spending. In our context, spending tiers are
determined prior to M-shopping adoption when both high- and
low-spenders shopped at the retailer using PCs. From a retailer’s
perspective, making M-shopping available can be viewed as an
intervention designed to increase the customers’ existing level
of interactions.
The literature suggests two types of interventions that govern
changes in existing behavior, namely downstream and upstream.
Downstream interventions transform habits at times when they
are vulnerable to change by encouraging self-regulation or
providing information. Upstream interventions disrupt existing
environments and establish different cues to facilitate new habit
formation (Verplanken and Wood 2006). For instance, if a gov-
ernment’s goal were to improve children’s eating habits and
prevent obesity, one possible downstream intervention would
be to educate students about the food pyramid. In contrast,
an upstream intervention would be to change the environment
where unhealthy food is consumed, i.e., the government could
stop schools from serving processed food on campus.
Broadly speaking, the magnitude of effect an intervention has
on customers depends on whether they perceive their environ-
ment to be relatively stable. Thus, the way a customer processes
new information introduced by the intervention can moderate its
effect on behavioral change (Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu 2012).
In a multichannel retail context, customers tend to persist in their
habitual routines if they perceive shopping at a new channel to
be merely a natural evolution of continuing their relationship
with the retailer. Any increase in spending is therefore due to
the fact that they have more access to the retailer’s storefront
than before. On the other hand, customers’ existing spending
behavior is subject to change if they become aware of how the
new channel changes their environment and lifestyle.
We posit that mobile storefronts are upstream interventions
for low-spenders and downstream interventions for high-
spenders. Compared to high-spenders, low-spenders are not
deeply engaged with the retailer at present, and are there-
fore more sensitive to the anytime-anywhere convenience and
additional touch-point opportunities introduced by M-shopping.
On the other hand, high-spenders are already accustomed to
shopping at the retailer, so they have lower tendencies to pro-
cess environmental changes, i.e., the mobile storefront. Relative
to low-spenders, high-spenders rely more on their established
habits as they continue to shop at the retailer, and as such,
are less sensitive to the benefits provided by the mobile chan-
nel.
Thus, for low-spenders, M-shopping disrupts how they pur-
chase groceries and helps form habitual interactions with the
retailer. For high-spenders, M-shopping does not disrupt their
daily routines. Instead, it merely enhances their current behav-
ior and extends their existing habits. Low-spenders are more
likely to see M-shopping as a game-changer that reminds them
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
of the retailer’s unique offering of services and convenience as
a delivery-based grocer. Thus, we posit the following:
H3. Customers who are low-spenders before adopting M-
shopping show greater percentage increases in (a) order size,
and (b) order rate, than high-spenders.
When Customers M-shop, What do they Purchase?
The portability of mobile devices provides customers con-
venient access to the firm. However, such portability comes
with a price. The screens of mobile devices are limited in size
and functionality. These limitations have been shown to alter
customers’ search behavior. Examining browsing behavior at a
microblogging service, Ghose, Goldfarb, and Han (2013) show
that customers tend to click on links that have high ranks on
mobile phones more than when they use PCs, and they suggest
that customers’ search costs using mobile Internet are higher
than on personal computers. In another study, Ghose and Park
(2013) posit that users are reluctant to purchase niche products
when they use devices with small screens. When facing time
or resource pressure, customers tend to act habitually (Wood
and Neal 2009). Thus, given their limitations in screen size and
functionality, mobile channels are convenient when customers
are reluctant to invest in search costs and simply want to shop
according to their habitual needs.
Searching on small screens requires numerous maneuvers of
scrolling, which limits the type and amount of information cus-
tomers can retrieve (Shankar et al. 2010; Sweeney and Crestani
2006). Even though customers are taking advantage of the conve-
nience provided by their mobile devices, such high search costs
can negatively affect their cognitive abilities in locating or recall-
ing web information, and as such, customers prefer to use PCs for
exploratory search behaviors, and handheld devices for specific
tasks (Adipat, Zhang, and Zhou 2011; Albers and Kim 2000;
Ghose, Goldfarb, and Han 2013; Sweeney and Crestani 2006).
Thus, we propose the habitual purchase hypothesis, suggesting
that when customers M-shop, they tend to buy products that they
have purchased before or are already familiar with, rather than
to purchase items or brands that require research, planning or
consideration. In other words, we posit the following:
H4. When customers M-shop, they tend to buy (a) products that
they have purchased previously, or (b) products from manufac-
turers with which they have high share-of-requirements (SOR).1
Research Design
Data Collection
Our dataset is made available by an Internet grocer in the
United States, which has been operating in 12 states and Wash-
ington, D.C. since 1990. Customers have been able to order
1 We operationalize share of requirements (SOR) as customers’ cumulative
dollars spent at a given manufacturer divided by their total spending in the
category.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
Table 1
Order breakdown by device usage.
Devices used Order % Total sales % Customer %
PC only 70.0 69.2 86.7
Tablet + Smartphone 8.8 9.0 18.8
Tablet only 7.9 8.0 15.0
PC + Tablet 4.9 5.2 13.5
Smartphone only 5.2 5.1 10.1
Tablet + Smartphone 1.8 1.9 5.0
All device types 1.5 1.6 4.8
Note: Of all orders from July 2011 to June 2013.
groceries with PCs, and more recently with mobile browsers or
the branded mobile app. Customers can also modify their orders
or schedule delivery with either device type. The retailer does
not have traditional physical grocery stores, so the comparison
is between PC-online shopping and mobile-online shopping. We
seek to determine how PC-online shoppers’ behaviors change
after they become M-shoppers. Purchases at other grocery stores
or restaurants are not observed.
The grocer launched a campaign at commuter rail stations in
large metropolitan cities to promote its mobile app in October
2012. We therefore categorize our study period into two parts:
a pre-campaign period during which everyone was a PC-only
shopper, and a post-campaign period. M-shoppers are defined as
customers who used mobile devices at least once in their orders
during the post-campaign period. This distinction allows us to
identify an appropriate control group for the M-shoppers using
propensity score matching. We set our pre-period to be June 2012
through October 2012, and post-period to be November 2012 to
June 2013. We limit the sample to customers who placed at
least two orders during the study period. Our unmatched sample
consists of 3,086 M-shoppers and 13,212 non-adopters.
Occurrences of M-shopping
To illustrate the context of our dataset, we present an overview
of how mobile technology is being used by the grocer’s cus-
tomers. Customers can compose, modify, or purchase their
orders using PCs, tablets and/or smartphones. We classify an
order as “mobile” when it includes one or more mobile ses-
sions. A session is recorded when a customer logs onto to the
Internet grocer’s storefront to browse, shop, modify the basket,
transact the basket, or set a delivery date, and it ends when the
customer leaves by either logging out themselves or timing out
due to inactivity. An order can be completed with just one ses-
sion or as many sessions as customers want. Table 1 summarizes
the order breakdown by device.
We see that during the period of our study, accounting for
about 70% of sales are orders composed, modified and/or pur-
chased using PCs only, and 30% are orders that have at least one
mobile session. This result is consistent with the Internet gro-
cer’s press releases, confirming that our sample is representative.
Additionally, Fig. 2 shows that mobile orders are consistently
increasing over time.
One might conjecture that when customers use both PCs and
mobile devices to shop, they use the former to browse and add
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
PC Orders Mobile Orders
Fig. 2. Shares of PC and mobile orders. Note: Of orders from July 2011 to June
2013. Using the provided data sample, we see that mobile orders are on the rise,
while PC-only orders are steadily decreasing over the course of 2 years. This
set of overall statistics corresponds to the Internet Grocer’s own estimate that by
2014, 50% of their orders would be composed or placed using mobile devices.
Fig. 3. Number of sessions by shopper and order device type. Note: 3,086
M-shoppers (45,346 orders), and 6,172 matched PC-only shoppers purchased
(83,042 orders).
items to the basket and the latter to simply transact the order.
Unfortunately, our session data does not provide information
on how the devices are used. However, if such a conjecture
were true, for a given mobile order, there would only be one
or two mobile sessions, during which customers would quickly
complete the order. Fig. 3 shows the number of sessions by
device type. Model-free statistics on session times suggest that
M-shoppers use mobile devices to do more than simply place
orders. Furthermore, on average, a PC-only order consists of
4.37 sessions, while a PC-mobile order has 3.25 mobile and 4.33
PC sessions, suggesting that M-shopping allows for additional
touch-points between M-shoppers and the retailer.
Methodology
Propensity Score Model and Matching
One challenge in our research is that customers self-select
into adopting and using the mobile channel. An ideal design
would randomly assign customers to M-shopping or not, but
this was not possible in this situation. As with all observational
studies, there is the possibility of selection bias, where the two
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
5
groups—mobile adopters and non-adopters—systematically
differ from each other. Fortunately, we have detailed transaction
history and demographic variables on customers, which can be
used to create matched controls with propensity scores. Matched
sampling, “a method for selecting units from a large reservoir
of potential controls to produce a control group of modest size
that is similar to a treated group with respect to the distribution
of observed covariates,” reduces the possibility of a selection
bias (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1985). Propensity score matching
is one of the methods for analyzing observational data to address
issues of possible confounding (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983,
1985; Rubin 2007; Stuart 2010).
We select a control group that did not M-shop during the study
period of the data and has similar characteristics to the treated
group, i.e., customers who became M-shoppers in the post-
period. The assumption is that customers with similar propensity
scores have similar likelihood of being assigned to the treatment
group, satisfying the assumption of Strongly Ignorable Treat-
ment Assignment (SITA). Thus, conditional on the covariates in
the model, treatment is, in effect, randomized, and the possibility
of selection bias is reduced.
Procedurally, we first model the relationship between the
observed characteristics in the pre-campaign period and whether
a customer M-shops in the post-campaign period using logistic
regression. The probability that customer i adopts M-shopping
is:
Pi = Pr[Adopti = 1|d i , ln(υi + 1)], (1)
where Adopti is a binary variable that indicates whether customer
i M-shops, vector di contains demographics such as age, income,
residence, children presence, marital status, dwelling type and
ownership, education level, and Internet shopping experience,2
and vector υi includes behavior exhibited from June 2012 to
October 2012, prior to M-shopping adoption. These character-
istics include the customer’s tenure with the Internet grocer,
average order size in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollars, and inter-
purchase time in days. Table 2 contains the full list of covariates.
We include demographics in the propensity score model because
the literature suggests that age and income may be correlated
with mobile adoption (Bigne, Ruiz, and Sanz 2005). Addition-
ally, given that the grocer may be more prevalent in certain states
and cities, we control for households’ states of residence. We
also include behavioral variables because customers with longer
tenure or higher spending are more likely to adopt M-shopping.
From a technical standpoint, including as many variables as pos-
sible in the propensity score is the safer approach. According
to Stuart (2010, p. 5), researchers should include all possible
confounders because “including variables that are actually unas-
sociated with the outcome can yield slight increases in variance.
However, excluding a potentially important confounder can be
very costly in terms of increased bias.”
2 Measured as self-reported dollars spent online in the past two years.
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Descriptions of variables.
Variable Used in propensity score Description
model or regression
models

Pre-Campaign Behavioral Characteristics (υi )

√
ln(Avg. Order Size + 1) Average order size in pre-period
√
ln(Avg. Interpurchase Time in Days + 1) Average days between orders in pre-period
√
ln(Total Session Minutes + 1) Session minutes during pre-period
√
ln(Tenure in Days + 1) Days between first order to Oct. 31, 2012
√
ln(Total Discount Dollars + 1) Total lifetime coupon discount dollars
√
ln(Thanksgiving Orders + 1) Number of lifetime Thanksgiving orders
√
ln(Holiday Orders + 1) Number of lifetime Holiday orders
√
ln(Memorial Day Orders + 1) Number of lifetime Memorial Day orders
√
ln(July Fourth Orders + 1) Number of lifetime July Fourth orders
Demographics as of Sep. 2013 (di )
√√
Is Aged 18 To 25 1 if age is known to be 18 to 25; else 0
√√
Is Aged 26 To 30 1 if age is known to be 26 to 30; else 0
√√
Is Aged 31 To 35 1 if age is known to be 31 to 35; else 0
√√
Is Aged 36 To 40 1 if age is known to be 36 to 40; else 0
√√
Is Aged 41 To 45 1 if age is known to be 41 to 45; else 0
√√
Is Aged 46 To 50 1 if age is known to be 46 to 50; else 0
√√
Is Aged 51 To 60 1 if age is known to be 51 to 60; else 0
√√
Is Aged 61 To 70 1 if age is known to be 61 to 70; else 0
√√
Is Aged 71 To 80 1 if age is known to be 71 to 80; else 0
√√
Is Aged 80 Plus 1 if age is known to be 80 or older; else 0
√√
Has Kids 1 if known to have kids; else 0
√√
Has Income 40K 1 if income ≤$40K; else 0
√√
Has Income 40 To 80K 1 if income is $40 to $80K; else 0
√√
Has Income 80 To 100K 1 if income is $80 to $100K; else 0
√√
Has Income 100 To 125K 1 if income is $100 to $125K; else 0
√√
Has Income 125 To 150K 1 if income is $125 to $150K; else 0
√√
Has Income 150K Plus 1 if income is $150K or more; else 0
√√
Is Living in Campaigned City 1 if lives in a city where the commuter rail campaign took place; else 0
√√
Is Living in Pennsylvania 1 if lives in Pennsylvania; else 0
√√
Is Living in Wisconsin 1 if lives in Wisconsin; else 0
√√
Is Living in Indiana 1 if lives in Indiana; else 0
√√
Is Living in Illinois 1 if lives in Illinois; else 0
√√
Is Living in New Hampshire 1 if lives in New Hampshire; else 0
√√
Is Living in Maryland 1 if lives in Maryland; else 0
√√
Is Living in Virginia 1 if lives in Virginia; else 0
√√
Is Living in Rhode Island 1 if lives in Rhode Island; else 0
√√
Is Living in Massachusetts 1 if lives in Massachusetts; else 0
√√
Is Living in New York 1 if lives in New York; else 0
√√
Is Living in Connecticut 1 if lives in Connecticut; else 0
√√
Is Living in New Jersey 1 if lives in New Jersey; else 0
√√
Is Home Owner 1 if owns a home; else 0
√√
Is Home Renter 1 if rents a home; else 0
√√
Is Living in Single Family 1 if lives at a single-family address; else 0
√√
Is Living in Multi-Family 1 if lives at a shared address; else 0
√√
Is Married 1 if married or inferred married; else 0
√√
Is Single 1 is single or inferred single; else 0
√√
Is Highest Education High School 1 if attended high school or vocational/technical school; else 0
√√
Is Highest Education College 1 if completed college; else 0
√√
Is Highest Education Graduate School 1 if completed graduate school; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, ≤$100 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months <$100; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, $101 to $250 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months is $101 to $250; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, $251 to $500 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months is $251 to $500; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, $501 to $1K 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months is $501 to $1K; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, $1K to $5K 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months is $1K to $5K; else 0
√√
Has Online Dollars Spent, $5K+ 1 if self-reported all dollars spent online in past 24 months is $5K or more
M-Shopping
√
ln(Mobile Frequency + 1) (mio ) Number of mobile orders made so far

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 7

Table 2 (Continued)
Variable Used in propensity score Description
model or regression
models
√
ln(Mobile Frequency + 1) × Is A Number of mobile orders made so far × customer a low-spender before the rail
Low-Spender (mio × li ) campaign
Frequency and Recency
√
ln(Order Frequency + 1) (fio ) Number of lifetime orders made so far
√
ln(Order Recency in Days + 1) (rio ) Days since last order
Order Characteristics (Oio )
√
ln(Discount Dollars + 1) Coupon dollars discounted in an order
√
ln(Delivery Fees + 1) Delivery fees charged for an order
Seasonality (So )
√
Is Order Delivered over Thanksgiving 1 if delivered over Thanksgiving; else 0
√
Is Order Delivered over Holidays 1 if delivered over Holidays; else 0
√
Is Order Delivered over Memorial Day 1 if delivered over Memorial Day; else 0
√
Is Order Delivered over July Fourth 1 if delivered over July Fourth; else 0
Other Control Variables
√
Is A Low Spender (li ) 1 if a low-spender in the pre-campaign period; else 0
√
Is Order Delivered After Campaign (go ) 1 if delivered after the rail campaign; else 0
√
Propensity Score (P̂i ) Estimated probability to adopt M-shopping based on the propensity score model

Note: Thanksgiving is every year from November 15 through 30; Holidays is from December 20 through January 2; Memorial Day is from May 25 through May 31;
July Fourth is from July 1 through July 5.

We use logistic regression to obtain the propensity score P̂i , made by M-shoppers and their matched control group from both
the estimated value of Pi : pre- and post-campaign periods, totaling 128,388 observations.
 
Pi
ln = α0 + κ1 di + κ2 ln(υi + 1) + εi . (2) As Customers Become Accustomed to M-shopping, How
1 − Pi does their Purchase Behavior Change? (H1–H3)
Recall that matched sampling selects a group of PC-only shop-
Spending behavior is operationalized with order size in dol-
pers who resemble the M-shoppers. We employ 2:1 matching
lars and order rate. We examine the cumulative effect of mobile
(2 non-M-shoppers to 1 M-shopper) with the nearest-neighbor
shopping on spending behavior using two models: a log-log
matching algorithm, which is one of the most widely used meth-
model for examining order size, and a survival model for analyz-
ods (Ho et al. 2007; Stuart 2010).
ing order rate. We hypothesize that as customers become more
The matched sample contains 3,086 M-shoppers, who made a
accustomed to M-shopping, their interactions with the retailer
total of 45,346 orders, and 6,172 PC-only shoppers, who made a
increase, which then leads to more spending.
total of 83,042 orders. To confirm covariate balance after match-
We first define the variables used in the model for order size.
ing, per Imbens and Rubin (2015), we calculate and compare
The dependent variable is denoted by yio which is the total dol-
the normalized difference in means, which is denoted as NDj
lar value of the order adjusted for inflation according to the
for each covariate j, and is defined as follows:
Food-At-Home Consumer Price Index published by the U.S.
|x̄jM − x̄jN | Labor Bureau of Statistics (2013). Becoming an M-shopper is a
NDj =  , (3) cumulative process rather than an on-off event. We operational-
2 + s2 )/2
(sjM jN ize becoming an M-shopper with a numerical variable mio that
represents “habit strength” (Triandis 1977), defined as the cumu-
where x̄jM and sjM are the mean and standard deviation of the
lative number of times customer i has M-shopped before placing
covariate j for the M-shoppers, respectively, and x̄jN and sjN
order o. Besides the main variable of interest, we include the
are those for the non-adopters. We confirm that after matching,
interaction of becoming an M-shopper and preexisting spend-
the NDs for all covariates decrease, suggesting an improvement
ing level (li ) during the pre-campaign period, which is defined
in balance, and in particular, the NDs for average order size
as:
and interpurchase time drop from 0.28 and 0.50 to 0.03 and
0.02, respectively. Diagnostic quantile–quantile plots also show 
1 if customer i spends less than the median of the matched sample
improvements in covariate balance for all variables. Table 3 li =
0 otherwise
shows the variable statistics before and after matching.
(4)
Having obtained a matched sample of M-shoppers and
PC-only shoppers, we proceed to test our hypotheses. The
propensity score for each individual is used as a covariate in To account for customers’ growth in loyalty irrespective of
each of the models. The models are estimated using orders becoming an M-shopper, we control for overall frequency and

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Descriptive statistics of propensity score model variables before and after matching.
M-shopper PC-only shopper

Mean St. Dev. Before matching After matching

Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

Demographics (di )
Is Aged 18 To 25 0.010 0.098 0.014 0.118 0.012 0.111
Is Aged 26 To 30 0.058 0.234 0.035 0.184 0.050 0.219
Is Aged 31 To 35 0.078 0.268 0.045 0.208 0.064 0.246
Is Aged 36 To 40 0.141 0.348 0.077 0.267 0.118 0.323
Is Aged 41 To 45 0.100 0.300 0.062 0.241 0.090 0.286
Is Aged 46 To 50 0.116 0.320 0.094 0.292 0.118 0.322
Is Aged 51 To 60 0.123 0.328 0.140 0.347 0.134 0.341
Is Aged 61 To 70 0.075 0.264 0.108 0.311 0.083 0.276
Is Aged 71 To 80 0.023 0.151 0.058 0.233 0.025 0.156
Is Aged 80 Plus 0.026 0.160 0.047 0.212 0.027 0.163
Has Kids 0.378 0.485 0.273 0.446 0.342 0.474
Has Income 40K 0.051 0.220 0.076 0.265 0.051 0.219
Has Income 40 To 80K 0.238 0.426 0.244 0.430 0.238 0.426
Has Income 80 To 100K 0.059 0.235 0.052 0.222 0.055 0.229
Has Income 100 To 125K 0.116 0.320 0.089 0.285 0.108 0.310
Has Income 125 To 150K 0.137 0.344 0.098 0.297 0.128 0.334
Has Income 150K Plus 0.061 0.240 0.041 0.199 0.056 0.231
Is Living in Campaigned City 0.423 0.494 0.394 0.489 0.416 0.493
Is Living in Pennsylvania 0.028 0.166 0.033 0.179 0.030 0.170
Is Living in Wisconsin 0.012 0.110 0.016 0.126 0.014 0.119
Is Living in Indiana 0.009 0.096 0.009 0.094 0.009 0.092
Is Living in Illinois 0.161 0.368 0.144 0.351 0.153 0.360
Is Living in New Hampshire 0.003 0.054 0.002 0.044 0.002 0.048
Is Living in Maryland 0.063 0.242 0.086 0.280 0.066 0.249
Is Living in Virginia 0.041 0.199 0.048 0.213 0.042 0.200
Is Living in Rhode Island 0.036 0.186 0.034 0.180 0.036 0.187
Is Living in Massachusetts 0.154 0.361 0.175 0.380 0.167 0.373
Is Living in New York 0.238 0.426 0.200 0.400 0.230 0.421
Is Living in Connecticut 0.117 0.322 0.112 0.316 0.110 0.314
Is Living in New Jersey 0.099 0.299 0.096 0.295 0.096 0.294
Is Home Owner 0.644 0.479 0.576 0.494 0.618 0.486
Is Home Renter 0.012 0.110 0.022 0.146 0.012 0.110
Is Living in Single Family 0.606 0.489 0.520 0.500 0.579 0.494
Is Living in Multi-Family 0.163 0.369 0.184 0.387 0.164 0.370
Is Married 0.455 0.498 0.385 0.487 0.433 0.496
Is Single 0.256 0.437 0.262 0.440 0.250 0.433
Is Highest Education High School 0.211 0.408 0.190 0.393 0.203 0.402
Is Highest Education College 0.229 0.420 0.203 0.402 0.217 0.413
Is Highest Education Graduate School 0.157 0.364 0.138 0.345 0.151 0.358
Has Online Dollars Spent, ≤$100 0.106 0.308 0.104 0.305 0.107 0.309
Has Online Dollars Spent, $101 to $250 0.105 0.307 0.095 0.293 0.099 0.299
Has Online Dollars Spent, $251 to $500 0.098 0.298 0.088 0.284 0.094 0.291
Has Online Dollars Spent, $501 to $1K 0.098 0.297 0.083 0.275 0.093 0.291
Has Online Dollars Spent, $1K to 5K 0.183 0.387 0.133 0.339 0.173 0.378
Has Online Dollars Spent, $5K+ 0.031 0.174 0.026 0.159 0.030 0.171
Pre-Campaign Purchase Behavior (υi )
ln(Avg. Order Size + 1) 5.018 0.406 4.942 0.436 5.012 0.420
ln(Avg. Interpurchase Time in Days + 1) 3.592 0.869 4.084 1.083 3.600 0.959
ln(Total Session Minutes + 1) 4.442 1.246 4.343 1.304 4.452 1.296
ln(Tenure in Days + 1) 6.527 1.276 6.302 1.298 6.532 1.273
ln(Total Discount Dollars + 1) 2.569 1.530 2.191 1.604 2.547 1.565
ln(Thanksgiving Orders + 1) 0.694 0.796 0.554 0.748 0.704 0.806
ln(Holiday Orders + 1) 0.590 0.736 0.482 0.691 0.601 0.745
ln(Memorial Day Orders + 1) 0.669 0.729 0.550 0.683 0.676 0.733
ln(July Fourth Orders + 1) 0.174 0.362 0.151 0.338 0.180 0.369

Note: 3,086 M-shoppers, 13,212 PC-only shoppers before matching, and 6,172 PC-only shoppers after 2:1 matching.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
recency with the variables fio and rio , which are the total number
of previous orders regardless of devices used and the number
of days since the last purchase, respectively. We also control
for seasonality (So ), which include whether an order occurred
over the Holidays, Thanksgiving, July Fourth, or Memorial Day,
order characteristics (Oio ), which include discounts and delivery
fees, and whether an order occurred after the commuter rail cam-
paign (go ). Per Imbens (2004) and Rubin and Thomas (2000), we
include the propensity score, P̂i , even though we already have
a matched sample, to further reduce bias due to residual differ-
ences (Austin 2011). Please refer to Table 2 for the descriptions
of the covariates.
Besides the aforementioned independent variables, we
account for the effect of observed heterogeneity. Even though the
propensity score model already accounts for demographics (di )
to predict whether a customer becomes an M-shopper and select
a matched control group, we include these variables again in the
regression models because the literature suggests that income,
education, and other factors are correlated with how customers
use the Internet and shop online in general (Goldfarb 2006;
Goldfarb and Prince 2008). We also control for unobserved het-
erogeneity with a random intercept, a0i , and two random slope
coefficients, a1i and a2i . All three random effects are assumed
to have means of zero and normal⎡ distributions,
⎤ with a joint
σ00 σ01 σ02
⎢ ⎥
variance–covariance matrix ⎣ σ10 σ11 σ12 ⎦, where σ 00 is
σ20 σ21 σ22
the variance of a0i , σ 01 is the covariance between a0i and a1i ,
and so on. In sum, we assume the following mixed-effect log-log
model for order size:
ln(yio + 1) = α1 + a0i + (γ1 + a1i ) ln(mio + 1)
+ (γ2 + a2i ) ln(mio + 1) × li + γ3 li + γ4 go
+γ5 P̂i + κ3 ln(d i + 1) + κ4 S o + κ5 Oio
+ϕ1 fio + ϕ2 rio + εio .
To test Hypotheses 1 and 3(a), γ 1 and γ 2 are the coefficients of
interest.
We now discuss our model for order rate. As with all datasets
acquired in a non-contractual setting,3 one complication we have
is right censoring: for every customer’s last observed order, we
do not know the exact time to next order, which may or may
not come after the end of our study period. Survival analysis is
commonly used when such censoring exists. We use a subject-
specific Weibull random-effects hazard regression, and assume
the following model for order rate:
ln hio = α2 ln tio + a3i + (γ6 + a4i ) ln(mio + 1)
+ (γ7 + a5i ) ln(mio + 1) × li + γ8 li + γ9 go + γ10 P̂i
+κ6 d i + κ7 S o + κ8 Oio + ϕ3 fio + ϕ4 rio ,
3 We do not observe attrition since the context of this study takes place in a
non-contractual setting.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
9
where hi is the hazard of placing an order by individual i, and
tio is the interpurchase time in days.4 The hazard, or sometimes
referred to as the hazard rate, can be interpreted as the number
of events per interval time, or in our case it is the order rate,
i.e., the number of orders per day. In the same way as before,
we account for customers’ observed heterogeneity, i.e., demo-
graphics (di ), and unobserved heterogeneity, where a3i is the
random effect on the log hazard and a4i , and a5i are random slope
coefficients on the variables of interest. All random effects are
assumed to have means of zero and ⎡normally distributed, ⎤ with
σ33 σ34 σ35
⎢ ⎥
a joint variance–covariance matrix ⎣ σ43 σ44 σ45 ⎦, where
σ53 σ54 σ55
σ 33 is the variance of a3i , a4i is the covariance between a3i and
a4i , and so on. All other covariates are described in Table 2. To
estimate the hazard model, we use maximum likelihood, and the
log-likelihood for a given observation is:
(α2 +1)
ln Lio = −λio tio + cio (ln(α2 + 1) + α2 ln tio + ln λio ), (7)
where
λio = exp[a3i + (γ6 + a4i ) ln(mio + 1)
+ (γ7 + a5i ) ln(mio + 1) × li + γ8 li + γ9 go + γ10 P̂i
+κ6 d i + κ7 S o + κ8 Oio + ϕ3 fio + ϕ4 rio ],
and cio is a binary variable that indicates if customer i’s order
o is right-censored, and 1 if it is not. Finally, we assign the
log-likelihood distribution to interpurchase time and maximize
an approximation of the marginal likelihood over the random
effects to obtain the estimates (Allison 2010). To test Hypotheses
2 and 3(b), we observe the directions and magnitudes of the
coefficients, γ 6 and γ 7 .
What Types of Products do Customers Purchase when they
M-shop? (H4)
(5)
While mobile devices provide convenience, they are limited
in screen size and functionality. Thus, search costs on mobile
screens are higher than on PCs (Albers and Kim 2000; Ghose,
Goldfarb, and Han 2013). As we theorized in the previous
section, when customers M-shop, they tend to rely on their habit-
ual choices and purchase products that require few searches.
We operationalize customers’ habitual needs as the number of
times an item has been purchased by the customer previously.
Additionally, if customers have a strong preference toward the
manufacturer, even if they lack knowledge about the product,
they may rely on their past experiences with the manufacturer’s
other products and its brand image instead of searching on their
mobile devices. Therefore, we calculate the following two vari-
ables, niop and wiop , where niop is the number of items customer
i has purchased product p before order o, and wiop represents
(6)
4 If order o is censored, t = number of days between order delivery date and
the end date of the study period; otherwise, t = number of days until the next
order.
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

a customer’s share-of-requirements (SOR) of a given manufac- Table 4

turer in the same category as product p at the time of order o. Estimates for the propensity score logistic model.
The higher the values of niop and wiop , the more a customer is Dependent variable Is becoming a M-shopper

able to rely on habit or automatic thinking to decide whether Estimate (St. Err.)
to purchase the product, and thus, we call products with high Intercept −0.731* (0.341)
values of niop or wiop “habitual.” Behavioral Characteristics (υi )
To capture customers’ habitual needs, we look at 1,605 M- ln(Avg. Order Size + 1) 0.270*** (0.054)
ln(Avg. Interpurchase Time in Days + 1) −0.737*** (0.029)
shoppers that have 11 or more orders from June 2012 through ln(Total Session Minutes + 1) −0.211*** (0.022)
June 2013. These M-shoppers placed a total of 36,367 orders, ln(Tenure in Days + 1) 0.155*** (0.026)
each of which on average consists of 39.1 distinct products. ln(Total Discount Dollars + 1) 0.109*** (0.017)
ln(Thanksgiving Orders + 1) −0.060 (0.054)
Denoted as qio , our dependent variable is the fraction of mobile ln(Holiday Orders + 1) −0.094+ (0.054)
sessions used in order o, or qio = Mobile sessions/Total sessions. ln(Memorial Day Orders + 1) −0.151** (0.052)
Since qio is a proportion variable5 that lies within (0, 1), we use ln(July Fourth Orders + 1) −0.130+ (0.072)

a beta regression (Ferrari and Cribari-Neto 2005; Smithson and Demographics (di )
Is Aged 18 To 25 −0.154 (0.250)
Verkuilen 2006), which assumes that the response has a beta Is Aged 26 To 30 0.755*** (0.174)
distribution defined by two shape parameters, ω and τ: Is Aged 31 To 35 0.630*** (0.172)
Is Aged 36 To 40 0.581*** (0.166)
(ω + τ) ω−1 Is Aged 41 To 45 0.301+ (0.171)
f (qio |ω, τ) = q (1 − qio )τ−1 , (8) Is Aged 46 To 50 0.027 (0.168)
(ω) (τ) io Is Aged 51 To 60 −0.263 (0.166)
Is Aged 61 To 70 −0.396* (0.171)
where (·) is the gamma function. Therefore, qio has a mean of Is Aged 71 To 80 −0.892*** (0.198)
E[qio ] = ω+τ
ω
, and since the mean must lie in an open unit inter- Is Aged 80 Plus −0.571** (0.196)
exp(X β) Has Kids 0.194*** (0.053)
val, a logit link is applied: E[qio ] = 1+exp(X β)
. The covariates Has Income 40K −0.239* (0.119)
in the beta regression are: Has Income 40 To 80K −0.121 (0.089)
Has Income 80 To 100K −0.067 (0.119)
X β = exp(α3 + γ11 ln(niop + 1) + γ12 ln(100wiop + 1) Has Income 100 To 125K 0.025 (0.103)
Has Income 125 To 150K 0.148 (0.105)
+ κ9 d i + κ10 S o + κ11 Oio + ϕ5 fio + ϕ6 rio + εiop ). (9) Has Income 150K Plus 0.088 (0.123)
Is Living in Campaigned City 0.387*** (0.072)
Is Living in Pennsylvania 0.338* (0.170)
As before, fio , rio , di , So and Oio control for overall frequency, Is Living in Wisconsin 0.127 (0.224)
recency, customer demographics, seasonality, and order char- Is Living in Indiana 0.553* (0.255)
acteristics such as discounts and delivery fees, respectively. To Is Living in Illinois 0.268* (0.122)
Is Living in New Hampshire 0.734+ (0.432)
estimate the model, we employ maximum likelihood, and the Is Living in Maryland 0.233 (0.150)
log-likelihood function of an observation is: Is Living in Virginia 0.358* (0.163)
Is Living in Rhode Island 0.544** (0.169)
ln Lio = ln (ω + τ) − ln (ω) − ln (τ) Is Living in Massachusetts 0.230+ (0.130)
Is Living in New York 0.583*** (0.130)
+ (ω − 1) ln qio + (τ + 1) ln(1 − qio ). (10) Is Living in Connecticut −0.005 (0.124)
Is Living in New Jersey 0.047 (0.127)
Is Home Owner −0.125 (0.087)
To test Hypothesis 4, we observe the signs and magnitudes of Is Home Renter −0.43* (0.196)
γ 6 and γ 7 . Table 6 lists all the covariates. Is Living in Single Family 0.208 (0.153)
Is Living in Multi-Family 0.010 (0.153)
Is Married −0.004 (0.108)
Results Is Single −0.068 (0.104)
Is Highest Education High School 0.089 (0.072)
Is Highest Education College 0.070 (0.072)
Propensity Score Model
Is Highest Education Graduate School 0.053 (0.079)
Is Online Dollars Spent, ≤$100 0.106 (0.086)
First, we estimate the propensity score model, which predicts Has Online Dollars Spent, $101 to $250 0.100 (0.087)
Has Online Dollars Spent, $251 to $500 0.053 (0.090)
the likelihood of a customer adopting mobile technology. Table 4 Has Online Dollars Spent, $501 to $1K 0.097 (0.091)
shows the model estimates. As expected, M-shopping adopters Has Online Dollars Spent, $1K to 5K 0.176* (0.079)
are customers who have been with the firm for a longer period Has Online Dollars Spent, $5K+ −0.119 (0.138)
of time (tenure β = 0.155, p < .001). They are customers who Note: Likelihood-ratio test: p < .0001; C-statistic = .717; Pseudo Nagelkerke R-
tend to purchase larger orders and on a frequent basis, even prior squared = .142. Coefficient estimates and standard errors in parentheses. 3,086
to their mobile adoption (average order size β = 0.270, p < .001; M-shoppers and 13,212 PC-only shoppers (non-adopters). Thanksgiving is every
year from November 15 through 30; Holidays is from December 20 through
average interpurchase time β = −0.737, p < .001). Additionally, January 2; Memorial Day is from May 25 through May 31; July Fourth is from
M-shoppers tend to have children present in their households July 1 through July 5.
(β = 0.194, p < .001), and they spend less time shopping during + p < .10.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.
5 For q = 0, a very small number, 1E−10 is added to q , and for q = 1,
io io io
1E−10 is subtracted.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 11

the pre-campaign period (β = −0.211, p < .001), suggesting a.

that time-savings may be a key factor to M-shopping adoption.
Customers with the lowest income are the least likely to adopt
M-shopping. Customers’ residence also matters – those who
live in cities where the commuter rail campaigns took place are
also more likely to become M-shoppers (β = 0.387, p < .001).
As mentioned previously in the methodology section, our
matched sample improves the balance between the M-shoppers
and the non-adopters for every covariate, and the Nagelkerke
pseudo R-squared of the propensity score model is .142.
Interestingly, the likelihood to adopt M-shopping has a non-
linear relationship with age. Customers who are 25 or younger
are less likely to adopt M-shopping than those between 26 and 45
but more likely than those who are 61 or older. Both literature
and conventional wisdom suggest that younger customers are
more likely to adopt mobile technology (Bigne, Ruiz, and Sanz b.
2005). However, research on consumer technology acceptance
also posits that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and
hedonic motivation can influence mobile adoption (Venkatesh,
Thong, and Xu 2012). Compared to the youngest segment, cus-
tomers between 25 and 60 are more likely to place a higher
priority on performance expectancy of buying groceries, and
they may also perceive the retailer’s mobile storefront as a util-
itarian tool that is also fun and novel. Customers who are 61
or older are the least likely to adopt M-shopping because their
lifestyle most likely does not require the time-savings that M-
shopping provides, and they may also be hindered by the amount
of cognitive effort it would take them to learn a new technology
(Venkatesh, Thong, and Xu 2012). Thus, in sum, while they Fig. 4. Model-free descriptions of customer purchase behavior by M-shopping
are not the youngest segment of the retailer’s customer base, adoption. Note: M-adoption operationalized as cumulative number of M-orders
purchased. 3,086 M-shoppers (45,346 orders), and 6,172 matched PC-only shop-
customers between aged 25 to 60 are the most likely to adopt
pers purchased (83,042 orders). Pre-campaign period is from June 2012 to
M-shopping. October 2012, and post-campaign period is from November 2012 to June 2013.

As Customers Become Accustomed to M-shopping, How

does their Purchase Behavior Change?
Hypothesis 1 posits that as customers become M-shoppers,
their order size increases. However, as shown in Table 5, the
model result is insignificant, so it is not supported. We think
this is because high-spenders are already saturating the amount
they can buy and consume within one basket. On average,
high-spenders already spend $175 per order. On the other
hand, Hypothesis 3b is supported – for low-spenders, their
orders get larger as they become accustomed to M-shopping
(β = 0.032, p < .001). In our matched sample, low-spenders
that shop with PCs only have an average order size of $133,
or ln(Order Size + 1) of 4.90. If they adopt M-shopping and
increase their cumulative M-orders by one, their logged order
size becomes 4.90 + ln(1 M-order + 1) × 0.032 = 4.92. Their
order size increases to exp(4.92) − 1 = $136, and on average
they make 5.7 orders a year, so adopting M-shopping yields
an increase of $3 × 5.7 = $17 a year per customer. As for
the low-spending M-shoppers, they have an average order
size of $140, or ln(Order Size + 1) of 4.95, and they place
1.63 cumulative M-orders a year. If all 1,659 of them also
increase their cumulative M-orders by 1, their logged order
size becomes 4.95 + ln(2.63 M-order + 1) × 0.032 = 4.99. Their
order size is now exp(4.99) − 1 = $146, and on average they
place 7.9 orders a year, so the retailer’s revenues increase
by $6 × 7.9 = $47 a year per customer. Fig. 4a illustrates the
differences in order size in pre- and post-campaign periods,
showing that the increase is greater for low-spenders than high-
spenders.
Hypothesis 2 posits that as customers become M-shoppers,
their order rate increases. As shown in Table 5, all M-shoppers
show an increase (β = 0.020, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis
2. Low-spenders also have an additional increase (β = 0.062,
p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3(a) is also supported. High-
spenders that shop using PCs only place 20.4 orders a year. If
they adopt M-shopping and increase their M-orders by one,
their order rate increases to exp[ln(20.4/365 Days/Year) + ln(1
M-order + 1) × 0.020] = 0.057 orders a day, or 20.7 orders
a year, which is an increase of 0.3/20.4 = 1.5%. Low-
spenders that shop using PCs only show a greater percentage
increase in order rate – on average they place 5.7 orders
per year, and if they adopt M-shopping, their order
rate increases to exp[ln(5.7/365 Days/Year) + ln(1 M-
order + 1) × (0.020 + 0.062)] =0.017 orders a day, or 6.0
orders a year, which is an increase of 0.3/5.7 = 5.3%, greater

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
12 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

Table 5
Estimates for the effect of becoming an M-shopper on order size and order rate.
Dependent variable Model

Log-log model Survival analysis

ln(Order Size + 1) ln(Hazard Rate) Hazard Ratio

Estimate (St. Err.) Estimate (St. Err.)

M-Shopping Adoption
ln(Mobile Frequency + 1) (mio ) −0.003 (0.003) 0.020** (0.007) 1.020
ln(Mobile Frequency + 1) × Low Spending (mio × lio ) 0.032*** (0.006) 0.062*** (0.014) 1.064
Frequency and Recency
ln(Order Frequency + 1) (fio ) 0.003 (0.002) 0.162*** (0.001) 1.176
ln(Order Recency in Days + 1) (rio ) 0.061*** (0.001) −0.505*** (0.002) 0.604
Order Characteristics (Oio )
ln(Discount + 1) 0.012*** (0.002) −0.015*** (0.002) 0.985
ln(Delivery Fees + 1) −0.295*** (0.004) −0.003 (0.007) 0.997
Seasonality (Sio )
Is Delivered over Thanksgiving 0.006 (0.004) −0.039*** (0.006) 0.962
Is Delivered over Holidays 0.022*** (0.004) 0.003 (0.007) 1.003
Is Delivered over Memorial Day 0.006 (0.006) 0.0003 (0.011) 1.0003
Is Delivered over July Fourth 0.025*** (0.007) −0.008 (0.012) 0.992
Demographics (dio )
Is Aged 18 To 25 −0.038 (0.029) 0.124*** (0.018) 1.132
Is Aged 26 To 30 −0.054** (0.021) −0.432*** (0.012) 0.649
Is Aged 31 To 35 −0.049* (0.020) −0.324*** (0.011) 0.723
Is Aged 36 To 40 −0.009 (0.019) −0.350*** (0.011) 0.705
Is Aged 41 To 45 0.027 (0.019) −0.198*** (0.011) 0.820
Is Aged 46 To 50 0.040* (0.018) 0.031** (0.010) 1.031
Is Aged 51 To 60 0.007 (0.018) 0.258*** (0.010) 1.294
Is Aged 61 To 70 −0.045* (0.019) 0.368*** (0.011) 1.445
Is Aged 71 To 80 −0.081*** (0.022) 0.580*** (0.012) 1.786
Is Aged 80 Plus −0.075*** (0.021) 0.423*** (0.012) 1.527
Has Kids 0.022*** (0.006) −0.119*** (0.003) 0.888
Has Income 40K 0.012 (0.013) 0.136*** (0.007) 1.146
Has Income 40 To 80K 0.013 (0.010) 0.072*** (0.006) 1.075
Has Income 80 To 100K 0.002 (0.013) 0.080*** (0.007) 1.083
Has Income 100 To 125K 0.024* (0.012) −0.054*** (0.007) 0.947
Has Income 125 To 150K 0.048*** (0.012) −0.118*** (0.007) 0.889
Has Income 150K Plus 0.058*** (0.013) −0.104*** (0.007) 0.901
Is Living in Campaigned City −0.079*** (0.008) −0.208*** (0.005) 0.812
Is Living in Pennsylvania −0.007 (0.019) 0.108*** (0.011) 1.114
Is Living in Wisconsin −0.094*** (0.024) 0.018 (0.014) 1.018
Is Living in Indiana −0.053+ (0.030) −0.194*** (0.017) 0.824
Is Living in Illinois −0.033* (0.014) −0.163*** (0.008) 0.850
Is Living in New Hampshire −0.123** (0.041) −0.071** (0.022) 0.931
Is Living in Maryland 0.016 (0.017) −0.079*** (0.010) 0.924
Is Living in Virginia −0.003 (0.018) −0.159*** (0.010) 0.853
Is Living in Rhode Island −0.094*** (0.019) −0.287*** (0.011) 0.751
Is Living in Massachusetts −0.049*** (0.015) −0.068*** (0.008) 0.934
Is Living in New York −0.041** (0.015) −0.249*** (0.009) 0.780
Is Living in Connecticut 0.048*** (0.014) 0.028*** (0.008) 1.028
Is Living in New Jersey 0.062*** (0.014) 0.020* (0.008) 1.020
Is Home Owner 0.029** (0.010) 0.036*** (0.005) 1.037
Is Home Renter −0.004 (0.022) 0.285*** (0.012) 1.330
Is Living in Single Family −0.031+ (0.017) −0.140*** (0.010) 0.869
Is Living in Multi-Family −0.1*** (0.017) −0.029** (0.010) 0.971
Is Married 0.038** (0.012) −0.005 (0.007) 0.995
Is Single 0.003 (0.012) 0.051*** (0.006) 1.052
Is High School/Tech. School Educated −0.021** (0.008) −0.044*** (0.004) 0.957
Is College Educated 0.004 (0.008) −0.078*** (0.004) 0.925
Is Graduate School Educated 0.021* (0.009) −0.090*** (0.005) 0.914
Has Online Dollars Spent, ≤$100 −0.060*** (0.010) −0.036*** (0.005) 0.965
Has Online Dollars Spent, $101 to $250 −0.036*** (0.010) −0.031*** (0.005) 0.969
Has Online Dollars Spent, $251 to $500 −0.018+ (0.010) −0.006 (0.006) 0.994
Has Online Dollars Spent, $501 to $1K −0.004 (0.010) −0.014* (0.005) 0.986

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 13

Table 5 (Continued)
Dependent variable Model

Log-log model Survival analysis

ln(Order Size + 1) ln(Hazard Rate) Hazard Ratio
Estimate (St. Err.) Estimate (St. Err.)

Has Online Dollars Spent, $1K to 5K 0.038*** (0.009) −0.107*** (0.005) 0.899
Has Online Dollars Spent, $5K+ 0.118*** (0.014) 0.044*** (0.008) 1.045
Other Control Variables
Is A Low Spender (li ) −0.243*** (0.006) −0.319*** (0.004) 0.727
Is After Campaign (go ) 0.007*** (0.002) −0.055*** (0.003) 0.946
Propensity Score 0.292*** (0.032) 2.995*** (0.019) 19.985
Random Effects
2 σ2
σ00 0.106*** (0.001) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
33
2 σ2
σ10 43 −0.001 (0.001) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
2 2
σ11 σ44 0.005*** (0.001) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
2 σ2
σ20 53 −0.005* (0.002) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
2 σ2
σ21 54 −0.003** (0.001) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
2 σ2
σ22 0.010*** (0.0001) 0.001*** (0.0001) 1.001
55

Intercept 5.455*** (0.020)

Alpha (α2 ) −9E−13 (0.001) 1.000

Note: Survival analysis: Negative log-likelihood = 822,555. Log-log model: −2 log likelihood = 54,061; fixed-model R-squared = .20. Coefficient estimates and
standard errors in parentheses. Orders from June 2012 to June 2013 of the matched sample. 3,086 M-shoppers that purchased 45,346 orders, and 6,172 PC-only
shoppers (non-adopters) that purchased 83,042 orders. M-shopping adoption is operationalized as the cumulative number of M-orders a customer has purchased,
and the interaction effect of M-order cumulative frequency × pre-period spending tier. Thanksgiving is every year from November 15 through 30; Holidays is from
December 20 through January 2; Memorial Day is from May 25 through May 31; July Fourth is from July 1 through July 5.
+ p < .10.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .001.

than the percentage increase for high-spending PC-only
shoppers. Similarly, for high-spending M-shoppers, who
on average place 1.71 M-orders a year, if they increase
their cumulative M-orders by one, their order rate increases
from 22.3 orders to exp[ln(22.3/365 Days/Year) + ln(1.71
M-order + 1) × 0.020] × 365 Days/Year = 22.7 orders a when customers M-shop, they tend to purchase items that do
year, which is a 0.4/22.3 = 1.8% increase. Consist again
with our Hypothesis 3, for low-spending M-shoppers,
who on average place 1.63 M-orders a year, if they
increase their cumulative M-orders by one, their order
rate increases from 8.2 to exp[ln(8.2/365 Days/Year) + ln(1.63
M-order + 1) × (0.020 + 0.062)] × 365 Days/Year = 8.9 orders
a year, an increase of 0.7/8.2 = 8.6%, which is greater than
the percentage increase of high-spending M-shoppers. Fig. 4b
illustrates the differences in order rate in pre- and post-campaign
periods, showing that the increase is greater for low-spenders
than high-spenders.
In sum, we conclude that as customers become adept at
M-shopping, they purchase more frequently, and the percent-
age increase in order rate is even greater for low-spenders.
Low-spenders not only purchase more frequently, their order
sizes also significantly increase. These results corroborate our
model-free explorations, as shown in Fig. 5. Even though high-
spending M-shoppers do not spend more per order, their order
rate increases while maintaining their order size, suggesting that
a retailer will gain higher lifetime value from both low- and
high-spenders if it introduces a successful mobile channel.
What Types of Product Categories do Customers Purchase
when they M-shop?
In Hypothesis 4, we posit that mobile devices are conve-
nient but have limited screen sizes and functionalities, and thus,
not require much consideration. As mentioned previously, we
characterize the degree of habitualness a product has with two
variables, niop , the number of times the item has been purchased
before, and wiop , the customer’s personal manufacturer sales
share in the product category. Table 6 shows the results, and
both variables are positive and significant (0.061, p < .001 for
niop and 0.003, p < .001 for wiop ). These findings suggest that
as customers M-shop, they tend to purchase habitual products,
confirming Hypotheses 4(a) and 4(b).
To provide insight that retailers and grocers can readily apply,
we show the top 10 most and least M-shopped categories, ranked
by the estimated mean values from the beta regression model,
in Table 7. We observe that customers purchase staple prod-
ucts, such as fresh produce, baby food, pet food, and dairy
when they M-shop. The least M-shopped categories include
household products that may require more research and con-
sideration before purchasing, such as batteries and light bulbs.
These findings suggest that mobile strategies may be more suited
for products with short consumption cycles than those that are
only purchased periodically, supporting our habitual purchase
hypothesis.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
14 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

Table 6
Estimates for M-shopping and habitual products.
a.
Dependent variable Mobile session proportion
Estimate (St. Err.)
Habitual Purchases
ln(Product Frequency + 1) (niop ) 0.061*** (0.001)
ln(Customer Manufacturer Share + 1) (wiop ) 0.003** (0.001)
Frequency and Recency
ln(Order Frequency + 1) (fio ) −0.018*** (0.001)
ln(Order Recency in Days + 1) (rio ) 0.040*** (0.002)
Order Characteristics (Oio )
ln(Discount + 1) −0.054*** (0.003)
ln(Delivery Fees + 1) −0.233*** (0.007)
Seasonality (Sio )
Is Delivered over Thanksgiving −0.124*** (0.006)
Is Delivered over Holidays 0.008 (0.007)
Is Delivered over Memorial Day 0.372*** (0.010)
Is Delivered over July Fourth −0.250*** (0.013)
Demographics (dio )
Is Aged 18 To 25 0.058* (0.026)
Is Aged 26 To 30 0.102*** (0.012)
Is Aged 31 To 35 0.119*** (0.011) b.
Is Aged 36 To 40 0.011 (0.011)
Is Aged 41 To 45 −0.043*** (0.011)
Is Aged 46 To 50 0.044*** (0.011)
Is Aged 51 To 60 −0.031** (0.011)
Is Aged 61 To 70 −0.055*** (0.011)
Is Aged 71 To 80 −0.099*** (0.013)
Is Aged 80 Plus −0.104*** (0.012)
Has Kids −0.056*** (0.003)
Has Income 40K −0.135*** (0.008)
Has Income 40 to 80K −0.117*** (0.006)
Has Income 80 to 100K 0.001 (0.007)
Has Income 100 to 125K −0.078*** (0.006)
Has Income 125 to 150K −0.082*** (0.007)
Has Income 150K Plus −0.060*** (0.007)
Is Living in Campaigned City −0.010+ (0.005)
Is Living in Pennsylvania −0.091*** (0.011)
Is Living in Wisconsin 0.070*** (0.018)
Is Living in Indiana −0.148*** (0.016)
Is Living in Illinois −0.119*** (0.009)
Is Living in New Hampshire 0.792*** (0.022)
Is Living in Maryland −0.106*** (0.011)
Fig. 5. Model-free descriptions of customer purchase behavior by number of
Is Living in Virginia −0.110*** (0.012)
Is Living in Rhode Island −0.064*** (0.012) M-orders. Note: M-adoption operationalized as cumulative number of M-orders
Is Living in Massachusetts −0.050*** (0.010) purchased. 3,086 M-shoppers (45,346 orders), and 6,172 matched PC-only shop-
Is Living in New York −0.036*** (0.009) pers purchased (83,042 orders).
Is Living in Connecticut −0.025** (0.009)
Is Living in New Jersey −0.026** (0.009)
Is Home Owner 0.079*** (0.006)
Is Home Renter −0.042** (0.013) Discussion
Is Living in Single Family 0.048*** (0.010)
Is Living in Multi-Family 0.029** (0.011)
Is Married 0.082*** (0.007)
Summary
Is Single 0.101*** (0.007)
Is High School/Tech. School Educated 0.012** (0.005)
Is College Educated −0.045*** (0.004)
We examine the impact of M-shopping on customers’ pur-
Is Graduate School Educated −0.024*** (0.005) chase behavior using empirical data and have four major
Has Online Dollars Spent, ≤$100 −0.099*** (0.006)
Has Online Dollars Spent, $101 to $250 −0.053*** (0.006)
findings. First, as customers develop the habit of M-shopping,
Has Online Dollars Spent, $251 to $500 −0.002 (0.006) their value to the online grocer increases since they place orders
Has Online Dollars Spent, $501 to $1K −0.089*** (0.006)
Has Online Dollars Spent, $1K to 5K −0.085*** (0.005)
more frequently. Second, the positive effect of M-shopping on
Has Online Dollars Spent, $5K+ −0.175*** (0.008) subsequent purchase behavior is more prominent on customers
Precision (φ = ε + τ) 0.173*** (0.0002) with low spending prior to mobile adoption. Low-spenders
Intercept −0.711*** (0.019)
place larger orders on a more frequent basis after adopting M-
Note: Negative log-likelihood = −14,124,271. Coefficient estimates and stan-
shopping. Third, when customers M-shop, they tend to purchase
dard errors in parentheses. M-shoppers who have 11 or more orders from June
2012 to June 2013 of 1,605 M-shoppers, 36,367 orders, and 1,421,254 products habitual items that they have purchased before or products from
(UPCs). Habitualness of a product is operationalized as the cumulative number manufacturers’ with whom they have past experience. Over-
a customer has purchased the item, and the customer’s manufacturer SOR in the all, some of the most M-shopped products include fresh fruits,
product category. Thanksgiving is every year from November 15 through 30; baby food, milk, and coffee creamers. These categories are items
Holidays is from December 20 through January 2; Memorial Day is from May
that customers have experience purchasing in the past. Least
25 through May 31; July Fourth is from July 1 through July 5.
+ p < .10. M-shopped items include light bulbs, vitamins, and batteries,
* p < .05. which are purchased less frequently. These products are not only
** p < .01.
less familiar to customers, but they also have long consumption
*** p < .001.
cycles, and customers tend to consider them carefully before

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx 15

Table 7
Most and least M-shopped categories.
Rank Most M-shopped categories Number of past items Top brands Brand unit share

1 Weight Loss/Stop Smoking Aids 9.1 Atkins – Atkins 46.0%

Kellogg – Special K 23.2%
2 Beverages – Water/Seltzer/Tonic 30.1 Nestle – Poland Spring 18.7%
Own Brands – Private Label 32.2%
3 Dairy Milk/Drinks/Half & Half/Cream 17.2 Own Brands – Private Label 44.7%
Dean Foods – Garelick Farms 7.6%
4 Fresh Market Produce Fruits 61.8 Produce – Banana Yellow 20.1%
Produce – Banana Green 12.3%
5 Health & Fitness Needs 17.8 Clif – Clif 23.1%
Clif – Luna 19.9%
6 Dairy Potatoes 4.2 Simply Potatoes – Simply Potatoes 48.8%
Bob Evans – Bob Evans 29.2%
7 Pet Food & Products 49.0 Nestle – Fancy Feast 33.2%
Nestle – Friskies 23.9%
8 Baby Food/Formula 25.5 Nestle – Gerber 56.4%
Hain Celestial – Earths Best 21.4%
9 Dairy Yogurt/Pudding/Gelatin 28.9 General Mills – Yoplait 25.2%
Chobani – Chobani 23.9%
10 Snacks – Rice & Corn Cakes 6.7 Quaker – Quaker 60.7%
Own Brands – Private Label 36.1%

Rank Least M-shopped categories Number of past items Top brands Brand unit share

1 Stuffing 1.8 Kraft – Stove Top 68.3%

Campell – Pepperidge Farm 20.8%
2 Stationery Products 0.9 Own Brands – Private 61.2%
3M – Scotch 11.6%
3 Light Bulbs/Electrical Supplies 0.8 Own Brands – Private Label 50.4%
E Light Bulbs – Sylvania 31.8%
4 Body Lotion 2.7 Unilever – Vaseline 29.2%
Unilever – Suave 16.7%
5 Batteries/Film/Audio Video Tapes 0.7 Procter & Gamble – Duracell 45.4%
Energizer – Energizer 27.3%
6 Flour/Meal 1.0 General Mills – Gold Medal 27.3%
King Arthur – King Arthur 21.8%
7 Vitamins & Supplements 1.2 Pharmavite – Nature Made 43.2%
Bayer – Flintstones 14.4%
8 Cosmetics/Nail Care 0.5 Own Brands – Private Label 73.1%
Maybelline – Maybelline 12.5%
9 Baking Needs/Choc/Nuts/Extract 2.3 Diamond – Diamond 17.7%
Nestle – Toll House 17.8%
10 First Aid 1.6 Own Brands – Private Label 53.3%
Johnson & Johnson – Band Aid 25.1%

Note: Includes categories that have at least 10% of household share from June 2012 to June 2013.

purchasing to minimize potential regret. Lastly, customers’ past
experience with a manufacturer can influence their choices.
Mobile devices are limited in screen size, so constrained by
the ability to search for the most suitable products on their own,
customers are inclined to purchase brands from manufacturers
they already know.
Besides presenting the empirical findings, we also theo-
rize that mobile devices provide convenience, which causes
increased spending. We explain that mobile adoption is a cumu-
lative process, and we operationalize it with a numerical variable.
As customers become accustomed to mobile technology and
incorporate it as a part of their habitual behavior, they develop
the habit of interacting with the firms that provide the mobile
channel. In addition, we posit that customers undertake different
buying strategies while shopping in a mobile environment as
opposed to a more traditional channel, e.g., PCs.
These insights have significant managerial relevance. Evident
in both industry reports (e.g., Deloitte Consulting 2012; Google
Shopper Marketing Council 2013) and our data, M-shopping
has an increasing trend as more customers acquire and become
accustomed to using smartphones and tablets. Mobile devices
have the advantage of providing convenience across both tempo-
ral and spatial dimensions. Due to ergonomic and technological
differences, they provide customers a more personal, interactive,
and immediate shopping experience. Smartphones and tablets
are pocket- or purse size, always-on, always-connected devices
that are controlled by human touch directly on their screens,
whereas laptops tend to take a longer time to boot-up, and

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
16 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
customers tend to interact with them using external hardware
such as keyboards, trackpads, or mice. Ergonomically speaking,
customers can easily pull out their mobile devices to browse or
shop at a retailer using just one finger. Technologically, mobile
devices are often incorporated with both telecommunication
networks such as 4G LTE and local area wireless technology
(Wi-Fi), and therefore they provide more seamless access to
retailers’ online storefronts than PCs, which are connected to
mostly Wi-Fi only. In short, the ease of access provided by
mobile devices is why retailers should expand their mobile store-
fronts.
These insights should help retailers and brands in planning
their mobile marketing strategies and advertising campaigns.
Mobile devices are tools for reinforcing existing behaviors, not
for learning new information. Thus, when a firm launches a new
brand or product, it should refrain from focusing solely on the
mobile channel, especially if the brand offers niche products
or if the firm is a secondary player in the market and has only
modest household or market shares in the category. For major
brands or firms with a loyal customer base, increasing presence
in mobile storefronts has the potential of retaining existing cus-
tomers, who rely on their habitual choices and heuristic brand
perceptions when they M-shop. Especially for low or occasional
spenders, who have the lowest spending and are the most diffi-
cult to retain, successfully branded firms should take advantage
of the mobile channel and emphasize their positive brand image
to these customers.
The implication of this research extends beyond mobile usage
in grocery shopping. Our findings suggest that encouraging cus-
tomers to develop the habit of M-shopping is important for a
retailer. Repeat M-shopping behavior leads to an increase in
order size and order rate. However, for customers to repeat-
edly M-shop, they must first find value in M-shopping. A useful
mobile channel provides convenient access, which provides
value in customers’ daily routines. Hence, as customers con-
tinue to find value in M-shopping and increase their M-shopping
occurrences, their spending and likelihood to re-purchase will
increase.
Limitations
We utilize the methodology of propensity score matching to
address any selection bias that may have been present in our sam-
ple data. While it is an appropriate method for addressing the
issue of non-random treatment selection due to observed char-
acteristics, we concede that there may be other endogenous but
unobserved variables that contribute to the selection bias of M-
shopping adoption. Ideally, one would incorporate instrumental
variable regressions in addition to propensity score matching.
However, in our dataset, there are no apparent variables that
can affect M-shopping adoption and yet are not directly corre-
lated with purchase behavior. For instance, a potentially suitable
instrumental variable could be customers’ purchases of mobile
devices or mobile wireless contracts, but unfortunately we don’t
have this type of data. Alternatively, future work could also
verify and extend our findings by conducting in-market experi-
ments.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
Besides the methodological limitations, there are several
possible extensions for future research. We examine only one
dataset. While we believe our findings can be generalized across
industries, other industries may present different nuances. For
instance, compared to groceries, entertainment and media con-
sumptions are less fixed and could lead to more impulsive
purchases. Our work suggests that higher-involvement cate-
gories that require substantial consideration such as vacation
packages may not be suitable for mobile channels, at least not as
the primary touch point. Mobile channels should be more preva-
lent in other, low-consideration, contexts. Additionally, due to
data limitations, we do not know the sequence of how the devices
are used in a mobile order. Combined with our habitual pur-
chase hypothesis, understanding how and why customers switch
amongst their device types could reveal tactics that allow retail-
ers to better target their customers. Finally, there are many other
follow-up questions worth exploring. Do customers become
more or less price-sensitive as they adopt M-shopping? When
it is more cumbersome to explore alternative options, which
can be the case the case with mobile screens, our work predicts
that consumers will be less price sensitive, although the fact
that consumers always have devices with them facilitates price
comparisons in traditional retail environments (e.g., checking
the price of an item at a competitor while shopping in a physi-
cal store). Thus context may moderate price sensitivity. Future
studies should address these issues in order to further expand
our knowledge in this emerging and exciting topic.
References
Adipat, Boonlit, Dongsong Zhang and Lina Zhou (2011), “The Effects of
Tree-View Based Presentation Adaptation on Mobile Web Browsing,” MIS
Quarterly, 35 (March), 99–121.
Albers, Michael J. and Loel Kim (2000), “User Web Browsing Characteristics
Using Palm Handhelds for Information Retrieval,” in Proc. IEEE Pro-
fessional Communication Soc. International Professional Communication
Conference, 125–35.
Allison, Paul (2010), Survival Analysis Using SAS® : A Practical Guide, 2nd ed.
Cary, North Carolina, United States: SAS Institute, Inc.
Ansari, Asim, Carl F. Mela and Scott A. Neslin (2008), “Customer Channel
Migration,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (February), 60–76.
Ask, Julie, Carrie Johnson, Vidya L. Drego, Henry H. Harteveldt, Sucharita
Mulpuru and Laura Wiramihardja (2011), “Mobile Is Not Just Another
Channel – A POST Report How eBusiness Executives Can Create Unique
Offerings For Portable Devices,” Forrester Research (March) (accessed
December 17, 2014), [available at https://www.forrester.com/Mobile+
Is+Not+Just+Another+Channel/fulltext/-/E-RES58676].
Austin, Peter C. (2011), “An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for
Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies,” Multivari-
ate Behavioral Research, 46 (June), 399–424.
Barnes, Stuart J. (2002), “Wireless Digital Advertising: Nature and Implica-
tions,” International Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 399–420.
Bell, Genevieve (2006), “The Age of the Thumb: A Cultural Reading of Mobile
Technologies from Asia,” Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 19 (2), 41–57.
Bigne, Enrique, Carla Ruiz and Silvia Sanz (2005), “The Impact of Internet
User Shopping Patterns and Demographics on Consumer Mobile Buying
Behavior,” Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (August), 193–209.
Brasel, S. Adam and James Gips (2014), “Tablets, Touchscreens and Touch-
pads: How Varying Touch Interfaces Trigger Psychological Ownership and
Endowment,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24 (April), 226–33.
Brinker, Mike, Kasey Lobaugh and Alison Paul (2012), “The Dawn of
Mobile Influence – Discovering the Value of Mobile in Retail,” Deloitte
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx
Digital (June) (accessed December 17, 2014), [available at http://www2.
deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/consumer-business/us-
retail-mobile-influence-factor-062712.pdf].
Chintagunta, Pradeep K., Junhong Chu and Junhong Cebollada (2012), “Quan-
tifying Transaction Costs in Online/Off-line Grocery Channel Choice,”
Marketing Science, 31 (1), 96–114.
EMarketer (2014), “2 Billion Consumers Worldwide to Get Smart(phones)
by 2016,” (accessed December 17, 2014), [available at www.
emarketer.com/Article/2-Billion-Consumers-Worldwide-Smartphones-
by-2016/1011694].
Fazio, Russell H., Janet E. Ledbetter and Tamara Lowles-schwen (2000),
“On the Costs of Accessible Attitudes: Detecting That the Attitude
Objects Has Changed,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
197–210.
Ferrari, Silvia L.P. and Francisco Cribari-Neto (2005), “Beta Regression for
Modelling Rates and Proportions,” Journal of Applied Statistics, 31 (7),
799–815.
Fujii, Satoshi, Tommy Gärling and Ryuichi Kitamura (2001), “Changes in
Drivers’ Perceptions and Use of Public Transport During a Freeway Clo-
sure: Effects of Temporary Structural Change on Cooperation in a Real-Life
Social Dilemma,” Environment and Behavior, 33, 796–808.
Ghose, Anindya and Sung-Hyuk Park (2013), “The Negative Impact of Mobile
Devices on Niche Product Consumption,” in paper read at Thirty Fourth
International Conference on Information Systems,
Ghose, Anindya, Avi Goldfarb and Sang-Pil Han (2013), “How is the Mobile
Internet Different? Search Costs and Local Activities,” Information Systems
Research, 24 (3), 613–31.
Goldfarb, Avi (2006), “The (Teaching) Role of Universities in the Diffusion of
the Internet,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24 (March),
203–25.
Goldfarb, Avi and Jeffrey Prince (2008), “Internet Adoption and Usage Patterns
are Different: Implications for the Digital Divide,” Information Economics
and Policy, 20 (March), 2–15.
Google Shopper Marketing Council (2013), “Mobile In-Store Research
How In-store Shoppers are Using Mobile Devices,” Google Research
(April) (accessed December 17, 2014), [available at https://www.
thinkwithgoogle.com/research-studies/mobile-in-store.html].
Hand, Chris, Francesca Dall’Olmo Riley, Patricia Harris, Jaywant Singh and
Ruth Rettie (2009), “Online Grocery Shopping: The Influence of Situational
Factors,” European Journal of Marketing, 43 (9), 1205–19.
Ho, Daniel E., Kosuke Imai, Gary King and Elizabeth A. Stuart (2007), “Matchit:
Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference,” Journal of
Statistical Software, 42 (8), 1–28.
Husson, Thomas, Julie A. Ask, Carrie Johnson, Melissa Parrish and Emily
Kwan (2014), “Mobile Trends for Marketers,” Forrester Research (January)
(accessed December 17, 2014), [available at https://www.forrester.
com/Predictions+2014+Mobile+Trend+For+Marketers/fulltext/-/E-
RES109681?docid=109681].
IBM ExperienceOne (2014), “U.S. Retail Black Friday Report 2014,”
IBM Digital Analytics Benchmark (November) (accessed December
19, 2014), [available at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/marketing-
solutions/benchmark-reports/black-friday-report-2014.pdf].
Imbens, Guido W. (2004), “Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment
Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review,” The Review of Economics and Statis-
tics, 86 (February), 4–29.
Imbens, Guido W. and Donald B. Rubin (2015), Causal Inference in Statistics,
Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction, Cambridge University
Press (forthcoming)
Jih, Wen-Jang (2007), “Effects of Consumer-Perceived Convenience on Shop-
ping Intention in Mobile Commerce: An Empirical Study,” International
Journal of E-Business Research, 3 (4), 33–48.
Joy, Annamma, John Sherry Jr., Alladi Venkatesh and Jonathan Deschenes
(2009), “Perceiving Images and Telling Tales: A Visual and Verbal Analysis
of the Meaning of the Internet,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19 (June),
556–66.
Kleijnen, Mirella, Ko de Ruyter and Martin Wetzels (2007), “An Assessment
of Value Creation in Mobile Service Delivery and the Moderating Role of
Time Consciousness,” Journal of Retailing, 83 (1), 33–46.
Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002
17
Kumar, V. and Rajkumar Venkatesan (2005), “Who are the Multichannel Shop-
pers and How Do They Perform?: Correlates of Multichannel Shopping
Behavior,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19 (2), 44–62.
Larivière, Bart, Herm Joosten, Edward C. Malthouse, Marcel van Birgelen, Pelin
Aksoy, Werner H. Kunz and Ming-Hui Huang (2013), “Value Fusion: The
Blending of Consumer and Firm Value in the Distinct Context of Mobile
Technologies and Social Media,” Journal of Service Management, 24 (3),
268–93.
Mulpuru, Sucharita, Patti Freeman Evans, Douglas Roberge and Marcus
Johnson (2013), “US Mobile Retail Forecast, 2012 to 2017,” For-
rester Research (January) (accessed December 17, 2014), [available at
https://www.forrester.com/US+Mobile+Retail+Forecast+2012+To+2017/
fulltext/-/E-RES89921?docid=89921].
Neal, David T., Wendy Wood, Jennifer S. Labrecque and Phillippa Lally (2012),
“How Do Habits Guide Behavior? Perceived and Actual Triggers of Habits in
Daily Life,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48 (March), 492–8.
Neslin, Scott A. and Venkatesh Shankar (2009), “Key Issues in Multichannel
Customer Management: Current Knowledge and Future Directions,” Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 23 (February), 70–81.
Okazaki, Shintaro and Felipe Mendez (2013), “Perceived Ubiquity in Mobile
Services,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 27 (May), 98–111.
Paul, Christine L., Kathleen J. Mee, Tanya M. Judd, Raoul A. Walsh, Anita
Tang, Andrew Penman and Afaf Girgis (2010), “Anywhere, Anytime:
Retail Access to Tobacco in New South Wales and Its Potential Impact
on Consumption and Quitting,” Social Science & Medicine, 71 (August),
799–806.
Pozzi, Andrea (2012), “Shopping Cost and Brand Exploration in Online Gro-
cery,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 4 (August), 96–120.
Reinartz, Werner J. and V. Kumar (2000), “On the Profitability of Long-Life
Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An Empirical Investigation and
Implications for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (October), 17–35.
Rosenbaum, Paul R. and Donald B. Rubin (1983), “The Central Role of the
Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects,” Biometrika,
70 (April), 41–55.
and (1985), “Constructing a Con-
trol Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate
the Propensity Score,” The American Statistician, 39 (February), 33–8.
Rubin, Donald B. (2007), “The Design versus the Analysis of Observational
Studies for Causal Effects: Parallels with the Design of Randomized Trials,”
Statistics in Medicine, 26 (January), 20–36.
Rubin, Donald B. and Neal Thomas (2000), “Combining Propensity Score
Matching with Additional Adjustments for Prognostic Covariates,” Journal
of the American Statistical Association, 95 (June), 573–85.
Scharl, Arno, Astrid Dickinger and Jamie Jurphy (2005), “Diffusion and Suc-
cess Factors of Mobile Marketing,” Electronic Commerce Research and
Applications, 4 (2), 159–73.
Shankar, Venkatesh and Sridhar Balasubramanian (2009), “Mobile Market-
ing: A Synthesis and Prognosis,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23,
118–29.
Shankar, Venkatesh, Alladi Venkatesh, Charles Hofacker and Prasad Naik
(2010), “Mobile Marketing in the Retailing Environment: Current Insights
and Future Research Avenues,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 24,
111–20.
Smithson, Michael and Jay Verkuilen (2006), “A Better Lemon Squeezer?
Maximum-Likelihood Regression with Beta-Distributed Dependent Vari-
ables,” Pyschological Methods, 11 (1), 54–71.
StrongMail (2012), “StrongMail Mobile Marketing Survey 2012,”
(accessed December 17, 2014), [available at http://www.strongview.
com/pdf/SM MobileSurvey2012.pdf].
Stuart, Elizabeth A. (2010), “Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review
and a Look Forward,” Statistical Science, 25 (November), 1–21.
Sweeney, Simon and Fabio Crestani (2006), “Effective Search Results Sum-
mary Size and Device Screen Size: Is There a Relationship?,” Information
Processing & Management, 42 (July), 1056–74.
Triandis, Harry C. (1977), Interpersonal Behavior, Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.
U.S. Labor Bureau of Statistics (2013). “Consumer Price Index,” (accessed
December 17, 2014), [available at www.bls.gov/cpi/].
+Model
RETAIL-553; No. of Pages 18 ARTICLE IN PRESS
18 R.J.-H. Wang et al. / Journal of Retailing xxx (xxx, 2015) xxx–xxx

Venkatesan, Rajkumar, V. Kumar and Nalini Ravishanker (2007), “The Impact
of Customer–Firm Interactions on Customer Channel Adoption Duration,”
Journal of Marketing, 71 (2), 114–32.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, James Y.L. Thong and Xin Xu (2012), “Consumer
Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified The-
ory of Acceptance and Use of Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 36 (March),
156–78.
Verplanken, Bas (2006), “Beyond Frequency: Habit as Mental Con-
struct,” British Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (September),
639–56.
Verplanken, Bas and Wendy Wood (2006), “Interventions to Break and Create
Consumer Habits,” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 25 (1), 90–103.
Wood, Wendy and David T. Neal (2009), “The Habitual Consumer,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 19 (October), 579–92.
Yang, Kiseol (2010), “Determinants of US Consumer Mobile Shopping Services
Adoption: Implications for Designing Mobile Shopping Services,” Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 27 (3), 262–70.
Yang, Kiseol and Hye-Young Kim (2012), “Mobile Shopping Motivation: An
Application of Multiple Discriminant Analysis,” International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 40 (10), 778–89.

Please cite this article in press as: Wang, Rebecca Jen-Hui, et al, On the Go: How Mobile Shopping Affects Customer Purchase Behavior,
Journal of Retailing (xxx, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.01.002