Chapter-2

Review of Literature

34
2.1Introduction
Literature review can be presented in number of ways (The writing center, 2007):
Chronological (accordingly to when the literature was published), by trend (by noting the
main trends), methodological (depending upon the method used by the researcher), and
thematic. The literature review in this case is presented chronologically.

The journals that contributed the most are as follows:

1. International Journal of Retail and distribution Management

2. Journal of Consumer Marketing
3. European journal of Marketing
4. Sociological Methods & Research
5. Journal of Consumer Psychology
6. Journal of Retailing
7. Harvard Business Review
8. Journal of Consumer Research
9. Journal of Shopping Center Research
10. Journal of the Academy Marketing Sciences
11. Advances in Consumer Research
12. Journal of Marketing Research
13. International Journal of Marketing
14. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice

The literature review focuses on the triggers of shopping identified by various researchers
across the globe, with specific emphasis on merchandising and selection of outlet.
Moreover, it explores the different quantitative methods followed by different researchers
to reach at quantifiable factors under different conditions of study. The focus of the
literature review is to understand factors influencing shopper behavior and the scales
used by different researchers across the globe to address shopper buying behavior. This
also identifies the gap in the present research and derives hypotheses to address those
areas.

35
Hardly any research has been done on retail shopper behavior before 2004 in India, this
may be attributed to the late entry of organized retailing in India. However the research
by Sinha and Banerjee (2004) and Goswami and Mishra (2009) provide a lot of insight
into the Indian shopper behavior.

2.2 Literature On Shopper Buying Behavior

Different researchers have propounded different dimensions in shopping behavior. Some
of the old researches gave higher importance to exogenous factors like socioeconomic
background, shopping task, and pre-purchase information etc. influencing shopper
behavior. As per the research conducted by Dodge and Summer (1969), Store choice
has been found dependent on socio-economic background of consumers, their personality
and past purchase experience (64). The role of ambience in store choice was proposed by
Kotler (1973), atmospherics as an important part of retail marketing strategy (131).
There have been debates and discussions on brand choice vs. store choice.

In a study of store choice behavior among audio equipment shoppers, Dash et al. (1976)
found that the level of pre-purchase information regarding the brand determined the type
of store chosen (58). Shoppers who had higher levels of pre-purchase information
generally shopped at the specialty store, whereas shoppers with low pre-purchase
information bought at departmental stores.

In a study conducted by Mattson (1982), it was found that situational attributes, such as
time pressure and gift-versus self-shopping, can influence store choice and attribute
salience (144).

Store choice behaviour of shoppers has been found to share many similarities with brand
choice. As per Meyer and Eagle (1982), while brand choice is devoid of any geography,
the choice of a store is very much influenced by location (156).

It is also indicated that the situational influence needs to be evaluated for every visit and
hence some shoppers may change their choice because of situation specific drivers.
Another dimension that has been found to influence the store choice decision has been
the type of shopping task. A task is defined as the goals set by the shopper to resolve the

36
needs derived out of a specific situation. Malhotra (1983) proposes a concept of
preference threshold (142). It is suggested that shoppers tend to show a preference for a
store depending on the threshold value allotted by the shopper. It is assumed that if the
perceived value is less than the threshold, the shopper may not choose the store. The
threshold value for an individual customer is affected to a large extent by the image
characteristics of the store. Lumpkin et al. (1985) found that as compared to young
shoppers, elderly shoppers were less price-conscious and proximity of residence to store
was not an important factor for them (139). They considered shopping as recreational
activity and thus chose a store that is perceived to be high on “entertainment” value.

A few studies have examined the effect of consumer demographics on retail format
choice in the grocery context. Zeithaml (1985) conducted a field study to examine the
effects of five demographic variables (gender, female working status, age, income,
marital status) on supermarket shopping variables (e.g. shopping time, number of
supermarkets visited weekly, amount of money spent) (215). The study detected major
shifts in demographic characteristics of US grocery consumers and the author predicted
that the traditional mass market for grocery products in the US would break into various
market fragments as new retail formats emerged. In particular, the study emphasized that
changes in the family unit (e.g. increases in the number of working females, male
shoppers, and single, divorced, or widowed households) would drive changes in grocery
patronage in the USA.

Store choice has also been found dependent on the timing of shopping trips as consumers
may go to a local store for short “fill-in” trips and to a more distant grocery store for
regular shopping trips (Kahn, 1986) (109).

McGoldrick and Betts (1995) conducted a research named „ Consumer behavior and the
retail sales‟ in UK (152). The research focused on two key issues, namely the motive for
sale shopping and the behavioral response to sale. The researchers construct 8 factors
explaining 63% of the variance using factor analysis. The identified factors are as
follows (The values in bracket against factors explain the total variance explained by
each factor, the values in bracket against the attributes explain the factor loadings of the
respective attribute)

37
Factor 1: excitement (21.5)

 All the people/buzz make shopping more exciting (0.8534)

 Enjoy atmosphere created by others‟ enthusiasm (0.8374)
 Dislike the crowds during the “sales” (–0.7362)
 Rummaging around to find bargains is half the fun (0.6748)
 Would enjoy Harrods “sale” for the madness of it (0.4890)
 Finding bargains means more money to put in bank (0.4644)
 Enjoy shopping in the seasonal “sales” (0.4551)
 Exaggerate a little about savings made (0.4352)

Factor 2: planned impulse (8.5)

 Would not wait a month to save £20 on £100 coat (–0.6392)

 Look forward to the “January sales” (0.6382)
 Missing out if I did not go to the “sales” (0.6339)
 Put money aside or have a budget for the “sales” (0.5983)
 Open to influence by prices and products in “sales” (0.5317
 Go to “sales” for exercise (0.5155)
 Finding bargains means that I can buy more (0.4793)

Factor 3: shopping behaviour (7.3)

 More impulsive and more mistakes made in “sales” (0.7614)

 Only buy things really needed in “sales” (–0.6466)
 Less likely to shop around and compare prices (0.5572)
 Would consider queuing up for “sales” (0.5295)
 Open to influence by prices and products in “sales” (0.4657)
 Enjoy shopping in the seasonal “sales” (0.4468)

Factor 4: trade-up and competitive rivalry (6.4)

 Enjoy more prestigious stores – treated with more respect (0.8068)

 Satisfying to find bargains before anyone else does (0.5903)

38
  Enjoy paying retailer less than I think item is worth (0.5150)
 Enjoy more expensive stores out of usual price range (0.4957)
 Enjoy paying less than others have paid for item (0.4560)
 Store service is much worse during “sales” (–0.4146)

Factor 5: consumer protection I (5.4)

 Irritating when people you know get things cheaper than you (–0.7816)
 Consumers seldom taken in by false “sale” offers (0.6199)
 “Sales” should not be allowed to last all year long (0.5834)
 Buying cheaper is good practical housekeeping (–0.4930)

Factor 6: consumer protection (II) (5.3)

 Irritated by seconds and by soiled “sale” goods (0.7011)

 More legal protection needed from misleading “sale” claims (0.6547)

Factor 7: spending justification (4.4)

 Unlikely to tell people how much bargains cost (–0.8410)

 Less guilty buy for myself in a “sale” (0.5160)
 Buying cheaper is good practical housekeeping (0.4800)

Factor 8: saving orientation (4.1)

 Prefer small reducations on many items (0.7016)

 Find bargains all year round if you know how (0.6856)

Factor 1: excitement. This factor brings together eight variables reflecting many of the
arousal stimuli provided by shopping in the “sales”. It should be noted that the “dislike
crowds” scale loads negatively within this factor. The majority (62.3 per cent) of
respondents enjoy “sale” shopping, although this cannot be taken to reflect shoppers in
general.

39
Factor 2: planned impulse. The singles are more likely to be among the minority (25.5
per cent) who actually look forward to the January “sales” (p = 0.013) and the minority
(33.3 per cent) who fear missing out by not going shopping (p = 0.002). Those putting
money aside for the “sales” tend to be from the lower income groups (p = 0.030). Only
32.7 per cent deny being open to influence by “sale” offers, mainly the marrieds (p =
0.046).

Factor 3: shopping behaviour. This factor is more concerned with the purchase
behaviour than preparation. Interestingly, the disinclination to compare prices during
“sales” is associated with more spontaneous buying mistakes. The sample is evenly
divided as to the tendency to be impulsive and make mistakes in the “sales”; the younger,
higher income respondents are most candid about this (p = 0.009; p = 0.046). Conversely,
the tendency to buy only what is really needed carries a negative loading and is
associated with older (p = 0.020) and lower middle class respondents (ANOVA; p =
0.010). Few agree that they would queue for a “sale” (9.1 per cent), the singles again
being more likely to be among this “hard core” of “sale” shoppers (p = 0.018).

Factor 4: trade-up and competitive rivalry. At first inspection this factor may appear to
comprise two distinct sub-factors, which should have emerged as separate factors. There
is however a common element, namely, the satisfaction of winning. Not only do shoppers
win when they “get one over” on the retailer, or beat the efforts of fellow shoppers and
friends, but this satisfaction can also be derived from visiting more expensive stores
where their game playing is rewarded with a preferred level of quality.

Factor 5: consumer protection (I). This could also be described as the “fair play” factor,
noting especially the negative loading of the first variable. Most (54.5 per cent) of
respondents are irritated when someone they know gets an item cheaper than they did;
younger shoppers feel that pain especially strongly (p = 0.011).

Factor 6: consumer protection (II). Alternatively labeled “sale negatives”, two of the
most universally held views emerge as a separate factor. In both cases, around 70 per cent
of respondents gave replies towards the “agree” end of the scale. These dislikes show no
particular association with shopper demographics.

40
Factor 7: spending justification. This brings together three variables, with over 70 per
cent of the sample agreeing (or disagreeing in the case of the first variable). Spending
money is justified more easily when it is on a “bargain”. Discussing the cost of bargains
can be reassuring to the shopper, being an opportunity to rationalize the purchase and to
reduce the dissonance which frequently sets in after being heavily influenced by “deals”.

Factor 8: saving orientation. This factor suggests consistent value consciousness, rather
than making a “quick killing”. The preference for many items with small reductions is
greatest among the middle/lower classes. The view that bargains can be found year
round, if you know how to shop for them, is held most strongly by the older respondents.

Shopper behavior has been studied extensively in Europe. Mueller and Broderick
(1995) in their research paper “ East European retailing: a consumer perspective”
describe the findings of an extensive consumer survey carried out in 1993 in Bulgaria,
the Czech Republic and Hungary (166). In this research empirical findings provide an
understanding of the food retail systems in Eastern Europe, consumer behavior and
consumer satisfaction with the various forms of food retailing. The cross-cultural
descriptive comparisons support and expand on current literature in East European retail
systems, and bridge an information gap by incorporating East European consumer views.
The analysis is particularly useful for domestic and international retailers when
considering their development strategies. Primary findings show that frequency of
shopping (the majority shop at least three times a week) and distance to shop (within
walking distance) is due to lack of an adequate domestic infrastructure. Surprisingly, the
majority of Bulgarians and Czechs use private shops most often, whereas state-owned
stores seem to be prevalent in Hungary. Perceptions of stores in terms of layout,
cleanliness, atmosphere, good service, quality foods, good variety of foods, favour
private shops and mirror Western perceptions about the substandard nature of Communist
food retailing.

Davies and Liu (1996) has explained “Bringing stores to shoppers – not shoppers to
stores” and described location theory in bringing store to shoppers (138). It says the way
we think about retail location is dominated by the idea that the primary role of the retail
store or the retail centre is to attract the shopper to the location. An alternative paradigm

41
exists of taking retailing to where there are people either at home or in crowds and this is
likely to become more important for a number of reasons. Just because a crowd exists
does not mean that the people in it can be easily converted to being shoppers. A number
of factors will determine the likely levels of sales: the complementarity of the
merchandise with the primary activity being followed by the crowd; the ease with which
they can exit from that activity; the associated issue of how much time they perceive is
available to them; and the level of crowding.

Smith and Burns (1996) in their research paper “ Atmospherics and retail environment:
the case of the power aisle” examine the relationship between the merchandising
strategies employed in the configuration of a power aisle and consumers‟ price
perceptions of those products within a warehouse grocery store setting (186). The results
suggest that a power aisle comprising a smaller number of stock-keeping units (SKUs)
and a correspondingly greater quantity of each item will convey a lower price image than
will a power aisle comprising a greater number of SKUs and a correspondingly smaller
quantity of each item. Evidence that the merchandising policies used in the power aisle of
a warehouse grocery store have the ability to affect consumers‟ perceptions of those
prices, therefore, was observed. This study appears to provide evidence that the
merchandising policies used in the power aisle of a warehouse grocery store may have
the ability to affect consumers‟ perceptions of the prices of those products. These
findings provide support to the hypothesis that the number of SKUs and the quantities of
those products included in a power aisle will affect consumers‟ price perceptions of those
products. It appears that increasing the number of SKUs in a power aisle and likewise
reducing the quantity of each may lead to a perception of higher prices of the products in
that power aisle. The likely rationale for this observation is that the structure of the power
aisle (the signifier) affects the connotative meaning (signified) consumers assign to it.
The power aisle based on a higher number of SKUs is likely to be less consistent with the
power aisle ordinarily associated with discount retail stores since it would be expected to
portray a lesser “massed-out” look. As a result, consumers can be expected to be less
likely to apply the low-price connotative meaning to that power aisle and, as a result, they
will be less likely to view the power aisle as a value signal in this instance. It further
appears that the merchandising policies used in the development of a power aisle

42
represents a formidable environmental cue. Since this study was based on a sample which
was comprised of regular customers of the store (stated that they shop at least two times
per month in the store), it appears that these individuals‟ perceptions of the prices of the
products in the power aisle are highly volatile. The findings suggest that an individual‟s
perceptions of the prices of the products in the power aisle may easily change based on
the store‟s present merchandising policies with negligible time lag halo effect. Finally,
these findings provide support to the contention that the consumers‟ process of encoding
price information relies in part on the environmental cues which may present themselves
in association with the product or products in question.

Limitation of this study is that since the sample included individuals visiting only two
retail stores of one type (warehouse grocery) in one geographic area, the results of this
study may not be generalizable to the retailing industry as a whole, nor to the warehouse
grocery shopper population as a whole. Furthermore, the study examined price
perceptions of the products in the power aisle alone, and did not examine actual
purchasing activities, purchase intentions, nor any changes which may have occurred in
store image. Finally, two cues associated with the power aisle were altered in the study –
the number of SKUs and the quantity of each SKU. It is unclear whether or not the results
observed emanated from the change in one or both of the cues. But this research has far
more implication for further research. The findings of this study suggest a number of
possibly fruitful lines of research:

(1) The study should be replicated in a warehouse grocery setting to provide

corroboration for these reported results.

(2) The study should be extended to other forms of discount retailing which
utilize power aisles. The value of these results need to be established by
examining the longevity of any changes in price perceptions, and whether and/or
how actual purchasing activities, purchase intentions, and/or store image are
affected by the changes in the merchandising of the power aisle.

Kenhove et al. (1999) found that, store choice is differentiated by the nature of the task
(121). They studied the store choice decision across various tasks as described by the

43
respondents, such as urgent purchase, large quantities, difficult job, regular purchase and
get ideas. The chosen stores differed in their salience rating depending on the task the
shopper intended to perform. The shopper may also evaluate each of the situations in the
light of the cost incurred and the utilities derived out of shopping. Bell et al. (1998)
suggest that these costs can be classified as fixed and variable costs of shopping. The
variable cost is related to the basket size or the list, and hence is likely to change with
every trip. The fixed costs, such as location of the store or the price format, would remain
unchanged over list size. They suggest that, these costs can be converted into utilities for
each of the shoppers by the store. To support this, it was found that recreation (a non-
monetary value) was the major driver for visiting a regional shopping centre
(Treblanche, 1999) (199).

The relationship between store attributes and retail format choice is also examined in the
literature. Studies have shown that pricing, product assortment, and customer services are
important factors in determining choice of format in the department store context
(Morganosky and Cude, 2000) (163).

In a study of the two price formats, EDLP and HILO, it was found that the store can
influence the choice of the shoppers by enhancing the perceived utilities (Tang et al.,
2001) (198).

Vignali, Gomez and Vranesevic (2001) elaborate the influence of age, education level
and work status on buying behavior in their paper “The influence of consumer behavior
within the Spanish food retail industry” (202). The analysis says although supermarkets
and traditional shops are maintained for all population groups studied as the most
frequently patronised (depending on the type of product), the following peculiarities
were also observed. First, as age decreases and the educational level rises among the
groups, more respondents frequented hypermarkets. As the age increases and educational
level declines, traditional shops and open markets are more common. This demonstrates
the influence of the socio-demographic variables as age and education in the choice of
store type for food shopping. As for main shopping, the majority of Barcelona residents
(the study was done at Barcelona) purchase processed products in hypermarkets (due to
variety and shopping expediency) and supermarkets (for convenience and price). On the

44
other hand, fresh products (for quality, personal treatment and habit) are usually
purchased in traditional shops. It is followed by the open market (for reasons of variety
and prices). The foregoing shows the influence of the ``product type'' variable in the
choice of establishment. Nevertheless, given the limitations of time and money expressed
on prior occasions, the results of the research were conditioned by a number of factors,
most notably:

- Limitations of a telephone survey: although the majority of the population have

telephones in their homes, this type of survey makes it impossible to survey
subjects who do not have this service. Additionally, cellular telephones were not
considered as they do not appear in the telephone guide. Due to these reasons, the
randomness of the study may be questioned.

- The demographic ``gender'' variable is not properly represented in the sample,

as only 17 per cent of the respondents were male, a percentage that does not
match up with the reality of the population. Other variables, such as educational
level, age and work status are much better represented.

- The study refers to purchasing actions and does not offer quantitative
information on how the expenditure is distributed.

Nevertheless, performing this kind of study over a longer period of time will allow to
discern trends and reliably to predict the evolution of retail trading. These limitations
make it advisable to take the study as qualitative rather than quantitative, allowing only
the main trends to be identified. Therefore, this study makes it impossible to predict the
reliability of a retail evolution model based on the socio-demographic variables of the
shoppers and product type.

A research on fashion merchandise by Newman and Foxall (2003) suggest that store
layout is an important determinant of behavior (168). This paper offers a robust
theoretical approach (the behavioural perspective model) and new innovative
methodology that significantly advances the way retailers can plan and measure store
layouts, with a view to optimising store performance. Using computer-aided observation,
customers may be tracked and their behaviour analysed in the context of consumer

45
situations and contingencies. Implications for retail management, theory and practice are
discussed within the context of fashion shopper situations. This research is very specific
to fashion merchandise and its extrapolation to other types of products have to researched
and justified.

Knox and Walker (2003) confirmed the existence of a weak but significant relationship
between involvement and brand loyalty in grocery markets (130). A large study of the
Danish grocery retailing industry by Hansen and Solgaard (2004) provides several
important findings relevant to the current research (96). Product assortment was
identified as the single most influential variable affecting the choice of retail format
across three formats: discount stores, hypermarkets and conventional supermarkets. In
addition, price level and location appeared to be influential factors in terms of retail
format choice. The study also found that quality and service level did not appear to be
influential across the formats.

Research done by Sinha and Banerjee (2004) on “Store Choice Behavior in an evolving
Market” gives deeper insight into Indian shopper behavior (182). The analysis is based on
seven constructs or and 43 variables. The seven constructs are proximity, merchandise,
ambience, service, patronized and others (two constructs together). The 43 variables are
grouped under the seven constructs.

The findings of the same research are as follows:

Overall, proximity and merchandise were the primary reasons for choosing merchandise.
More than70 per cent of the respondents indicated these as their strongest reasons for
choice. The third reason is the ambience (8 per cent) and patronized store (8 per cent). On
a composite basis, they accounted for about 60 per cent and service became the third
important reason (15 per cent). Out of 240 respondents only 100 (40 per cent) could
provide as many as three reasons. Seventy per cent had at least two reasons. This
indicates that shoppers generally have just one good reason, and at most two reasons for
visiting a particular store. The reasons for selection of store are as follows:

46
Reasons for store selection:

Reason 1st 2nd 3rd Overall

Proximity 36.67 20.47 22.22 28.43
Merchandise 32.92 32.75 21.21 30.59
Ambience 7.50 9.94 14.14 9.61
Service 6.25 21.64 27.27 15.49
Patronised 8.33 5.85 5.05 6.86
Others 8.33 9.87 10.10 9.02
Table 2.1

Grocery and fruit and vegetable stores are visited by shoppers based on more proximity
and patronisation. The shopper would like to reduce travel time. However, as indicated
by a higher score, if shoppers have been buying from the store for a longer period of
time, they do not mind buying from a store located at a greater distance. The importance
of relationship/comfort level with the retailer is stressed with regard to grocery stores.
There seems to be some indication of an inherent loyalty to the stores in this category. So,
when the experience of shopping is good there is a high likelihood of the next visit. The
shopper is willing to trade-off the extra travel effort with the experience. Such an
experience can be provided through services and merchandise. Both these factors do
become important at 88 per cent significance level. However, proximity is the most
important driver of loyalty to a grocery store. Ambience is not a particularly important
factor for shoppers of this product category. A shopper may not visit the stores
recommended by others in this category. In the case of consumer durables stores
shoppers attach more importance to merchandise, referral and ambience. They prefer to
visit those stores that have depth and width of products. Shoppers in such stores look for
variety. Stores that offer good prices and discounts are also visited, whilst shoppers are
also concerned about the quality of goods for sale. The effort is an indication of
maximising the value for the price paid. In the process they ask other shoppers about the
stores.

47
The ambience, reflected in terms of lighting, setting and comfort, is also relevant in
determining store choice. A good display of products, so that the shoppers can look
around and touch and feel the products, becomes an important consideration in consumer
durables stores. Shoppers also visit the company or branded outlets in this product
category. Like brands, they seem to build a set of stores before they make a decision to
buy the brand. They intend to maximise the returns from the brands as well as the stores.
It is therefore, imperative for such stores to stock and display at least a minimum required
number of brands and models to ensure visits by shoppers. Given the smaller size of
stores currently in India, this is a challenge for the stores as well as for brands that have
smaller market shares. The shoppers at a chemist store seem to attach much less
importance to merchandise and service. They also do not expect the value of ambience
from the store. It seems that the shopper would like to complete their purchase as quickly
as possible. Shopping happens because there is compulsion/necessity to buy. Leisure
(books and music, accessories and lifestyle products) stores tend to attract shoppers on
the basis of the ambience of the store. The shoppers want a comfortable store, as they
tend to stay for longer on each visit. The lighting displays and attractive de´cor of the
store become important variables affecting store choice. Shoppers would tend to buy at a
leisurely pace in such stores. In many cases, these stores are also utilised for spending
waiting or spare time or meeting up with friends.

In the case of apparel stores, shoppers value merchandise, ambience and other factors like
exclusive or branded stores. Their behavior here is similar to a durable goods store. They
want variety and would like to touch and feel the product. They would like the store to be
comfortable and well laid out so as to facilitate the browsing process. The shoppers also
visit the branded outlets. Range of merchandise, in terms of product and price, attract
shoppers to a store. They would like to satisfy themselves about making the right choice
before finalizing on their purchase.

The implications of the above are critical since they directly suggest that customers in a
developing market such as India do not require the service paraphernalia offered by many
of the new store formats emerging in the market. This may cast a serious doubt over the
retail revolution, which has taken shape in the Indian markets lately. However, the rate of

48
expansion in this business has shown only a marginal slow down. There could be another
plausible reason for the consumers being perceptibly indifferent towards the enhanced
service features of various stores. The evolution of consumer demand for new service
dimensions is partly driven by the nature of purchases. However, like any new product
being launched in the market place, new service concepts in retailing will evolve over
time with consumers gaining exposure and developing preferences about newer service
facilities.

Moschis, Curasi and Bellenger (2004) in their research for patronage motives of
mature consumers in the section of food and grocery stores have tried to understand the
different attributes in food segment that differentiate mature customers from the
relatively young ones (165). For this research, they have identified 14 factors i.e. Ease of
locating merchandise, refunds, location, sales or special deals, discounts, health needs,
personal assistance, payment method, special services, recommendation, familiar brand
availability, patronization, socialization. These factors were specially identified to
differentiate shoppers on the basis of demographics i.e. age.

Overall satisfaction with a store does not significantly influence customers‟ loyalty to that
store and shoppers‟ intention to remain loyal to their „„primary store‟‟ is influenced by
factors like frequent-buyer reward schemes, travel distance, size of the average grocery
bill, store signage and the level of sale assistance (Miranda et al., 2005). However, given
that grocery shopping patterns vary with culture, Indian grocery shoppers are required to
be investigated separately to determine, which grocery store attributes contribute to store
patronage (Shanon and Mandhachitara, 2005).

In the research paper “Explaining retail offer adaption through psychic distance” Evans
and Bridson (2005) examine empirically the relationship between psychic distance and
adaptation of the retail offer adaption across a range of countries (73). The results of the
research show that psychic distance, as a summary construct, explains a significant
proportion of retail offer adaptation. The study also demonstrates that disaggregation of
the dimensions of psychic distance significantly increases the explanatory power of the
model. The findings indicate that, while national culture, legal and political and economic
differences do not affect the degree to which retailers standardise or adapt their offer,

49
market structure, business practices and language differences are strong predictors.
However, a number of issues must be considered when interpreting the findings of this
study. First, while the response rate was relatively low, the sample characteristics suggest
that the sample is reasonably representative. Second, the sample size was too small to
perform more sophisticated analyses. Third, the research findings may be limited in terms
of their generalisability across retail sectors. The study focused on non-food retailers only
and, thus, it must be acknowledged that the identified relationships may differ for food
retailers. These results may have implications for researchers and managers in suggesting
that we need to go beyond consumer behaviour differences to explain fully the degree to
which international firms standardise or adapt their strategies in foreign markets.

Carpenter and Moore (2006) in their research on „Consumer demographics, store

attributes, and retail format choice in the US grocery market‟ provide a general
understanding of grocery consumers‟ retail format choice in the US marketplace (39).
The purpose of this research is to provide a general understanding of grocery consumers‟
retail format choice in the US marketplace. To accomplish this purpose, the study uses
demographics as a framework for examination of consumer format choice across five
major retail formats in the American retail industry: specialty grocers, traditional
supermarkets, supercenters, warehouse clubs and the emerging internet format. In
addition, it investigates the desired store attributes of consumer groups who frequent each
format. By identifying the demographic characteristics and desired store attributes of US
grocery shoppers and linking these variables to format choice, the study provides a
starting point for understanding the nature of patronage behavior in the dynamic US
grocery market. This research provides grocery retailers that operate within the US
specific knowledge of the attributes that consumers consider to be most important when
making format choices, and identifies the demographic characteristics of these
consumers. As competition in the sector continues to evolve and consumer demographics
change within the US market, understanding the consumer-format choice linkage is
critical to retailer performance in the industry. So, broadly the research identifies
demographic groups who frequently visit specific formats (specialty grocers, traditional
supermarkets, supercenters, warehouse clubs, and internet grocers) and examines store
attributes (e.g. price competitiveness, product selection, and atmosphere) as drivers of

50
format choice. This exploratory study uses demographics and store attributes as a
framework for profiling consumers by their ultimate retail format choice. The paper is
unique because there are few similar empirical studies focused on the US grocery sector.
This research provides grocery retailers that operate within the USA specific knowledge
of the attributes that consumers consider to be most important when making format
choices (e.g. cleanliness, price competitiveness, product assortment, courtesy of
personnel), and identifies the demographic characteristics of these consumers. The results
suggest marketing strategy implications for grocery retailers that operate in the US
market. As competition in the sector continues to evolve and consumer demographics
change within the market, understanding the consumer-format choice linkage is critical to
retailer performance in the industry.

Findings of the research by Carpenter and Moore can be summarized as following:

Examination of the demographic variables for their effect on the specialty grocery format
indicated income as the only significant predictor of patronage. The stepwise regression
model indicated that respondents with higher incomes were more likely to shop in
specialty grocery stores. There was no indication among the data that the other
demographics predicted or indicated a propensity to patronize this format. The top five
store attributes for the small sample of frequent shoppers among the specialty grocery
format are cleanliness, product selection, courtesy of personnel, crowding and price
competitiveness. Though price competitiveness was ranked lowest by the frequent
specialty store shopper, it remained one of the top five store attributes sought. Though the
respondents indicated that product assortment and courteous personnel were most
important, price competitiveness remains an influential factor within this context.
Rankings for the specialty format were slightly different for respondents among the
occasional shopper group which indicated cleanliness, product selection, ease of access,
courtesy of personnel and crowding as the top five store attributes. As a whole, these
results appear logical and agree with a typical specialty grocery strategy with high service
levels in terms of customer service and physical facilities. Analysis of the demographic
variables suggests that household size is a significant predictor of patronage within the
traditional supermarket category. It also indicates that as household size decreases,
supermarket patronage increases. Given the importance of accessibility motivations like

51
crowding, parking facilities, and ease of access, it appears that this format may appeal to
the convenience oriented shopper. The regression model‟s indication that household size
decreases as patronage increases could be interpreted to suggest that smaller households
tend to patronize traditional neighborhood markets rather than traveling to larger grocery
shopping venues such as supercenters or warehouse clubs. The highest ranked store
attributes among frequent shoppers in the traditional supermarket format are cleanliness,
product selection, price competitiveness, crowding and courtesy of personnel. The
rankings of these attributes among occasional shoppers are the same with the exception
of the fourth and fifth most important, which are parking facilities and ease of access.
The regression model indicated that education, income and household size predict
patronage within the supercenter format. This finding appears to be consistent with
conventional wisdom: as income and education decrease, the likelihood of shopping in
the supercenter format increases. Likewise, as household size increases, the likelihood of
shopping in this format increases. The ANOVA model indicated significant differences
among racial affiliation and supercenter patronage. Focused contrasts suggest that this
difference occurs specifically between the Caucasian and African American respondents
in the sample. Further, the t-test for gender indicated that females were significantly more
likely to patronize supercenters as compared to males. The findings related to supercenter
patronage appear to agree with popular logic for the most part supercenters attract price
oriented patrons with larger households. Cleanliness, price competitiveness, product
selection, courtesy of personnel and security are the top five store attributes among
frequent shoppers in the supercenter format. Interestingly, the occasional shoppers
among this format ranked cleanliness, product selection, ease of access, courtesy of
personnel and security as the top five attributes. Price competitiveness was not ranked
among the occasional shoppers‟ top attributes, indicating that these shoppers may be
more concerned with product assortment. Attention to deep inventory, price control and
operational efficiency are already an important operational component within the
supercenter format type and should continue to be emphasized. In addition, the
importance of catering to diverse consumer groups remains important in the supercenter
format which attracts a diverse customer base compared to traditional neighborhood
markets that tend to draw on more homogenous local and regional customer bases.

52
Supercenters should consider diversity in staffing, product assortment and customer
service. Given the growth of diverse family oriented consumer groups in the USA such as
Hispanics, diversity management could be an important competitive advantage for
grocery formats in the coming decade. The regression model and its related beta
estimates for income and education indicated that as each of these demographic variables
increased, patronage in the warehouse format increased. Further, the t-tests for gender
differences in format choice suggested that women were more likely to choose the
warehouse club format to shop for groceries compared to men. Additional investigation
indicated that female respondents represented significantly larger households compared
to male respondents suggesting that these consumers are likely carrying out household
shopping duties. Cleanliness, product selection, price competitiveness, courtesy of
personnel and ease of access were the top five store attributes among frequent patrons in
this format. Occasional shoppers indicated a similar ranking of attributes: cleanliness,
product selection, courtesy of personnel, and ease of access. The findings associated with
the warehouse club format suggest that consumers seek product variety and easy access
as major motivations. Further, it appears that higher income consumers frequent this
venue and likely expect a higher level of service compared to the supercenter customer.
Warehouse clubs should focus on ease of access and service related to aiding consumers
in the logistics of their shopping experience particularly given the fact that females
appear to be more likely to choose this format. They may also consider integrating
upscale products and services into their offer given their higher income consumer.
Overall, the results provide interesting insights into the US consumer‟s choice of grocery
format. With regard to store attributes, the fact that cleanliness was the most important
attribute regardless of format was not surprising. The price competitiveness attribute
appeared to be most important among shoppers in the traditional supermarket format and
the supercenter format. Surprisingly, price competitiveness did not rank among the top
five attributes for occasional shoppers in the supercenter format or the specialty grocery
format and ranked only fifth among these shoppers for the warehouse format. The results
included in this research were gathered and reported on an individual format basis. In
order to capture consumer choices across a range of grocery retail formats, forcing
respondents to compare formats was not initiated. Though general observations and

53
predictions about the demographic variables and store attributes that influence format
choice can be made based on this research, the factors that influence consumer to choose
one format over another can‟t be justified in this research. A useful addition to this area
of research would be to examine the situations under which consumers patronize different
grocery formats such as extensive shopping trips versus short shopping trips or the
accessibility of format types.

Goswami and Mishra (2008) studied traditional kirana stores visa-a vis organized
Supermarkets for grocery shopping and came out with factors related to grocery store
patronage and identified dimensions of customers‟ needs and desire which are relevant
for grocery store choice (93). In this study 44 attributes were considered in the
questionnaire that were brought down to 11 factors by factor analysis, the factors are
store cleanliness, store offers and product quality(COQ), Store brands, family grocery
shopping and parking facilities (BFP), Hedonic shopping (HS), Location (L), Specific
day shopping (SDS), Multiple stores (MS), Planned shopping (PS), In-store convenience
(IC), Helpful and trustworthy salespeople (SP), Travel convenience (TC), Unplanned
purchase (UP). The following list shows the principal components factor analysis with
varimax rotation results of grocery store attributes with corresponding Cronbach‟s alpha
scores and factor loadings of items in parentheses:

(1) COQ (7.307 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.6962)

1. This is a clean and tidy shop (0.739)

2. There is high quality of products in this store (0.6)
3. I like to buy groceries on special offers (0.447)
4. This store has frequent buyer program (0.380)
5. For grocery shopping, it is important that the store accepts credit cards
(0.587)
6. This store has attractive appearance and de´cor (0.602)

(2) BFP (7.088 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alph 0.8059)

1. It is easy to shop with family in this store (0.609)

2. I usually shop for groceries with family (0.467)

54
 3. Store brands are available in this store (0.656)
4. Specialty goods are available in this store (0.476)
5. There are ample parking facilities around this store (0.766)
6. There is security of parking area around this store (0.807)

(3) HS (6.59 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.8294)

1. Grocery shopping is pleasurable even if you do not buy anything (0.789)

2. Grocery shopping is recreational activity for me (0.804)
3. Grocery shopping is stressa (_0.752)
4. Grocery shopping is tediousa (_0.735)

(4) Location (L) (6.527 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.7546)

1. This store is near to other stores where I shop (0.524)

2. This store is close to where I live/work (0.686)
3. This store has convenient location (0.830)
4. I prefer convenient grocery store location to bargains (0.676)
5. There is low cost of travel to this store (0.683)

(5) SDS (5.017 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.8610)

1. I usually shop on a particular day of the week (0.836)

2. I normally go grocery shopping the same day of the week (0.810)
3. This store takes orders from home (0.834)
4. This store delivers groceries at home (0.852)

(6) MS (4.817 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.7708)

1. If I have time, I visit more than one grocery store on each shopping trip
(0.776)
2. I visit several grocery stores for best prices (0.812)

(7) PS (4.519 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.5592)

1. I prepare a shopping list before going grocery shopping (0.721)

55
 2. I usually always stick to the grocery shopping list (0.590)
3. When I go grocery shopping, I like to take my time and look around
(0.599)

(8) IC (4.357 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.5447)

1. It is easy to find the items you want in this store (0.547)

2. There is absence of waiting time in this store (0.634)
3. This store has everything under one roof (0.425)
4. Convenience of location is of minor importance if it is a good place to
shop for groceries (0.491)

(9) SP (4.166 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.6949)

1. This store has friendly and helpful personnel (0.832)

2. Salesmen are trustworthy in this store (0.729)

(10) TC (4.050 per cent of variance, Cronbach‟s alpha 0.5226)

1. There is enjoyment of travel to this store (0.7)

2. There is absence of traffic congestion in the locality of this store (0.657)

(11) UP (3.575 per cent of variance)

1. No matter how hard I try, I end up spending more for groceries than I had
planned (0.740)

The objective of the above study was more to find out the differences in shopping at
kirana store vs. in a supermarket. So, the researchers tried Discriminant analysis to
understand shopping behavior on the basis of these factors for kirana store and
supermarkets. But this study didn‟t use the factors to segment shoppers to understand
their behavior holistically.

Carpenter (2009) in his paper “Extreme value shoppers in the United States” tries to
explore consumer patronage of extreme value retailers in the USA (40). The paper
employs a sample generated from Retail Forward panel data to explore consumer

56
patronage of extreme value retailers. Descriptive statistics and decision tree analysis chi-
square automatic interaction detector is used to evaluate the data. The paper examines
extreme value shoppers based on patronage frequency, expenditures, and primary reason
for shopping in the extreme value format. Results suggest that although patronage
frequency of extreme value stores is not increasing, expenditures for food/household
essentials are increasing. Demographic characteristics (income and age) are revealed as
predictors of the primary reason for patronizing the format. As per the research although
the majority of respondents do not report increased shopping frequency within extreme
value stores, slightly more than one-third indicates they are spending more of their
household budget within the format. Nearly, half of respondents indicate buying more
food and household essentials in the extreme value format. Taken together, these findings
suggest that although shopping trip frequency may not be increasing, spending in extreme
value is increasing, particularly for food and household essentials. Therefore, extreme
value retailers appear to be growing their share of basic food and household purchases. If
extreme value retailers can continue to focus the product assortment to include
recognized brands at competitive prices, they will become increasingly competitive,
particularly with intertype rivals such as discounters, supermarkets, and drug stores.
Although many respondents indicate that a larger portion of their budget is being spent at
extreme value stores for food/household essentials, findings also indicate that the
customer base includes shoppers who are primarily shopping for non-food/household
essentials (general merchandise) and shoppers who are treasure hunting. Therefore,
extreme value retailers should also focus on general merchandise categories to meet the
needs of these additional segments of customers. Findings suggest that shoppers with
lower incomes are shopping extreme value retailers for food and household essentials,
while some of the higher income shoppers are treasure hunting. This provides further
evidence that extreme value retailers should focus not only on offering value for food and
household essential shoppers, but should also pay attention to higher income consumers
looking for unique products at bargain prices. Findings also suggest that middle income
shoppers aged 50 and under are more likely to be shopping extreme value stores for non-
food and household essentials, while older shoppers are more likely to be treasure
hunting. Therefore, the middle-income segment cannot be treated as homogeneous.

57
Younger shoppers will depend on extreme value retailers to continue offering value in the
food and household essential categories while older shoppers will look for treasures.
Overall, the findings of this study provide interesting insight into extreme value shoppers
in the USA. Although the format primarily targets lower income consumers, it is clear
that more affluent, older shoppers are attracted to the format as a place to treasure hunt.
The findings suggest that product assortment is the key competitive factor for extreme
value retailers. Carrying recognized brands at value prices in not only the food and
household essentials categories, but also in general merchandise categories could be the
driver of continued growth of the format. In addition, extreme value retailers should
continue to search for unique products that can be sold at bargain prices to retain the
interest of treasure hunters.

The findings of this paper provide extreme value retailers with information on patronage
frequency, expenditure, and patronage motivations among extreme value shoppers. The
results offer support for the development of competitive strategies within the extreme
value segment. As competition in the retail industry continues to evolve and new retail
formats emerge, understanding shoppers‟ reasons for patronizing extreme value retailers
will be critical to performance. Generalizations of the findings of this study to markets
outside the USA are limited due to the differences in consumers and retail formats
available in various countries. Future research could compare shopper perceptions of
extreme value stores across international markets. Future studies could also investigate
specific segments within the extreme value customer base. In particular, further
investigation of specific products and strategies to attract the treasure hunter segment
could provide useful insight. Lastly, research that explores consumer perceptions of
extreme value retailers compared to key competitors such as discounters, supermarkets,
and drug stores could provide interesting and actionable insights for the development of
competitive strategies within this growing retail format.

Kim, Niehm and Jeong (2009) in their research discuss the psychographic
characteristics affecting behavioral intentions towards pop-up retail (126). Pop-up retail
entails marketing environments that are highly experiential, focused on promoting a
brand or product line, available for a short time period, and generally in smaller venues

58
that foster more face-to-face dialogue with brand representatives, which is a top factor
attracting people to the experience. The purpose of this paper is to explore relationships
between consumer innovativeness, market mavenism, shopping enjoyment, and beliefs,
attitude, and patronage intentions toward pop-up retail. In this study, the authors
examined associations between consumer psychographic characteristics, and beliefs,
attitude, and behavioral intentions toward pop-up retail. Findings of this study suggest
that pop-up retail may be an effective retail format for marketing to consumers who
exhibit higher innovativeness tendencies and who consider shopping to be an enjoyable
activity. The study confirms that consumers exhibiting higher innovativeness and
enjoyment from shopping were likely to appreciate the positive hedonic aspects of pop-
up retail, including the excitement of the experience and the exposure to new, unique
products. Findings show that consumer innovativeness and shopping enjoyment influence
beliefs about the importance of hedonic elements of pop-up retail (novelty/uniqueness
factor) and attitude toward pop-up retail, which affects patronage intentions. This finding
supports past research; consumer innovativeness and shopping enjoyment are related to
the desire for new and unique experiences as well as novelty seeking (Engelland et al.,
2001; Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992; Venkatraman, 1991).

In their research paper “Retail Centers: it‟s time to make them convenient”, Reimers and
Clulow (2009) try to explore the influence of time convenience on shopping behaviour in
the light of a time scarcity phenomenon (174). The paper begins with a survey of
consumer households, examining the importance shoppers assign to time convenience.
This is followed by a supply-side comparison of malls and shopping strips against the
attributes of time convenience. The results indicate that time convenience has a salient
influence on consumers‟ patronage behaviour, and that malls and strips differ in their
provision of this key attribute. The researchers suggest that retail planners must give
serious thought to creating retail environments that allow shoppers to “buy” time.
Providing time convenience via one-stop shopping, extended trading hours, proximity to
home or work and enclosure offers one such strategy for the shopping mall and shopping
strip. The research concludes that owing to increasing time-scarcity, a growing number of
shoppers are likely to seek time-buying solutions. One such solution is for retail centers
to offer time convenience via one-stop shopping, extended trading hours, an enclosed

59
environment and locations that are close to where consumers live or work. This study
found that in a comparison of five factors, time convenience served as the most important
determinant of retail centre patronage. The overall attitude that time convenience is
important, is consistent across age, income, gender and retail centre preference,
suggesting its salient influence is somewhat universal. In spite of the fact those that prefer
malls and those that prefer shopping strips both regard time convenience as important;
the former is distinguished by the added salience they assign it. The research further adds
that consistent with this notion, malls and strips were found to differ in their provision of
time convenience attributes. Malls hold a relative advantage in terms of one-stop
shopping and extended trading hours, while shopping strips are more likely to be located
close to where consumers live or work. In contrast, the implications relating to enclosure
are not as straightforward. So overall the research focuses on time and convenience in
retail shopping.

Swoboda, Haelsig, Klein and Morschett(2009) used a 15 attribute model, converting

the attributes into 5 factors in their research “ Moderating role of involvement in building
a retail brand” (197). The purpose of this research is to focus on one of the main
antecedents of consumer behaviour concerning its role in building a retail brand. It
addresses how consumer involvement influences perception of retailer attributes, which
affects customer-based retail brand equity when considering retailers as brands. A model
is developed that includes the impact of central dimensions of the perception of retailer
attributes, their effects on customer-based retail brand equity and the moderating role of
consumer involvement. The empirical study is based on a sample of 3,000 consumers
spread over five retail sectors (grocery, clothing, electronics and furniture). Using
multiple-group structural equation modeling, the inter-sectoral relevance of involvement
as a moderator in building a strong retail brand is demonstrated. In retailing, consumer
involvement has a moderating effect on the influence of retailer attributes on retail brand
equity. The direction of this influence differs, however, from one perceived retailer
attribute to the next. Whereas the influence of price, communication and store design is
greater on highly involved consumers than on those with low involvement, the influence
of service and assortment is greater in consumers with low involvement. Since consumers
with a different level of involvement have a different perception of retailer attributes, this

60
factor is relevant to retail branding. The model developed by the researchers shows how
to build retail brand equity using the dimensions of retailer marketing instruments, and
this model is stable enough to test different antecedents, including involvement for the
first time in this context. The five sectors surveyed distinguish the study
methodologically from those that focus only on one sector. Finally, the results show that
the retailer attributes relevant to retail brand equity differ between customers with high
involvement and those with low involvement. The factor analysis outcome of the
research can be summarized as follows (the values in bracket indicate the factor
loadings):

Factor 1 (service):

1. Friendly store employees (0.928)

2. Good service (0.871)
3. Competent store employees (0.771)

Factor 2: (value/price)

1. Appropriate prices (0.819)

2. Good price/value-ratio (0.801)
3. Constant prices (0.798)

Factor 3: (advertising)

1. Personally appealing advertising (0.866)

2. Good advertising (0.860)
3. Informative advertising (0.676)

Factor 4: (assortment)

1. Wide assortment/one-stop shopping (0.779)

2. Good quality of assortment (0.572)
3. Good product availability (0.522)

Factor 5: (store design)

61
 1. Pleasant shopping atmosphere (0.883)
2. Easy to find the way around (0.728)
3. Comfortable shopping atmosphere (0.541)

The main focus of the above study was concentrated on the role of involvement, which is
why the most concrete implications were obtained in this respect. Here, the managerial
implications are first of all to create an awareness of the importance of involvement, be
this in their own sector (from the customer‟s perspective) and above all to establish their
own firm as a strong retail brand. So here the model brings out 5 strong factors helpful in
creating retail brands and differentiate low involvement and high involvement shopping.

A very recent paper published in International journal of retail and distribution

management by Alexender, Doherty, Carpenter, Moore (2010) bring out an
international perspective to retailing. It talks about the shopper receptiveness to
international retail entry (1). The purpose of this paper is to provide a suggested
framework for improving the understanding of consumer receptiveness to incoming
international retailers. The consumer perception of country of origin against consumer
receptiveness index (CRI) is proposed as a method to explore the receptiveness of
consumers in the host market to incoming international retailers. This paper reviews the
international retailing literature, highlighting the need for specific knowledge regarding
consumer receptiveness to incoming international retailers. A method is proposed to
explore how consumers in the host market respond to incoming international retail firms.
But this paper does not present an empirical study. The consumer perception of country
of origin against CRI is presented as a means to suggest and guide future research in the
area. However the paper makes a practical contribution by suggesting a method to
explore how consumers in the host country receive incoming international retailers.

2.3 Scale Identification Based on Existing Literature

Scale identification becomes critical in a research that uses quantitative statistical
techniques for analysis. The past research on shopper behavior used different scales to
describe shopper buying behavior. Sinha and Banerjee (2004) used a likert scale for 43
variables. These variables are: “Good ambiance, Store is stylistic, Better layout, Better

62
lighting, Store has nice display, Store has good frontage, Store offers pick and choice,
Accepts credit cards, More variety, Store gives prestige, Recommended by people, Prefer
to purchase, Store performs as expected, Good quality products, Best quality, Store is
reliable, Store is risk free, Easily available, Value for money, Fair prices, Latest products,
Staff is caring, Staff is efficient, Staff is helpful, Salesmen are trustworthy, Takes order
on phone, Provided out of stock products, Open on weekends, Neighbour buys, Store
breaks monotony, Store is stress buster, Store is timepass and window, Shopping, Brands
of my preference, Stocks all brands, Specialised store, Authorised outlet, Repairs and
replacements, Store is not crowded, Store does not intimidate, Near workplace, Near
home, Store offers discounts, Enough parking space.” In this case as the research was not
format specific i.e. it considered all types of retail format, the number of variables needed
were as high as 43 to capture the shopper behavior in different type of retail formats
dealing with different types of products.

Kim, Niehm and Jeong (2009) in their research on psychographic characteristics affecting
behavioral intentions towards pop-up retail have used five constructs i.e. consumer
innovativeness, market mavenism, shopping enjoyment, facilitator of purchase decisions,
attitude and patronage intentions. The authors used 46 attributes to build the constructs
through factor analysis.

Dilman (1978) has grouped the types of data that can be collected through questionnaires
into four distinct types of variables. These variables are classified as attitudes, beliefs,
behaviour and attributes (Saunders et al., 1997). In this research, the questionnaire was
developed to focus on behaviour and attribute variables. On the one hand, behaviour
variables recorded how respondents behave when purchasing and the reasons associated
with such behaviour. On the other hand, attribute variables contain data about the
respondents' characteristics and they are best conceived as something a respondent
possesses, rather than something a respondent does. This allowed the research on
different factors (i.e. age, education, gender, etc.) that determine behavior.

The proposed research borrows the attributes from the above research done in the past.
However the scales used above are research specific and can‟t be generalized. So the
same scales need to be refined in the present context of study suitable for Indian

63
conditions and suitable for shoppers in a supermarket who mainly purchase low
involvement products like staple merchandise and grocery. So in order to customize the
scales, the attributes borrowed from existing research were subjected to exploratory
survey, the details of which are explained in the chapter Research Methodology.

2.4 Identification of Gap

The literature review suggests that a lot of research has been done to understand shopping
behavior in different countries though India specific study is quite limited. The following
analysis tries to look deeper into few researches and identify the gaps. „Consumer
behavior and the retail sales‟ in UK, the research by McGoldrick and Betts (1995)
focused on two key issues, namely the motive for sale shopping and the behavioral
response to sale. The analysis follows factor analysis that creates 8 factors explaining
63% of the variance. This is one of the oldest researches truly addressing shopper buying
behavior by using Factor analysis. The factors identified are excitement, Planned
impulse, shopping behavior, competitive rivalry, consumer protection (3 sub factors), and
saving orientation. The findings help a lot in understanding the shopper instincts. But this
research is limited by the scope that it only tries to understand the shopper response to
sale. Though some these factors may be valid in price sensitive customers, it doesn‟t
address all the triggers for shopper behavior.

Research done by Sinha and Banerjee (2004) on “Store Choice Behavior in an evolving
Market” gives deeper insight into Indian shopper behavior. The analysis is based on
seven constructs and 43 variables. The seven constructs are proximity, merchandise,
ambience, service, patronized and others. This study addresses the question of retail
outlet selection, but it does a generic study of all modern formats of retailing. So the
seven factors justify the shopper behavior in outlet selection, but doesn‟t specify the
behavior for any specific outlet.

The study by Goswami and Mishra (2008) on traditional kirana stores visa-a-vis
organized Supermarkets for grocery shopping has identified factors related to grocery
store patronage and identified dimensions of customers‟ needs and desire which are
relevant for grocery store choice. In this study 44 attributes were considered that led to 11

64
factors like „store cleanliness, store offers and product quality‟, „Store brands, family
grocery shopping and parking facilities‟, Hedonic shopping , Location , Specific day
shopping , Multiple store shopping, Planned shopping , In-store convenience , Helpful
and trustworthy salespeople , Travel convenience , Unplanned purchase . This research
though based on grocery store choice, the main objective is to differentiate Shopping in a
Kirana store vs. in a supermarket. The proposed research has borrowed many scales from
the above research findings and the scales are customized to cover many more aspects of
grocery shopping.

Swoboda, Haelsig, Klein and Morschett(2009) used a 15 attribute model, converting

the attributes into 5 factors in their research “ Moderating role of involvement in building
a retail brand”. The purpose of this research is to focus on one of the main antecedents of
consumer behaviour concerning its role in building a retail brand. The research clearly
creates 5 factors e.g. service, price, advertising, assortment and store design. But the nail
focus of this study is studying shopper behavior from involvement perspective so that the
implication on brand building can be measured. More over it focuses more on advertising
parameters as the output of the research is linked to branding. But this research doesn‟t
necessarily address all the attributes and factors deciding shopper buying behavior. The
study above is not any format specific, rather it considers more than one format like
grocery, clothing, furniture, electronics etc. However the research presented will try to
address all the attributes affecting shopper buying behavior and it is specific to a
supermarket only.

To summarize, the existing researches in India and abroad have identified many
dimensions of Shopper behavior in addressing the issues like retail branding, store
location, differentiating kirana store and organized retailing etc. But none of these
researches address the question of „shopper behavior in a supermarket‟ adequately. Either
they talk of shopper behavior in general (not specific to supermarket) or shopper behavior
to specific stimuli differentiating super markets from kirana stores. The proposed
research is in between (neither too broad based, nor too specific) that it tries to address
the triggers affecting shopper behavior in a super market and studies in specific shopper
behavior in response to the triggers.

65
2.5 Proposed Contribution Of The Thesis To Literature
After a thorough literature review and identification of the gaps, the proposed research
attempts to bridge the gaps to whatever extent possible under the scope of the research.
The research will add to the management knowledge on shopper behavior in following
ways:

 The research outcomes will specify the factors that influence a shopper
when he is inside the outlet while shopping in a supermarket.
 The importance of store location for a supermarket.
 The research will create shopper clusters from the factor scores derived
on the basis of shoppers‟ response to the structured questionnaire.
 The shopper clusters will be unique in their behavior; the shoppers within
a cluster will be homogenous in their behavior while shoppers across
clusters will be different.
 So the research will add to the knowledge in identifying the factors
influencing the shopper buying behavior in a supermarket and segregate
them into clusters on the basis of their response. This can be used by
other researchers to create shopper clusters in different formats of
retailing. Moreover retailers can use the research outcomes to segment
their customers and adopt different market targeting strategy aimed at
different segments of customers.

2.6 Formation of Hypotheses

The reviews of literature gave deeper insights into the attributes affecting shopper
behavior, attributes and scales used by researchers, identify the gaps. Moreover this
helped develop hypotheses on the basis of understanding of shopper behavior in the retail
environment in India. The following hypotheses were proposed on the basis of literature
review:

66
 H1: Shoppers go through a complex evaluation process before selecting a
retail outlet for purchase of merchandise.
H2: Shopper decision process is highly influenced by visual
merchandising and Point of Purchase Display
H3: Shoppers are different in their buying behavior in selection of an
outlet.

2.7 Summary
Literature review for the proposed research focused on 14 journals that gave key insights
into retail shopper buying behavior. The research on shopper behavior goes back to 1969
when Dodge and Summer found out that Store choice has been found dependent on
socio-economic background of consumers, their personality and past purchase
experience. Later Kotler (1973), Cort and Dominguez (1977), Mattson (1982),
Fotheringham ( 1988), Meyer and Eagle (1982), Malhotra (1983), Lumpkin et al.
(1985), Zeithaml (1985), Sparks (1995), Davies (1995) contributed a lot towards the
research on shopper buying behavior. But most of these research were qualitative.
McGoldrick and Betts (1995) conducted a research named „ Consumer behavior and the
retail sales‟ in UK and used quantitative analysis (factor analysis) to bring out eight
factors that influence shopper behavior in UK. However till 2003, there was not much
research done on Indian shopper behavior. Sinha and Banerjee (2004) worked on “Store
Choice Behavior in an evolving Market”. This analysis is based on seven constructs and
43 variables. The seven constructs are proximity, merchandise, ambience, service,
patronized and others (two constructs). One of the most recent Indian researches on
shopper behavior is by Goswami and Mishra (2008) who studied traditional kirana
stores visa-a-vis organized Supermarkets for grocery shopping and came out with factors
related to grocery store patronage and identified dimensions of customers‟ needs and
desire which are relevant for grocery store choice. In this study 44 attributes were
considered in the questionnaire that was brought down to 11 factors by factor analysis. A
very recent research on shopper behavior is by Swoboda, Haelsig, Klein and
Morschett(2009) who used a 15 attribute model, converting the attributes into 5 factors
in their research “Moderating role of involvement in building a retail brand”.

67
The existing researches in India and abroad have identified many dimensions of Shopper
behavior in addressing multiple issues in retailing. But none of these researches address
the question of „shopper behavior in a supermarket‟ adequately. Existing researches talk
of shopper behavior in general or shopper behavior to specific stimuli. The proposed
research will try to address the triggers affecting shopper behavior in a super market and
will study in specific the impact of merchandising and other triggers influencing selection
of outlet. This in turn will identify the factors affecting shopper behavior and try to
cluster shoppers on the basis of their factor scores. The outcomes can be used by other
researchers to create shopper clusters in different formats of retailing. Moreover retailers
can use the research outcomes to segment their customers and adopt different market
targeting strategy aimed at different segments of customers.

###

68