Retail attributes' differential effects on utilitarian versus hedonic shopping value

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to examine grocery shoppers' beliefs about store attributes as antecedents to shopping value by exploring whether dimensions of store attribute beliefs have differential effects (i.e. strength and direction) on hedonic versus utilitarian shopping value.

Design/methodology/approach

Shoppers at three grocery outlets in a Norwegian city were approached. After they had agreed to participate in the survey, they received a package containing an information letter, the questionnaire, and the pre‐paid return envelope. A total of 572 (60 per cent response rate) questionnaires were returned within two weeks of delivery.

Findings

Findings from a survey of grocery shoppers suggest that one unique store attribute (e.g. personal interaction) can relate negatively to utilitarian shopping value and positively relate to hedonic shopping value, while others (e.g. physical aspects) may have the opposite valence, or direction to the different dimensions of shopping value.

Research limitations/implications

Future studies should also include not only shopping value antecedents, but also consequences such as repatronage intentions and anticipation, satisfaction, loyalty and positive word of mouth.

Practical implications

Developing adaptive selling techniques and combinations of store layouts may be useful strategies to overcome the differential effects of store attributes on shopping values.

Originality/value

This study shows the differential effects that store attributes can have on shopping value. This research extends previous research, which has focused largely on the main effects of store attributes (i.e. one‐dimensional measures of store attributes), by finding support for significant interactions between the two types of shopping value and dimensions of store attributes.

Citation

Ottar Olsen, S. and Skallerud, K. (2011), "Retail attributes' differential effects on utilitarian versus hedonic shopping value", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 532-539. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761111181527