ARTICLE IN PRESS

0969-6989/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.jre

�Correspondfax: +4429 208

E-mail addr

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Profiling consumers: A study of Qatari consumers’shopping motivations

Ahmad Jamala,�, Fiona Daviesa, Farooq Chudryb, Mohamed Al-Marric

aCardiff Business School, Aberconway Building, Column Drive, CARDIFF, CF10 3EU, UKbBristol Business School, UKcUniversity of Qatar, Qatar

Abstract

The paper investigates reasons consumers go shopping in Doha, Qatar. Four hundred supermarket shoppers completed self-

administered surveys regarding their attitudes toward 57 individual shopping motivation items. The paper first uses both

exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analysis to examine the factor structure and psychometric properties of these

items. Using cluster analysis, the paper then identifies and discusses six homogeneous groups with different emphasis on specific

reasons for shopping. The paper profiles clusters on demographics and ethnic group membership to examine similarities and

differences among cluster members. The paper discusses implications for brand managers and suggests future research directions.

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Shopping motivations; Profiling; Retail shoppers; Retail strategy

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to profile shoppers basedon their reasons for shopping and to examine similaritiesand differences among shopper segments based ondemographics and ethnic group membership. A streamof research has sought to segment consumers using theirmotivations for shopping. In doing so, this research hasprovided deep insights into the consumer psyche andsubsequently into retail strategy formulation (Bloch etal., 1994; Reynolds et al., 2002; Reynolds and Beatty,1999). While some of this research has focused oninvestigating the perceived personal shopping value(Babin et al., 1994), others have investigated the hedonicreasons people go shopping and focused on developingsome taxonomy of shoppers based on their hedonicshopping motivations (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003;Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Still others have

e front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

tconser.2005.08.002

ing author. Tel.: +4429 208 76 838;

7 44 19.

ess: jamala@cardiff.ac.uk (A. Jamal).

attempted to segment consumers on the basis of theirdecision-making styles, which are considered to bemental orientations characterizing a consumer’s ap-proach to making choices (Lysonski et al., 1996; Sprolesand Sproles 1990; Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Theunderlying idea is that consumers engage in shoppingwith certain fundamental decision-making styles includ-ing rational, brand conscious, quality conscious andimpulsive shopping. While such profiling and segmenta-tions provide deep insights into the shopping behaviourof consumers, most of this research is North Americanin origin and application. There is a paucity of researchexamining shopper profiling in non-Western contexts.The need for such a research is highlighted through thefact that the aggressive, geographic market expansion ofsuccessful retail organizations, the internationalizationof retail practices and the development of a globalconsumer market (Dawson, 1994; Severin et al., 2001)has led many to call for investigating consumerbehaviours in specific cultural contexts (de Mooij andHofstede, 2002; McCracken, 1986). Others argue thatthe management of retail firms in other cultures requires

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8068

an understanding of, and responding to, the localconsumers’ motives, value, lifestyles, perceptions, atti-tudes and needs (Byoungho and Kim, 2003; Hofstede,1980; Prahalad and Doz, 1987).The paper makes two important contributions to the

existing literature. First, with the help of an empiricalresearch, the paper extends our knowledge of consumerprofiling to a non-Western context (i.e., Qatar) forwhich no related research has been published. Qatar iscurrently attracting considerable international interestand investments. Almost all of the large European retailchains (e.g. Carrefour, Marks and Spencer, Debenhams)have a presence there and a large number of modernshopping malls with up-to-date recreational facilitiesincluding restaurants, cafes and themed children playareas have emerged in recent years competing with thetraditional souqs or Arab markets. From a managerialperspective, an understanding of consumer profilingschemes is likely to provide an essential understandingof the way Qatari shoppers can be effectively segmentedand targeted. Second, the paper profiles consumers onthe basis of shopping motivations, shopping value anddecision-making styles. This is significant because mostof the existing literature has sought to developtypologies of shoppers based either on shoppingmotives, shopping values or on decision-making styles.The paper combines the three perspectives together toseek a better understanding of the reasons consumers goshopping. The remainder of this paper is organised infive sections. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature.Section 3 describes the data collection procedure alongwith measures adopted for the current study. Section 4reports exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA)factor analysis and a discussion of Cluster Analysisresults. This is followed by the fifth section, whichdiscusses findings and reports conclusions and implica-tions for brand managers.

2. Conceptual background

In order to investigate reasons consumers go shop-ping, three different but related streams of research wereidentified: shopping motivations, shopping value andconsumer decision-making styles. This is because con-sumers are driven by their personal and/or social needs(Tauber, 1972) or it can be that the value that consumersseek out of their total shopping experience makes themgo shopping (Babin et al., 1994). Alternatively, con-sumers are thought to approach the retail marketplacewith certain decision-making styles which is defined as amental orientation characterising a consumer’s ap-proach to making shopping choices (Lysonski et al.,1996; Sproles and Kendall, 1986; Walsh et al., 2001).Motivation is normally defined as ‘an inner drive thatreflects goal-directed arousal’ (Arnould et al., 2002, p.

378). In a shopping context, motivation can be describedas the driving force within consumers that makes themshop. In a widely acknowledged study of shoppingmotivations, Tauber (1972) identified a number ofshopping motivations with the premise that consumersare motivated by two types of psychosocial needs:personal and social. The personal motives include theneeds for role-playing, diversion, self-gratification,learning about new trends, physical activity and sensorystimulation. The role-playing motive reflects activitiesthat are learned and are expected as part of a certainrole or position in society such as mother, housewife orhusband. Diversion highlights shopping’s ability topresent opportunities to the shopper to escape fromthe routines of daily life and therefore represents a typeof recreation and escapism. Self-gratification underlinesthe shopping’s potential to alleviate depression asshoppers can spend money and buy something nicewhen they are in a down mood. Physical activity focuseson consumers’ need for engaging in physical exercise bywalking in spacious and appealing retail centres,particularly when they are living in urban and congestedenvironments. Sensory stimulation emphasizes theability of the retail institutions to provide many sensorybenefits to consumers as they can enjoy the physicalsensation of handling merchandise, the pleasant back-ground music and the scents. The social motivesidentified by Tauber (1972), on the other hand, includethe needs for social experiences, communication withothers, peer group attractions, status and authority, andpleasure in bargaining. The social and communicationmotives features the shopping’s potential to provideopportunities to socialise, meet and communicate withothers with similar interests. The peer group attractionstresses consumers’ desires to be with their referencegroup, whereas status and authority reflect shopping’sability to provide opportunities for consumers tocommand attention and respect from others. Thepleasure of bargaining reflects consumers’ desires andabilities to make wiser decisions by engaging incomparison shopping and special sales.Advancing Tauber’s (1972) work on shopping mo-

tives, Westbrook and Black (1985) suggested sevendimensions of shopping motivations: anticipated utility(the benefits provided by the product acquired viashopping), role enactment (identifying and assumingculturally prescribed roles), negotiation (seeking eco-nomic advantage via bargaining), choice optimization(searching for and securing precisely the right productsto fit one’s demands), affiliation (with others directly orindirectly), power and authority (attainment of elevatedsocial position), and stimulation (seeking novel andinteresting stimuli). Similarly, Arnold and Reynolds(2003) while focusing on motivations that are primarilyhedonic and non-product in nature, identified andvalidated six broad categories of hedonic shopping

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 69

motivations. These included adventure shopping (toseek stimulation, adventure, and feelings of being in adifferent world), social shopping (for enjoyment ofshopping with friends and family, socializing whileshopping and bonding with others), gratification shop-ping (for stress relief, to alleviate a negative mood and asa special treat to oneself), idea shopping (for keeping upwith trends and new fashions and to seek new productsand innovations), role shopping (for getting enjoymentas a consequence of shopping for others) and valueshopping (reflecting shopping for sales, looking fordiscounts, and hunting for bargains).Value is ‘an enduring belief that a specific mode of

conduct or end-state of existence is personally or sociallypreferable to an opposite or converse mode of conductor end-state of existence’ (Rokeach, 1973, p. 5).According to Shim and Eastlick (1998), ‘values areresponsible for the selection and maintenance of thegoals (or ends) toward which individuals strive, whilesimultaneously regulating the manner in which thisstriving takes place’ (p. 142). Peter and Olson (2005)state that values are consumers’ broad life goals andthey often involve the emotional affect associated withsuch goals and needs (see also Griffin et al., 2000). In thecontext of shopping, a stream of research has focused onthe value provided by a complete shopping experience(Babin et al., 1994; Michon and Chebat, 2004).Recognising that a shopping experience can be valuableor valueless in more than one way, Babin et al. (1994)developed and validated a scale which assessed con-sumers’ evaluations of a shopping experience along twodimensions: utilitarian and hedonic value (see also,Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Batra and Ahtola, 1991;Langrehr, 1991; Roy, 1994; Wakefield and Baker, 1998).Citing previous literature, Babin et al. (1994) arguedthat a shopping experience could produce both autilitarian (e.g., functional utility and tangible conse-quences) as well as a hedonic value (subjective experi-ences and emotional worth) for consumers. A shoppingexperience can evoke value for consumers either throughsuccessfully accomplishing its intended goals (e.g.,buying a present for a loved one) or by providingenjoyment and/or fun (Babin et al., 1994). According toBabin et al. (1994), the utilitarian value reflects shoppingwith a work mentality whereas hedonic value is moresubjective, personal and results more from fun andplayfulness associated with a shopping experience.Others have made similar points by characterisingutilitarian aspects of shopping as task-related, rationaland whether or not a product acquisition relatedmission is accomplished (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003;Batra and Ahtola, 1991). According to Babin et al.(1994), the hedonic aspects of shopping experiencereflect shopping’s potential entertainment and emo-tional worth and can involve increased arousal, heigh-tened involvement, perceived freedom, fantasy

fulfilment, and escapism (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003;Babin et al., 1994; Bloch and Richins, 1983; Holbrookand Hirschman, 1982). Therefore, recreational shoppersare likely to expect high levels of hedonic value fromtheir shopping experience (Babin et al., 1994).In a related domain and while contemplating mental

orientations that characterise consumers’ approaches tomaking choices including shopping, Sproles and Ken-dall (1986) proposed a consumer style inventory, whichidentified eight major characteristics of consumerdecision-making. These included: quality consciousness(the tendency to seek perfection or highest possiblequality in products while shopping; they are expected toshop more carefully, more systematically and are notlikely to be satisfied with good enough brands), brandconsciousness (the tendency to seek the more expensive,well known famous brands; they are likely to perceiveprice–quality link, are likely to have positive attitudestowards departmental and speciality stores sellingexpensive and popular brands and may prefer bestselling, heavily advertised brands), novelty-fashionconsciousness (tendency to buy novel and fashionableitems; they are likely to seek pleasure and excitement outof seeking and discovering new things and are likely tokeep up to date with style with variety seeking as part oftheir orientation), recreational shopping (the tendencyto seek pleasure, fun, recreation and entertainment outof shopping), and value consciousness (tendency to seekbargains and look for deals; they are likely to beconcerned about getting best value for money and mayengage in comparison shopping), impulsiveness (ten-dency to buy on impulse; they are likely not to plan theirshopping and remain unconcerned about how muchthey spend), confusion (tendency to get confused byover-choice of brands and information; they are likely toexperience information overload) and brand loyalorientation (tendency to like and buy same brandsagain and again; they are likely to have favourite brandsand stores and to have formed habits in choosing them).A number of studies investigated and assessed theapplicability of Sproles and Kendall’s (1986) inventoryto examine major characteristics of consumer decision-making in New Zealand (Durvasula et al., 1993), inKorea (Hafstrom et al., 1992), in Germany (Walsh et al.,2001) and in US, Greece, New Zealand and India(Lysonski et al., 1996).Since shopping values and motives are, in part,

consequences of culture and ethnicity (Phinney, 1992;Rokeach, 1973), the study investigates the role of ethnicgroup membership in determining similarities anddifferences between consumer segments. Previous re-search indicates that ethnic group membership caninfluence shopping orientations (Eastlick and Lotz,2000; Shim and Gehrt, 1996). For instance, Shim andGehrt (1996) reported findings in relation to theshopping approaches of Hispanic, White and Native

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8070

adolescents in the USA. According to Shim and Gehrt(1996), Hispanic adolescents depicted a greater tendencyto the social/hedonic shopping orientation than did theWhite and Native American adolescents. The Whiteadolescents, on the other hand, manifested a greatertendency towards the utilitarian approach to shoppingthan did Hispanic and Native American adolescents.Hispanic adolescents also manifested a greater tendencytowards novelty/fashion consciousness, recreational andbrand-loyal orientations as compared to their White andNative American counterparts. Similarly, research ondifferent ethnic groups in the USA reveals that theHispanic Americans are different from Anglo-Amer-icans in their price consciousness, brand loyalty, storepatronage, emphasis on product quality, style and socialshopping orientations (Eastlick and Lotz, 2000; Valen-cia, 1989). The rapid development of shopping malls inQatar in recent years and the multi-ethnic nature ofDoha’s population represent a suitable avenue for thestudy.On the basis of the review of the literature, a number

of research questions can be raised. For instance, withinthe food and grocery sector; first, ‘‘what are theshopping motivations, shopping value and decision-making styles that drive consumers to shop in a nonWestern context?’’ second, ‘‘what are the consumersegments that could be developed on the basis ofshopping motives, values and decision-making styles?’’third, ‘‘what are the similarities and differences betweenconsumer segments based on demographics, ethnicbackground and store satisfaction?’’ and finally, ‘‘whatare the guidelines for retail strategy formulation’’.Answers to these questions should be of help to retailbrand managers and consumer researchers interestednot only in Qatar but also in other markets with similarconsumer lifestyles, cultural values and retail marketstructures. We argue that an understanding of thereasons consumers go shopping is important forretailer’s strategic marketing activities involving differ-ent consumers groups. Similarly, effective communica-tion with different consumer groups could be improvedby developing a proper understanding of shoppingmotives, perceived shopping value and decision-makingstyles (Walsh et al., 2001).

3. Method

First, a questionnaire in English was drafted contain-ing Likert-scaled items scoring from 1 (strongly dis-agree) to 7 (strongly agree) to measure 13 shoppingmotivations: utilitarian shopping, hedonic shopping,social shopping, role playing, gratification seeking,adventure shopping, brand loyal orientation, valueseeking, confusion, impulsiveness, high quality con-sciousness, brand consciousness and novelty seeking

(Babin et al., 1994; Lysonski et al., 1996; Reynolds et al.,2002). Appendix A lists these items. Measures were alsoincluded in the questionnaire to capture store satisfac-tion, frequency of shopping, amount of money spent,ethnic background and demographics. For the purposeof this study, store satisfaction was considered as acomposite of overall consumer attitude towards aparticular store that incorporated a number of measures(Jones and Sasser, 1995; Levesque and McDougall,1996; Jamal and Naser, 2002). To capture storesatisfaction, the questionnaire first included a questionwhereby the respondents were required to identify (froma list) the stores they generally visited for their food andgrocery shopping. The next question then required themto identify the main store where they did most of theirfood and grocery shopping. The next question thenrequired respondents to respond to three frequently usedmeasures of satisfaction (e.g., ‘after considering every-thing, I am extremely satisfied with my main store’).Afterwards, an Arabic version of the questionnaire

was drafted with the help of two bilingual experts fluentin both English and Arabic. The questionnaire was firsttranslated into Arabic and then back translated intoEnglish to enhance translation equivalence (Hui andTriandis, 1985; Hair et al., 1998; Lysonski et al., 1996).Minor changes were made in the wording to clarify thesemantics in the Arabic version. A total of 30 pilot testswere then conducted with consumers who were seen assimilar to the population for the study. Pre-testing wasalso carried out with two prominent academic membersof staff at a leading local university. The purpose of thepre-testing was to refine the questionnaire and to assessthe validity and applicability of measures; correspond-ing amendments were made to the questionnaire afterthe pilot tests.For the purpose of this study, the product category of

food and grocery was chosen. Food and groceryshopping is an effective context to study consumersand their shopping motivations, values and decision-making styles for a number of reasons. First, previousresearch has examined shopping motivations in agrocery context (e.g., Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004)enabling us to contrast our findings against previousresearch. Second, grocery shopping is an ongoing andessential activity whereby consumer decision-makingwithin the grocery environment can be highly involving(Smith and Carsky, 1996). Third, while grocery shop-ping in a Western context is often perceived as taskoriented, routine, and non-recreational in nature(Machleit and Eroglu, 2000), our preliminary discus-sions with some of the local shoppers revealed that thegrocery shopping in the local context (where super-markets and shopping malls are a recent phenomenon)was associated with a number of hedonic feelings(e.g., enjoyment, excitement, and entertainment, feelingsof freedom from domestic chores and heightened

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 71

involvement). However, we acknowledge the fact thatsome of the hedonic and emotional aspects of shoppingmay be less relevant to this particular context andtherefore should be considered as a limiting factor ofthis study.The population of the study consisted of male and

female food and grocery shoppers (18 and above) inDoha, Qatar. Ideally we wanted to use a mall interceptsurvey to collect the data because it had been used byprevious research (see for instance, Reynolds et al. 2002;Babin and Darden, 1996). However, given the culturalsensitivities involved (e.g., it is not possible to ask afemale shopper in a shopping mall to fill in aquestionnaire as Qatar is traditionally a Muslimsociety), a convenience sample of 650 respondents wasdrawn using undergraduate students (business econom-ics), academic and non-academic staff at a localuniversity in Doha, Qatar, who took additional copiesof the questionnaire back home and distributed themamong family and friends. Inclusion in the samplerequired that the respondents were either male orfemale, aged 18 and above and did regularly purchasefood and grocery items for their personal or family use.There was no monetary incentive for completing thequestionnaire but all those willing to participate werebriefed about the purpose and rationale of the study.The procedure resulted in 437 completed questionnaireswith a response rate of 67%. However 37 questionnaireswere incomplete resulting in 400 usable questionnaires.Overall, the sample is primarily aged 20–39 (80%);43.6% single and 54.4% married; highly educated (72%holding university degrees), mainly employed as profes-sionals or senior management positions (48.5%), and46% male and 54% females.

4. Findings

4.1. Exploratory factor analysis

The 57 items used to measure the 13 shoppingmotivations were all subjected to EFA with principalaxis factoring and varimax rotation with screen testcriterion and Eigen values used to confirm the numberof factors to extract (Hair et al., 1998). The mainpurpose of the EFA was to confirm whether itemsloaded correctly to the corresponding factors asidentified by previous research. The purpose was alsoto assess the dimensionality, measurement and psycho-metric properties of scale items used in the study.However, this produced a 15-factor solution, which wasdifficult to interpret for our sample. Therefore, afterinspecting the factor solution, the item loadings and theanti-image correlation matrix, a total of 21 items weredeleted: all of the three items for adventure shopping, allof the five items for impulsiveness, all of the five items

for novelty seeking, three items for quality conscious,two items for brand conscious, two items for hedonicshopping and one item for social shopping. Theremaining 36 items were again subjected to EFA and afinal ten-factor model was estimated, while none of theitems exhibited low factor loadings (o0.40) or highcross-loadings (40.40). The ten-factor solution ac-counted for 65.5% of the total variance, and exhibiteda KMO measure of sampling adequacy of 0.816. Inorder to quantify the scale reliabilities of the factorsidentified, Cronbach alpha coefficients were computed;all of the alpha coefficients easily passed the minimumlevel of 0.70 recommended by Nunnally (1978) indicat-ing acceptability and reliability of all of the scales.Results of factor analysis together with the percentageof total variance for each of the factor and calculatedCronbach alpha scores are shown in Table 1. As a pointof comparison, factor loadings reported by somesignificantly relevant studies (i.e., Arnold and Reynolds,2003; Lysonski et al., 1996) are also reported in Table 1.According to Table 1, our findings are largely similar tothose reported by Arnold and Reynolds (2003) andLysonski et al. (1996).

4.2. Confirmatory factor analysis

In order to further test the validity of the measuresused in the study, CFA using Amos 4.01 was conducted(Byrne, 2001). A measurement model was set to have tenfactors (latent variables) and one latent variable perindicator was allowed. In other words, each item wasprescribed to be loaded on one specific latent variable;thus, a gratification-seeking item was related to thegratification factor and not to any other factor.A completely standardised solution produced by Amos4.01 using maximum likelihood method showed that allof the 36 items loaded highly on their correspondingfactors, confirming the unidimensionality of the con-structs and providing strong empirical evidence of theirvalidity. The t (CR) values for the loadings were highdemonstrating adequate convergent validity. The result-ing measurement model was w2400 ¼ 962:692, p ¼ 0:000,degrees of freedom (df) ¼ 549; Goodness of Fit Index(GFI) ¼ 0.88; Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index(AGFI) ¼ 0.86; Comparative-Fit-Index (CFI) ¼ 0.92;Incremental Fit Index (IFI) ¼ 0.92; Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.043, whichindicated a good fit. The measurement model and thestandardized loadings along with critical ratios (t values)are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, as reported inTable 2, the scale composite reliability for eachconstruct was quite satisfactory (Hair et al., 1998;Fornell and Larker, 1981). The composite reliability,which is an internal consistency reliability measure as afurther evidence of convergent validity computed fromAmos solutions, ranged from 0.71 to 0.90.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Exploratory factor analysis results

Items Factor loadings

(n ¼ 400)

a % Variance Reported factor loadings

Lysonski et al.

(1996)

Arnold and

Reynolds

(2003)

Factor 1—Gratification seeking

When I am in down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better 0.85 0.69

To me shopping is a way to relieve stress 0.85 0.67

I go to shopping when I want to treat myself to something special 0.69 0.50

While shopping I can normally forget my problems 0.78 0.86 8.69 n.a.*

Factor 2—Social shopping

I like shopping with my friends or family to socialize 0.86 0.85

I enjoy socializing with others when I shop 0.90 0.76

Shopping with others is a bonding experience 0.82 0.90 7.08 0.71

Factor 3—High quality seeking

When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or

perfect choice

0.81 0.46

In general I usually try to buy the best overall quality 0.83 0.67

I make special effort to choose the very best quality products 0.81 0.81

My standards and expectations for the products that I buy are

high

0.56 0.78 7.01 0.76

Factor 4—Confused by choice

There are so many brands to choose that often I feel confused 0.71 0.64

Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop at 0.68 0.70

The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose

the best

0.76 0.59

All the information I get on different products confuses me 0.79 0.76 6.70 0.68

Factor 5—Value shopping

For the most parts, I go shopping when there are sales 0.82 0.86

I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop 0.86 0.83

I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop 0.75 0.81 6.34 0.74

Factor 6—Brand loyal/habitual

I have favourite brands I buy over and over 0.72 0.58

Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it 0.78 0.81

I go to the same store each time I shop 0.55 0.50

I like to buy the same brand 0.73 0.70 6.28 n.a.**

Factor 7—Brand conscious

The more expensive brands are usually my choice 0.79 0.55

The higher the price of the product, the better is its quality 0.84 0.43

Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products 0.48 0.69

The most advertised brands are usually the very good choices 0.64 0.71 6.08 0.44

Factor 8—Utilitarian

I make shopping trips fast 0.73 0.52

While shopping, I try to accomplish just what I want to as soon as

possible

0.83 n.a.***

While shopping I try to find just the items that I am looking for 0.71 0.70 6.01 n.a.***

Factor 9—Hedonic shopping

Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities for me 0.55 0.84

I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it 0.63 0.82

I enjoy shopping more than most people do 0.61 n.a.****

I love to go shopping when I can find time 0.73 0.76 5.77 n.a.****

Factor 10—Role playing

I like shopping for others because when they feel good, I feel good 0.67 0.83

I enjoy shopping for my family and friends 0.76 0.80

I enjoy shopping around to find a perfect gift for someone 0.69 0.71 5.53 0.57

Total variance 65.5

*Items from Babin et al. (1994), **Rohm and Swaminathan (2004), ***Michon and Chebat (2004), and ****Reynolds and Beatty (1999).

A. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8072

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Measurement model

Items Standardized factor

loadings

Critical ratio (CR)

Factor 1—Gratification seeking (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.87)

GF1 When I am in down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better 0.85 17.65

GF2 To me shopping is a way to relieve stress 0.90 18.60

GF3 I go to shopping when I want to treat myself to something special 0.62 12.38

GF4 While shopping I can normally forget my problems 0.76 1.000

Factor 2—Social shopping (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.90)

SOC1 I like shopping with my friends or family to socialize 0.86 20.40

SOC2 I enjoy socializing with others when I shop 0.91 21.67

SOC3 Shopping with others is a bonding experience 0.83 1.0000

Factor 3—High quality seeking (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.78)

QC1 When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the very best or

perfect choice

0.74 9.30

QC2 In general I usually try to buy the best overall quality 0.77 9.43

QC3 I make special effort to choose the very best quality products 0.71 9.17

QC4 My standards and expectations for the products that I buy are high 0.52 1.0000

Factor 4—Confused by choice (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.76)

CF1 There are so many brands to choose that often I feel confused 0.56 9.76

CF2 Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop at 0.59 10.21

CF3 The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the best 0.75 12.15

CF4 All the information I get on different products confuses me 0.75 1.0000

Factor 5—Value shopping (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.81)

VAL1 For the most parts, I go shopping when there are sales 0.77 12.27

VAL2 I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop 0.87 12.42

VAL3 I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop 0.65 1.0000

Factor 6—Brand loyal/habitual (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.72)

HB1 I have favourite brands I buy over and over 0.71 10.01

HB2 Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it 0.71 10.02

HB3 I go to the same store each time I shop 0.42 6.83

HB4 I like to buy the same brand 0.64 1.0000

Factor 7—Brand conscious (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.72)

BC1 The more expensive brands are usually my choice 0.66 9.45

BC2 The higher the price of the product, the better is its quality 0.80 9.85

BC3 Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products 0.43 6.89

BC4 The most advertised brands are usually the very good choices 0.60 1.0000

Factor 8—Utilitarian (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.71)

UT1 I make shopping trips fast 0.67 8.68

UT2 While shopping, I try to accomplish just what I want to as soon as

possible

0.80 8.74

UT3 While shopping I try to find just the items that I am looking for 0.54 1.0000

Factor 9—Hedonic shopping (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.77)

HD1 Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities for me 0.70 8.66

HD2 I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it 0.83 9.15

HD3 I enjoy shopping more than most people do 0.67 8.46

HD4 I love to go shopping when I can find time 0.48 1.0000

Factor 10—Role playing (scale composite reliability ¼ 0.72)

ROL1 I like shopping for others because when they feel good, I feel good 0.67 9.18

ROL2 I enjoy shopping for my family and friends 0.79 9.51

ROL3 I enjoy shopping around to find a perfect gift for someone 0.58 1.000

A. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 73

4.3. Cluster analysis

In order to classify respondents into groups based ontheir responses to the shopping motivations, a multi-step

cluster analysis was utilized (Hair et al., 1998; Reynoldsand Beatty, 1999). Using Ward’s method in hierarchicalclustering procedure, clusters were formed based onfactor scores. An examination of the distance between

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8074

two clusters for three, four, five and six cluster solutionsresulted in the determination of a six-cluster solution(Reynolds et al., 2002; Reynolds and Beatty, 1999).Then a K-means clustering procedure with the initialseeds provided by the hierarchical analysis solution wasconducted to obtain the final clusters. The results ofcluster analysis are reported in Table 3. The Eta-squaredstatistics reported in Table 3 indicate that the partition-ing involving the first, second, third, sixth and the ninthfactor was able to explain larger amounts of variance onthese factors. We interpreted the clusters as follows:

Socializing shoppers: This is the first group ofshoppers, which makes up the second largest percentage(21.5%) of the respondents scoring the highest on social,the second highest on utilitarian, the third highest onbrand loyalty, above average on quality and role butscoring the lowest on gratification and below average onvalue and brand consciousness.

Disloyal shoppers: This is the second group ofshoppers, which makes up the third largest percentage(19.8%) of the respondents scoring the lowest on brandloyalty, below average on confusion, gratification, socialand utility but scoring above average on value, qualityand hedonic.

Independent perfectionist shoppers: This is the thirdgroup of shoppers, which makes up 16.3% of the

Table 3

Results of the non-hierarchical cluster analysis

Shopping

motivations

Cluster means

Cluster 1

(Socializing

shoppers)

Cluster 2

(Disloyal

shoppers)

Cluster 3

(Independent

perfectionist

shoppers)

Cluster 4

(Escapis

shoppers

Gratification

seeking

�0.63270 �0.31500 �0.62309 1.1928

Social

shopping

0.97712 �0.25927 �1.12595 0.0919

High quality

seeking

0.29502 0.27619 0.33844 0.1183

Confused by

choice

0.04925 �0.40959 0.24877 0.3136

Value seeking �0.20753 0.38304 �0.62560 �0.0985

Brand loyal 0.34439 �1.15560 0.38432 0.1978

Brand

conscious

�0.12826 �0.06648 0.01492 0.1318

Utilitarian

shopping

0.39484 �0.11545 0.20643 �0.0922

Hedonic

shopping

0.05186 0.18857 �0.01813 0.4716

Role playing 0.16003 0.03861 �0.44686 0.1602

Cluster size 86 79 65 90

Percentage of

respondents

(%)

21.5% 19.8% 16.3% 22.5%

Bold type indicates that value is significantly different from 0, the mean of e

Bold type ¼ significant at 0.01 level, bold italic ¼ significant at 0.05 level.

respondents scoring the lowest on social, the secondlowest both on gratification and value, third lowest onrole shopping but scoring above average on quality,brand loyalty, confusion and utilitarian shopping.

Escapist shoppers: This is the fourth group ofshoppers, which makes up the largest percentage(22.5%) of the respondents scoring the highest ongratification, the second highest on hedonic shopping,above average on confusion and slightly above averageon brand loyalty, role playing, brand consciousness andquality.

Apathetic shoppers: This is the fifth group of shoppers,which makes up the lowest percentage (8.3%) of therespondents scoring the lowest on quality, second loweston utilitarian, the third lowest on gratification andbelow average on brand consciousness and role butslightly above average on hedonic and confusion.

Budget conscious shoppers: This is the sixth group ofshoppers, which makes up the second lowest percentage(11.8%) of the respondents scoring the least on hedonic,second lowest on confusion but the highest on value,second highest on gratification, third highest on brandloyalty, above average on brand consciousness butslightly below average on quality.It can be seen from Table 3, that the first, fourth and

sixth clusters (58.3%) tend to hold a positive view on

t

)

Cluster 5

(Apathetic

shoppers)

Cluster 6

(Budget

conscious

shoppers)

F-value Po Eta2

0 �0.37425 0.52758 90.471 0.000 0.534

8 �0.04102 0.05772 58.978 0.000 0.428

9 �2.18110 �0.16742 65.111 0.000 0.452

3 0.17680 �0.47041 8.239 0.000 0.095

2 �0.09148 0.85398 18.590 0.000 0.191

1 0.06842 0.35389 40.232 0.000 0.338

0 �0.29076 0.27757 1.974 0.081 0.024

4 �0.77214 �0.09515 8.318 0.000 0.095

4 0.22240 �1.44607 35.116 0.000 0.308

9 �0.14746 0.05686 3.827 0.002 0.046

33 47

8.3% 11.8%

ach factor for the whole sample.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 75

most aspects of shopping whereas the second, third andfifth (46.2%) seem to hold a negative orientation towardsmost aspects of shopping. Similarly, gratification seekingis valued the most by the first and the sixth clusterswhereas social shopping is only valued the most by thefirst cluster. On the other hand, high quality seeking isvalued least by the fifth cluster while most of the othersvalued it above average. Confusion is valued least by thesecond and sixth clusters whereas the third and the fourthclusters valued it above average. Value seeking is valuedthe most by the sixth cluster and above average by thesecond cluster. Similarly, brand loyalty is valued the leastby disloyal shoppers but above average by first, third,and sixth cluster. On the other hand, brand consciousnessis valued above average by the sixth cluster and belowaverage by the first and fifth clusters. Utilitarian shoppingis valued least by the fifth cluster but above average thefirst and the third clusters. Hedonic shopping is valuedabove average by fourth, fifth and second clusters but theleast by the sixth cluster. Role-playing is valued the leastby the third cluster but slightly above average by the firstand fourth clusters.

4.4. Cluster validation

Following Reynolds et al. (2002), a K-means cluster-ing procedure, taking random initial seeds to set thecluster centres was performed to validate the clustersolutions. Findings revealed more or less similar clustersolutions though there were some minor differences. Thecomposition of each cluster in terms of demographicvariables (age, gender, occupation, marital status,education) and ethnicity was then compared with thatof the full sample, using chi-squared tests, while t-testswere used to compare each cluster’s store satisfactionwith the mean for the whole sample. Findings are

Table 4

Cluster validation

Full sample Cluster 1

(Socializing

shoppers)

Cluster 2

(Disloyal

shoppers)

Store

satisfaction

5.57 5.82 5.49

Gender Male 46% Male 46% Male 54%

Female 54% Female 54% Female 46%

Occupation Professionals 48% 53% 53%

Students 30% 29% 29%

Other 22% 18% 18%

Ethnicity Qatari 74% 79% 67%

Other Arab 17% 16% 17%

Asian 5% 2.5% 13%

Western 4% 2.5% 3%

Bold type indicates that value for cluster is significantly different from value

Bold type ¼ significant at 0.01 level, bold italic ¼ significant at 0.05 level.

reported in Table 4. Only the significant demographicdifferences, gender and occupation, and significantethnicity related differences are highlighted here. Table4 indicates that the first cluster, labelled as socializingshoppers, is composed of a slight majority of females,largely professionals and Qatari nationals but also otherArabs and scored highest on store satisfaction scores.The second cluster, labelled as disloyal shoppers, iscomposed of a slight majority of males, largelyprofessionals, Qatari nationals but also other Arabsand Asians (50% of all Asians in the sample). The thirdcluster, labelled as independent perfectionist shoppers, iscomposed of a fair majority of males, largely profes-sionals, Qatari nationals but also other Arabs. Thefourth cluster, labelled as escapist shoppers, is composedof a significant majority of females, largely Qatarinationals but also other Arabs and scored secondhighest on store satisfaction scores. The fifth cluster,labelled as apathetic shoppers, is composed of a fairmajority of females, mostly students, largely Qatarinationals but also other Arabs and scored lowest onstore satisfaction scores. The sixth cluster, labelled asbudget conscious shoppers, is composed of a fairmajority of females, mostly Qatari nationals, otherArabs and Westerners (71% of all Westerners in thesample) and but also other Arabs. It is interesting tonote that the majority of Westerners sampled in thestudy belonged to the sixth cluster whereas almost halfof all Asians sampled belonged to the second cluster.

5. Discussion, conclusions and implications

Prior research has called for identifying and investigat-ing the shopping motivations, which are likely to varyacross retail shopping formats and occasions (Westbrook

Cluster 3

(Independent

perfectionist

shoppers)

Cluster 4

(Escapist

shoppers)

Cluster 5

(Apathetic

shoppers)

Cluster 6

(Budget

conscious

shoppers)

5.49 5.74 4.80 5.58

Male 57% Male 34% Male 42% Male 43%

Female 43% Female 66% Female 58% Female 57%

66% 39% 36% 34%

14% 36% 42% 34%

20% 25% 22% 32%

83% 77% 79% 53%

14% 19% 18% 17%

3% 4% 3% 4%

— — — 26%

for whole sample.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8076

and Black, 1985). While ours is not a cross-culturalcomparative study, our findings reveal gratification seek-ing, social shopping, high quality seeking, confused byover choice, value seeking, brand loyal, brand conscious-ness, utilitarian shopping, hedonic shopping and roleplaying to be important factors that drive consumers toshop in a non-Western context such as that of Doha.Furthermore, the six segments that emerged from ouranalysis are quite different from one another and aresignificant for marketers in a number of important ways.For example, the largest segment called the escapistshoppers report their primary shopping motivations tobe gratification and hedonism. To some extent, however,they do appear to become confused by the overwhelmingvariety of brands offered. Like respondents in Babin etal.’s (1994) study, our respondents recognise the shoppingactivity as a self-gratifying and therapeutic activity. Thissuggests that these customers view shopping as an escapemechanism to get their minds off their problems and as away for relieving stress and alleviating negative mood.Since this segment is composed of a significant majority offemales, largely Qatari nationals but also other Arabs, it ishighly likely that some of the traditional values associatedwith the role of men and women in the society appear tobe applicable here. Men in traditional Arab societies suchas that of Qatar, mostly go out for work whereas womentend to stay home taking care of children and the domesticchores. This, along with the harsh desert weatherconditions during most parts of the year, might have anegative impact on the moods of female consumers, whotherefore, perceive shopping to be an alternative activitywhereby they can forget the daily routines of their livesby indulging in shopping related social experiencesoutside their homes (Tauber, 1972). Since these custo-mers appear to actively seek redress for their problems,retail managers need to focus on improving storeatmospherics, introducing recreational and fun activitiesadding to the entertainment and emotional worth ofshopping experiences (Wakefield and Baker, 1998). Thefact that this segment attaches significant importance tothe hedonic dimension of shopping is also significant forretailers and brand managers because individuals drivenlargely by hedonism are likely to pay more attention toretail and brand attributes (merchandise quality, in storepromotions). They are also likely to have a largernumber of inputs in their brand evaluation and decision-making (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Dawson et al.,1990). Those who value hedonic dimension of shoppingare also likely to experience increased arousal, heigh-tened involvement, perceived freedom, fantasy fulfil-ment and escapism (Babin et al., 1994). Therefore, sucha segment can best be targeted using experience-basedadvertising by focusing on what it feels to use a brand orservice as these customers are likely to focus onmessages that are perceived to be self-relevant, self-fulfilling and idealistic.

Similarly, the second largest segment, socializingshoppers, report their primary shopping motivationsto be social, habitual brand loyal and utilitarian withleast value attached to gratification seeking. Therefore,these shoppers appear to see shopping as a leisureactivity (Martin and Mason, 1987), fulfilling someimportant role in family and social life. The segmentalso appears to perceive shopping to be a routine andhabitual as well as task related activity. Grounded inMcGuire’s (1974) collection of affiliation theories ofhuman motivation, social shopping reflects consumers’tendency to be altruistic, cohesive, and seeking accep-tance and affection in interpersonal relationships (cf.Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; see also, McGuire, 1976;Westbrook and Black, 1985). This also reflects theaffiliation motive (Tauber, 1972) whereby individualsseek to affiliate with friends and other shoppers becauseshopping is treated as a social process. Given the factthat this segment is fairly balanced in terms of gender(though a slight majority is female), is largely composedof professionals and Qatari nationals but also otherArabs, the segment appears to represent working menand women, who despite their professional work load,continue to retain the traditional juggling lifestyleinvolving care for the household and for familymembers (Thompson, 1996). On the one hand, theyappear to be highly sociable consumers seeking friend-ships, solidarity with the group and opportunities forengaging in relationships (McAdams, 1988). However,at the same time, they also prefer to choose the samefavourite brands and stores repeatedly and considershopping to be a routine activity that needs to beaccomplished as smoothly as possible. In other words,while high on social agenda, these consumers try tofinish off their shopping quickly by patronizing samebrands and stores to minimize their cognitive efforts.The implication is that the brand managers have tomake sure that they allow ample space and time forshoppers to communicate with other shoppers. Thiscould be achieved by improving the layout, catering andother get together activities within the shopping mallareas. Furthermore, the store managers can train staffencouraging them to develop personal rapport anddialogue with such customers. Also, the segment couldbest be targeted using messages that reflect the socialdimension of shopping presenting it as a pleasurable andenjoyable activity.Furthermore, the third largest segment, disloyal

shoppers, does not appear to patronize same brands orstores (as the same brands/stores are less likely to be onoffer all the time). They are rather driven by valueseeking, and in doing so, also watch out for highestquality and tend to enjoy the hedonic aspects of theirshopping experience. In other words, while theyare seeking value, they are also price-equals-qualityconscious consumers who are watching out to buy

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 77

well-known, normally expensive brands. However, theyare not confused by over choice and do not appear toexperience any information overload. Their shoppingexperience is therefore, nothing but a challenge or agame that needs to be won. The segment is genderbalanced (though there is a slight majority of males), iscomposed of largely professionals, and is multicultural(Qatari nationals, other Arabs and many Asians).Marketing communication messages that could rein-force brand quality and yet offer price promotions arelikely to be effective for this segment.The fourth largest segment, independent perfectionist

shoppers, represents perfectionist, high-quality-con-scious consumers who search carefully and system-atically for best quality in brands and stores. These arebrand loyal, high quality seekers who also attach somevalue to utilitarian aspects of shopping. In other words,they have strong preference for brands and stores thatthey visit on a repeated basis to minimize their cognitiveefforts as they also treat shopping as a task relatedactivity. They do not appear to be socially oriented, arenot interested in role-playing and attach little value toseeking self-gratification and value seeking. The segmentis composed of a fair majority of males, and has a largenumber of professionals who are mostly Qatari na-tionals but also represents some other Arab groups. Incomparison with escapist shoppers, this segment doesnot appear to value the liberal ethos of the marketplace(Firat and Venkatesh, 1993; van Raaij, 1993) due totheir traditional views about the gender roles in thesociety. Since these customers are highly conscious ofthe quality of the brand, marketing communicationmessages that could utilise strong brand imageryreinforcing brand values and quality perceptions (Aa-ker, 1991, 1992) are likely to be effective here.The fifth largest segment, budget conscious shoppers,

places a lot of emphasis on seeking value and self-gratification and a moderate emphasis on brand loyaltyand brand consciousness. In other words, they watch outfor value, use the shopping as a self-gratifying activityand visit the same brands and stores. However, they careleast for the hedonic side of their shopping experienceand are not confused by over-choice. The segment iscomposed of a fair majority of females who are mostlyQatari nationals but also represent other Arabs andWesterners. The segment compares very well with thefunctional or economic shopper reported by Westbrookand Black (1985) who scored high on the motivation tosearch for the right product and make product/pricecomparisons to obtain value. Marketing communicationmessages with typical sales promotional offers and pricereductions are likely to be very effective for this segment.This is because the price promotion based messages arelikely to provide savings, quality and convenience benefitsto these consumers improving their overall shoppingexperience (Chandon et al., 2000; Davis et al., 1992).

The sixth largest segment, apathetic shoppers, doesnot care much about most aspects of shopping exceptthat there is some moderate value attached to thehedonic aspect of shopping and confusion. The segmentappears to be fairly similar to Reynolds et al.’s (2002)apathetic shoppers who were uninterested in all aspectsof the shopping process, rating the importance of mallessentials, brand name merchandise and conveniencelow whereas rating entertainment as average. Thesegment also appears to be very similar to the ‘apathetic’(Westbrook and Black, 1985) and ‘minimalist’ (Bloch etal., 1994) shoppers who tended to score low on mostshopping motivations. It is, however, possible that thissegment might be characterised by some other motiva-tions not included in this study. Since the segment ismainly composed of students, it might be that they donot feel a need to be involved in shopping behaviour asshopping is done by someone else in the family.Our findings also reveal that men appear to dominate

disloyal and independent perfectionist shoppers’ seg-ments whereas women appear to dominate othersegments such as those of socializing shoppers, escapistshoppers, apathetic shoppers and budget consciousshoppers. This may be due to the reason that groceryshopping and the task of maintaining social ties isconsidered to be ‘women’s work’ putting some extrapressure and load on women shoppers (Fischer andArnold, 1990). In terms of ethnic group membership,our findings reveal that while a majority of all Asians inthe sample were classified as disloyal shoppers, asignificant majority of Western shoppers were classifiedas budget conscious shoppers. Our findings, therefore,support the notion that ethnic group membership caninfluence shopping motivations, decision-making stylesand the likely value experienced by shoppers (Shim andGehrt, 1996). It implies that retailers can tailor theirstrategies to meet the needs of ethnic minority segmentsin Qatar and may wish to design special formats to reachthese segments. They can also produce customercommunications in ethnic languages and adapt adver-tising messages and loyalty schemes to reflect thecultural aspirations of ethnic minority groups (Jamal,2003). However, our findings do not support threeimportant factors commonly attributed to reasons whyconsumers shop: adventure shopping, impulsiveness andnovelty seeking. This might be due to the specific natureand structure of retail environment and consumerlifestyles in Qatar (see Lysonski, et al., 1996). However,given the context of this study, perhaps the notions ofadventure shopping and novelty seeking were subsumedwithin the hedonic aspect of shopping experience. Itmight also be that food and grocery shoppers did notfeel any sense of adventure and novelty seeking becausegrocery shopping is an ongoing and a repetitive activity(Rohm and Swaminathan, 2004; Smith and Carsky,1996). However, the lack of emphasis on impulsiveness

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8078

is quite surprising given the fact that it is normallyconsidered to be of strategic importance to retailers andis thought to be linked with hedonic consumption andsensory stimulation (Beatty and Ferrell, 1998; Rook,1987; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003).As with all research projects, the findings presented

are characterized by limitations that restrict the extentto which they can be reliably generalized. For example,the data analysis was limited to some customer groupsin Qatar only. Future research could incorporate datafrom customer groups from different countries andregions to seek the extent to which shopping motiva-tions are valid and generalizable. Furthermore, the datarelated to grocery and food shopping was collected. Ourchoice of the retail context (grocery shopping) mightlimit the range of shopping motives (and the likely valueexperienced) that could be perceived as important andmight be biased towards utilitarian elements of shoppingexperience. However, given our findings, future researchmight examine the extent to which shopping motivesdiffer across different retail environments (e.g., grocerystores, departmental stores, shopping malls). Similarly,all of the shopping motives were measured at one pointin time, thus essentially from a static perspective. It maybe worthwhile to study shopping motives over time inorder to be able to take into account the dynamics inconsumer behavioural and attitudinal patterns. Futureresearch could also look into the extent to whichdifferent shopping motives relate to some importantbehavioural outcomes such as customer loyalty andsatisfaction towards brands and retail stores. However,despite the limitations, the current study has providedsignificant insights into the nature and type of shoppingmotives that drive consumers to shop in a differentcultural context. This is highly significant in the contextof the recent geographic market expansion of successfulretail organizations and the development of a globalconsumer market whereby marketers and retail brandmanagers are keen to learn and understand thedynamics of buying behaviour patterns of consumersof different cultural backgrounds (Jamal, 2003).

Appendix A. Measures of shopping motivations, shopping

value and decision-making styles used in the study

Arnold and Reynolds (2003):

1.

When I am in down mood, I go shopping to makeme feel better

2.

To me shopping is a way to relieve stress 3. I go to shopping when I want to treat myself to

something special

4. I like shopping with my friends or family to

socialize

5. I enjoy socializing with others when I shop

6.

Shopping with others is a bonding experience 7. For the most parts, I go shopping when there are

sales

8. I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop 9. I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop 10. I like shopping for others because when they feel

good, I feel good

11. I enjoy shopping for my family and friends 12. I enjoy shopping around to find a perfect gift for

someone

13. To me shopping is an adventure 14. I find shopping stimulating 15. Shopping makes me feel I am in my own universe

Babin et al. (1994):

16.

While shopping I can normally forget my problems 17. While shopping at a store, I feel disappointed if I

have to go to a different store to complete myshopping

Michon and Chebat (2004) and Babin et al. (1994):

18.

While shopping, I try to accomplish just what Iwant to as soon as possible

19.

While shopping I try to find just the items that I amlooking for

Reynolds and Beatty (1999):

20.

I enjoy shopping more than most people do 21. I love to go shopping when I can find time

Rohm and Swaminathan (2004):

22. I always compare prices 23. I am cautious in trying new products 24. I enjoy exploring alternative stores 25. I like to try new products and brands for fun 26. I like to buy the same brand

Lysonski et al. (1996):

27.

Getting very good quality is important to me 28. When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get

the very best or perfect choice

29. In general I usually try to buy the best overall

quality

30. I make special effort to choose the very best quality

products

31. I really do not give my purchase much thought or

care

32. My standards and expectations for the products

that I buy are high

33. A product does not have to be perfect, or the best

to satisfy me

34. The well-known national brands are best for me 35. The more expensive brands are usually my choice 36. The higher the price of the product, the better is its

quality

37. Nice department and specialty stores offer me the

best products

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–80 79

38.

I prefer buying the best selling brands 39. The most advertised brands are usually the very

good choices

40. Shopping is not a pleasant activity for me 41. Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities for

me

42. Shopping in many stores wastes my time 43. I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it 44. I make shopping trips fast 45. I should plan my shopping trip more carefully than

I do

46. I am impulsive when purchasing 47. Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had

not

48. I take the time to shop carefully for the best buys 49. I carefully watch how much I spend 50. There are so many brands to choose that often I feel

confused

51. Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop

at

52. The more I learn about products, the harder it

seems to choose the best

53. All the information I get on different products

confuses me

54. I have favourite brands I buy over and over 55. Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it 56. I go to the same store each time I shop 57. Investigating a new store is generally a waste of

time

References

Aaker, D.A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity. Free Press, New York.

Aaker, D.A., 1992. Strategic Market Management. Wiley, New York.

Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations.

Journal of Retailing 79 (2), 1–20.

Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L., Zinkhan, G.M., 2002. Consumers. McGraw

Hill, New York.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., 1996. Good and bad shopping vibes:

spending and patronage satisfaction. Journal of Business Research

35 (3), 201–206.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun:

measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of

Consumer Research 20 (4), 644–656.

Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1991. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian

sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters 2, 159–170.

Beatty, S.E., Ferrell, M.E., 1998. Impulse buying: modelling its

precursors. Journal of Retailing 74 (2), 169–192.

Bloch, P.H., Richins, M.L., 1983. Shopping without purchase: an

investigation of consumer browsing behaviour. Advances in

Consumer Research 10, 389–393.

Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., Dawson, S.A., 1994. The shopping mall

as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing 70 (1), 23–42.

Byoungho, J., Kim, Jai-Ok., 2003. A typology of Korean discount

shoppers: shopping motives, store attributes, and outcomes.

International Journal of Service Industry Management 14 (3/4),

396–419.

Byrne, B.M., 2001. Structural Equation Modelling with Amos: Basic

Concepts, Applications and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, New Jersey.

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency

framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing

64, 65–81.

Davis, S., Inman, J., McAlister, L., 1992. Promotion has a negative

effect on brand evaluations—or does it? Additional disconfirming

evidence. Journal of Marketing Research 29, 143–148.

Dawson, J.A., 1994. The internationalisation of retailing operations.

Journal of Marketing Management 10 (3), 267–282.

Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., 1990. Shopping motives,

emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing 66 (4),

408–427.

de Mooij, M., Hofstede, G., 2002. Convergence and divergence in

consumer behaviour; implications for international retailing.

Journal of Retailing 78, 61–69.

Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., Andrews, J.C., 1993. Cross-cultural

generalizability of a scale for profiling consumers’ decision-making

styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs 27 (1), 55–65.

Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L., 2000. Objective and multidimensional

acculturation measures: implications for retailing to Hispanic

consumers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 7 (3),

149–160.

Firat, A.F., Venkatesh, A., 1993. Postmodernity: the age of marketing.

International Journal of Research in Marketing 10, 227–249.

Fischer, E., Arnold, S.J., 1990. More than a labor of love: gender roles

and Christmas gift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research 17,

333–345.

Fornell, C., Larker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models

with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of

Marketing Research 18, 39–50.

Griffin, M., Babin, B.J., Modianos, D., 2000. Shopping values of

Russian consumers: the impact of habituation in a developing

economy. Journal of Retailing 76 (1), 33–52.

Hafstrom, J.L., Chae, J.S., Chung, YS., 1992. Consumer decision-

making styles: comparison between United States and Korean

young consumers. Journal of Consumer Affairs 26 (1), 146–158.

Hair Jr., J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998.

Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th International Edition. Prentice-

Hall, London.

Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption:

emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Market-

ing 46 (3), 92–101.

Hofstede, G., 1980. Culture’s Consequences. Sage Publications,

Beverly Hills, CA.

Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of

consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of

Consumer Research 9 (2), 132–140.

Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C., 1985. Measurement in cross-cultural

psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. Journal of

Cross Cultural Psychology 16 (June), 131–152.

Jamal, A., 2003. Retailing in a multicultural world: the interplay of

retailing, ethnic identity and consumption. Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services 10, 1–11.

Jamal, A., Naser, K., 2002. Customer satisfaction and retail banking:

an assesment of some of the key antecedents of customer

satisfaction in retail banking. International Journal of Bank

Marketing 20 (4), 146–160.

Jones, T.O., Sasser Jr., W.E., 1995. Why satisfied customers defect.

Harvard Business Review 73 (6), 88–99.

Langrehr, F.W., 1991. Retail shopping mall semiotics and hedonic

consumption. In: Rebecca, H.H., Solomon, M.R. (Eds.), Advances

in Consumer Research, vol. 18. Association for Consumer

Research, Provo, UT, pp. 428–433.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Jamal et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 67–8080

Levesque, T., McDougall, G.H.G., 1996. Determinants of customer

satisfaction in retail banking. International Journal of Bank

Marketing 14 (7), 12–20.

Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S., Zotos, Y., 1996. Consumer decision

making styles: a multi-country investigation. European Journal of

Marketing 30 (12), 10–21.

Machleit, K.A., Eroglu, S.A., 2000. Describing and measuring

emotional response to shopping experience. Journal of Business

Research 49, 101–111.

Martin, B., Mason, S., 1987. Current trends in leisure. Leisure Studies

6, 93–97.

McAdams, D.P., 1988. Personal needs and personal relationships. In:

Steven, W.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships. Wiley,

New York, pp. 7–22.

McCracken, G., 1986. Culture and consumption: a theoretical account

of the structure and movement of cultural meaning of consumer

goods. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 71–84.

McGuire, W., 1974. Psychological motives and communication

gratification. In: Blummer, J.F., Katz (Eds.), The Uses of Mass

Communications: Current Perspectives on Gratification Research.

Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, pp. 106–167.

McGuire, W., 1976. Some internal psychological factors influencing

consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (4), 302–319.

Michon, R., Chebat, J.-C., 2004. Cross-cultural mall shopping values

and habitats: a comparison between English- and French-speaking

Canadians. Journal of Business Research 57 (8), 883–893.

Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Peter, J.P., Olson, J.C., 2005. Consumer Behaviour & Marketing

Strategy, seventh ed. McGraw Hill, New York.

Phinney, J.S., 1992. The multi-group ethnic identity measures: a new

scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research 7

(4), 156–176.

Prahalad, C.K., Doz, Y., 1987. The Multinational Mission. The Free

Press, New York, NY.

Reynolds, K.E., Beatty, S.E., 1999. A relationship customer typology.

Journal of Retailing 75 (4), 509–523.

Reynolds, K.E., Ganesh, J., Luckett, M., 2002. Traditional malls vs.

factory outlets: comparing shopper typologies and implications for

retail strategy. Journal of Business Research 55 (9), 687–696.

Rohm, A.J., Swaminathan, V., 2004. A typology of online shoppers

based on shopping motivations. Journal of Business Research 57,

748–757.

Rook, D.W., 1987. The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer

Research 14 (2), 189–199.

Roy, A., 1994. Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retailing

70 (2), 139–161.

Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New

York.

Severin, V., Louviere, J.J., Finn, A., 2001. The stability of retail

shopping choices over time and across countries. Journal of

Retailing 77 (2), 185–202.

Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., 1998. The hierarchical influence of personal

values on mall shopping attitude and behaviour. Journal of

Retailing 74 (1), 139–160.

Shim, S., Gehrt, K.C., 1996. Hispanic and Native American

adolescents: an exploratory study of their approach to shopping.

Journal of Retailing 72 (3), 307–325.

Sproles, E.K., Sproles, G.B., 1990. Consumer decision-making styles

as a function of individual learning styles. The Journal of

Consumer Affairs 24 (1), 134–147.

Sproles, G.B., Kendall, E.L., 1986. A methodology for profiling

consumers’ decision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer

Affairs 20 (2), 267–280.

Smith, M.F., Carsky, M.L., 1996. Grocery shopping behaviour: a

comparison of involved and uninvolved consumers. Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services 3 (2), 73–80.

Tauber, E.M., 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 36

(4), 46–49.

Thompson, C.J., 1996. Caring consumers: gendered consumption

meanings and the juggling lifestyle. Journal of Consumer Research

22 (4), 388–407.

Valencia, H., 1989. Hispanic values and subcultural research. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science 17 (1), 23–28.

van Raaij, W.F., 1993. Postmodern consumption. Journal of

Economic Psychology 14 (3), 541–563.

Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants

and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing 74 (4),

515–539.

Walsh, G., Henning-Thurau, T., Wayne-Mitchell, V., Wiedmann,

K.-P., 2001. Consumers’ decision-making style as a basis for

market segmentation. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and

Analysis for Marketing 10 (2), 117–132.

Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985. A motivation-based shopper

typology. Journal of Retailing 61 (1), 78–103.