Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes
Introduction
Research supports the notion that shopping can provide both hedonic and utilitarian value (e.g., Babin et al., 1994, Babin and Darden, 1995). Hedonic shopping value reflects the value received from the multisensory, fantasy and emotive aspects of the shopping experience, while utilitarian shopping value reflects the acquisition of products and/or information in an efficient manner and can be viewed as reflecting a more task-oriented, cognitive, and non-emotional outcome of shopping (Babin et al., 1994, Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). In general, utilitarian shopping value reflects the task-related value of a shopping experience while hedonic shopping value reflects the value found in the shopping experience itself independent of task-related activities (Babin and Attaway, 2000).
Since the establishment of the Personal Shopping Value scale approximately a decade ago (Babin et al., 1994), research has focused almost exclusively on antecedents to both hedonic and utilitarian shopping value (cf. Babin et al., 1994, Babin and Darden, 1995, Griffin et al., 2000, Babin and Attaway, 2000, Babin and Babin, 2001, Stoel et al., 2004, Babin et al., 2005). Interestingly, in much of this published research, calls have been made to further explore the important relationships with retail outcome variables. To date, only a few studies have attempted to correlate shopping value to retail variables such as satisfaction (Babin et al., 1994, Babin et al., 2005), customer share (Babin and Attaway, 2000), and repatronage intentions (Stoel et al., 2004). However, none of these studies have as their central focus the complex interrelationship between shopping value and retail variables, even though such relationships would seem to be particularly important given the tremendous amount of resources and expenses that retailers are devoting to create satisfied and loyal customers.
The purpose of the research presented here is to investigate how hedonic and utilitarian shopping values differ in their relationships with several important retail outcome variables. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, we discuss relevant literature and hypotheses, followed by a discussion of our method and the results of model estimation. Finally, we conclude with a general discussion of the findings, limitations of the research, and avenues for future research.
Section snippets
Shopping value and satisfaction
Satisfaction judgments are thought to be comprised of both affective (Mano and Oliver, 1993, Westbrook, 1987) and cognitive elements (Oliver, 1993, Oliver and Swan, 1989). Theoretically, this notion is embodied in the “two-appraisal” model of satisfaction evaluation (Oliver, 1989, Weiner, 1986), which posits that affective responses arise from evaluation of the outcomes of product/service usage, followed by cognitive interpretation and related processes (e.g., expectancy-disconfirmation) which
Method
Upper-level undergraduate marketing students trained in data collection procedures were used as interviewers. Interviewers were instructed to recruit non-student participants only. A total of 245 respondents participated in the survey. Every respondent was contacted at a later date to validate the sample and no problems were detected. Approximately 62% of the sample was female. The age groups represented in the sample varied greatly with 25.7% of the sample between 18 and 24, 20.4% between 25
Results
The hypotheses were tested using multiple regression with each of the retail outcome variables serving as the dependent variable (see Table 1, Table 2). As indicated in Table 1, H1a, H1b were supported as both hedonic shopping value (β = 0.493, t-value = 8.90) and utilitarian shopping value (β = 0.153, t-value = 2.76) had positive influences on satisfaction. A general F test was used to test Hypothesis 1c (Neter et al., 1985). The F test was significant (F = 12.35, p < 0.01) indicating that the coefficient
Discussion
This research provides insight into the complex interrelationship between shopping value and important retail outcome variables, showing the differential effects that hedonic and utilitarian shopping value can have. This research also extends previous research, which has focused primarily on main effects of value and satisfaction (cf. Cronin et al., 2000), by finding support for significant interactions between satisfaction and both types of shopping value.
A broader view of these results
Limitations and future research
The results from this research should be interpreted relative to certain limitations. Although the generalizability of the results was enhanced by collecting data across retail types, this method precluded testing differences in the proposed model across types of retailers. While studies have investigated emotional response in many different retail formats (e.g., Babin and Darden, 1996, Donovan et al., 1994), few studies have explored the effects of systematic variation due to retail format on
References (69)
- et al.
Hedonic shopping motivations
J Retail
(2003) - et al.
Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer
J Bus Res
(2000) - et al.
Seeing something different? A model of schema typicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions, and perceived shopping value
J Bus Res
(2001) - et al.
Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment
J Retail
(1995) - et al.
Good and bad shopping vibes: spending and patronage satisfaction
J Bus Res
(1996) - et al.
Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments
J Retail
(2000) - et al.
Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior
J Retail
(1994) - et al.
Shopping values of Russian consumers: the impact of habituation in a developing economy
J Retail
(2000) - et al.
Emotional response and shopping satisfaction: moderating effects of shopper attributions
J Bus Res
(2001) - et al.
Customer delight: foundations, findings, and managerial insight
J Retail
(1997)