Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795
Hedonic shopping motivations

Mark J. Arnold a, , Kristy E. Reynolds b
a
Department of Marketing, John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, 3674 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63108, USA
Department of Marketing, E.J. Ourso College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Accepted 12 February 2003
Abstract
Given the increasing importance of entertainment as a retailing strategy, this study identifies a comprehensive inventory of consumers
hedonic shopping motivations. Based on exploratory qualitative and quantitative studies, a six-factor scale is developed that consists of
adventure, gratification, role, value, social, and idea shopping motivations. Using the six-factor hedonic shopping motivation profiles, a cluster
analysis of adult consumers reveals five shopper segments, called here the Minimalists, the Gatherers, the Providers, the Enthusiasts, and the
Traditionalists. The utility of the proposed scale is discussed both for future research and retail strategy.
2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hedonic shopping; Scale development; Shopping motivations; Hedonic consumption; Retail strategy; Shopper segments
Over the years, retailers have been buffeted by a number of macro-environmental forces that have changed the
landscape of the industry. These include the spread of mass
discounters, the proliferation of suburban power centers
and lifestyle retailing formats, and the recent arrival of the
Internet as an alternative retail platform offering consumers
unparalleled convenience. For example, the July 1998 cover
of Time magazine predicted the demise of the shopping
mall: Kiss Your Mall Good-Bye: Online Shopping is
Cheaper, Quicker and Better.
In this environment it is no longer enough for a retailer to
operate in a conventional manner by enticing customers with
broad assortments, low pricing, and extended store hours.
The entertainment aspect of retailing, or entertailing, is increasingly being recognized as a key competitive tool. Many
retailers are responding to the threat of Internet-based shopping by leveraging the brick-and-mortar advantages that
virtual retailers cannot match: higher levels of service, highly
trained staff, and an entertaining and fun retail environment
(Burke, 1997; Cope, 1996; Wakefield & Baker, 1998). Retailers from supermarkets to video stores are sporting new
and exciting ideas, such as animatronic farm animals, butter
churning contests, and roaming face painters and childrens
performers (Buss, 1997). In fact, in this evolving retail
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-314-977-3612 (Office)/3868 (Department); fax: +1-314-977-1481.
E-mail address: arnoldm2@slu.edu (M.J. Arnold).
landscape the hedonic experiences that a customer can now

obtain are virtually endless: from rock-climbing walls in
shoe stores, to singles nights in grocery stores, to off-road
test tracks in Land Rover dealerships (e.g., Fournier, 1996).
While retailers are focusing more on entertainment,
academic research is lagging in investigating the hedonic
reasons people go shopping. For example, the last comprehensive effort at examining shopping motivations occurred
some time ago (Westbrook & Black, 1985), and the retail
landscape has changed dramatically since then. Recent retail research is beginning to focus on the hedonic aspects
of the in-store experience, such as the affective response of
excitement (Wakefield & Baker, 1998). However, no recent
research has investigated, in a comprehensive manner, the
multiple and varied hedonic reasons, or motivations, that
people go shopping. Therefore, given the current focus by
retailers on the hedonic aspects of shopping and the general
lack of academic activity in this area, there is clearly a need
for research on this issue.
This study investigates the hedonic reasons people go
shopping. Based on qualitative and quantitative studies, a
scale that measures hedonic shopping motivations is developed and validated. Simply put, a sound measurement
instrument provides a foundation for future research investigating the interrelationships between hedonic motivations,
in-store experiences, shopping outcomes (e.g., satisfaction),
and specific shopping behaviors such as impulse buying.
Further, retailers would have a tool that could be employed to
0022-4359/03/$ see front matter 2003 by New York University. Published by Elsevier Science. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1
78
M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795
examine current and potential patrons, thereby providing

guidance for store design and marketing communications
strategy.
Therefore, the major objectives of this research include:
1. Qualitatively investigate the hedonic reasons people go
shopping;
2. Develop and purify a scale measuring hedonic shopping
motivations;
3. Validate the hedonic shopping motivations scale on a
separate sample of shoppers;
4. Construct a taxonomy of shoppers based on their hedonic
shopping motivations.
The remainder of this paper is divided into four major
sections. First, we discuss the theoretical background and
previous research that has been conducted in this area. Second, we present the results of a qualitative investigation into
hedonic shopping motivations, and discuss our findings in
relation to existing theory. Based on this we then develop an
initial pool of scale items. Third, we present the results of a
multi-sample investigation that serves to purify and validate
the hedonic shopping motivation scale. Finally, we provide
a general discussion of the findings, as well as limitations
of the study and directions for future research.
Background and review of literature

Shopping research has long focused on the utilitarian
aspects of the shopping experience, which has often been
characterized as task-related and rational (Batra & Ahtola,
1991) and related closely to whether or not a product acquisition mission was accomplished (Babin, Darden, &
Griffin, 1994). However, traditional product acquisition explanations may not fully reflect the totality of the shopping
experience (Bloch & Richins, 1983). Because of this, the
last several years have seen resurgent interest in shoppings
hedonic aspects, particularly as researchers have recognized
the importance of its potential entertainment and emotional
worth (Babin et al., 1994; Langrehr, 1991; Roy, 1994;
Wakefield & Baker, 1998).
Hedonic consumption has been defined as those facets of
behavior that relate to the multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of consumption (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982).
This view suggests that consumption is driven by the fun
a consumer has in using the product, and the criteria for
success are essentially aesthetic in nature (Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic shopping motives are similar to
the task orientation of utilitarian shopping motives, only the
task is concerned with hedonic fulfillment, such as experiencing fun, amusement, fantasy, and sensory stimulation
(Babin et al., 1994).
Although the festive and ludic aspects of shopping have
generally been studied infrequently (Sherry, 1990), hedonic aspects of shopping motivation have been uncovered in
related phenomenological inquiry. For example, Christmas
shoppers have previously described themselves as a kid in

a candy store when engaged in holiday shopping, often expressing excitement, increased arousal, and a deep sense of
enjoyment in shopping for others (Fischer & Arnold, 1990,
p. 334). Informants have expressed a sense of escapism while
shopping, often describing the shopping trip as an adventure:
Shopping is . . . an adventure. When you cant or dont find
[what youre after] its o.k. because there are lots of other
places to look (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646). Shoppers have
also described the enjoyment of bargaining and haggling
(Sherry, 1990) and the mood-altering qualities of the shopping experience (Thompson, Locander, & Pollio, 1990). In
summarizing these aspects of shopping, Sherry (1990) concludes that the seeking of such experiences is often far more
significant than the mere acquisition of products (p. 27; see
also Babin et al., 1994).
Shopping motivations
Early studies developed taxonomies of retail shoppers, often in an attempt to infer shopping motivations from distinct
types of shoppers, such as the economic, or apathetic
shopper (Stone, 1954). Other studies have developed taxonomies based on orientations to product usage (Dardin
& Reynolds, 1971), actual patronage and shopping behavior (Stephenson & Willett, 1969), shopping-related AIO
items (Moschis, 1976), shopping enjoyment (Bellenger &
Korgaonkar, 1980), and retail attribute preferences (Bellenger,
Robertson, & Greenberg, 1977; Dardin & Ashton, 1974).
In a widely cited study, Tauber (1972) developed a number of shopping motivations, with the basic premise that
shoppers are motivated by a variety of psychosocial needs
other than those strictly related to acquiring some product.
These motives can be classified into personal (i.e., role playing, diversion, self-gratification, learning about new trends,
physical activity and sensory stimulation), and social (i.e.,
social experiences, communication with others, peer group
attractions, status and authority, and pleasure of bargaining).
Shopping thus occurs when a consumers need for a particular good is sufficient for allocating time and money to
travel to a store to go shopping, or when a consumer needs
attention, wants to be with peers, desires to meet people
with similar interests, feels a need to exercise, or simply has
leisure time (Tauber, 1972, p. 48).
Westbrook and Black (1985) linked Taubers (1972)
framework to McGuires (1974) typology of 16 fundamental human motivations, suggesting that shopping behavior arises for three fundamental reasons: to acquire a
product, to acquire both a desired product and provide
satisfaction with non-product-related needs, or to primarily attain goals not related to product acquisition. These
fundamental shopping motives are captured in seven dimensions of shopping motivation labeled, anticipated utility,
role enactment, negotiation, choice optimization,
affiliation, power/authority, and stimulation. While
all motivations can be described as containing both hedonic
and utilitarian elements, Westbrook and Black (1985) note

that some are more utilitarian in nature while others are
more hedonic in nature. We focus here on motivations that
are primarily hedonic and non-product in nature.
Qualitative inquiry and initial scale development

We rely on the accepted paradigm for scale development
provided by (Churchill, 1979) and augmented by others
(e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1982; Bagozzi, 1980; Bentler &
Bonnet, 1980; Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Peter, 1981). Fig. 1 summarizes the scale development procedures employed here, and
the procedures are discussed in detail in subsequent sections.
Qualitative inquiry
Depth interviews were used to uncover the hedonic reasons people shop. This method was employed because it
provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon from the
consumers perspective (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988). Respondents were recruited on a referral basis98 undergraduate
students were asked to provide the name and demographic
characteristics of a friend or family member who would be
willing to participate in a depth interview. Strict guidelines
were given to ensure a diverse sample of shoppers with regards to age, occupation, gender, income, and reasons for
shopping. The students were instructed not to include other
college students, and the initial list of respondents was prescreened by the authors to ensure that the sample would
include respondents with differing points of view and back-
79
grounds. The final sample included 33 men and 65 women,

ranging from 18 to 55 years of age. A variety of occupations
and income levels were represented.
The interviewers were given a discussion guide and very
specific instructions as to how to conduct the interviews.
Interviewers provided a brief description of the goal of the
depth interview, and respondents were first asked to think
about shopping in general, in stores and/or malls (excluding grocery shopping), and to describe reasons why they go
shopping, how they felt when shopping, and benefits they
received from shopping. The interviewers were instructed
to probe the reasons, feelings, and benefits in depth by asking extensive follow-up questions. All depth interviews were
tape recorded and transcribed. Each respondents name and
daytime telephone number were recorded for research verification purposes, and each respondent was assured of his/her
anonymity (i.e., no names were attached to the interview
notes). To ensure data quality, a random sample of respondents was contacted to validate the interview, and no abnormalities were noted.
The interviews were read thoroughly many times by a
coding team (one of the authors and two graduate students).
Each member of the team (individually) identified and listed
recurring themes in the data, using a categorizing process
developed by Lincoln and Guba (1985). This involved sorting themes into categories based on similar characteristics.
Then, the three members met to discuss the key themes (motivations for shopping) and illustrative quotes from the data.
The goal at this point was to search for commonalities that
allowed for the most accurate representation of each domain
and to develop conceptual definitions of the motivations. In
addition, labels for each motivation were constructed, and
Fig. 1. Scale development process.
80
disagreements were resolved by discussion. Two marketing faculty members familiar with the topic area evaluated
the motivations (accompanied by illustrative quotes from
the data) and the corresponding conceptual definitions for
content validity.
Qualitative results and domain definitions
Six broad categories of hedonic shopping motivations
emerged from the data. Appendix A illustrates sample comments from informants for each of the six categories which
we have labeled as the following: adventure shopping, social shopping, gratification shopping, idea shopping,
role shopping, and value shopping. Each of these motivations is briefly defined and discussed in light of theoretical explanations of human motivation and prior research
findings.
Adventure shopping
The first category is labeled adventure shopping, which
refers to shopping for stimulation, adventure, and the feeling
of being in another world. A significant number of respondents reported that they go shopping for the sheer excitement and adventure of the shopping trip. These informants
often described the shopping experience in terms of adventure, thrills, stimulation, excitement, and entering a different
universe of exciting sights, smells, and sounds.
Adventure shopping is grounded in stimulation theories (e.g., Berlyne, 1969) and expressive theories (e.g.,
Huizinga, 1970; see also Sherry, 1990) of human motivation as described by McGuire (1974). These theories
are externally oriented, and stress the need for stimulation and self-expression through play and creativity among
human organisms. Adventure shopping is also similar to
prior findings which show that shoppers often seek sensory
stimulation while shopping. For example, Tauber (1972),
Westbrook and Black (1985) uncovered the personal shopping motive of sensory stimulation, Babin et al. (1994)
refer to adventurous aspects of shopping as a factor that
may produce hedonic shopping value, and Jarboe and
McDaniel (1987) identified shoppers (labeled browsers)
who enjoyed exploring and window shopping.
Social shopping
A second category is labeled social shopping, which
refers to the enjoyment of shopping with friends and family, socializing while shopping, and bonding with others
while shopping. Respondents mentioned quite frequently
that shopping is a way to spend time with friends and/or
family members. Some respondents stated that they just enjoy socializing with others while shopping and that shopping
gives them a chance to bond with other shoppers.
Social shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of affiliation theories of human motivation (e.g.,
Sorokin, 1950), which collectively focus on people being
altruistic, cohesive, and seeking acceptance and affection in
interpersonal relationships. A significant amount of prior research has uncovered social aspects of shopping motivation.
Stone (1954) first identified a personalizing shopper, one
who seeks personal relationships while shopping, whereas
Moschis (1976) acknowledged a psychosocializing shopper. Tauber (1972) also recognized that shoppers desire
social interaction outside the home, communicating with
others having similar interests, and affiliating with reference
groups. In addition, Westbrook and Black (1985) identified
affiliation as a shopping motivation, and Reynolds and
Beatty (1999) discuss social motivations for shopping.
Gratification shopping
A third category is labeled gratification shopping, which
involves shopping for stress relief, shopping to alleviate a
negative mood, and shopping as a special treat to oneself.
Several respondents admitted that they go shopping to relieve stress or to forget about their problems. Other informants view the shopping experience as a way to wind down,
relax, improve a negative mood, or just treat themselves.
Gratification shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974)
collection of tension-reduction theories of human motivation
(e.g., Freud, 1933), which suggests that humans are motivated to act is such a way as to reduce tension, thereby maintaining inner equilibrium and returning the self to a state
of homeostasis. Babin et al. (1994) recognized the value
of shopping as a self-gratifying, escapist, and therapeutic
activity, describing respondents who view shopping as a
pick-me-up and a lift when they feel depressed. Tauber
(1972) also identified the self-gratifying benefits of shopping, such that the process of shopping to make the shopper
feel better. Finally, shopping has been acknowledged in the
literature as a form of emotion-focused coping in response
to stressful events or simply to get ones mind off a problem
(Lee, Moschis, & Mathur, 2001).
Idea shopping
A fourth category we label idea shopping, which refers
to shopping to keep up with trends and new fashions, and to
see new products and innovations. A significant number of
both females and males reported that they shop to keep up
with the latest trends and fashions. Other informants describe
shopping as a way to keep abreast with new products and
innovations that are available.
Idea shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection
of categorization theories, which collectively attempt to explain the human need for structure, order, and knowledge, as
well as objectification theories (e.g., Festinger, 1954), which
view the human as needing external guidelines and information in an attempt to make sense of himself. This motivation
corresponds with Taubers (1972) personal shopping motive
of learning about new trends and keeping informed about the
latest trends in fashion, styling, or innovations. Some consumers may enjoy browsing to obtain information as an end
in itself, not to make a particular purchase (Bloch, Ridgway,
& Sherrell, 1989). Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway (1986)
describe pleasure and recreationhaving fun and experiencing positive affectas a motive for ongoing search (information gathering independent of a specific purchase need or
decision). Thus, for these consumers, ongoing search represents a leisure pursuit as an end goal (Punj & Staelin,
1983).
Role shopping
A fifth category of shopping motivations is labeled role
shopping, which reflects the enjoyment that shoppers derive
from shopping for others, the influence that this activity has
on the shoppers feelings and moods, and the excitement and
intrinsic joy felt by shoppers when finding the perfect gift
for others. Many respondents talked about the enjoyment
they obtain from shopping for other people, explaining that
shopping for their friends and family is very important to
them and that it makes them feel good. Some respondents
described the positive feelings they get from finding the
perfect gift for someone.
Role shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of identification theories of human motivation (e.g.,
Goffman, 1959), whereby people are motivated by the perceived roles they may be playing at any given time. In
essence, people seek ego enhancement to their self-concepts
through the addition of satisfying roles and acting out the
roles responsibilities. This motive is related to Taubers
(1972) personal motive of role playing, in which the process of shopping produces positive effects for people who
view it as part of their social role. It also closely corresponds to Westbrook and Blacks (1985) role enactment,
which describes the drive to fulfill culturally prescribed
roles regarding shopping. Babin et al. (1994) explain how
some consumers can view shopping as a duty, but enjoy
the experience and obtain hedonic value from the process.
Further, other researchers have discussed how, for some
consumers (especially women), shopping is an expression
of love (cf. Miller, 1998; Otnes & McGrath, 2001).
Value shopping
The final category is labeled value shopping, which
refers to shopping for sales, looking for discounts, and hunting for bargains. Many of our respondents talked about how
they enjoyed hunting for bargains, looking for sales, and
finding discounts or low prices, almost as if shopping is a
challenge to be conquered or a game to be won.
Value shopping is grounded in McGuires (1974) collection of assertion theories (e.g., McClelland, 1961), which
view the human as a competitive achiever, seeking success
and admiration, and striving to develop his potentials in order to enhance his self-esteem. Consumers may obtain hedonic benefits through bargain perceptions, which provide
increased sensory involvement and excitement (Babin et al.,
1994). Value shopping may also be related to the choice
optimization dimension identified by Westbrook and Black
(1985), given that finding a discount or bargain may lead to
satisfaction from personal achievement.
81
Item generation
Based on the findings of the qualitative study, as well as
instruction from theory and ideas from prior research, items
were constructed to tap each of the six categories of shopping
motivations. The initial item-generation process produced
140 items: 29 items for adventure shopping, 28 items for
gratification shopping, 25 items for social shopping, 11 items
for role shopping, 21 items for value shopping, and 26 items
for idea shopping.
Several marketing faculty members then evaluated the
items for content and face validity. The faculty members
were given the conceptual definitions of the motivations,
along with illustrative quotes from the data, and instructed
to retain items based on their representation of the motivational domain and clarity of wording. Candidates for deletion were items that were not clear, not representative of the
domain, or that were possibly open to misinterpretation (e.g.,
Babin et al., 1994). In addition, a substantial number of redundant items were eliminated. The authors then reviewed
the list of candidates for elimination and any inconsistencies were resolved by discussion. The resulting item pool
contained 48 items: 9 items for adventure shopping, 6 items
for gratification shopping, 12 items for social shopping, 4
items for role shopping, 8 items for value shopping, and 9
items for idea shopping. The item pool was then submitted
to a multi-sample scale purification and validation process,
which is described next.
Scale purification
Substantive (e.g., breadth of theoretical content coverage
by an item) as well as empirical considerations were employed throughout the scale purification process (cf., Chin
& Todd, 1995). Scale purification is concerned with detailed
item analyses, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory
factor analyses, and an initial assessment of scale reliability,
unidimensionality, and convergent and discriminant validity.
Here, standard (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Churchill,
1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; Hair, Anderson,
Tatham, & Black, 1998), as well as emerging guidance
(e.g., Peterson, 2000) in the literature is employed in item
reduction and assessment of the resulting factor structure.
A questionnaire was constructed that contained the 48
hedonic motivation items (7-point agreedisagree response
format), interspersed throughout the questionnaire, as well
as age, income and gender items. Respondents were instructed to think about shopping in stores and malls, and not
consider on-line/television shopping or convenience formats
such as grocery stores or drug stores. As used successfully in
prior research (Bitner, Booms, & Tetreault, 1990; Gwinner,
Gremler, & Bitner, 1998; Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991),
marketing research students were recruited and trained as
data collectors for the calibration sample. Respondents were
contacted face-to-face or by telephone, and subsequently
82
given a paper copy of the self-administered questionnaire.

A total of 269 questionnaires were returned, and 3 questionnaires were judged unusable, leaving a final sample size of
n = 266. An inspection of the demographic variables revealed representation in all age and income categories, with
approximately 38% of the respondents male and 62% female.
This procedure resulted in the deletion of 2 items for the

adventure shopping dimension, leaving a remaining item
pool of 34 items for further analysis.
Exploratory factor analysis
Following item analysis, the 34 items were then subjected to exploratory factor analysis with principal axis
factoring and oblique rotation, with the scree test criterion
used to identify the number of factors to extract (Bearden
et al., 1989; Hair et al., 1998; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). A six-factor model was estimated, and items exhibiting low factor loadings (<.40), high cross-loadings
(>.40), or low communalities (<.30) were candidates for
elimination (cf., Hair et al., 1998). After inspection of item
content for domain representation, 9 items were deleted
(2-item cross-loadings >.40, 7-item factor loadings <.40).
The remaining 25 items were submitted to further exploratory factor analysis. Applying the same empirical and
substantive considerations in item trimming, 2 additional
items were deleted (both item factor loadings <.40). A
final six-factor model was estimated with the remaining
23 items. The factor solution accounted for approximately
67% of the total variance, and exhibited a KMO measure
of sampling adequacy of .90. All communalities ranged
from .41 to .77. Table 1 illustrates the 23-item factor
structure.
Item analysis
First, corrected item-total subscale correlations were examined for each set of items representing a hedonic motivation dimension. Items not having a corrected item-total
correlation above .50 were candidates for deletion (cf., Tian,
Bearden, & Hunter, 2001; Zaichowsky, 1985). After careful inspection of item content for domain representation, 12
items having corrected item-total correlations of .50 and below were subsequently deleted (7 items representing social
shopping, 4 items representing value shopping, and 1 item
representing idea shopping).
Second, the correlations for items with their hypothesized
dimension were then compared with their correlations with
the remaining dimensions (cf., Bearden, Netemeyer, & Teel,
1989; Tian et al., 2001). Items that did not have statistically
higher correlations (cf., Bruning & Kintz, 1977) with the
dimensions to which they were hypothesized to belong in
comparison to other dimensions were subsequently deleted.
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis results sample 1a
Items
Adventure
shopping
Value
shopping
Role
shopping
Idea
shopping
Social
shopping
Relaxation
shopping
.86
.67
.59
.57
.03
.01
.05
.03
.05
.06
.12
.08
.02
.08
.06
.14
.09
.13
.08
.03
.05
.04
.19
.19
For the most part, I go shopping when there are sales

I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop
I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop
I go shopping to take advantage of sales
.04
.05
.05
.04
.86
.83
.74
.73
.07
.06
.01
.19
.03
.01
.04
.17
.01
.01
.02
.05
.11
.05
.07
.04
I
I
I
I
like shopping for others because when they feel good I feel good
feel good when I buy things for the special people in my life
enjoy shopping for my friends and family
enjoy shopping around to find the perfect gift for someone
.15
.05
.02
.07
.04
.03
.05
.07
.83
.81
.80
.57
.03
.05
.02
.06
.01
.05
.10
.04
.02
.02
.03
.15
I
I
I
I
go
go
go
go
.07
.01
.06
.17
.04
.03
.05
.09
.05
.10
.01
.09
.87
.84
.70
.66
.07
.08
.05
.05
.01
.03
.05
.02
I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize

I enjoy socializing with others when I shop
To me, shopping with friends or family is a social occasion
Shopping with others is a bonding experience
.01
.02
.06
.18
.01
.01
.09
.07
.02
.06
.02
.02
.04
.02
.02
.01
.85
.76
.71
.71
.01
.06
.20
.05
When Im in a down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better

To me, shopping is a way to relieve stress
I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special
.23
.13
.08
.04
.10
.04
.07
.07
.11
.05
.03
.11
.04
.15
.14
.69
.67
.50
To me, shopping is an adventure

I find shopping stimulating
Shopping is a thrill to me
Shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe
shopping
shopping
shopping
shopping
to
to
to
to
keep up with the trends

keep up with the new fashions
see what new products are available
experience new things
Pattern matrix shown. Principal axis factoring, oblique rotation. KMO measure of sampling adequacy = .90. Cumulative variance extracted = 67%.
Confirmatory factor analysis

The scale purification procedures rely on an iteration of
confirmatory factor analyses, with the goal to improve the
congeneric measurement properties of the scale (Anderson
& Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi, 1980; Bearden et al., 1989; Chin
& Todd, 1995; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988; MacCallum,
1986). A 23-item, six-dimension confirmatory factor model
was estimated using LISREL 8.1 (Jreskog & Srbom,
1993), and inspection of model fit revealed indices that were
2
generally below acceptable thresholds ((215)
= 604.07,
p = .000; GFI = .81; AGFI = .76; CFI = .89; NNFI =
.87; standardized RMR = .064; RMSEA = .09). Item
squared multiple correlations (SMCs) ranged from .43 to
84, and an inspection of the modification indices (MIs)
revealed 4 items as candidates for removal, each accounting for three or more significant modification indices (MIs
ranging from 8.90 to 22.78). Each item was then inspected
for domain representativeness (cf., Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). For example, the candidate item for removal for the
social shopping dimension was, To me, shopping with
friends or family is a social occasion, which tapped into
the same family and friends facet as the retained item, I
go shopping with my friends or family to socialize. The
three other candidate items exhibited similar facet characteristics, therefore, facet representation was ensured and the
four items were removed from further consideration.
A second confirmatory model was then estimated on the
remaining 19 items. Model fit was substantially improved:
2
(137)
= 335.22, p = .000; GFI = .86; AGFI = .81;
CFI = .92; NNFI = .90; standardized RMR = .049;
RMSEA = .08. Item SMCs ranged from .44 to .87, and an
examination of modification indices revealed three significant indices. The item having the largest significant modification index (10.32) was, I go shopping to experience new
things, which was judged to not represent the idea shopping facet of new products as well as the retained item,
I go shopping to see what new products are available.
Therefore, this item was removed from further analysis.
A final confirmatory model was then estimated on the
remaining 18 items. The model exhibited respectable fit:
2
(120)
= 289.42, p = .000; GFI = .87; AGFI = .82; CFI =
.93; NNFI = .91; standardized RMR = .049; RMSEA =
.079. All modification indices were predominantly low, although two were marginally significant, and item SMCs
ranged from 0.44 to 0.87. Since the final 18 items parsimoniously represent the six hedonic dimensions, and since each
item taps into a unique facet of each hedonic dimension and
thus provides good domain representation, no further items
were removed. See Appendix B for complete item measurement properties of the final six-dimension, 18-item scale.
Unidimensionality and reliability
Given these results, we have evidence that the measures are unidimensional, with each item reflecting one and
83
only one underlying construct (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing &

Anderson, 1988). As illustrated in Appendix B, coefficient
alpha estimates, ranging from .79 to .86, and the composite
reliability estimates, ranging from .83 to .89, are considered
acceptable (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). Item-to-total correlations, also appearing in Appendix B, range from 0.55 to 0.79, and all variance extracted estimates (adventure shopping = .72; gratification
shopping = .71; social shopping = .73; value shopping =
.71; role shopping = .67; idea shopping = .71) exceed the
recommended .50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Convergent and discriminant validity
Convergent validity can be assessed from the measurement model by determining whether each indicators estimated maximum likelihood loading on the underlying
construct is significant (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; see
also Netemeyer, Johnston, & Burton, 1990; Peter, 1981).
As illustrated in Appendix B, all confirmatory factor loadings exceed .66, and all are significant with t values ranging
from a low of 10.61 to a high of 17.31. Therefore, we have
evidence of convergent validity of our measures.
Hedonic shopping motivations are conceptually related
constructs, yet are also expected to exhibit discriminant validity (Westbrook & Black, 1985). As evidence of their
relationship, the inter-factor correlations between the five
hedonic motivations, estimated by the phi coefficient, ranges
from .23 to .72. Discrimination between the constructs is
evident since the variance extracted estimates, ranging from
.67 to .73, exceed all squared phi correlations, ranging from
.05 to .52 between the constructs (Bearden et al., 1989;
Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Netemeyer et al., 1990). Therefore,
we have evidence of discriminant validity.
Scale validation
The purpose of scale validation activities is fourfold. First,
it is desirable to replicate the confirmatory factor structure
on an independent sample, thereby reducing error due to
capitalization on chance (Chin & Todd, 1995; MacCallum,
Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992). Not only should the model
replicate, but we must also show the extent to which our
measurement model is stable across independent samples.
Second, the hedonic constructs are then correlated with theoretically related constructs, thereby establishing evidence
of nomological validity. Third, to demonstrate the usefulness of the scale, some degree of predictive validity of the
hedonic measures must be shown. Finally, we use the data
to cluster respondents into meaningful shopper segments,
thereby providing additional practical utility of the scale for
retailers.
A two-part questionnaire was constructed that contained
the 18 hedonic motivation items in the first part, and a variety of variables used for nomological and predictive validity
84
tests, and age, income and gender items in the second part.
The data collection procedures employed for the calibration
sample were replicated here for the validation sample, only
students were instructed to administer the two parts of the
questionnaire approximately 2 weeks apart. Administering
the hedonic motivation items separately reduces the common methods bias that might explain correlations between
the hedonic constructs and other related variables. Both the
sampling procedures and instructions for respondents employed for the calibration sample were also employed here.
A total of 253 completed surveys were returned, and two
questionnaires were judged unusable, leaving a final sample
size of n = 251. Respondent names and contact information were recorded, and a random subsample of 25 respondents was contacted to verify the research procedures they
followed. No issues or abnormalities were noted. The demographic profile of the validation sample was highly consistent with that of the calibration sample: all age and income
categories were represented with approximately 32% of the
respondents male and 68% female.
Factor structure stability
A measurement model was then estimated using the 18
items developed in scale purification. The results indicated
2
good fit ((120)
= 254.15, p = .000; GFI = .88; AGFI =
.83; CFI = .94; NNFI = .92; standardized RMR = .048;
RMSEA = .073). Several modification indices were significant but predominantly low (ranging from 8.24 to 17.65),
and item squared multiple correlations ranged from 0.37
to 0.91. No modifications were made to the measurement
model because (a) no theoretical or conceptual basis justifies making further modifications, (b) the model fits the data
well and replicates across independent samples.
To assess the factorial stability of the hedonic motivations, a multi-group analysis procedure was performed in
LISREL 8.1 that allows for the independent estimation of
factor loadings, factor correlations, and error variances on
the two samples (Byrne, 1998; Jreskog & Srbom, 1993;
Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Six multi-group tests
revealed substantial measurement equality across the calibration and validation samples. When compared to the base2
line model ((263)
= 614.81), successive models showed no
significant change in chi-square: equal factor loadings only
2
2
((273)
= 623.13); equal factor correlations only ((286)
=
2
625.89); equal error variances only ((286) = 622.40); equal
2
= 621.04);
factor loadings and factor correlations ((268)
and equal factor loadings, factor correlations, and error
2
variances ((291)
= 628.59). Therefore, we have evidence
of the factorial stability of the hedonic motivations scale
across independent samples.
Reliability and validity
Unidimensionality, reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were then evaluated. Given the results of the
model estimation, we again have evidence of unidimen-
sional measures (e.g., low and/or insignificant modification

indices; see Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). As appearing in
Appendix B, reliability of the subscales is acceptable as coefficient alpha estimates range from .77 to .87 (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994). Composite reliability estimates (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981) range from .80 to .92, corrected item-to-total
correlations range from .50 to .83, and all variance extracted
estimates range from .58 to .78 (adventure shopping = .78,
gratification shopping = .58, social shopping = .72, value
shopping = .76, role shopping = .71, idea shopping = .75).
Convergent validity is evident in that all confirmatory factor
loadings exceed .61 and are significant (t values range from
9.32 to 17.89).
Discriminant validity was again tested by comparing the
variance extracted estimates with the squared phi correlations between the hedonic constructs (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). Two squared phi correlations, gratification/adventure
shopping (2 = .76, = .87) and gratification/social
shopping (2 = .64, = .80) exceeded the variance extracted estimate for gratification shopping of .58, but not for
social (.72) or adventure shopping (.78). Therefore, additional tests for discriminant validity were conducted. First,
chi-square difference tests were performed among several
models that fixed the relationship between the suspect constructs to one (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; see also Bearden
et al., 1989): gratification/adventure shopping fixed to unity
2
((121)
= 419.71, p = .000; RMSEA = .105) and grat2
= 444.18,
ification/social shopping fixed to unity ((121)
p = .000; RMSEA = .109). The fit for both models was
significantly worse (
2 with 1 degree of freedom) when
compared to the fit of the theoretically specified six-factor
model. Therefore, this test shows support for the discriminant validity between the three hedonic motivations. A
second test for discriminant validity was then performed
that examines the confidence interval around the correlation
between the suspect factors. If the correlation plus or minus 2 standard errors does not include the value 1.0, then
evidence of discriminant validity is shown (Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988). Neither confidence interval for the phi estimates between gratification/adventure shopping (.81.93)
and gratification/social shopping (.72.88) includes the
value of 1.0. In summary, since two of three statistical
tests provide evidence of discriminant validity, and since
discriminant validity was previously shown between all
constructs on an independent sample (calibration sample),
we have sufficient evidence of discriminant validity.
Nomological validity
The importance of establishing nomological validity has
been well documented in the literature (e.g., Babin et al.,
1994; Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Netemeyer, Durvasula,
& Lichtenstein, 1991). Therefore, the six hedonic shopping constructs were investigated within a larger nomological network of theoretically related constructs, including
flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), time distortion and aesthetic
Adventure shopping
Social shopping
Role shopping
Value shopping
Idea shopping
Flow
Time distortion
Aesthetic appeal
Product innovativeness
Non-generosity
Personal shopper
a
b
Adventure
shopping
Gratification
shopping
Social
shopping
Role
shopping
Value
shopping
Idea
shopping
1.00
.71
.63
.38
.34
.48
.55
.62
.45
.26
.13
.26
1.00
.58
.46
.42
.52
.46
.59
.39
.28
.17
.21
1.00
.42
.32
.46
.38
.49
.40
.17
.30
.28
1.00
.37
.31
.32
.39
.29
.20
.43
.05b
1.00
.17
.24
.31
.30
.09b
.31
.19
1.00
.33
.36
.33
.42
.07b
.16
All correlations significant at p < .05 (two-tailed) unless otherwise noted.

Correlation not significant at p > .05 (two-tailed).
Flow
1.00
.60
.33
.15
.15
.11b
Time
distortion
Aesthetic
appeal
Product
innovativeness
1.00
.42
.28
.18
.17
1.00
.28
.21
.19
1.00
.11b
.07b
Non-generosity
1.00
.03b
Personal
shopper
1.00
Table 2
Nomological validity assessmenta
85
86
appeal (Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994), innovativeness

(Oliver & Bearden, 1985), non-generosity (Belk, 1984), and
personalizing shopper attitudes (Hawes & Lumpkin, 1984).
Each of these is briefly discussed in order, and the correlation
estimates calculated from the validation sample (n = 251)
appear in Table 2.
Flow
Flow is a cognitive state that has been characterized
as an optimal experience that is intrinsically enjoyable
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Consumers experiencing flow are
deeply involved in the focal activity where time may seem
to stand still (Hoffman & Novak, 1996). Since adventure
shopping captures the experiential and fantasy aspects of
shopping, we should expect flow to positively correlate with
adventure shopping, and be more strongly correlated with
adventure shopping than with the other hedonic motivations.
Therefore:
H1a. The correlation between flow and adventure shopping
will be positive.
H1b. The correlation between flow and adventure shopping
will be significantly higher than the correlations with other
hedonic motivations.
Flow was measured with a single item used by Novak,
Hoffman, and Yung (2000) and adapted for the present study:
Most of the time I go shopping at malls or stores I feel
that I am in flow (7-point format ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree). The item was preceded with a
description of flow also used by Novak et al. (2000). The
correlation estimate reported in Table 2 between flow and
adventure shopping of .55 is significantly higher (p < .05)
than correlations with other hedonic motivations. Therefore,
H1a and H1b are supported.
Time distortion
Time distortion describes a psychological state where
shoppers become relatively isolated from the cues regarding the passage of time (Bloch et al., 1994). Hours pass
without notice if the consumption state is sufficiently pleasant (Kowinsky, 1985). Therefore, it is likely that shoppers
motivated by adventure shopping will also experience time
distortion. Additionally, since gratification shopping motives are oriented to relaxation, stress relief, and improved
mood states, it is reasonable to expect a strong correlation
with gratification shopping as well. Therefore:
H2a. The correlation between time distortion and adventure
shopping will be positive.
H2b. The correlation between time distortion and gratification shopping will be positive.
H2c. The correlation between time distortion and adventure

shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations
between time distortion and role, value, social, and idea
shopping.
H2d. The correlation between time distortion and gratification shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations between time distortion and role, value, social, and
idea shopping.
To measure time distortion, we employed three items
( = .92, 7-point format ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree) used in prior research (Bloch et al.,
1994). An example of one such item employed is, I lose
track of time when Im in a store or at the mall. As seen in
Table 2, the correlations between time distortion and adventure shopping (r = .62) and gratification shopping (r = .59)
are both significantly higher (p < .05) than the correlations
between time distortion and the remaining hedonic motivations. Therefore, H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d are supported.
Aesthetic appeal
Aesthetic appeal refers to an appreciation of the physical
design or appearance of the mall habitat, and is based on the
premise that some consumers notice and enjoy the physical
elements of the retail environment (Bloch et al., 1994). Research has shown the importance of the retail atmosphere
in influencing a wide variety of emotions and behaviors related to shopping (e.g., Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Thus,
we should expect that aesthetic appeal is likely to be positively correlated with all of the hedonic motivations studied
here. Therefore:
H3a. Aesthetic appeal will correlate positively with all six
hedonic motivations.
However, role shopping, value shopping, and idea shopping address motivations that are product-oriented (i.e., finding the perfect gift, shopping for others, hunting for bargains,
finding new fashions, etc.), as opposed to the non-product
motives of social interaction (social shopping), stimulation
and fantasy (adventure shopping), or stress relief and relaxation (gratification shopping). Given this reasoning, we
should expect that the correlations between aesthetic appeal
and role shopping, value shopping, and idea shopping will
be lower than the correlations with adventure shopping, gratification shopping and social shopping.
H3b. The correlations between aesthetic appeal and role
shopping, value shopping and idea shopping, will be significantly lower than the correlations with the remaining hedonic motivations.
To measure aesthetic appeal, we employed three items
to strongly agree) used in prior research (Bloch et al.,
1994). An example of one such item employed is, I notice

colors or textures on the interior of retail stores or malls.
As seen in Table 2, the correlations between aesthetic appeal and all six hedonic motivations are positive and significant. Therefore, H3a is supported. Further, the correlations
between aesthetic appeal and role shopping (r = .29), value
shopping (r = .30), and idea shopping (r = .33) are the
lowest reported correlations. However, only the correlation
between aesthetic appeal and adventure shopping is statistically higher than the correlations with role, value, and idea
shopping. Therefore, H3b is partially supported.
Product innovativeness
Innovativeness has been defined as the degree to which an
individual makes innovative decisions independent of information provided by others (Midgley, 1977). Innovativeness
is viewed as a generalized personality trait, closely related
to a number of dimensions of human personality (Midgley
& Dowling, 1978). Product innovativeness is similar to the
generalized trait innovativeness, but relates to a persons desire to be among the first to try new products (Oliver &
Bearden, 1985). Given our domain definition of idea shopping, we should expect a strong and positive relationship
between idea shopping and product innovativeness. Further,
this relationship should be stronger than other reported relationships. Therefore,
H4a. The correlation between innovativeness and idea
shopping will be positive.
H4b. The correlation between innovativeness and idea
shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations
between innovativeness and other hedonic motivations.
To measure product innovativeness, we employed two
items (r = .72, 7-point format ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) used in prior research (Oliver &
Bearden, 1985). An example of one such item employed is,
I like to buy new and different things. As seen in Table 2,
the correlation between innovativeness and idea shopping
(r = .42) is positive and significantly higher (p < .05) than
the correlations between innovativeness and the remaining
hedonic motivations. Therefore, H4a and H4b are supported.
Non-generosity
The conceptual domain for non-generosity includes the
unwillingness to give or share possessions with others, a
reluctance to lend or donate possessions to others, and negative attitudes toward charity (Belk, 1985). Non-generosity
has been found to be negatively related to happiness (Belk,
1984). Importantly, evidence suggests that non-generosity
may be based on egoist self-interest, with those more
non-generous people believing themselves to be unworthy
to give or receive (Belk, 1985; Neisser, 1973). Hence, we
should expect that non-generosity should correlate nega-
87
tively with role shopping, and be significantly lower than

other correlations. Therefore:
H5a. The correlation between non-generosity and role
shopping will be negative.
H5b. The correlation between non-generosity and role
shopping will be significantly lower than the correlations
between non-generosity and other hedonic motivations.
To measure non-generosity, we employed five items
to strongly agree) used in prior research (Belk, 1984).
An example of one such item employed is, I dont like
to lend things, even to good friends. As seen in Table 2,
the correlation between non-generosity and role shopping
(r = .43) is negative and significantly lower (p < .05)
than the correlations between non-generosity and the remaining hedonic motivations. Therefore, H5a and H5b are
supported.
Personalizing shopper
Personalizing shopping reflects a consumers desire to
shop at stores where she/he is known (Dardin & Reynolds,
1971). Personalizing shoppers prefer to individualize the
shopping trip by seeking social relationships with other
customers, and retail and service salespeople (Hawes &
Lumpkin, 1984; Stone, 1954). Since personalizing shopper contains a strong social element, we should expect
a positive relationship with social shopping motives, and
the correlation between social shopping and personalizing
shopper should be stronger than other reported correlations.
Therefore,
H6a. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
social shopping will be positive.
H6b. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
social shopping will be significantly higher than the correlations between personal shopping and other hedonic
motivations.
Role shopping is defined here as the motivation to shop
for others, and is based on the fundamental human motivation of acting out and fulfilling ones roles as people seek
ego enhancement to their self-concepts. Since role shopping
is product-oriented (e.g., gift shopping) and is inherently
inner-directed (ego enhancement, empathy), the social interaction aspects would seem less important than in other
shopping motivations. Given this reasoning, we should see a
weaker correlation with personalizing shopper attitudes than
with other hedonic motivations. Therefore:
H6c. The correlation between personalizing shopper and
role shopping will be significantly lower than the correlations between personal shopping and other hedonic
motivations.
88
To measure personalizing shopper, we employed three

items ( = .89, 7-point format ranging from strongly
disagree to strongly agree) used in prior research (Hawes
& Lumpkin, 1984; Dardin & Reynolds, 1971). An example
of one such item employed is, I like to shop where people
know me. As seen in Table 2, the correlation between
personalizingness and social shopping (r = .28) is positive.
Therefore, H6a is supported. However, this correlation is
only significantly higher (p < .05) than the correlation
between personalizingness and role shopping. Therefore,
H6b is partially supported. Finally, the correlation between
personalizingness and role shopping is not significant, and
is significantly lower (p < .05) than all other correlations.
Therefore, H6c is supported.
Predictive validity
Predictive validity is defined as the ability of a measuring
instrument to estimate some criterion behavior that is external to the measuring instrument itself, and is shown by the
correlation between the instrument and the criterion variable
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). To assess predictive validity
of the six hedonic motivations, a measure of browsing behavior was employed as the criterion variable. Browsing is
understood as the ongoing search behavior in a retail environment for informational and/or recreational purposes and
without immediate intentions to purchase (Bloch & Richins,
1983; Bloch et al., 1989).
The extent and nature of browsing behavior is likely to
be predicted by all six hedonic motivations held by shoppers. Prior research suggests that browsing behavior is recreationally motivated (Bloch et al., 1989; Jarboe & McDaniel,
1987), related to the need for sensory stimulation and diversion (Bloch et al., 1989), and also provides a shopping
context for social interaction (Bloch et al., 1994; Jarboe
& McDaniel, 1987). Further, browsing provides shoppers
with gratification and pleasure, as consumers can vicariously buy desirable products (Hirschman, 1980), and the
informational dimension of browsing provides shoppers the
benefits of seeing new products, fashions, and trends (Bloch
et al., 1989), as well as providing a venue to hunt for bargains and shop for others.
To measure browsing behavior, we employed three items
( = .90) used in prior research (Jones, Reynolds, Weun, &
Beatty, in press). An example of one of the items is, How
often do you visit stores just to look at new products, with
no intention of making a purchase? Each item was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from Never to Very
Frequently. Since predictive validity is shown by a significant correlation between two focal constructs (Nunnally
& Bernstein, 1994), we hypothesize that all six motivation
constructs will be correlated with the measure of browsing
behavior. Therefore:
H7. All six hedonic motivations will correlate positively
with browsing behavior.
Correlation analysis revealed our measure of browsing

behavior correlated positively (p < .05) with the six hedonic motivations: adventure shopping (r = .43), gratification
shopping (r = .49), social shopping (r = .48), role shopping (r = .28), value shopping (r = .34), and idea shopping
(r = .38). Therefore, H7 is supported.
Shopper segments
To assess the practical utility of the hedonic shopping
motivations scale, a shopper taxonomy was developed. A
two-step clustering procedure was employed for partitioning activities, using both hierarchical and non-hierarchical
methods on the validation sample (n = 251). The first step in
partitioning was to submit the summed scales representing
the six hedonic dimensions to hierarchical cluster analysis
(Wards method, squared Euclidian distances; see Milligan,
1980; Punj & Stewart, 1983). Given that prior research on
shopper taxonomies suggests a variety of the number of optimal clusters (e.g., Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Bellenger
et al., 1977; Bloch et al., 1994; Westbrook & Black, 1985),
a range of cluster solutions (36) was tested, and an examination of the dendrogram as well as the agglomeration
schedule produced support for a five-cluster solution (see
Hair et al., 1998; Milligan & Cooper, 1985 for a discussion
of stopping rules).
The next step consisted of employing k-means cluster
analysis using the hierarchical cluster centers as initial seeds
(Hair et al., 1998; Milligan, 1980). Table 3 illustrates the
cluster means of the summed motivation scales (columns labeled specified seeds), which was the final assignment of
cases to clusters, resulting in five clusters of n1 = 28, n2 =
34, n3 = 55, n4 = 64, and n5 = 55. As shown, ANOVA
models indicate significant mean differences across the five
clusters (F values ranging from 112.67 to 50.08). Further,
Tukey HSD post hoc tests illustrate differences between specific cluster means.
Cluster validation
Two validation procedures were performed. First, a
k-means cluster analysis was performed using the six
summed shopping motivation scales, this time with random initial seeds (Hair et al., 1998; Punj & Stewart, 1983).
The results, appearing in Table 3 (random seeds columns),
confirm the stability of the five-cluster solution identified during the partitioning activities. The cluster sizes as
well as all cluster centroids are nearly identical across the
specified-seeds and the random-seeds cluster models. The
second step assesses predictive validity by investigating
whether variables that are theoretically related to the hedonic shopping motivations do indeed differ across clusters.
Table 3 illustrates the results of univariate ANOVAs of the
summed scales across the five clusters, along with Tukey
HSD post hoc tests.
Given the information in Table 3, we provide an interpretation of the clusters: Cluster 1, labeled the Minimalists, is
Table 3
Results of non-hierarchical cluster analysis and validationa
Shopping motivation
Demographics
Cluster size
Percentage of respondentsd
Male (%)
Femaleg (%)
Ageg
<25 years old (%)
2549 years old (%)
Related constructs
Flow
Time distortion
Aesthetic appeal
Innovativeness
Non-generosity
Personalizing shopper
Browsing behavior
Cluster 1, Minimalists
Cluster 2, Gatherers
Cluster 3, Providers
Cluster 4, Enthusiasts
Cluster 5, Traditionalists
Specified seeds model
Specified
seedsb
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Specified
seeds
Random
seeds
F value
Significant F
106.94
112.67
83.66
63.96
68.26
50.08
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
19.74
29.87
15.13
6.27
8.40
3.95
20.37
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Random
seedsc
Random
seeds
Random
seeds
Random
seeds
4.14e
5.71
7.07
11.46
4.64
4.46
4.23
5.71
7.29
10.87
4.77
4.65
5.38e
7.82
12.15e
6.65
7.74e
10.44
5.98
8.45
13.12
7.88
8.00
10.45
6.60
9.69
17.16f
17.15e
8.51e
8.31
6.61
9.73
16.50
17.95
8.93
9.14
14.42
16.84
17.98f
16.94e
15.08
14.39
14.63
17.00
18.33
17.46
16.29
14.79
9.80
13.36
13.05e
14.73
10.73
12.29
11.36
14.90
14.29
14.80
11.02
12.36
28
12
57
43
31
13
34
15
70
30
42
18
55
23
17
83
56
24
64
27
10
90
42
20
55
23
42
58
59
25
21
54
1.56h
6.36
8.32h
7.64h
22.48h,i
7.43h
5.96
47
41
2.18h
9.35h
10.09h,i
8.82h,i
21.55h
7.97h
8.38h
22
63
2.46h,i
10.65h
11.66i,j
8.44i
26.05j
9.04
9.33h
43
36
4.08
16.51
14.95
9.68j
26.90j
10.85i
13.31
43
46
2.48i
12.31
12.70j
9.48j
23.09j
10.05j
11.78
Hedonic motivation
Adventure shopping
Role shopping
Value shopping
Social shopping
Idea shopping
Cluster means
Cluster means shown in cells.

The k-means cluster analysis performed with initial seeds specified from hierarchical cluster solution (Wards method, squared Euclidian distance).
c The k-means cluster analysis performed with random seeds. Post hoc tests not show for clarity.
d Percentage of respondents calculated on validation sample size of n = 236 following deletion of cases with missing values.
e,f Not significantly different within hedonic factor (rows) at p < .05.
g Significant differences between males and females (2 = 50.9, p < .01) and age groups (2 = 15.4, p < .05).
h,i,j Not significantly different within rows at p < .05, post hoc HSD test.
b
89
90
composed of a majority of males and largely middle-aged,

and scores lower on all hedonic motivations with the exception of value shopping. Cluster 2, labeled the Gatherers,
is composed largely of younger males who score higher
on idea and role shopping, and exhibit the lowest level of
value shopping. The Gatherers appear to be motivated by
the hedonic aspects of gathering information on new products and trends, perhaps in anticipation of future purchases.
Cluster 3, labeled the Providers, is composed largely of
middle-aged females who score highly on role and value
shopping, and score the lowest in non-generosity. Cluster 4,
the Enthusiasts, is composed overwhelmingly of younger
females and scores highly on all hedonic motivations. Cluster 5, the Traditionalists, is slightly more females than
males and younger to middle-aged, and scores moderately
high on most hedonic dimensions.
Discussion and implications
Faber, 1989), would also appear to be another application

of the scale for retailers and researchers alike.
Prior research has called for the investigation into which
motivations are likely to vary across retail shopping formats, and temporal variation in shopping motivations across
a number of shopping occasions (Westbrook & Black, 1985).
Important strategic considerations arise when considering
that different hedonic motivations may dominate in different
retail formats. In addition, the importance of different motivations may vary with regards to the degree of the shoppers
product involvement and the particular shopping situation.
How the motivations vary with regards to gender and the
specific shopping context is also an interesting question. In
this study, females scored higher on the hedonic motivation subscales than do males. This finding is consistent with
Reynolds and Beatty (1999), however, other research has
found that browsing and ongoing search for computers and
related products were higher among men (Bloch et al., 1986;
Otnes & McGrath, 2001). This is an area that requires further research.
Implications for research

Implications for retailers
The hedonic shopping motivation scale captures a wide
variety of hedonic reasons people go shopping, and has
a broad variety of applications to retail research. First,
the scale can be employed in research investigating the
interrelationships between hedonic motivations, in-store experiences, and shopping outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). Prior
research suggests that shopping motives drive the behavior
that brings shoppers into the marketplace, but the emotions
experienced in the store affect preference and choice behaviors (Dawson, Bloch, & Ridgway, 1990). Shoppers driven
by a larger set of hedonic motivations may pay attention to
a larger set of retail attributes (e.g., merchandise displays,
in-store promotions), and thereby have a larger number
of inputs in the decision-making process (Dawson et al.,
1990).
Alternatively, intense shopping motives may create a
strong goal-attainment drive for consumers (Dawson et al.,
1990). Hence in a manner similar to product involvement
(Oliver, 1997), strong (vs. weak) motivations may magnify
the experience in the mind of the shopper. This could have
the effect, like involvement, of making in-store evaluations
and affective responses more intense, either positive or
negative.
Another application centers on relating the type and intensity of hedonic motivations to specific shopping behaviors,
such as impulse purchasing and compulsive consumption.
Impulse purchasing has strategic value for retailers (Jones
et al., in press), and is defined as the degree to which an individual is likely to make unintended, immediate, and unreflective purchases. Impulse purchasing is also closely linked
to hedonic consumption and sensory stimulation (Beatty &
Ferrell, 1998; Rook, 1987). Compulsive consumption, which
in a retail setting describes shoppers who carry out shopping activities in pursuit of hedonic fulfillment (OGuinn &
A number of implications for retailers are apparent as

well. First, knowledge of distinct shopper segments is useful for retailers in constructing marketing communication
strategy and designing appealing store environments. For example, advertising in many cases may need to be designed
to attract shoppers who are motivated for different hedonic
reasons. This could be accomplished by focusing on the experiential aspects of the store environment, positioning the
shopping experience as an adventure or a chance to visit
with friends.
Store atmospherics can be tailored to certain shopper segments as well. If a retailer finds a large segment of Enthusiasts or Traditionalists among its regular customers, it
could consider ways to facilitate the social experience its
customers can have. We see evidence of these considerations
in todays marketplace, particularly with the bookstorecaf
concept that has become so popular (e.g., Barnes and Noble). Conversely, if a store finds a large segment of Gatherers
among its target market, it may consider providing more informative, hands-on displays that are increasingly popular
in specialty stores (e.g., the Discovery Store). Alternatively,
a retailer who finds that a large proportion of its customers
are Providers may design an in-store experience characterized by convenience and even an emphasis on web-based
kiosks for ordering products on-line.
Aside from the shopper segmentation, retailers could use
the scale to investigate the direction and strength of hedonic
motivations among their current customers. For example,
a hedonic motivational profile could be constructed of a
stores current customer base, thereby providing the retailer
with additional knowledge of intensity and types of hedonic
motivations influencing its customers. Further, the retailer
would be well positioned to assess motivational strength of
different shopper groups. The retailer could focus on one

or all of the hedonic motivations in investigations of mean
levels of motivation across customer groups based on age,
gender, race/ethnicity, and even profitability.
Retailers may wish to employ the scale to assess the
effects of different hedonic motivations on important shopping outcomes. Retail research suggests a direct link between shopping motivations and outcomes such as retail
satisfaction, loyalty, and assessments of hedonic and utilitarian shopping value (Babin et al., 1994). For example, are
shoppers who are strongly motivated by hedonic dimensions more likely to be satisfied, repatronize the retailer,
and engage in behaviors such as talking positively about
their experiences? Prior research suggests that satisfaction
is a direct indicator of a shoppers motivational strength
(Westbrook & Black, 1985), thereby suggesting that motive
strength is directly and positively associated with aspects
of preference and satisfaction (Dawson et al., 1990). Therefore, retailers could potentially have another tool to manage
customer satisfaction and loyalty.
Limitations and directions for future research

As with any scale development research, one must use
caution with the application of the scale to other shopping
contexts. Specifically, while we have provided evidence that
the scale replicates well across independent samples, further
evidence of generalizability is needed. Second, as with any
factor analysis, a certain amount of subjectivity is necessary in identifying and labeling factors. Third, the scale was
developed only to address hedonic, or non-product reasons
people shop. Westbrook and Black (1985) and others have
recognized that shoppers often have utilitarian motives as
well, in many cases going shopping to acquire some product
91
or service, and to have fun as well. Therefore, measuring

only hedonic motivations may be missing part of the story.
This is both a limitation as well as a direction for further
research. In addition, the current study only addressed shopping motivations in a single retail channelshopping in regular stores. Further testing in other retail channels, namely,
on-line and catalog (e.g., Mathwick, Malhotra, & Rigdon,
2001), may be warranted.
While our qualitative investigation revealed a rich array
of hedonic shopping motivations, interesting was what our
qualitative investigation did not show, such as motives to
interact with salespeople or derive feelings of power and
authority from being waited on (e.g., Westbrook & Black,
1985). In hindsight, this may not be too surprising given
the increasingly poor levels of service consumers receive in
todays retail and service marketplace (Brady, 2000). Further, shoppers may not easily admit to these motives, or may
not raise these motives when thinking about the hedonic
motivations to shop. This clearly is another area for future
research.
Finally, it is important to note that the purified scale captures broad dimensions of shopping motivation, yet is also
parsimonious. Future research could investigate further a
number of areas that were uncovered here in the qualitative
investigation, such as value shopping, which relates to the
hunting for bargains, and winning the game of shopping (Sherry, 1990). Research could also investigate the role
of flow in shoppers evaluation of their shopping experiences along hedonic or utilitarian dimensions (Babin et al.,
1994), as well as a qualitative validation of the shopper segments, and correlating each segment with actual shopping
behaviors. Finally, future research, possibly experimental,
could investigate hedonic motivations after controlling for
in-store mood states, as well as the correspondence of the
hedonic scores in spousal dyads.
Appendix A. Sample of respondent comments from qualitative study

Motivation
Illustrative comments
Adventure
shopping
It gets me all excited! So its kind of like exploring, only in a shoppers world? In a shoppers world.
Right ... Whats out there since Id last been there? Okay. Well, thats a type of adventure. Mm hm. Its
an adventure for me.
I enjoy shopping. It brings me great excitement and sometimes suspense as to what I am going to find.
Oh yeah, I always think about other things when I am shopping. Being in a different place helps me
get away from my everyday life. With clothes, I visualize where I would wear things. I think about
where I will wear things and imagine how everyone will think I am really pretty.
When I go to a store or mall, I am kind of in my own little shopping world. I dont try to think of
anything but what I like, what would I look good in, and what is eye catching enough for me to spend
my money on.
Social
shopping
Well, I shop because it gives me a chance to spend time with my friends and family. I do not always
go shopping to buy things. I do a lot of shopping with my mom and my aunt and I feel its an excuse to
spend the day together.
I go with my mom, we use shopping as a bonding time together.
92
Appendix A. (Continued )
Motivation
Illustrative comments
The experience itself is kind of secondary unless I am out shopping with a friend or something. If
you are with a friend then it is more like a social atmosphere where you are going shopping as just an
excuse to hang out together and if you see something you want then you buy it.
Shopping for fun to me means more of socialization, if I had to pick one. But mostly socialization with
other people. I dont like to shop for fun by myself; I have to go with someone else for it to be any fun.
I usually dont shop alone, so I socialize with the people Im with, and sometimes I run into people I
know while Im shopping.
Gratification
shopping
I love to go shopping. It is my biggest stress reliever.

I like to go shopping when Im stressed; to me its a way to get my mind off of what happens to be
stressing me out that day.
I also go a lot when I am depressed. It makes me feel good about myself like Im doing something
for myself. I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special. When I feel I have put so
much time into working that I need a reward.
I want to shop. Its like giving yourself a pat on the back and saying it was worth all the hard work to
be able to shop.
Idea shopping
Sometimes I go to look just to get an idea. If I feel like or see a style in a magazine I might go to a store
and try it out just to see how it looks. Its something new and something different and I just want to try it.
I like to shop because I like to see what the latest fashions are. Sometimes its so hard to keep up
with the latest fashions are. I try my best and hope I stay as hip as possible.
I want to see the new things that come out on the market. Its a way of staying in style. It also tells
me if the clothes I have are out of date or not.
Yes, I thrive on being up on the latest fashions. I always have to make a fashion statement so I am
continuously shopping to buy the new trends.
I like new gadgets, new technology and see the new toys that are out there. It is kind of a hobby.
Role shopping
Shopping for others I find to be much more pleasurable. The pleasure I find is trying to determine the
needs of the person Im buying for and then determining a gift that tailors to that persons needs.
I love giving gifts, especially if it something different and unique. Its not just something that you can
get at any other store. I think people know when you spend extra time getting them something that you
know that they really want. This is what I love to do, is give something to someone that you know they
wouldnt purchase for themselves.
I shop more for others than for myself. I especially shop more for my grandchildren and my three sons.
Having my oldest son married and on his own with two daughters, I love to help in anyway possible.
Shopping for others makes me feel good. It makes me feel good to see how I can help make them
happy. To give someone happiness or to give them something they might not usually get for themselves
make me feel really good.
I love to buy gifts for other people. It makes me feel good to buy something for someone that I know
they are going to like. It is a satisfaction to me. I like to go shopping when it is for other people. I love that.
Value
shopping
I like to turn it into a game, how cheap can I get it. My favorite thing to do is to find something I really
like in the mall, like wet seal or something, that costs $50, and then see how cheap I can find it somewhere
else. I almost always find it for $15 or so. What a feeling when that happens. I live for those days.
I look at sales and when I go shopping for fun I look at all the sale racks. I like to see whats on sale
and I dig through things.
And it is just like pushing or stretching my money to the boundaries or right to the edge is exciting. It
is exciting to see how much I can buy with what I have.
How is this experience exciting? Its exciting, because you feel like your winning. You feel like I
have control over my money, because I can buy 5 items for $20, rather than 2 items for $20. Thats like
the competitive part of shopping.
Its really fun when you come back with a bunch of goodies for a lot less money than you planned on
spending. Two for ones.
Appendix B. Scale/item measurement properties

Construct
Adventure
shopping
Coefficient
Composite
reliabilityb
EFA Item
loading
S1
S1c
S2d
S1
S2
.86
.86
.88
.92
To me, shopping is an adventure

I find shopping stimulating
Shopping makes me feel like I am
in my own universe
.79
.77
.83
.83
.84
.86
.85
.87
.88
.85
.83
.89
.84
.87
.88
a
b
d
S2
.79
.74
.67
.74
.81
.68
.89
.88
.77
.89
.94
.82
.79
.78
.59
.79
.89
.67
9.12
3.17
3.27
2.69
.69
.69
.72
.87
.84
.76
.71
11.92
3.56
11.87
3.50
.67
.66
.60
.83
.82
.68
.67
3.78
3.75
.50
.55
.50
.66
.61
.44
.37
4.58
4.63
.83
.72
.73
.83
.90
.69
.81
14.79
5.09
14.63
4.96
.80
.74
.75
.91
.89
.83
.80
5.04
5.06
.57
.62
.64
.71
.73
.50
.53
4.66
4.61
.86
.68
.71
.78
.80
.61
.65
14.32
4.58
14.39
4.61
.83
.77
.80
.93
.93
.87
.86
4.99
5.06
.74
.71
.73
.81
.87
.66
.76
4.74
4.72
.85
.76
.74
.89
.90
.80
.81
10.47
3.47
10.30
3.34
.76
.68
.63
.75
.74
.56
.54
3.76
3.71
.71
.75
.71
.91
.89
.83
.80
3.23
3.26
.87
.74
.83
.93
.95
.86
.91
10.87
3.36
10.86
3.37
.84
.74
.81
.86
.93
.74
.87
3.65
3.52
.70
.62
.65
.72
.69
.52
.47
3.86
3.97
93
Measurement based on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
See Fornell and Larcker (1981) for details on the composite reliability calculation.
S1 = sample 1, calibration sample (n = 266).
S2 = sample 2, validation sample (n = 251).
S1
.86
.67
.57
.90
I go shopping to keep up with the

trends
I go shopping to keep up with the
new fashions
I go shopping to see what new
products are available
Scale/item
mean
9.09
3.12
3.14
2.83
.88
I go shopping with my friends or

family to socialize
I enjoy socializing with others when
I shop
Shopping with others is a bonding
experience
Idea shopping
S2
.90
For the most part, I go shopping

when there are sales
I enjoy looking for discounts when I
shop
I enjoy hunting for bargains when I
shop
Social shopping
S1
Squared
multiple
correlation
S1
S2
.88
I like shopping for others because

when they feel good I feel good
I enjoy shopping for my friends and
family
I enjoy shopping around to find the
perfect gift for someone
Value shopping
CFA item
loading
.80
When Im in a down mood, I go

shopping to make me feel better
To me, shopping is a way to relieve
stress
I go shopping when I want to treat
myself to something special
Role shopping
Corrected
item-total
correlation
S1
S2
Gratification
shopping
Itemsa
94
References
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1982). Some methods for
respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct
measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 453461.
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411423.
Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., & Griffin, Mitch. (1994). Work
and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal
of Consumer Research, 20(March), 644656.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1980). Causal models in marketing. New York:
Wiley.
Batra, Rajeev, & Ahtola, Olli. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(April), 159
170.
Bearden, William O., Netemeyer, Richard G., & Teel, Jesse E. (1989).
Measurement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19(March), 473481.
Beatty, Sharon E., & Ferrell, M. Elizabeth. (1998). Impulse buying:
Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(Summer), 169192.
Belk, Russell W. (1984). Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: Reliability, validity, and relationships to measures of happiness. In Thomas Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol.
11, pp. 291297). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Belk, Russell W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material
world. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 265280.
Bellenger, Danny N., & Korgaonkar, Pradeep K. (1980). Profiling the
recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(Fall), 7792.
Bellenger, Danny N., Robertson, Dan H., & Greenberg, Barnett. (1977).
Shopping center patronage motives. Journal of Retailing, 53(Summer),
2938.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, Douglas G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88(3), 588606.
Berlyne, Daniel. (1969). Laughter, humor and play. In G. Lindzey &
E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 291297).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Booms, Bernard H., & Tetrault, Mary Stanfield. (1990).
The service encounter: Diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(January), 7184.
Bloch, Peter H., & Richins, Marsha L. (1983). Shopping without purchase: An investigation of consumer browsing behavior. Advances in
Consumer Research, 10, 389393.
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Dawson, Scott A. (1994). The
shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 23
42.
Bloch, Peter H., Ridgway, Nancy M., & Sherrell, Daniel L. (1989).
Extending the concept of shopping: An investigation of browsing
activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17(1), 13
21.
Bloch, Peter H., Sherrell, Daniel L., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1986). Consumer search: An extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research,
13(June), 119126.
Bollen, Kenneth A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York: Wiley.
Brady, Diane. (2000). Why service stinks. Business Week, 3704(October
23), 118128.
Bruning, James L., & Kintz, B. L. (1977). Computational handbook of
statistics. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman and Company.
Burke, Raymond. (1997). Do you see what I see? The future of virtual
shopping. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 352
361.
Buss, Dale D. (1997). Entertailing. Nations Business, 85(12), 1218.
Byrne, Barbara. (1998). Structural equation modeling: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chin, Wynne, & Todd, Peter A. (1995). On the use, usefulness and ease
of use of structural equation modeling in MIS research: A note of
caution. MIS Quarterly, (June) 237246.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,
16(February), 6473.
Cope, Nigel. (1996). Retail in the digital age. London: Bowerdean.
Cronbach, Lee J., & Meehl, Paul E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(July), 281302.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Dardin, William R., & Ashton, Dub. (1974). Psychographic profiles of
patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing, 50(Winter), 99102.
Dardin, William R., & Reynolds, Fred D. (1971). Shopping orientations
and product usage roles. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(November),
505508.
Dawson, Scott, Bloch, Peter H., & Ridgway, Nancy M. (1990). Shopping
motives, emotional states and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing,
66(4), 408427.
Donovan, Robert J., & Rossiter, John R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An
environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(Spring),
3457.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7(1), 117140.
Fischer, Eileen, & Arnold, Stephen J. (1990). More than a labor of love:
Gender roles and Christmas shopping. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(December), 333345.
Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(February), 3950.
Fournier, Susan. (1996). Land Rover North America, Harvard Business
School Case 9-596-036. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Freud, Sigmund. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Gerbing, David W., & Anderson, James C. (1988). An updated paradigm
for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186192.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden
City, NY: Doubleday and Company.
Gwinner, Kevin P., Gremler, Dwayne D., & Bitner, Mary Jo. (1998).
Relational benefits in service industries: The customers perspective.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(Spring), 101114.
Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Anderson, Rolph E., Tatham, Ronald L., & Black,
William C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hawes, Jon, & Lumpkin, James R. (1984). Understanding the outshopper.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12(4), 200218.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980). Innovativeness, novelty seeking and
consumer creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283291.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., & Holbrook, Morris B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts. Journal of Marketing, 46(Summer),
92101.
Hoffman, Donna L., & Novak, Thomas P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia
computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of
Marketing, 60(July), 5068.
Holbrook, Morris B., & Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982). The experiential
aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal
of Consumer Research, 9(March), 132140.
Hudson, Laurel A., & Ozanne, Julie L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking
knowledge in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,
14(March), 508522.
Huizinga, Johan. (1970). Homo Ludens: A study of the play element in
culture. New York: Harper and Row.
Jarboe, Glen R., & McDaniel, Caral D. (1987). A profile of browsers
in regional shopping malls. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 15(1), 4653.

Jones, Michael, Reynolds, Kristy E., Weun, Seungood, & Beatty, Sharon
E. (in press). The product-specific nature of impulse buying tendency.
Journal of Business Research.
Jreskog, K., & Srbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Users reference guide.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kowinsky, William S. (1985). The malling of America. New York: William
Morrow and Company, Inc.
Langrehr, Frederick W. (1991). Retail shopping mall semiotics and hedonic
consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 428433.
Lee, Euehun, Moschis, George P., & Mathur, Anil. (2001). A study of
life events and changes in patronage preferences. Journal of Business
Research, 54(October), 2538.
Lincoln, Yvonne, & Guba, Egon. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
MacCallum, Robert. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure
modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100(1), 107120.
MacCallum, Robert, Roznowski, Mary, & Necowitz, Lawrence B. (1992).
Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of
capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490504.
Mathwick, Charla, Malhotra, Naresh, & Rigdon, Edward. (2001). Experiential value: Conceptualization, measurement, and application in
the catalog and Internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing,
77(Spring), 3956.
McClelland, David C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van
Nostrand.
McGuire, William. (1974). Psychological motives and communication
Gratification. In J. F. Blumer & Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratification research (pp. 106167).
Beverly Hills: Sage.
Midgley, David F. (1977). Innovation and new product marketing. New
York: Halsted Press, Wiley.
Midgley, David F., & Dowling, Grahame R. (1978). Innovativeness:
The concept and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research,
4(March), 229242.
Miller, Daniel. (1998). A theory of shopping. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Milligan, Glenn. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error
perturbation of fifteen clustering algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 15, 225238.
Milligan, Glenn, & Cooper, Martha C. (1985). An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika, 50(2), 159179.
Moschis, George P. (1976). Shopping orientations and consumer use of
information. Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer), 6170.
Neisser, Marianne. (1973). The sense of self through giving and receiving.
Social Casework, 54(5), 294301.
Netemeyer, Ricard G., Durvasula, Srinivas, & Lichtenstein, Donald R.
(1991). A cross-national assessment of the reliability and validity of
the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August), 320
327.
Netemeyer, Ricard G., Johnston, Richard G., & Burton, Mark W. (1990).
Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in structural equations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 148158.
Novak, Thomas P., Hoffman, Donna L., & Yung, Yiu-Fai. (2000). Measuring the customer experience in on-line environments: A structural
modeling approach. Marketing Science, 19(Winter), 2242.
Nunnally, Jum C., & Bernstein, Ira H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd
ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
OGuinn, Thomas C., & Faber, Ronald J. (1989). Compulsive buying: A
phenomenological exploration. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2),
147158.
95
Oliver, Richard L., (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the

consumer. Boston, MA: Irwin, McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, Richard L., & Bearden, William O. (1985). Crossover effects in
the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal
of Consumer Research, 12(December), 324340.
Otnes, Cele, & McGrath, Mary Ann. (2001). Perceptions and realities
of male shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 77(Spring), 111
137.
Peter, J. Paul. (1981). Construct validity: A review of basic issues and
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(May), 133
145.
Peterson, Robert A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for
and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters,
11(3), 261275.
Punj, Girish, & Staelin, Richard. (1983). A model of consumer information
search for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(March),
366380.
Punj, Girish, & Stewart, David. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing
research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing
Research, 20(May), 134148.
Reynolds, Kristy E., & Beatty, Sharon E. (1999). A relationship customer
typology. Journal of Retailing, 75(4), 509523.
Rook, Dennis W. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (September). 189199.
Roy, Abhik. (1994). Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retailing, 70(Summer), 139161.
Sherry, John F, Jr. (1990). A Sociocultural analysis of a midwestern
American flea market. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(June), 13
30.
Sorokin, P. A. (1950). Altruistic love: A study of American good neighbors
and Christian saints. Boston: Beacon Press.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., & Baumgartner, Hans. (1998). Assessing
measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal
of Consumer Research, 25(1), 7891.
Stephenson, P. Ronald, & Willett, Ronald P. (1969). Analysis of
consumers retail patronage strategies. In P. R. McDonald (Ed.), Marketing involvement in society and the economy (pp. 316322). Chicago:
American Marketing Association.
Stone, Gregory P. (1954). City shoppers and urban identification: Observation on the social psychology of city life. American Journal of
Sociology, 60(July), 3645.
Tauber, Edward M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing,
36(October), 4649.
Tian, Kelly Tepper, Bearden, William O., & Hunter, Gary L. (2001).
Consumers need for uniqueness: Scale development and validation.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(June), 5066.
Thompson, Craig J., Locander, William B., & Pollio, Howard R. (1990).
The lived meaning of free choice: An existential-phenomenological
description of everyday consumer experiences of contemporary married women. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(December), 346
361.
Wakefield, Kirk L., & Baker, Julie. (1998). Excitement at the mall:
Determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing,
74(Fall), 515540.
Wallendorf, Melanie, & Arnould, Eric. (1991). We gather together: Consumption rituals of thanksgiving day. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(June), 1331.
Westbrook, Robert A., & Black, William. (1985). A motivation-based
shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring), 78103.
Zaichowsky, Judith Lynne. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct.
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(December), 341352.

Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

Hedonic shopping motivations

Accepted 12 February 2003

landscape the hedonic experiences that a customer can now

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

examine current and potential patrons, thereby providing

Background and review of literature

shoppers have previously described themselves as a kid in

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

and utilitarian elements, Westbrook and Black (1985) note

Qualitative inquiry and initial scale development

grounds. The final sample included 33 men and 65 women,

Fig. 1. Scale development process.

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

given a paper copy of the self-administered questionnaire.

This procedure resulted in the deletion of 2 items for the

For the most part, I go shopping when there are sales

I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize

When Im in a down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better

To me, shopping is an adventure

keep up with the trends

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

Confirmatory factor analysis

only one underlying construct (Bollen, 1989; Gerbing &

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

sional measures (e.g., low and/or insignificant modification

All correlations significant at p < .05 (two-tailed) unless otherwise noted.

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

appeal (Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994), innovativeness

H2c. The correlation between time distortion and adventure

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

1994). An example of one such item employed is, I notice

tively with role shopping, and be significantly lower than

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

To measure personalizing shopper, we employed three

Correlation analysis revealed our measure of browsing

Specified seeds model

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

Cluster means shown in cells.

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

composed of a majority of males and largely middle-aged,

Discussion and implications

Faber, 1989), would also appear to be another application

Implications for research

A number of implications for retailers are apparent as

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

different shopper groups. The retailer could focus on one

Limitations and directions for future research

or service, and to have fun as well. Therefore, measuring

Appendix A. Sample of respondent comments from qualitative study

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

I love to go shopping. It is my biggest stress reliever.

Appendix B. Scale/item measurement properties

To me, shopping is an adventure

I go shopping to keep up with the

I go shopping with my friends or

For the most part, I go shopping

I like shopping for others because

When Im in a down mood, I go

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795

M.J. Arnold, K.E. Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 7795