1
The conference “Rethinking Inequalities” 7th Conference of European Sociological
Association, Torun, Poland, September 9–12, 2005.
Track: Sociology of Consumption, 11th September: Shopping and consumer typologies
SHOPPING FOR FUN OF FOR NEEDS? A STUDY OF SHOPPING
VALUES, STYLES AND MOTIVES OF FINNISH CONSUMERS IN
2001–2003. (The first manuscript)
Leena Haanpää
Research associate
Economic Sociology
Turku School of Economics and Business Administration
Rehtorinpellonkatu 3
FIN-20500 TURKU
FINLAND
Tel: +358-2-4814 341
E-mail: leena.haanpaa@tukkk.fi
2
ABSTRACT
The meanings given to shopping trips vary depending on a study’s context. Both
psychological and sociological explanations have been used in the interpretations of
shopping behaviour. When interested purely in answering the questions why people
shop a closer look to behavioural variables is taken. Shopping is seen in this study as a
function of behavioural determinants, mostly influenced by motives, values and
consumption styles.
In this study, the purpose is to discuss the motives that consumers give for their
shopping trips in the retail-shopping context. In order to provide possible explanations,
two research questions are posed. 1) What are the most important shopping motives? 2)
Are there systematic differences in these motives between social groups? The data for
the empirical analysis is a Finnish cross-sectional consumption related survey data. The
data sets were collected in Finland by postal surveys in 2001 (N=1370) and 2003
(N=1370). The questionnaire concerned daily shopping behaviour and it was divided
into different thematic areas from the motives of choosing the purchase place to the
motives of consumption. The thematic area utilised in this study concerns the motives
of shopping trips. The methods of analysis include cross-tabulations, principal
component analysis, and univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The results show that there are different motive dimensions for shopping. A principal
component analysis formed four dimensions of shopping both for the 2001 and 2003
data named as hedonic, recreational, economic, and convenient motives.
Keywords: Shopping, motives, quantitative, consumers
3
Introduction
Different themes have been in the focus of shopping related research: values, motives
and attitudes to mention but a few. Several studies have concentrated on consumers’
shopping experiences by contrasting two opposing themes, the dark side of shopping
and shopping for fun (for example, Fischer – Arnold 1990; Sherry 1990). It seems that
shopping experiences are often described in terms of two dimensions: utilitarian and
hedonic value (Babin – Darden – Griffin 1994; Batra – Ahtola 1991). This dual
structure divides shopping experience into work and fun. In addition to value, shopping
behaviour is characterised by motivational determinants. A broad division given by
Sheth (1983) explains personal shopping motives by functional and non-functional. In
addition, growing interest is directed to the merchandising and hospitality business,
which focuses on experiential retailing. With the term it is referred to total consumption
experiences gained while consuming either in restaurants or in retail businesses.
Consumers are increasingly buying both food and soft goods in the same retail outlet
either because of convenience or because of being enticed by an attractive environment,
which contributes to a total consumption experience. This kind of research regards as its
key concepts experiential consumption, symbolic consumption, entertainment retailing,
themed retailing, and cross-shopping (Kim 2001, 287.)
This paper, as a preliminary stage of research, seeks to further develop the two –
value and motivational-based – dualities by measuring two Finnish cross-sectional data
sets from years 2001 and 2003. As understood from the previous studies, shopping
values and motives, although different personal determinants of shopping, do not
exclude each others but contain common features. Both utilitarian values and functional
motives are affiliated, for example, with task-related behaviour (Babin et al. 1994, 645–
646; Eastlick – Feinberg 1999, 281). Hedonic values and nonfunctional motives are
related to social, emotional and personal needs (Babin et al. 1994, 646–647; Eastlick –
Feinberg 1999, 281). Experimental shopping can also been understood in terms of both
values and motives. To e certain extent it is also question about consumer styles, since
the creation of self-identity via consumption is widely acknowledged (Wilska 2002, 97).
This preliminary stage study is based on shopping motives and attitudes of Finnish
consumers and the objective is to develop a typology of their shopping motives and find
what background variables explain these motives. Therefore, in this study, the purpose
is to discuss the motives that consumers give for their shopping trips in the retailshopping context. The purpose is approached by firstly analysing the shopping motives
in light of two above mentioned samples from 2001 to 2003 and secondly by searching
for systematic differences in these motives between social groups.
4
Conceptual background
One of the crucial questions that shopping involves is that why do people shop. One
way to give an answer to this question is to examine consumers’ shopping motives. It
has been demonstrated that people’s motives for shopping are a function of numerous
variables, of which many are unrelated to the actual buying of products. Among the
earliest studies on motivational determinants of shopping behaviour is that of Stone’s
(1954); four orientations or motives – economic/price, ethical, personalizing/service,
and apathetic (Tauber 1972; Sheth 19831 in Eastlick – Feinberg 1999, 282).
Along these several other motives have been used to classify primary shopping
motives: overall convenience, including time savings; shopping as a recreational
experience itself; social interaction gained from shopping, and information seeking
(Rohm – Swaminathan 2004, 749). Shopping convenience including time and effort
savings has been regarded as an important factor and motive affecting store choice.
From the work of Tauber (1972) stems two concepts of retail shopping motives. Retail
shopping experience refers to the enjoyment of shopping as a leisure-based activity and
taps into aspects of the enjoyment of shopping for its own sake (Rohm – Swaminathan
2004, 750). Social interaction concept includes a variety of social motives: social
interaction, reference group affiliation and communicating with others having similar
interests (Tauber 1972, 47–48). Information seeking including seeking, comparing, and
accessing information is a shopping motive in retail context (Rohm – Swaminathan
2004, 750, 752).
There have also been numerous attempts to classify the concept of human motive.
The concept of motive was central to the sociological enterprise in Weber’s
interpretative-cum-explanatory account of human life (Campbell 1996, 103). The
Weberian conduct had two stages, the direct observation and explanatory or
motivational understanding. For this second stage the concept of motive becomes
crucial (Weber 1196, 95 in Campbell 1996, 103). Understanding the conduct of
individuals, the interpretative-cum-explanatory account of human life, requires
understanding the concept of motive. Weber’s definition of motive was “a complex of
subjective meaning which seems to the actor himself or to the observer an adequate
ground for the conduct in question” (1996, 98–99 in Campbell 1996, 103). Campbell
argues that contemporary sociology has abandoned the concept of motive. The primary
reason for this is that for historical reasons the concept of motive has been reformulated
from its original dynamic connotations to signify more the reason or the reasons.
Abandoning its original significance means according to Campbell also abandoning any
possibility of explaining action (Ibid.)
1
Sheth, Jagadish N. (1983) An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior. In: W.R.
Darden – R.F. Lusch (eds.) Patronage Behavior and Retail Management. Elsevier Science Publishing Co.
Inc: New York, 9–28.
5
A classification system presented by McGuire (1974) leans on different motivational
theories that try to capture the essence of human motives. According to this
classification human motives are goal oriented and driven by unfulfilled needs. What
are the person’s needs vary along the theories but a frequently mentioned viewpoint is
that the person gears towards individual satisfaction (McGuire 1974). However, motives
are not always conscious but there are nonconscious processes that influence human
behaviour. For example, intimacy, health or gratification needs can be activated and
operate all outside of awareness. It means that if these needs are operating
nonconsciously, the person will not recognize the influence of those on his or her
behaviour (Bargh 2002, 282.)
Motives and values hold both cognitive and affective, emotional side. It is said that
all consumption activities involve the stimulation of thoughts and/or senses (Hirschman
1984). Cognitive consumption is related to rational thinking and behaviour, to utilitarian
values (Babin et al. 1994, 646). Sensory consumption is associated with the intangible
benefits that pertain to the emotive and experiential aspects of experience (Holbrook
and Hirschman, 1982). The retail shopping experience and a recreational shopper is one
who enjoys shopping and appreciates the process and enjoyment of the shopping. It is
argued as well that, in many instances, consumers may desire to obtain a higher level of
experiential consumption relative to utilitarian consumption (Kim 2001, 288).
Most prior research on shopping motives and values has assumed that the primary
motives underlying the reasons of shopping are functional including overall
convenience and information seeking (Rohm – Swaminathan 2004; Eastlick – Feinberg
1999; Gert – Shim 1998). In relation to values functionality becomes usually described
in instrumental, utilitarian terms (Babin et al. 1994). The non-functional side of
shopping emphasizes the experimental part of shopping. In motivational studies it
includes the shopping experience and social interaction (Rohm – Swaminathan 2004)
whereas value-related studies are more personal and subjective emphasizing shopping’s
hedonic aspects (Babin et al. 1994; Fiore – Jin – Kim 2005).
Data and methods
The aim of the empirical part of this study is to focus on the consumption motives and
consumer styles among Finnish consumer. These motives are approached by comparing
firstly, relative frequencies of consumer attitudes between 2001 and 2003 in order to
provide a descriptive framework of consumer preferences. Secondly, after the initial
analysis, the dimensions of shopping motives are produced by conducting a principal
component analysis. Lastly, a single-factor ANOVA (analysis of variance) models are
estimated with respondents’ summed factor scores as dependent variables.
The “Mylly-project” data used for the analysis are part of a larger project, which
objective was to measure the influence of a new shopping mall on consumer behaviour
6
and on competition in retail trade in Turku area. Turku is a forth biggest city in Finland
and it situates in South-Western cost. The data for the current investigation was
obtained from two distinct samples from two different years. The data, thus, consist of
two samples collected by postal surveys during the autumns 2001 and 2003. By
maintaining the same respondents in both surveys it has been tried to reach the greatest
possible validity and the comparability of the results. The surveys were carried out as a
random sampling among all households in Turku area (altogether 11 communities). In
2001 after one runoff, 2,680 questionnaires were returned. The response rate was 42 per
cent. The final size of the sample in 2003 was 1508, resulting in a response rate of 59
per cent after one runoff. The total number of respondents included in this study was
1370 in both years, and this number consists of same respondents in both surveys. The
population studied included men and women, ages 18 and above. A problem likely to
affect the analysis is the unbiased variable of gender, for the sample was dominated by
females (85 %). Similar kind of studies have been, however, conducted despite the
imbalanced gender distribution (Fisher – Arnold 1990, 339; Eastlick – Feinberg 1999,
284). The weighting factor is not used simply because such was not available with the
data.
The questionnaire concerned daily shopping behaviour and the choice of shopping
place. It was divided into different thematic areas. In this study the focus is on questions
related to the shopping motives. The respondents were asked to evaluate how much the
given alternatives affected their shopping trips when the intension was to buy something
else than daily consumer goods. This was done in the following manner: “I do at home a
‘shopping route’ based on stores’ advertisements and sales”. The scale for the response
alternatives was 1 = hardly ever, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = almost
always. More over, the respondents were asked to evaluate separately workday and
weekend shopping trips. In this study only the workdays were analysed for simplicity
reasons.
As Table 1 points out no dramatic changes in shopping styles or motives have
happened during the two years. Means between the years 2001 and 2003 are quite
similar. Three statements rise clearly above the others; it seems that consumers in this
study are motivated especially by time savings (cf. Rohm – Swaminathan 2004), since
“Making purchases as quickly as possible” scored highest when measured by mean. It
was 3.61 in 2001 and 3.62 in 2003. The other two statements that jumped out from the
question set with the means clearly above three are related to the same time saving and
shopping convenience theme. These are “Purchasing the pre-planned products” with the
mean value of 3.41 and “Alimentary at the same time” with item value of 3.57 (3.49 in
2001).
Also the relative frequencies of the responses demonstrate that time and effort
savings in shopping are important to consumers. In both years quarter of respondents
regarded quickness as an important consumer motive. In the same manner purchasing
daily consumer goods was considered important, 25 percent of consumers in this study
7
answered that they almost always buy alimentary during the same shopping trip when
doing other kind of shopping. 18 per cent (in 2003) of consumers announced that they
pre-planned their purchases beforehand. Altogether, it seems that convenience in
shopping is a remarkable part of the overall shopping structure.
This becomes even more indisputable when the statements that describe social
interaction and retail shopping experience are scrutinized. The highest means in the
column ‘hardly ever’ relate to social interaction; “Combining visits with shopping trips”
seems to be very unpopular, since 62 per cent of respondents declared that they hardly
ever do so, while the mean was 1.57. The hedonic shopping value and gaining
gratification from shopping turns out to be of minor importance for Finnish consumers.
Escapism and shopping for fun do not motivate people, the means related to this
shopping aspect remain low and percentages signing ‘hardly ever’ are, in turn, quite
high.
Table 1. Mean differences in 2001 and 2003 and relative frequencies (%) of shopping
motives in 2003 (the change from 2001 in brackets)
Shopping plan based on
ads and sales
Visiting min. 2 shops
before purchase decision
Making purchases as
quickly as possible
Purchasing the preplanned products
I tune in the events in
shopping centre
Escape from routines
Ideas for the future
Have lunch/coffee
Shopping for fun
Shopping trip with friends
Shopping trip with family
Combining visits with
shopping trip
Combining
recreations/hobbies with
shopping trip
Alimentary at the same
time
Mean
2001
2.86
Mean
2003
2.73
Hardly ever
(%)
26 (0)
Almost always
(%)
14 (-4)
2.99
2.92
17 (-2)
13 (-3)
3.61
3.62
5 (0)
24 (-2)
3.41
3.41
7 (+1)
18 (-1)
2.28
2.26
37 (+1)
6 (-1)
2.01
2.68
2.12
2.15
1.83
2.49
1.57
2.05
2.65
2.14
2.20
1.86
2.52
1.57
42 (-4)
20 (+1)
39 (-3)
37 (-3)
49 (-1)
31 (-1)
62 (0)
2 (-1)
5 (0)
4 (-1)
3 (-1)
2 (+1)
9 (0)
0.7 (-0.3)
1.69
1.75
56 (-3)
2 (0)
3.49
3.57
8 (-2)
25 (0)
In the above analysis the purpose was to give a general picture of how shopping
related motives and styles affect consumers’ shopping trips. In this stage no any
8
background variables are taken into consideration. However, it is likely that there are
for example, gender and age differences in shopping motives. These background
variables will be included in the study in the following phase.
The 14 scale items were first analyzed with principal component analysis (PCA) to
identify the underlying dimensions of shopping motives. PCA – like factor analysis – is
a multivariate statistical technique that is concerned with the identification of structure
within a set of observed variables. The analysis involves the study of interrelationships
among variables and the purpose is to find new variables fewer in number than the
original variables. PCA is a data reduction technique and it aims at establishing
dimensions that the original variables illustrate as hidden. (Stewart 1981, 51.)
Motives with eigenvalue greater than one were extracted, and items with factor
loadings of 0.30 or greater were selected. The analysis gave four factor solution for both
years. The factors were named as ‘hedonic motive’ (factor 1), recreational motive
(factor 2), economic motive (factor 3), and convenience motive (factor 4). The factors
developed by the PCA are not dealt deeper in this paper but the results of the analysis
are presented in the appendix (see Appendixes A and B).
The factors that PCA produced were put under further analyses by conducting an
analysis of variance (ANOVA). This analysis method was used to assess the
comparative significance of background variables, and to test whether these explain
shopping motives. Several socio-demographic variables that potentially influence retail
shopping and purchasing behaviour were therefore examined. The independent
variables used in the analysis were five for the ANOVA model of 2001: gender, marital
status, income, type of household, and age class. For the ANOVA model of 2003 only
three background variables were used: gender, age class and type of household. The
others including education in both years were also tested but these turned out not to be
statistically significant, and were for that reason excluded from the final models. The
differences in main effects between subjects were measured by a comparison of
parameter estimates (β) and in the bottom of Tables 2 and 3 the shares of the total
variances (100 R2) are presented.
In the ANOVA model of 2001 the first three dimensions (factors), Hedonic motive,
Recreational motive and Economic motive, were poorly explained by background
variables. Age was the most important determinant in all the factors, also gender
explained Hedonic shopping motive whereas marital status explained Economic motive.
Also income level was almost statistically significant with its significance level of 0.57,
but that was not included in Table 2. The explained share of the total variance (100 R2)
was low in all motive dimensions, at 7.5 per cent in Hedonic motive, at 7.3 per cent in
Recreational motive and 6.4 per cent for the third, Economic motive. Convenience
motive dimension was in equal manner explained only by few socio-demographic
variables; the household type and income were the most significant determinants. The
explained share of this factor was rather high, 16.4 per cent.
9
It is the young consumers that are pleasure-driven and finding hedonistic experiences
from shopping. One and also quite natural explanation for this is that this group has a lot
of time only for themselves; young consumers are unmarried and have no children.
Similar results have also been found in previous research (Wilska 2002, 206).
Hedonistic shopping has also been regarded as gendered consumption, related typically
to women, and kept as feminine activity (Campbell 1997, 167–168). Social and
recreational characteristics of shopping relates also in this study to younger age groups,
especially those between the ages 25–34 are motivated by the possibility to combine
for example, hobbies and visits with shopping trips.
The third factor, Economic motive, which was collection of the following questions:
‘Shopping plan based on ads and sales’, ‘Visiting minimum 2 shops before purchase
decision’ and ‘Purchasing the pre-planned products’ was explained by age and marital
status. The economic motive counts most for older consumers and on the other hand for
married/cohabit couples. The results show a very clear trend: the younger the consumer
the less the price or planning the purchases interest.
The income level and the type of household determine interestingly consumer
behaviour that aims at convenience (factor 4) in statistically significant way but those
did not explain the economic motive. All the income classes respectively except the
highest group seem to be motivated shopping’s easiness. This is the case also with
single-parent families while for single households the convenience does not have any
value.
10
Table 2. ANOVA of factor scores of 2001 consumer motives. Main effects of the
adjusted parameters (β)
N
Age class
Under 25
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
66
173
221
248
210
166
Hedonic
motives
6.387*
.59
.36
.,02
.02
.02
(0)a
Gender
Female
Male
31.212*
.48
(0)a
(nfs)
(nfs)
(nfs)
919
165
Marital status
Unmarried
Married/cohabit
Divorsed/widow
(nfs)
(nfs)
3.127***
.06
.57
(0)a
(nfs)
188
702
194
(nfs)
(nfs)
(nfs)
14.039*
-.56
Type of household
One-person household
Couples without
children
Single-parent family
Two-parent family
Income (FIM/month)
<5000
5000–10 000
10 000–15 000
15000–22 500
>22 500
100R2
Recreational
motives
6.563*
.21
.54
.36
.13
-.06
(0)a
Economic
motives
8.084*
-.85
-.49
-.39
-.24
-.11
(0)a
303
429
Convenient
motives
(nfs)
.08
67
285
.29
(0)a
(nfs)
(nfs)
(nfs)
3.731**
.20
.33
.33
.22
(0)a
7.5
7.3
6.4
16.4
85
232
254
307
206
(0)a This parameter is se to zero because it is redundant
nfs = not significant (p>0.05); *p<0.001; **p<0.01; ***p<0.05
The 2003 year’s ANOVA model revealed that even fewer variables explain
consumers’ shopping motives. The explained shares for each factor or motive were low
in each dimension, the best it was for Economic motive at 6.8 per cent. The background
variables – age, gender, and household type – were all significant in the first, Hedonic
dimension. With certain exceptions hedonistic shoppers can be characterised in the
same way in 2003 than in 2001. The young women are typical hedonist – playful and
emotionally loaded. In this model also the household type was significant. One-person
households as well as the childless couples, and furthermore, single parents are clearly
more affected by the epicurean side of shopping than the consumers that have children.
11
The social aspects of shopping were explained by age and type of household.
Recreational motives, for example shopping with friends, are valuated by younger age
groups and especially by one person households. When it comes to household type it
can be noticed that also single parents combine recreational elements to their shopping
trips. This is perhaps down to the efficiency and convenience requirements of shopping.
Single parents do not likely have free time to spare so it seems natural that the
possibility to combine, for example, hobbies with shopping is one important motive
affecting their shopping trips.
Compared to the results of 2001 the economic shopping motive (factor 3) in 2003 is
explained only by age. The results are however similar, the younger consumers do not
pay much attention to the economic or rational elements related to shopping. For
example, ads and sales in different retail stores affect first and foremost the elderly
shoppers, since the most economic or convenient consumers according to this study are
those over 65 years of age.
The explained share of the last, Convenient motive, was 4.3 per cent. Middle-aged
consumers and single parents appreciate this dimensionality of shopping. It seems that
family structure is the explanation underlying for this. Middle-aged, around 35-years of
age, are those who have children and the childless households are negatively associated
by convenience.
12
Table 3. ANOVA of factor scores of 2003 consumer motives. Main effects of the
adjusted parameters
N
Age class
Under 25
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
31
171
208
258
256
227
Gender
Female
Male
1006
145
Type of
household
One-person
household
Couples without
children
Single-parent
family
Two-parent
family
100R2
Hedonic
motives
3.965 **
.56
.35
.07
.10
.10
(0)a
Recreational
motives
7.200 *
.43
.46
.19
.10
-.10
(0)a
Economic
motives
15.245*
-1.18
-.61
-.50
-.25
-.10
(0)a
Convenient
motives
3.429 **
-.20
.20
.39
.21
.16
(0)a
41.702 *
.59
(0)a
(nfs)
(nfs)
(nfs)
7.262 *
3.576***
(nfs)
2.776**
329
.43
.30
-.14
484
.23
.15
-.22
72
.25
.18
.07
266
(0)a
(0)a
(0)a
6.1
3.7
(0)a This parameter is se to zero because it is redundant
nfs = not significant (p>0.05); *p<0.001; **p<0.01; ***p<0.05
6.8
4.3
Conclusion
This paper addressed the shopping behaviour, motives and values, of consumers. The
central idea was to discuss what motivates people in shopping. The theme was approach
firstly, from theoretical perspective by considering the concepts of value and motive.
Secondly, the conceptual determinants of these elements were scrutinized in respect of
empirical study. A survey-based cross-sectional data from 2001 and 2003 was analysed.
The topic of this paper asks whether consumers shop for fun or rather for need. The
comparison of different motives and shopping styles revealed that Finnish consumers
are very functionally oriented, they value easiness and convenience and very tangible
elements of shopping, such as having the possibility to buy alimentary concurrently
when going shopping for other purposes than daily consumer goods. In addition, time
saving is something that describes the Finnish consumption styles; shopping preferences
13
reflect the utilitarian consumer behaviour, the work performance (Babin et al. 1994,
646).
The survey questions utilised in this paper covered items related to non-functional,
hedonistic and recreational shopping and on the other hand, functional or utilitarian
aspects of consumer behaviour. The factor dimensions produced with principal
component analysis formed two experiential and gratification type factors, labelled as
Hedonistic and Recreational motives. The other two factors were named as Economic
and Convenient motive. The analysis of variance revealed that there are, to a certain
extent, differences among different consumer groups. Consumers that are demanding
enjoyable experiences in their shopping trips are typically young and female especially
when it comes to shopping’s hedonic and escapist elements. Young consumers are
looking for interesting shopping experiences that are mixture of social and emotional
needs and wants and related to interaction and communication with other people.
Economic motives, such as price and comparing goods, were clearly most important
for the older, over 65-years old consumers. This is something that traditionally has been
connected to old consumers’ behaviour, at least in Finnish context. These consumers,
which most probably are also retired from work, have time for making shopping and
have also get used to being frugal and save money.
Shopping convenience was connected both to income level, however this was the
case only with the 2001 data, and to household type. The easiness of doing shopping
was considered essential to single parents. Buying alimentary with other shopping and
taking the children with is of course often the fact that single parents have to face. As a
result, this consumer group is motivated especially buy convenience.
Reference list
Babin, Barry, J. – Darden, William, R. – Griffin, Mitch (1994) Work and/or Fun:
Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, 644–656.
Bargh, John A. (2002) Losing Consciousness: Automatic Influences on Consumer
Judgement, Behavior, and Motivation. Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 29, No. 3, 280–285.
Batra, Rajeev – Ahtola, Olli T. (1991) Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources
of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, Vol. 2, No. 2, 159–170.
Campbell, Colin (1996) On the Concept of Motive in Sociology. Sociology, Vol. 30,
No. 1, 101–114.
Campbell, Colin (1997) Shopping, Pleasure and the Sex War. In: The Shopping
Experience. Ed. by Pasi Falk – Colin Campbell. Sage Publications:
London, 166–176.
Eastlick, Mary, Ann – Feinberg, Richard, A. (1999) Shopping Motives for Mail Catalog
Shopping. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45, No. 3, 281–290.
14
Fiore, Ann Marie – Jin, Hyun-Jeong – Kim, Jihyun (2005) For fun and profit: Hedonic
value from image interactivity and responses toward an online store.
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22, No. 8, 669–694.
Fischer, Eileen – Arnold, Stephen, J. (1990) More than a Labor of Love: Gender Roles
and Christmas Shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 3,
333–345.
Gehrt, Kenneth C – Shim, Soyeon (1998) A shopping orientation segmentation of
French consumers: Implications for catalog marketing. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, 34–36.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1984) Experience seeking: a subjectivist perspective of
consumption. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, 115–136.
Holbrook, Morris B. – Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1982) The Experiential Aspects of
Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 132–140.
Kim, Youn-Kyung (2001) Experiential retailing: an interdisciplinaryapproach to success
in domestic and international retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services Vol. 8, No. 5, 287–289.
Rohm, Andrew J. – Swaminathan, Vanitha (2004) A typology of online shoppers based
on shopping motivations. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, No. 7,
748–757.
Sherry, John, F. Jr. (1990) A Sociocultural Analysis of a Midwestern Flea Market.
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, No. 1, 13–30.
Stewart, David W. (1981) The Application and Misapplication of Factor Analysis in
Marketing Research. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVIII, No. 1,
51–62.
Tauber, Edward, M. (1972) Why Do People Shop? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No.
4, 46–59.
Wilska, Terhi-Anna (2002) Me –A Consumer? Consumption, Identities and Lifestyles
in Today’s Finland. Acta Sociologica, Vol. 45, No. 3, 195–210.
15
APPENDIX A: FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE SHOPPING MOTIVES
AND CONSUMER STYLES IN 2001
Hedonic
motives
Recreational
motives
Economic
motives
Convenien Communal
t motives
ities
Shopping for fun
.778
.611
Escape from
routines
.710
.534
Ideas for the future
.622
.457
.552
.413
.552
.375
.514
.363
-.513
.359
Shopping trip with
friends
I tune in the events
in shopping centre
Have lunch/coffee
Making purchases
as quickly as
possible
Combining
recreations/hobbies
with shopping trip
Combining visits
with shopping trip
Shopping plan
based on ads and
sales
Visiting min. 2
shops before
purchase decision
Purchasing the preplanned products
Shopping trip with
family
Alimentary at the
same time
.799
.660
.744
.608
-.416
.774
.621
.634
.536
.511
.434
.803
.675
.661
.491
Eigenvalue
2.998
1.529
1.425
1.185
Explained (%)
21.413
10.922
10.181
8.463
Σ 50.979
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = .792, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 2480.355
Sig = .000
16
APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE SHOPPING MOTIVES
AND CONSUMER STYLES IN 2003
Hedonic
motives
Escape from routines
.792
Recreational
motives
Economic
motives
Convenien Communal
t motives
ities
.637
Shopping for fun
.740
.600
Ideas for the future
.733
.569
I tune in the events in
shopping centre
.566
.400
Have lunch/coffee
.387
.377
.322
Combining visits
with shopping trip
.800
.659
Combining
recreations/hobbies
with shopping trip
.782
.622
Shopping trip with
friends
.442
.408
Shopping plan based
on ads and sales
.759
.610
Visiting min. 2 shops
before purchase
decision
.734
.650
Purchasing the preplanned products
.401
.400
.412
Making purchases as
quickly as possible
.732
.587
Alimentary at the
same time
.626
.439
Eigenvalue
2.541
1.659
1.413
1.302
Explained (%)
19.543
12.763
10.873
10.012
Σ 53.190
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = .773, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity = 2322.013
Sig = .000