This article examines the function of documents as a data source in qualitative research and discusses document analysis procedure in the context of actual research experiences. Targeted to research novices, the article takes a nutsandbolts approach to document analysis. It describes the nature and forms of documents, outlines the advantages and limitations of document analysis, and offers specific examples of the use of documents in the research process. The application of document analysis to a grounded theory study is illustrated.
Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 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 b 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 children’s 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) 77–95 examine current and potential patrons, thereby providing guidance for store design and marketing communications strategy Therefore, the major objectives of this research include: Qualitatively investigate the hedonic reasons people go shopping; Develop and purify a scale measuring hedonic shopping motivations; Validate the hedonic shopping motivations scale on a separate sample of shoppers; 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 shopping’s 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 can’t or don’t find [what you’re after] it’s 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 consumer’s 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 Tauber’s (1972) framework to McGuire’s (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 M.J Arnold, K.E Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 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 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 consumer’s perspective (Hudson & Ozanne, 1988) Respondents were recruited on a referral basis—98 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 respondent’s 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 Scale development process 80 M.J Arnold, K.E Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 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 McGuire’s (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 McGuire’s (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 one’s 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 McGuire’s (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 Tauber’s (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) M.J Arnold, K.E Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 describe pleasure and recreation—having fun and experiencing positive affect—as 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 McGuire’s (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 role’s responsibilities This motive is related to Tauber’s (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 Black’s (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 McGuire’s (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: items for adventure shopping, items for gratification shopping, 12 items for social shopping, items for role shopping, items for value shopping, and 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 agree–disagree 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 M.J Arnold, K.E Reynolds / Journal of Retailing 79 (2003) 77–95 given a paper copy of the self-administered questionnaire A total of 269 questionnaires were returned, and 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 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), or low communalities (.40, 7-item factor loadings