Ps23p

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423
Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and intentions:
exploring the role of experience and apparel involvement
P. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer
Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Keywords
Apparel, Gen Y, patronage, shopping
experience, shopping preferences.
Correspondence:
Pauline Sullivan, Department of Textiles and
Consumer Sciences, Florida State University,
314 Sandels Building, Tallahassee, FL
32306-1492, USA.
E-mail: pmsulliv@mailer.fsu.edu
doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00680.x
Abstract
Apparel retailers need more information to reach and increase patronage from Generation
Y with $150 billion purchasing power. Experiential retailing, involving one or more of
the five senses, helps create utilitarian and hedonic benefits for brick-and-mortar apparel
shoppers. However, little is known about how Generation Y responds to experiential
strategies. This study of Generation Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers, using a cohort
approach, seeks to determine which dimensions of a shopping experience, as well as
shopping involvement level and demographics, are associated with store preference and
patronage intent.
Introduction
Apparel retailers need to build a retail brand image consistent with
their target market in order to develop loyal customers. The young
adult market is increasingly important to know and understand
because of the amount of money they spend on apparel (Anony-mous,
2002/2003). One of the major issues in appealing to the
youth market today is segmenting these individuals in an appro-priate
manner. According to most reports, Generation Y (Gen Y)
ranges from 1977 to 1994. This timeframe identifies Gen Y as
consumers between 14 and 31 years old in 2008.
Retailers know consumption grows in the 25- to 34-year-old
segment as individuals begin to see increases in salaries and home
purchases, and acquire commodities to improve their standard of
living. GenY is expected to be as large and influential as the Baby
Boomers. Gen Y consumers’ expenditures on cars, apparel and
other items grew by 82 million to exceed those of previous gen-erations
(O’Donnell, 2006). As their buying power grows, these
emerging adults learn consumer behaviour patterns that influence
them in later life (Kim et al., 2007).
Excess retail space, retail price deflation, consolidation and
growth of online retailing contribute to an increasingly challeng-ing
and competitive brick-and-mortar retailer market. On the
demand side, consumers have both opportunity and means to
purchase what, where and when they please. Their consumption
is fuelled by increasing household income and charge card spend-ing.
Pine and Gilmore (2002) suggest companies construct expe-riences,
either real or virtual, that afford customers an opportunity
to try out and immerse themselves in thrilling and absorbing
shopping activities. Consumers will choose and pay for the best
experience, online or in brick-and-mortar stores. Understanding
what differentiates the shopping experience is important to brick-and-
mortar stores, particularly apparel retailers, when creating a
differentiated market position. Experiential retailing is an emerg-ing
strategy that attracts consumers through a combination of
hedonic and utilitarian values communicated through multi-sensory
retail marketing strategies. This paper examines which
retail experiential marketing strategies resonate with current Gen
Y apparel shoppers.
Experiential retailing makes connections with consumers who
visit stores to interact, not merely to buy merchandise (Kim et al.,
2007). This strategy applies a holistic approach to consumption
that (1) uses emotional, as well as rational, triggers to stimulate
buying; (2) focuses on what customers want out of the retail
experience; and (3) strives to engage customers with more than
raw product. The shopping experience and related lifestyle of
the consumer become salient in differentiating one retail bundle
from another. Involvement also is a significant predictor of overall
shopping centre satisfaction (Josiam et al., 2005). Thus, shopping
involvement is tied to retail patronage.
Although it may be difficult to draw general conclusions about
Gen Y, Schewe and Meredith (2004) suggest a cohort approach
based upon coming-of-age experiences for market segmentation.
This study uses a cohort analysis of GenY students to explore how
experiential attributes of the shopping experience and shopping
involvement influence both patronage and repatronage decisions.
The objectives of this study are to (1) determine how experiential
value influences Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’
retail patronage; (2) determine experiential value influences for
Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ retail repatronage;
International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 285–295 © The Authors
Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
285

Shopping preferences and intentions P. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer
and (3) determine if and how apparel shopping involvement level
is associated with Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar retail patronage and
repatronage.
Literature review
As experiential retail emerges as a strategy, lessons learned from
a review of related literature identifies concepts relevant to cur-rent
practice. Topics include the competitive environment for
brick-and-mortar retailers, experiential retailing, consumer value,
apparel involvement (Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Levy andWeitz,
2004) and retail patronage (East et al., 2005).
Brick-and-mortar stores in a competitive
retail market
There is a continuing shift away from brick-and-mortar stores to
electronic retailing (Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002). For example,
apparel and home products make up an increasing share of the
$988 million spent weekly in US online sales (Puente, 2002).
However, brick-and-mortar stores have some advantages over
electronic retailers (Chan and Pollard, 2003). Their advantages are
lower costs per order and visual displays for attracting customers,
and ease of handling returns. Greater hedonic benefit levels are
associated with brick-and-mortar stores than electronic shopping
outlets, particularly among women and families with a child under
the age of five (Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002). Experiential retail-ing
may offer brick-and-mortar apparel stores a means of differ-entiating
themselves from online competition.
Experiential retailing
Kim (2001) indicates that such experiential retail formats attract
consumers seeking enjoyable experiences within their shopping
activities. The shopping experience expands beyond the tangible
product or service to include multi-sensory systems of taste, smell,
vision, hearing and kinaesthetic influences (Hirschman and
Holbrook, 1982).
Experiential retail marketing strategies create value-added by
communicating social identity and images through a particular
bundled assortment of goods, services and experiences. Experi-ences
are created by sensory appeal through imagery, tactile
materials, motion, scents, sounds and other feelings. For example,
experiential retailing incorporates entertainment in merchandising
strategies as a means of attracting additional consumers. Experi-ential
retailing seeks to keep consumers in the retail area longer
and involve them in the shopping process as a means of increasing
sales. The Bass Pro Shop’s outdoor venues, such as running
streams and large freshwater fish tanks, engage customers in a
water experience to stimulate sales of fishing-related lifestyle
products. Retailers foster an association of a stimulating, enter-taining
shopping experience with the consumption of products.
Changes in consumer expectations and the retail environment have
contributed to the development of experiential retailing strategies.
Consumers share common shopping motivations across gender
and age categories. Shopping destinations choice is based upon
good merchandise quality, reasonable prices, a variety of product
assortments, product quality and shopping environment (Sullivan
and Savitt, 1997; Klein, 1998; Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004). In fact,
86% of men and 87% of women consider reasonable prices impor-tant
when deciding where to shop (Klein, 1998). Consumers desire
a low-pressure environment and respectful treatment.
Mathwick et al. (2001) suggest an overall experiential-value
category encompassing both utilitarian and hedonic utility. They
argue that experiential value is derived from the consumption
experience including interactions with direct usage of displayed
products during the shopping experience or a distanced apprecia-tion
(visual pleasure) of goods and services. This suggests that
consumers may receive value from shopping even if they do not
purchase a product. The hierarchical model of experiential value
developed by Mathwick et al. suggests (1) consumer return on
investment is an active extrinsic value made up from financial
investment; (2) service excellence is a reactive extrinsic response
of appreciation towards a firm’s marketing; (3) aesthetic response
is a reactive reflection of the visual elements and service perfor-mance
drama; and (4) playfulness is an exchange behaviour from
participating in activities that help the consumer escape from the
day-to-day world. This model describes how to move the con-sumer
from reactive response to consumption to an active partici-pant
in the process. It has the ability to help consumers develop
brand attitudes and loyalty discussed by Hoch and Deighton
(1989).
Mathwick et al.’s (2001) model has seven subscales which
measure efficiency, economic value, visual appeal, entertainment,
service excellence, escapism and intrinsic enjoyment. Also, devel-oped
scale items measure retail preference and future patronage
intent. The Mathwick et al. scale was validated on a sample from
Internet shoppers and catalogue shoppers and then used to pre-dict
Internet and catalogue preference and future patronage intent.
Internet shoppers perceived value for financial and aesthetics were
related to consumers’ preference for catalogue shopping.
Mathwick et al.’s arguments about what consumers want in
terms of experience, as well as the usefulness of the experiential
value scale in developing information about consumer preference
and patronage, are supported in a study by Mattson et al. (2003),
who examined consumer behaviour at two similar eating estab-lishments,
one a restaurant and the other a diner with historical
designation. Customers’ main motivations to visit the historic
diner were tourism and heritage preferences for history, culture
and sightseeing, in contrast to those preferring to eat at the restau-rant.
Good food is an important consideration for both groups of
diner customers.
Shopping value
The concept of value is complex and affected by many variables.
Consumers no longer just purchase goods or services; they invest
their dollar. Value is the consumer’s perception of the ratio of the
usefulness of a product or service to its costs (Schroeder, 1985).
Traditional measures of product usefulness evaluate utilitarian or
economic criteria such as price and assortment. In neoclassical
economics, utility is a measure of the pleasure, satisfaction or need
fulfilment people get from the act of consumption (Nicholson,
1987).
Shopping for functional reasons that are task oriented and
rational is satisfied by utilitarian value. Perception of utilitarian
shopping value is dependent upon satisfying the particular con-sumption
need that triggers the shopping trip (Babin et al., 1994).
286

P. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer Shopping preferences and intentions
The utilitarian consumer has a purpose; in order for these con-sumers
to feel satisfaction from their shopping trip, a goal must
be reached. Utilitarian motivations considered in selecting stores
include location, merchandise assortment, price, advertising/sales
promotion, store personnel and services. Utilitarian value also
may be obtained without a transaction. Simply collecting pertinent
information regarding a product can appease the utilitarian con-sumer.
Thus, utilitarian value helps explain why consumers need
‘an errand’ or ‘work’ or goals (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646).
In comparison with utilitarian value, hedonic shopping dimen-sions
are more personal or emotional. Consumers have experien-tial
shopping motivations, resulting from hedonic or recreational
desires (Dawson et al., 1990). Hedonic shopping motives reflect
the quality of the shopping experience rather than gathering
information or purchasing products (Muhammad and Ng, 2002).
Consumers receive multiple benefits from completion of con-sumption
experiences, which stimulate their thoughts and senses
and provide cognitive and sensory benefits (Kim, 2001).
Hedonic consumers, like utilitarian consumers, also may expe-rience
hedonic value or benefits through vicarious consumption,
without the purchase of any goods or services (Babin et al., 1994).
Bargain prices may evoke emotional response in a consumer
who perceives a difference between the selling price and the con-sumer’s
internal reference price. The response may be an increase
in the consumer’s sensory involvement and excitement. While
cognitive factors account for store selection and most planned
purchases, the retail environment and emotional states also con-tribute
to purchase behaviour (Sherman et al., 1997). Hedonic
benefits desired by consumers are linked with the uniqueness of
the shopping in-store experience (Carpenter et al., 2005). The
literature suggests both utilitarian and hedonic motivations influ-ence
purchase behaviour and shopping motivations.
Apparel involvement and purchase preferences
and intentions
Zaichkowsky (1985) defines involvement as ‘a person’s perceived
relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and inter-ests’
(p. 342). This definition applies to advertisements, products
or purchase decisions. Under high involvement conditions, con-sumers
pass through an extended problem-solving process. Under
low involvement, consumers generally do not go through the
extended problem-solving process. Zaichkowsky (1985) devel-oped
the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) to define the
concept of involvement for products. PII has been used extensively
by clothing and textile researchers and has been found to be
a reliable and valid measure of apparel involvement (Shim and
Kotsiopulos, 1991). Shim and Kotsiopulos (1991) use the PII scale
to measure apparel involvement and its role in segmenting the
big and tall men’s market. Thomas et al. (1991) also found apparel
involvement was multidimensional.
The PII scale has been used to examine benefits consumers
receive from apparel purchases. However, its applicability as a
predictor of consumers’ preferences for experiential value in shop-ping
activities has yet to be considered. This study builds upon
previous research using the PII scale to examine utilitarian and
hedonic dimensions of experiential value in shopping. The litera-ture
suggests apparel involvement influences purchase behaviour
and shopping motivations.
Retail patronage
The definition of retail patronage is germane to our exploration
of the role of experience and apparel involvement on shopping
preferences and intentions. Chetthamrongchai and Davies (2000)
define retail patronage as a dichotomous variable covering a
2-week period when respondents either visited their main store or
spent some money in it or did shop during that period. Baker et al.
(2002) define patronage intention as a willingness to recommend,
a willingness to buy and shopping methods.
Repeat patronage or repatronage refers to a predictor of loyalty
outcomes (East et al. 2005). Mathwick et al. (2001) used two
dimensions to measure retail (Internet) preference: (1) the retail
outlet as best place shop; and (2) the retail outlet as the first place
for shopping. In their study, the construct future patronage intent
comprised two dimensions: (1) intent to shop from the retail outlet
in the future; and (2) the retail outlet as the first places to look for
certain types of merchandise. Experiential value variables were
predictive of retail preference future patronage intent for Internet
and catalogue shoppers. This suggests experiential value variables
may be stronger indicators of patronage behaviour because attitu-dinal
and behavioural measures of loyalty had relatively low cor-relations
with repeat patronage (East et al., 2005).
Gen Y: an important market for
apparel retailers
In addition to their substantive spending and high discretionary
income, Gen Y influences 81% of family apparel purchases, is
more consumption-oriented than previous generations, and is
accustomed to an abundance of goods and services (O’Donnell,
2006). In 2002, their projected annual income was $US211 billion,
spending approximately $US172 billion and saving $US39 billion
per year (Anonymous, 2002/2003).AGenYconsumer between 20
and 21 years has per capita expenditures of $US7389. Their esti-mated
disposable income is between $US115 billion and $US187
billion, and indirect purchasing power totals around $US500
billion (Niedt, 2004).
Gen Y consumers not only shop for themselves, but also affect
their parents’ purchases in such categories as home furnishings.
About one-third of GenY females are recreational quality seekers
with the traits of recreational/hedonistic, perfectionism and brand
consciousness (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003). They enjoy shop-ping,
want quality goods, and are brand loyal, willing to pay more
for brand names.
This cohort, Gen Y, is technologically advanced, entertainment
driven and shop online. They use the Internet for 15% of their
spending, with males spending 1.7 times as much as females
online. GenY cohort spends an increased amount on items such as
personal computers, video games, compact disc players and enter-tainment
software (Wilcox, 1996). In general, this group embraces
technology, is difficult to reach through advertising, but driven
to shop.
In fact, this cohort is described as the most consumption-oriented
of all generations (Wolburg and Pokrywczyniski, 2001).
Gen Y also is more racially and ethnically diverse than other
generations (Brooks, 2005). They consider themselves functional
purchasers, but are ‘accustomed to abundance’, and seek shopping
287

experiences linked to entertainment and celebrities (Wolburg and
Pokrywczyniski, 2001). Cheap or elite merchandise alike appeal
to this market segment (O’Donnell, 2006).
This consumer group is idealistic, socially conscious, individu-alistic
and anti-corporate. They speak their minds and dress as they
please. GenY is considered the hardest to reach through advertis-ing.
GenY members celebrate individuality and diversity, but still
seek group association (Wolburg and Pokrywczyniski, 2001).
The cohort approach recognizes people born during the same
time period (approximately 4–5 years) go through life together
and share defining moments that influence their values, attitudes
and purchase behaviour over their lifetime and therefore appropri-ate
to examine market segment shopping behaviour (Schewe and
Meredith, 2004). Cohort analysis provides a tool for describing
consumer segments and has been used in previous studies (Rentz
et al., 1983) and to examine product use (Bonnici and Freden-berger,
1992). Cohort analysis of Gen Y can better help retailers
reach this market.
Research hypothesis
To summarize, experiential attributes of the shopping experience
and shopping involvement are explored in terms of their influence
on Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel retail patronage and repatron-age.
The following hypotheses are proposed:
1. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-riential
value on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who
prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet.
2. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-riential
value on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who
intend and do not intend to visit retail outlet in the future.
3. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of utili-tarian
preferences in a shopping experience on GenY’s brick-and-mortar
apparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retail
outlet.
4. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of utili-tarian
apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visit a
retail outlet in the future.
5. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of hedonic
apparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet.
6. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of
hedonic preferences in a shopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-
mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visit
retail outlet in the future
7. There will not be a difference regarding apparel involvement on
GenY’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who prefer and do not
prefer a retail outlet.
8. There will not be a difference regarding apparel involvement on
GenY’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not
intend to visit a retail outlet in the future.
Methods
Sample and data collection
This study sample was drawn from a population of Gen Y con-sumers.
The cohort sampling of college students when examining
a market segment was used previously (Cui et al., 2003) in a study
of retail apparel brand shoppers (Carpenter et al., 2005). Thus,
this study used cohort analysis on a population of college
students because cross-sectional data may have been affected by
age (biological, psychological and social role changes), period
(changes in the environment, measurement or practice) and cohort
effects (genetic shifts, or interaction of historical situation with
age of the group) (Palmore, 1978).
A purposive sampling technique was used to improve the
response rate. Subjects were selected for the study using an inter-cept
technique or convenience sample. The intercept technique
allowed collection of information from respondents assumed to
represent the population being studied (Aaker et al., 1998). Data
collectors were instructed to randomly intercept consumers in
several locations on one university campus. Respondents were
asked to participate in the study and could decline, so participation
was voluntary. Respondents then were informed of the study
content and assured anonymity in responding. Completion of the
self-administered survey was voluntary and thus respondents con-sented
to participate in the study when they agreed to complete
the survey.
The survey was administered to college students at two public
southern US universities with a population whose diverse range
of socio-economic characteristics was consistent with current
US demographics. Fifty-four completed surveys were collected
through an intercept technique and the rest were obtained from a
convenience sampling of college students. Intercept interviewers
were trained in how to execute the process. Surveys were self-administered
and responses anonymous. Trained researchers col-lected
convenience sample data from college students in a variety
of majors. All respondents were briefed about the survey before
receiving a copy of the questionnaire.
Instrument development
The self-administered questionnaire was developed based upon
the review of literature. The survey includes three sections. The
first section asked respondents about experiential value they
receive from shopping (Mathwick et al., 2001). The survey
adapted a 5-point Likert scale instrument developed by Mathwick
et al. (2001) for this examination of apparel shoppers. The second
section of the survey used Zaichkowsky’s (1985) PII to define the
concept of involvement for products. The final section collected
demographic information about the respondents.
Alpha coefficients were calculated to test the internal consis-tency
of the Mathwick et al. (2001) scale’s statement items. An
alpha coefficient of 0.831 was obtained for the all scale statement
items which indicated a reliability that supported the validity of
scale items (Peter, 1981; Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006).
Results in our study retained all Mathwick et al. (2001) scale
items, but factor analysis did not yield identical factors when
applied to a replication sample of brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers.
Exploratory factors analysis with a varimax rotation allowed
the maximum variance between the set of variables to be examined
and is an acceptable analysis method for determining if the same
solution is interpretable, logical and meaningful in a replication
sample (Green et al., 2006). Analysis yielded a five-factor solution
for the experiential value scale (see Table 1), rather than the seven-factor
solution found by Mathwick et al. (2001). The analysis
288

yielded five experiential factors salient for Gen Y retail apparel
shoppers. Identified factors were (1) escapism and intrinsic enjoy-ment;
(2) visual appeal and excellence; (3) entertainment; (4)
efficiency; and (5) economic value. These factors accounted for
72.562% of the variance in perceptions of experiential retail value.
Table 2 compares factor solutions for Internet and catalogue
shoppers with ‘brick’ and ‘mortar’ apparel store shoppers in this
study. The two factors escapism and intrinsic enjoyment, con-firmed
by Mathwick et al. (2001), were combined into a single
factor in our study of brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers. Also, the
two factors visual appeal and excellence were grouped into a
single factor. In addition, four factors identified by Mathwick et al.
(2001) were combined into two hedonic items that could enhance
consumers’ emotional response to the shopping experience.
Part two of the survey collected information about shopping
involvement. An existing 5-point Likert scale measure of shopping
involvement was used as modified by Kind (1995). Subjects were
asked to indicate their perceptions of clothing on a 7-point seman-tic
differential scale (e.g. ‘important . . . unimportant’). Four of the
items were reversed. Lastly, demographic information on variables
related to shopping such as gender, age, annual household income,
employment, race or ethnicity and educational attainment level
was collected.
Results
Description of sample
The purposive sample in this study was drawn from a Gen Y
population; 140 completed surveys were collected. Ten completed
surveys were not included in data analysis because respondents
did not meet the age specifications for GenY. This resulted in 130
usable surveys for analysis. The sample consisted of more female
respondents, 68.5%, than male respondents, 31.5%. In terms of
ethnicity and race, 79.2% of the sample respondents classified
themselves as white, and the remaining 22.8% described them-selves
as African American (8.5%), American Indian (1.5%),
Asian (3.1%) and other (6.9%). The US Census groups whites and
Hispanics together. As shown in Table 3, our sample had more
female than male respondents when compared with the US GenY
population, as well as university averages. In comparison with US
Gen Y averages, our sample had a few more whites than average
Table 1 Scale item confirmatory factor analysis
Factor Item
Factor
loading H2 Eigenvalue Cum. %
Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment 5.894 31.021
Shopping at my favourite store ‘gets me away from it all’ 0.739 0.660
I get so involved at my favourite store when I shop I forget
everything
0.838 0.667
Shopping at my favourite store makes me feel like I am in
another world
0.765 0.772
I enjoy shopping at my favourite store for its own sake, not
just for the items I may have purchased
0.594 0.601
I shop at my favourite store for the pure enjoyment of it. 0.594 0.620
Visual appeal and excellence 2.977 15.670
The way my favourite store displays its products is
attractive
0.797 0.703
My favourite store is aesthetically pleasing 0.892 0.832
I like the way my favourite store looks 0.880 0.793
When I think of my favourite store, I think of excellence 0.582 0.729
I think of my favourite store as an expert in the
merchandise it offers
0.557 0.684
Entertainment 2.138 11.252
I think my favourite store is very entertaining 0.830 0.789
The enthusiasm of my favourite store picks me up 0.629 0.667
My favourite store doesn’t just sell products, it entertains
me
0.818 0.794
Efficiency 1.359 7.155
Shopping at my favourite store is a very efficient way to
manage my time
0.820 0.795
Shopping at my favourite store makes my life easier 0.828 0.747
Shopping at my favourite store fits with my schedule 0.839 0.748
Economic value 0.846 4.455
My favourite store’s products are a good economic value 0.762 0.767
Overall, I am pleased with my favourite store’s prices 0.85 0.806
The prices of the products I buy from my favourite store are
too high, given the quality of the merchandise
-0.751 0.602
289

Table 2 Comparison of Internet and catalogue shoppers vs. brick-and-mortar apparel store shoppers
Internet and catalogue
factors Item
Brick-and-mortar apparel store
factors Item
1. Visual appeal The way my favourite store displays its products is
attractive.
1. Visual appeal and excellence The way my favourite store displays its products is
attractive.
My favourite store is aesthetically pleasing. My favourite store is aesthetically pleasing.
I like the way my favourite store looks. I like the way my favourite store looks.
When I think of my favourite store, I think of excellence.
merchandise it offers.
2. Entertainment value I think my favourite store is very entertaining. 2. Entertainment I think my favourite store is very entertaining.
The enthusiasm of my favourite store picks me up. The enthusiasm of my favourite store picks me up.
My favourite store doesn’t just sell products, it
My favourite store doesn’t just sell products, it
entertains me
entertains me.
3. Escapism Shopping at my favourite store ‘gets me away from it
all’.
3. Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment Shopping at my favourite store ‘gets me away from it
all’.
Shopping at my favourite store makes me feel like I am
in another world.
Shopping at my favourite store makes me feel like I am
in another world.
I get so involved at my favourite store when I shop I
forget everything.
I enjoy shopping at my favourite store for its own sake,
not just for the items I may have purchased.
I shop at my favourite store for the pure enjoyment of
it.
5. Efficiency Shopping at my favourite store is a very efficient way to
manage my time.
4. Efficiency Shopping at my favourite store is a very efficient way to
manage my time.
Shopping at my favourite store makes my life easier. Shopping at my favourite store makes my life easier.
Shopping at my favourite store fits with my schedule. Shopping at my favourite store fits with my schedule.
6. Economic value My favourite store’s products are a good economic
value.
5. Economic value My favourite store’s products are a good economic
value.
Overall, I am pleased with my favourite store’s prices. Overall, I am pleased with my favourite store’s prices.
The prices of the products I buy from my favourite store
are too high, given the quality of the merchandise.
The prices of the products I buy from my favourite store
are too high, given the quality of the merchandise.
7. Excellence When I think of my favourite store, I think of excellence.
merchandise it offers.
4. Intrinsic enjoyment I enjoy shopping at my favourite store for its own sake,
not just for the items I may have purchased.
I shop my favourite store for the pure enjoyment of it.
290

(4.1% more), about 10% more African Americans, but was com-parable
for other ethnic groups.
Respondents reported a perceived average annual household
income level of approximately $62 800 per year. This figure is
higher than the US Census Bureau (2003) average and possibly
explained by the fact that we did not ask students to verify house-hold
income. The distribution of annual perceived household
income was as follows: under $19 999, 16.5%; between $20 000
and $39 000, 14.6%; between $40 000 and $69 000, 45.6%; and
over $80 000, 23.7%.
Hypothesis testing
Between-group differences regarding retail preference
and future patronage
Hypotheses 1 through 8 were tested using anova. To create a
dichotomous classification system, scale items used by Mathwick
et al. (2001) measured retail preference and future patronage
intentions. For each classification, the two dimension measures
were transformed into a 0/1 variable by first summing and then
dividing scale items. Grouping indicated 31.5% of respondents
had low retail reference and 68.5% had high retail preference, and
31.5% of respondents had low future patronage intentions and
68.5% had high future patronage while approximately two-thirds
of Gen Y apparel shoppers exhibited retail loyalty. Shopping
involvement was recorded as a score ranging from 1 to 49. Gender
and race (white/non-white) were dichotomous variables.
anova was used to determine whether differences existed
between Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low and
high retail preference and results shown in Table 4.
Analysis indicates two significant findings regarding efficiency
(P 0.001) and race (P 0.1). Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel
shoppers with low retail preference placed a greater importance on
efficiency and were more likely to be non-white than those with
high future patronage intentions.
anova was used to determine whether there were differences
between Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with future
patronage intentions. Results are shown in Table 5.
Analysis of Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with
future patronage intentions indicates two significant findings
regarding efficiency (P 0.001) and race (P 0.1). GenY brick-and-
mortar apparel shoppers with low retail preference placed a
greater importance on efficiency and were more likely to be non-white
than those with high future patronage intentions. Hypothesis
1, there will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-riential
value on GenY’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ retail
preference, is accepted because only one experiential value factor
was significant between groups. Hypothesis 2, there will not be a
difference regarding the influence of experiential value on GenY’s
brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend
to visit retail outlet in the future, was accepted for the same reason.
Identification of a significant difference in the importance of
efficiency to Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ prefer-ences
for a retail outlet and future patronage intentions allows
Hypothese 3 and 4 to be rejected. Thus, there was a difference
regarding the influence of utilitarian preferences in a shopping
experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who
prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet and their future patronage
intentions.
No significant differences were found between Gen Y’s brick-and-
mortar apparel shoppers preferences for a retail outlet and
their future patronage intentions. Hypothesis 5, there will not be a
difference regarding the influence of hedonic preferences in a
shopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers’
who prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet, and Hypothesis
6, there will not be a difference regarding the influence of hedonic
apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visit retail outlet
in the future, was accepted. In addition, no significant differences
regarding shopping involvement level were Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar
apparel shoppers’ preferences for a retail outlet and their
future patronage intentions. Both Hypothesis 7, there will not be a
difference regarding apparel involvement on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar
apparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retail
outlet, and Hypothesis 8, there will not be a difference regarding
apparel involvement on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers
who intend and do not intend to visit retail outlet in the future,
were accepted.
Preference and future retail patronage behaviour
The second stage of data analysis used discriminant analysis with
canonical functions to determine whether between GenY’s brick-and-
mortar apparel shoppers with low and high levels of retail
preference and future patronage intentions can be associated with
experiential value, shopping involvement, gender and race or
ethnicity. To classify, low and high dimension measures for each
measure, retail preference and future patronage intention, vari-ables
were transformed into a 0/1 variable by first summing
and then dividing scale items. The independent variables were
escapism and intrinsic enjoyment, visual appeal and excellence,
Table 3 Comparison of sample gender and
ethnicity with norms
Variable
Sample
(%)
US average
(%)
University 1
(%)
University 2
(%)
Male 68.8 49.1 43.3 43.3
Female 31.5 50.9 56.7 56.6
White (including Hispanic) 79.2 75.1 80.2 77.5
Black 22.8 12.3 11.6 10.7
Asian 3.1 3.7 2.9 4.1
Native American 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.8
Non-resident alien 3.4 5.1
Not reported 6.9 1.5
291

Table 4 Comparison of Gen Y apparel shoppers’ retail preference
Factors
Mean
preference Sum of squares d.f.
Mean
square F Significance
Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment Between groups 0.141 1 0.141 0.140 0.709
Low 0.0484 Within groups 128.859 128 1.007
High -0.0223 Total 129.000 129
Visual appeal and excellence Between groups 0.907 1 0.907 0.906 0.343
Low -0.1230 Within groups 128.093 128 1.001
High 0.0567 Total 129.000 129
Entertainment Between groups 0.299 1 0.299 0.298 0.586
High -0.0326 Total 129.000 129
Efficiency Between groups 10.611 1 10.611 11.472 0.001***
High -0.1939 Total 129.000 129
Economic value Between groups 0.940 1 0.940 0.939 0.334
High 0.0577 Total 129.000 129
Gender Between groups 0.000 1 0.000 0.001 0.978
Low 0 Within groups 28.069 128 0.219
High 0 Total 28.069 129
White/non-white Between groups 0.373 1 0.373 3.097 0.081*
High 0.1059 Total 14.592 119
Shop involvement score Between groups 0.226 1 0.226 1.716 0.194
High 35.26 Total 11.822 89
*P 0.1, **P 0.05, ***P 0.01.
Table 5 Comparison: Gen Y apparel shoppers future patronage intentions
Factors
Future
patronage Sum of squares d.f.
Mean
square F Significance
Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment Between groups 0.141 1 0.141 0.140 0.709
High -0.001 Total 129.000 129
Visual appeal and excellence Between groups 0.907 1 0.907 0.906 0.343
High 0.0481 Total 129.000 129
Entertainment Between groups 0.299 1 0.299 0.298 0.586
High -0.010 Total 129.000 129
Efficiency Between groups 10.611 1 10.611 11.472 0.001***
High -0.009 Total 129.000 129
Economic value Between groups 0.940 1 0.940 0.939 0.334
High -0.003 Total 129.000 129
Gender dummy var. Between groups 0.000 1 0.000 0.001 0.978
High 0.687 Total 28.069 129
White/non-white Between groups 0.373 1 0.373 3.097 0.081*
High 0.134 Total 14.592 119
Shopping involvement score Between groups 0.226 1 0.226 1.716 0.194
High 36.14 Total 11.822 89
*P 0.1, **P 0.05, ***P 0.01.
292

Table 6 Importance of experiential value, shopping involvement and selected demographics in retail preference
Variables Wilks’ Lambda Significance Chi-square Eigenvalue d.f.
Function 1 0.862 0.031** 16.884 0.16 8 0.371
Efficiency 0.735 More value on efficiency
White/non-white 0.405 More diverse racially
Economic value -0.225 Less importance on
Shopping involvement score 0.206 Higher involvement in
Entertainment 0.179 Interested in entertainment
Visual appeal and excellence -105 Less interested in visual
Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment -0.012 Less interested in escapism
Gender 0.008 Slightly more likely to be a
entertainment, efficiency, economic value, gender, white/non-white
and shopping involvement. Categorical dependant variables
were (1) retail preference; and (2) future patronage intention.
Discriminant analysis for the categorical dependant variable
retail preference accounted for 100% of the variance and the
function had an overall moderate relationship with retail prefer-ence
with results shown in Table 6.
Efficiency, non-white, shopping involvement, entertainment
and gender were positively related to low retail preference.
Economic value, visual appeal and excellence, and escapism and
intrinsic enjoyment were related to high retail preference.
Discriminant analysis for the categorical dependant variable
future retail patronage accounted for 100% of the variance and the
function had an overall moderate relationship with retail prefer-ence.
Results are shown in Table 7.
Function 1
correlation
Profile of low (vs. high
retail preference)
economic value
shopping
appeal and excellence
and intrinsic enjoyment
male
Non-white, escapism and intrinsic enjoyment, economic value,
gender and entertainment were positively associated with low
future patronage intentions. Shopping involvement, visual appeal
and excellence, and efficiency related to high future patronage
intentions.
Conclusion and discussion
Overall, results indicate GenY brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers
with low and high levels of retail preference and future patronage
intentions do not differ significantly regarding mean experiential
value dimensions. However, Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel
shoppers with low retail preference and future patronage intention
place greater value on efficiency and are more likely to be non-white
than those with high levels of retail preference and future
*P 0.1, **P 0.05, ***P 0.01.
Table 7 Importance of experiential value, shopping involvement and selected demographics in future retail patronage
Variables
Wilks’
Lambda Significance Chi-square Eigenvalue d.f.
Function 1
correlation
Profile of low (vs. high
future retail patronage)
Function 1 0.817 0.003* 23.05 0.224 8 0.428
Shopping involvement score -0.589 Less shopping involvement
White/non-white 0.489 More diverse racially
Visual appeal and excellence -0.432 Less importance on visual
appeal and excellence
Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment 0.353 Value escapism and intrinsic
enjoyment when
shopping
Economic value 0.263 Interested in economic
value
Gender 0.132 Slightly more likely to be a
male
Entertainment 0.065 Slightly interested in
entertainment
Efficiency -0.045 Slightly less interested in
efficienc
*P 0.1, **P 0.05, ***P 0.01.
293

patronage intentions. These results do not support the arguments
from previous studies (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Zaich-kowsky,
1985; Sullivan and Savitt, 1997; Mathwick et al., 2001;
Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Josiam et al., 2005) in terms of dif-ferentiating
retail market segments of Gen Y brick-and-mortar
apparel shoppers. Differences between GenY responses to what is
important in a brick-and-mortar apparel shopping experience and
other retail market segments support the need for a cohort product
approach (Rentz et al., 1983; Bonnici and Fredenberger, 1992) to
Gen Y segmentation.
It is important to note that Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel
shoppers with low and high levels of retail preference and future
patronage intentions can be predicted by experiential value, shop-ping
involvement, gender and race or ethnicity. Those with low
levels of retail preference, rather than high, tended to be more
racially diverse, placed less importance on economic value, more
involved in shopping for apparel, were more interested in enter-tainment,
less interested in visual appeal and excellence or escap-ism
and intrinsic enjoyment, and more likely to be a male. Gen Y
brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low future patronage
intentions are less likely to be involved with shopping, and find
less value in visual appeal and excellence and efficiency. Low
future retail patronage is associated with diversity, escapism and
intrinsic enjoyment, economic value, being a male and minimal
interest in entertainment. Predictor variables are moderately asso-ciated
with retail preference and future patronage intentions and
explain 100% of the variance. This suggests experiential value,
shopping involvement, gender and race or ethnicity can be used to
predict future patronage behaviour. Thus, results indicate support
for previous research (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Zaich-kowsky,
1985; Sullivan and Savitt, 1997; Mathwick et al., 2001;
Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Josiam et al., 2005) as predictors for
retail preference and future patronage intentions.
Limitations and recommendations
A larger sample would yield greater ethnic diversity among
respondents. Also, relationships between gender and race or
ethnicity regarding experiential value and retail preferences and
future patronage intent should be examined in greater depth.
Marketers view Gen Y as the most difficult generation to reach
through advertising mediums.Yet, results from this study indicate
for GenY some brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers intend to shop
from their favourite store, indicating a level of store loyalty.
Apparel retailers should develop strategies that encourage and
reward loyal patronage at their store because most of this genera-tion
is bombarded with promotional advertising, which creates
a disinterest in the majority of marketing strategies (Wolburg
and Pokrywczyniski, 2001). Creation of a cohesive retail apparel
brand image through a variety of shopping experiences, such as
entertainment or visual display, will enhance Gen Y consumers’
preferences for their stores. Shopping experiences for Gen Y
consumers store preference also could include use of the physical
store environment, electronic channels and a focused communica-tions
programme. Retail brand image must be carefully con-structed
and monitored as these generations’ age and consumption
patterns change.
Retailers can benefit by the findings of this study by ensuring
that their product displays, aesthetics and store appearance are
maintained at a high level of attractiveness and appeal to optimize
Gen Y’s patronage; and therefore, increase levels of consumer
purchasing and stores’ profit. Also, apparel retailers should recog-nize
GenYmembers currently shopping in their stores are likely to
revisit and develop strategies that create value over a lifetime.
Longitudinal study of GenY is required to understand the shift in
what shoppers want by cohort as this group of consumers have a
lifetime of consumption ahead of them. This information will help
anticipate their needs as they transition life stages.
References
Aaker, D.A., Kumar, V. Day, G.S. (1998) Marketing Research. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York.
Anonymous (2002/2003) Gen Y and the future of mall retailing. Ameri-can
Demographics, 24, J1–J4.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. Griffin, M. (1994) Work and/or fun: mea-suring
hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer
Research, Inc, 20, 644–656.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. Voss, G.B. (2002) The influ-ence
of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise
value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66, 120–141.
Bakewell, C. Mitchell, V.W. (2003) Generation Y female consumer
decision-making styles. International Journal of Retail Distribution
Management, 31, 95–96.
Bonnici, J.L. Fredenberger, W.B. (1992) Cohort analysis: analyzing
data on product use. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8, 1–9.
Brooks, S. (2005) What’s so special about echo boomers? Restaurant
Business, 104, 34–37.
Carpenter, J.M., Moore, M. Fairhurst, A.E. (2005) Consumer shop-ping
for brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing, 99, 43–53.
Chan, P.S. Pollard, D. (2003) Succeeding in the dotcom economy:
challenges for brick mortar companies. International Journal of
Management, 20, 11–17.
Chetthamrongchai, P. Davies, G. (2000) Segmenting the market for
food shoppers using attitudes to shopping and to time. British Food
Journal, 102, 81.
Cui, Y., Trent, E., Sullivan, P. Matiru, G. (2003) Cause-related mar-keting:
how Generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail
Distribution Management, 31, 310–320.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. Ridgway, N.M. (1990) Shopping motives,
emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66, 408–
427.
Dholakia, R.R. Uusitalo, O. (2002) Switching to electronic stores:
consumer characteristics and the perception of shopping benefits.
International Journal of Retail Distribution Management, 30, 459–
470.
East, R., Gendall P., Hammond, K. Lomax, W. (2005) Consumer
loyalty: singular, additive or interactive? Australasian Marketing
Journal, 13, 10–27.
Green, G.T., Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J. DiStefano, C. (2006) Construc-tion
and validation of the national survey on recreation and the envi-ronment’s
lifestyles scale, Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 513–535.
Heitmeyer, J. Kind, K. (2004) Retailing in my back yard: consumer
perceptions of retail establishments located within new urbanist com-munities,
Journal of Shopping Center Research, 11, 33–53.
Hirschman, E. Holbrook, M. (1982) Hedonic consumption: emerging
concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46,
92–101.
Hoch, S.J. Deighton, J. (1989) Managing what consumers learn from
experience. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–20.
Josiam, B.M., Kinley, T. Kim, Y.-K. (2005) Involvement and the
tourist shopper: using the involvement construct to segment the
294

American tourist shopper at the mall. Journal of Vacation Marketing,
11, 135–155.
Kim, Y.-K. (2001) Experiential retailing: an interdisciplinary approach
to success in domestic and international retailing. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 8, 287–289.
Kim, Y.-Y., Sullivan, P. Forney, J.C. (2007) Experiential Retailing.
Fairchild Publications, Inc, New York.
Kind, K. (1995) Specialty-Size College Age Females: Satisfaction with
Apparel Fit, Body Cathexis and Retail Attributes. University of
Georgia, Athens Georgia.
Klein, M. (1998) He shops, she shops. American Demographics, 20, 34.
Levy, M.L. Weitz, B.A. (2004) Retailing Management, 5th edn.
Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin, MA.
Mathwick, C., Malhorta, N. Ridgon, E. (2001) Experiential value:
conceptualization, measurement, and application in the catalog and
internet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77, 39–56.
Mattson, M., Josiam, B.M. Sullivan, P. (2003) The histourant: heri-tage
tourism at Mickey’s dining car. Tourism Management, 25, 453–
461.
Michaelidou, N. Dibb, S. (2006) Product involvement: an application
in clothing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 442–453.
Muhammad, F.I. Ng, C.W. (2002) The importance of entertainment in
the shopping center experience: evidence from Singapore. Journal of
Real Estate Portfolio Management, 8, 239–255.
Niedt, B. (2004) Calling Gen next; marketers target a population whose
spending power will rival their boomer parents. The Post-Standard
(Syracuse, NY): BUSINESS, C1.
Nicholson, W. (1987) Intermediate Microeconomics. The Dryden Press,
New York.
O’Donnell, J. (2006) Gen Y sits on top of consumer food chain; they’re
savvy shoppers with money and influence. USA Today, 11 October
2006, 3B.
Palmore, E. (1978) When can age, period, and cohort be separated?
Social Forces, 57, 282–295.
Peter, J.P. (1981) Construct validity: a review of basic issues and
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133–146.
Pine II, B.J. Gilmore, J.H. (2002) Customer experience places: the
new offering frontier. Strategy Leadership, 30, 4–12.
Puente, M. (2002) Shoppers, click around for this. USA Today, 4
December 2002 1E.
Rentz, J.O., Reynolds, F.E. Stout, R.G. (1983) Analyzing changing
consumption patterns with cohort analysis. Journal of Marketing
Research, 20, 12–20.
Schewe, C.D. Meredith, G. (2004) Segmenting global markets by
generational cohorts: determining motivations by age. Journal of Con-sumer
Behaviour, 4, 51–53.
Schroeder, R.G. (1985) Operations Management. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. Smith, R.B. (1997) Store environment and
consumer purchase behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions.
Psychology and Marketing, 14, 361–378.
Shim, S. Kotsiopulos, A. (1991) Big and tall men as apparel shop-pers:
consumer characteristics and shopping behaviour. Clothing and
Textile Research Journal, 9, 16–24.
Sullivan, P. Savitt, R. (1997) Store patronage and lifestyle factors:
implications for rural grocery retailers. International Journal of Retail
and Distribution Management, 25, 351–364.
Thomas, J., Cassill, N. Forsythe, S. (1991) Underlying dimensions of
apparel involvement in consumers’ purchase decisions. Clothing and
Textile Research Journal, 9, 45–48.
US Census Bureau (2003) American Fact Finder. [WWW document].
URL http://www.census.gov (accessed on 1 April 2008).
Wilcox, M.D. (1996) The echo boom starts to make waves. Kiplinger’s
Personal Finance Magazine, 50, 15.
Wolburg, J.M. Pokrywczyniski, J. (2001) A psychographic analysis of
Generation Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41,
33–52. [WWW document]. URL http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com/
itw/infomark/858/252/39547199w6/purl=rcl_EAIM0 (accessed on 1
April 2008).
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journal
of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
295

Ps23p

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Ps23p

Similar to Ps23p (20)

More from Can Erdem

More from Can Erdem (20)

Ps23p