The Influence of Mall Environment on
Female Fashion Shoppers’ Value and Behaviour
Richard Michon
Ted Rogers School of Retail Management
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3
Tel: 416-979-5000 Ext. 7454
Fax: 416-979-5324
Email: [email protected]
Hong Yu
Ted Rogers School of Retail Management
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3
Tel: 416-979-5000 Ext 4550
Fax: 416-979-5227
Email: [email protected]
Donna Smith
Ted Rogers School of Retail Management
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3
Tel: 416-979-5000 Ext. 4827
Fax: 416-979- 5324
Email: [email protected]
Jean-Charles Chebat
HEC-Montreal
3000, chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine
Montréal (Québec), Canada H3T 2A7
Tel: 514-340-6846
Fax: 514-340-6432
Email: [email protected]
Correspondence
Richard Michon
Ted Rogers School of Retail Management
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, On, M5B 2K3
Tel: 416-979-5000 Ext. 7454
Fax: 416-979-5324
Email: [email protected]
The Influence of Mall Environment on
Female Fashion Shoppers’ Value and Behaviour
Structured Abstract
Purpose: This paper explores how the shopping mall environment influences the shopping experience
and approach behaviour of female fashion shoppers.
Methodology/Approach: Female shoppers were first clustered along the fashion orientation of the
stores they patronise. Shoppers’ response and behaviour was modelled in an invariant multigroup
latent structural path analysis. Paths were initially constrained and then released as required. A total
of 286 usable questionnaires were administered using a mall intercept survey method in a regional
shopping centre. Participants were probed on their shopping activities, shopping mall perception,
product perception, shopping value and approach behaviour toward the mall.
Findings: A favourable perception of the mall atmosphere elicits a positive perception of the merchandise offering and triggers hedonic shopping experiences. The effect of the mall environment,
mediated by product perception, significantly impacts the shopping objectives of middle-of-the-road
female fashion shoppers. Mall atmospherics has no or little effect on the utilitarian value of low or
high fashion oriented shoppers. Hedonic response of fashion forward shoppers is not stronger than
that of other fashion shoppers.
Research Limitations/Implications: This study was carried out in one regional mall and should be
replicated to other locations and markets. A larger sample would allow the inclusion of additional
constructs.
Practical Implications: Mall developers and operators are not only in real estate; they are also retailers. The mall environment is central to the perception of merchandise quality, and the shopping experience. Mall operators must be aware that the middle market target group is one that is highly
sought after. They should strive to create a tenant mix that satisfies the many layers of fashion shopper needs.
Originality/value of Paper: This study represents a first attempt that investigates the integrated
shopping experience of fashion shoppers in a shopping mall setting. It segments shoppers on their
actual shopping behaviour rather than psychometrics.
Keywords: shopping mall, shopping centre, female, fashion, shopper, shopping value
Paper Type: Research paper
The Influence of Mall Environment on
Female Fashion Shoppers’ Value and Behaviour
Introduction
Mall operators and retailers are recognizing more and more the positive impact of the environment on shopping behaviour (Laroche, Teng, Michon and Chebat, 2005; Stoel, Wickliffe and Lee,
2004). While malls originally served as catalysts in the growth of suburbs (Stockil, 1972) and faced
little competition, they have now reached maturity and are competing with newer power centres
dominated by large discount retailers and category killers (Simmons and Hernandez, 2004) and other
formats for customer traffic. There has been a growth of urban entertainment centres with restaurants
and cinemas (Kooijman, 2002), open air lifestyle centres with upscale national specialty stores (Hazel,
2005), and hybrids (Monroe, 2003). Developers have devised creative strategies to breathe new life
into maturing malls (Bodzin, 2003; Feldman, 2004).
Traditionally, mall anchor and non anchor tenants were classified in the GAFO category (i.e.
general merchandise, clothing and clothing accessories, furniture and home furnishing, electronics
and appliances, sporting goods, hobby, book and music, and office supplies, stationery and gift stores).
With the advent of stand alone category killers and power centres, regional shopping malls are increasingly focusing on soft goods. A store count in major shopping malls in the Montreal and Toronto areas shows that more than 60 percent of non-anchor stores now specialize in apparel, accessories and footwear. And, three-quarter of these stores target female shoppers. As value oriented apparel retailers are migrating to less expensive power centres, indoor regional malls are setting their
sight on branded apparel retailers.
It is imperative that mall operators and tenants develop a deeper understanding of the entire
spectrum apparel shoppers, including fashion-oriented, middle-of-the-road consumers, and followers,
in order to provide them with a favourable shopping environment. This study investigates how female fashion shoppers process retail atmospheric cues and respond to the mall environment, thus providing insights for mall operators, retailers and marketing researchers.
Conceptual Framework and Research Hypotheses
Cognition and Emotions
The environmental psychology theory (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) suggests that the mall
atmosphere should influence shoppers’ mood and behavioural intentions. The theory rests on an emotional shift leading to two contrasting forms of behaviour, approach and avoidance. Approach is a
desire to stay longer, explore the premises, and affiliate with other shoppers and/or sales associates,
whereas avoidance is the opposite (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). However, this classic emotioncognition paradigm has been challenged in recent years, as some researchers have failed to replicate
any direct mood shifts from exposure to environmental cues (e.g. Bone and Ellen, 1999; Chebat and
Michon, 2003; Spangenberg, Crowley, and Henderson, 1996). Rather, these researchers observed that
atmospheric cues had a direct effect on perceptions, supporting Lazarus' (1991) cognitive theory of
emotions. External and internal cues must be evaluated in terms of one's own experience and goals.
"Appraisal of the significance of the person-environment relationship, therefore, is both necessary and
sufficient; without a personal appraisal (i.e., of harm or benefit) there will be no emotion; when such
an appraisal is made, an emotion of some kind is inevitable" (Lazarus, 1991, p. 177). In her Servicescapes model, Bitner (1992) posited that people first perceive their holistic environment and then respond with more perceptual inferences, emotions and even biological reactions. The perception-affect
theory has received empirical support in retail atmospherics (Baker, Grewal, Parasuraman and Voss,
2002; Chebat & Michon, 2003) and serves as an over arching conceptual framework for the current
study.
Mall and Product Perceptions
Researchers have argued that formal, expressive, and symbolic qualities of store environments
communicate various messages to consumers and may bring about both aesthetic and instrumental
value (Fiore & Ogle, 2000). Shoppers’ perceptions of a retail environment may also have an impact
on their mood (Michon, Chebat and Turley, 2005). An effective mall shopping environment may im-
pact the shopping experience, and influence consumers to exhibit more approach behaviour, staying
longer in the mall (Stoel, Wickliffe, and Lee, 2003).
A retail environment can be an important basis for consumer’s evaluation of the products
(Baker, Grewal, and Parasuraman, 1994). Research suggest that ambient cues (physical aspects of
store environment, such as lighting, music, colour, and display, etc.) and social cues (the perception of
crowding and friendliness of employees) are important atmospheric factors that influence consumers’
affective states in the store environment, which in turn, impact their shopping and purchasing behaviour (Baker, Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Turley and Milliman, 2000). Further, Chebat and Michon (2003)
found that consumers’ perceptions of the retail environment influenced their perceptions of product
quality. These studies suggest that consumers’ mall perceptions influence their evaluations of the
products available at the mall.
Shopping Value
Shopping value involves an interaction between a consumer and a product or service that pertains not only to the object itself, but also to the consumption experience. It involves the intrinsic and
extrinsic value of the object (Holbrook, 1986). Shopping goes way beyond functional utility and task
orientation (Bloch, Sherrell and Ridgway, 1986), and provides other experiential benefits and gratifications (Holbrook and Corfman, 1985). Two dimensions, utilitarian and hedonic shopping values,
summarize perceived shopping value (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994; Babin and Attaway, 2000).
Utilitarian value reflects task-orientation, while hedonic value indicates personal gratification and
self-expression associated with the shopping experience. Shopping affect was found to have a positive
impact on perceived shopping value, which in turn positively influences a consumer’s consistent repeat purchase behaviour (Babin and Attaway, 2000).
Fashion Shoppers
Fashion segmentation studies usually categorize consumers on their shopping orientation, expected benefits, and social values. Shim and Kotsiopulos (1993) classified female apparel shoppers
using shopping orientation, and further developed profiles of each consumer group by information
used, importance of store attributes, lifestyle activities, patronage behaviour, and demographics. In
this latter study, three distinctive female apparel shopper segments were identified. In the largest
group -- the “Highly Involved Apparel Shopper” -- scored higher pm the shopping mall orientation
factor, indicating that women in this group enjoyed shopping leisurely at the mall. Furthermore, this
segment was deemed important to retailers, because their expenditures on clothing and accessories
were the highest at the mall or specialty stores.
In another study, the female apparel market was segmented according benefits expected by
consumers (Shim and Bickle, 1994). “Symbolic/Instrumental Users of Clothing,” “Practical/Conservative Users of Clothing,” and “Apathetic Users of Clothing” emerged as the three benefit
seeking segments. The “Symbolic/Instrumental Users of Clothing” was the largest group and was
fashion-oriented, enjoyed shopping and tended to shop at upscale department and specialty stores. The
other two consumers groups were not particularly engaged by shopping, and tended to be less fashionoriented. They were more likely to shop at regular department stores and discount stores, respectively.
Goldsmith, Heitmeyer, and Freiden (1991) associated social values and fashion leadership in
an effort to explore if social values can be used to offer insight into the motives underlying fashion
purchases. They reported that consumers who processed high values of fun, enjoyment, and excitement were indeed more fashion-conscious. In addition, fashion leaders were younger, had higher
clothing expenditures and shopped more often for clothes than non-fashion leaders.
Instead of looking at shoppers' motivation, Bloch, Ridgway and Dawson (1994) segmented
mall shoppers based on the activities consumers engaged in when in a shopping mall. Because the
mall is such a focal point for fashion-oriented shoppers, our study also takes a "shopping basket" behavioural approach. Shoppers reported which stores they patronized and bought from. Later, shopping mall leasing executives rated each store along a classic/fashion-forward scale. Shoppers were
then segmented on their propensity to patronize traditional or trendy apparel and footwear stores.
Research Objectives and Hypotheses
This study explores how the shopping mall environment influences the shopping experience
and approach behaviour of female fashion shoppers. In previous studies, fashion shoppers have been
analyzed according to various dimensions, including shopping orientation, benefits sought, shopping
value, and lifestyle in previous studies. Our study, however, takes a behavioural approach for market
segmentation. This method allows us to more accurately capture fashion shoppers’ actual shopping
behaviours, along with their emotion and cognition at the mall environment. Specifically, female fashion shoppers were classified into three groups based on the types of stores they patronized (visited
and/or made a purchase). The hypotheses developed in this study are summarized as follows, working
from left to right of Figure 1.
[TAKE IN FIGURE 1]
Research hypotheses are drawn in part from the environmental psychology theory (Meharabian and Russell, 1974; Donnovan and Rossiter, 1982), the cognitive theory of emotions (Lazarus,
1991), retail atmospherics (Baker et al, 1994 and 2002), and shopping value (Babin, Darden and Griffin, 1994).
Mall Perception Æ Product Perception
H1: A favourable perception of shopping mall atmospherics will improve the perception of
product quality among female fashion shoppers.
Mall Perception Æ Shopping Value
H2: A favourable perception of shopping mall atmospherics will elicit hedonic shopping experiences among female fashion shoppers.
Product Perception ÆShopping Value
H3: A favourable perception of product quality will impact female fashion shoppers' hedonic
experiences.
H4: A favourable perception of product quality will help female fashion shoppers achieve
their shopping objectives.
Shopping ValueÆApproach/Avoidance
H5: Female fashion shoppers having a positive shopping experience are more likely to adopt
an approach behaviour.
H6: Female fashion shoppers who fulfil their shopping task are more likely to engage into an
approach behaviour.
Fashion Orientation
H7: Female shoppers with a high propensity for fashion buying are more likely than others to
respond favourably to the mall environment.
Methodology
Mall Intercept
The research was carried out in tightly controlled mall intercept survey. The 692,000-square
foot regional shopping mall is located in the Northeast. The population in the immediate trading area
is suburban multicultural middle-class. Cultural homogeneity in large North American centres is
something of the past. After blocking for socio-demographic factors and family life cycle, cultural
affiliation disappeared.
Graduate marketing students handled the fieldwork. Some were responsible for recruiting
participants as they exited from the mall. Recruiters had to meet selection criteria based on cultural
balance, gender, age distribution, day of week, and time of day to avoid systematic biases. Female
mall shoppers completed 268 usable questionnaires. Three quarters of apparel and accessory specialty stores in malls target female shoppers. Male shoppers have been deliberately excluded from
this specific study to avoid model noise. There is empirical evidence that shows that male and female
shoppers do not share similar attitudes toward fashion. For example, the Gutman and Mills (1982)
fashion orientation scale administered in another shopping mall study failed to achieve structural and factor loading invariance between male and female shoppers (Michon, Smith, Yu,
and Chebat, 2007). Male shoppers systematically trail female shoppers on the hedonic shopping value scale (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994) as far as shopping malls are concerned.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire contained scaled items measuring the variables under investigation: Shopping activities, mall perceptions, pleasure and arousal, shopping value, approach/avoidance behaviour,
and demographics (See Table I).
Shopping activities. A list of all the stores at the mall were presented by category (i.e. department stores, women’s apparel, men’s apparel, etc.) and the respondents were asked to indicate the
stores they (1) visited and (2) where they made purchases during the shopping trip. While total
spending excluding groceries was recorded, the amount of money spent in each store was not.
Three shopping mall leasing executives rated 65 apparel/footwear stores on a five-point fashionability scale and a five-point price level scale. Due to significant correlation between fashionability
and price level (r = .83), only the first one was included in further analysis. Interpreter convergence,
using Kendall’s W statistic was estimated at .6. This moderate convergence level shows that store
fashion-orientation remains a subjective issue even for seasoned experts in retail. The three real estate
executives also viewed fashion forward stores as relatively more pricey. Female shoppers were
scored on the basis of the stores they patronized and purchased from. Aggregate scores were used to
categorize shoppers into three equal cohorts: low, medium, and high fashion patronizing behaviours.
Mall Perceptions. Eight 7-point semantic differential items (α = .94) were used to measure
consumers’ perceptions of the shopping mall environment, with 1= tense, uncomfortable, depressing,
drab, boring, unlively, dull, and uninteresting, and 7= relaxed, comfortable, cheerful, colourful, stimulating, lively, bright, and interesting. These items were adopted from a previous study by Fisher
(1974).
Product Perception. We used three 7-point items (α = .76) to measure product perception
from Bellizi, Crowley and Hasty (1983). They were about the style of the products offered in the
shopping centre (1=outdated, 7=up to date), product assortment selection in the centre (1=inadequate,
7=adequate), and the quality of the products available in the shopping centre (1=low, 7=high).
Shopping Value. The hedonic (α = .78) and utilitarian (α = .57) shopping value scale developed by Babin, Darden, and Griffin (1994) was used. The items were rated on a 5-point Likert type
scale (1= strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree).
Approach-Avoidance. This construct was measured with five statements (α = .74) developed
by Donovan and Rossiter (1982). Shoppers were asked to indicate their agreement with the statements
on a 5-point Likert type scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree).
Scale items as well as factor loading and alpha coefficients are given in Table I. Initial item
selection was based on an exploratory factor analysis.
[TAKE IN TABLE I]
Findings and Results
Research hypotheses were first tested on the complete female fashion shopper cohort, and
then on each fashion propensity segment. Path relationships between latent constructs are best rendered with structural equation modelling, here EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2004). For parsimony and noisereduction, latent SEM constructs were built from the top three or four indicators showing the highest
factor loadings. Bollen (1989, p. 244) notes that there is no need to use all indicators provided measurement models have more than one ξ variable (p. 244).
The aggregate structural path analysis (Figure 2) supports three of the seven research propositions. Female fashion shoppers' perception of the mall atmosphere has a positive effect on the perception of the merchandise offered in the mall (standardized γ = .571, z = 7.930). In turn, female fashion
shoppers' perception of products has a significant impact on the hedonic shopping experience (γ = .68,
z = 7.772), but a very marginal effect on shopping objectives (γ = .20, z = 1.733). Contrary to H2, the
perception of the mall has no direct influence on female shoppers' hedonic value. Mall perception is
fully mediated through the perception of the mall offering.
The “hedonic” shopping experience of female fashion shoppers triggers an approach behaviour (γ = .429, z = 5.174). The “utilitarian” value construct has no direct significant effect on approach behaviour. We however do observe a significant correlation between the hedonic and utilitarian constructs (ψ = .55, z = 2.094). The two constructs do not oppose each other (e.g. Michon and
Chebat, 2004; Babin and Attaway, 2000). While some task-oriented shoppers may not experience
much of a hedonic shopping experience, experiential shoppers have some shopping objectives in mind.
Shopping goal achievements are likely to influence experiential affects among hedonic shoppers. The
aggregate maximum likelihood model shows an excellent fit (X2 = 148.778, df = 108, CFI = .980, and
RMSEA = .036). In short, the model supports research hypotheses H1, H3 and H5. H4 is supported
under a 90 percent confidence interval.
On the other hand, H2 and H6 must be rejected.
[TAKE IN FIGURE 2]
The three fashion oriented segments were submitted to a multigroup SEM. Initially, all indicator and structural paths were constrained to equality between the groups.
Measurement or struc-
tural constraints were released only if required by the Lagrange Multiplier test under EQS 6.1 (Bentler,
2004). The multigroup standardized coefficients are described in Table II.
The multi-group latent path model presents a good fit (X2 = 463.684, df = 372, CFI = .954,
RMSEA = .052). The Lagrange Multiplier test required that the equality paths between product perception and utilitarian values be released. The multi-group model underscores that the effect of product perception on shopping goal objectives is significant for medium fashion oriented shoppers (γ
= .478, z = 3.491), marginally significant for low fashion oriented shoppers (γ = .297, z = 1.903), and
not significant at all for high fashion oriented female shoppers (γ = .096, z = 0.705).
Contrary to
what had been hypothesized in H7, high fashion oriented female shoppers are not likely to respond
better to this particular mall environment. The effect of product perception on hedonic values is the
same for all fashion segments. The influence of product perception on shopping objectives takes an
inverted U-shape (Figure 3). The indirect effect of the mall environment on fashion shoppers' approach behaviour is significant (γ = +/- .16, z = 4.464) across all fashion segments.
[TAKE IN TABLE II]
[TAKE IN FIGURE 3]
Discussion
Regional malls have been focusing more and more on fashion, and specifically on female
fashion. The invariant path relationship between all latent constructs except one underscores that environmental cues are perceived and felt the same way, irrelevant of the propensity for fashion. Mall
atmospherics has a significant and observable impact on fashion shoppers' behaviour. It seems that
fashion forward shoppers are not responding any better than female shoppers on the low end of the
fashion spectrum. Yet, one would expect a higher hedonic response and approach behaviour from
shoppers who have a strong propensity for fashion.
The shopping mall under study does not explicitly target any fashion segment. The mall environment and product perceptions are likely to mediate shopping goal attainments only among middleof-the-road fashion shoppers. Store selection and merchandise offerings may not meet all the needs of
shoppers in the conservative/traditional and fashion forward segments. For example, shoppers who
are not fashion-oriented may derive higher utilitarian benefits when shopping at mass merchandisers
or power centres where value offsets fashion. Fashion forward shoppers might be better off patronizing downtown trendy stores and specialized fashion malls. Both bottom and top fashion shoppers are
less likely to find what they are looking for in a typical regional mall.
The mall environment and retail atmospherics may be viewed as extensions of Theodore
Levitt’s (1980) augmented product concept. Product attributes, packaging, display, retail atmospherics, and the mall environment are nested as matryoshka (Russian) dolls, and trigger sales. The mall
becomes part of the meta-packaging of the merchandise. Packaging and display add value to the
product through enhanced consumer perception of quality and differentiation, increasing the likelihood of purchase and ultimately impacting sales volume and profitability.
Implications and Future Research
This study shows that the mall atmospherics positively influence hedonic shopping value and
approach behaviour among all female shopper fashion clusters. However, the mall atmosphere only
impacts the shopping goals of the middle-of-the-road fashion segment. Regional mall developers and
operators must be aware that the middle-of-the market target group is one that is highly targeted.
Luxury brand manufacturers are developing “bridge” lines and lower priced products in order to reach
downward towards the middle market in an effort to increase market share and profitability (Case,
2003). Mall developers who are pursuing the medium fashion-oriented shopper should beware that
they are competing with luxury brands that are pulling middle-of-the-road consumers upward and
power centres that are pulling them downwards. Furthermore, the price polarization has plagued the
apparel business in recent times and is predicted to continue (Retail Forward, 2005). A battle for the
consumer’s share of wallet is ensuing, in a highly competitive market.
All of these trends make it most challenging for malls to create a tenant mix that satisfies the
many layers of fashion shopper needs. Mall developers have their retail tenants’ best interest at heart:
in addition to basic rent, they charge a percentage of retail sales. The percentage rent is an incentive
to landlords who should work in the interest of existing tenants when making decisions about expansion, alterations and renewing leased space in the shopping mall (Wheaton, 2000). Mall owners and
operators can help their tenants -- and themselves -- by trying to attract shoppers, increase the number
of visits, extend shoppers’ trips, and increase the purchase per trip. The needs of fashion forward female shoppers may not be currently maximized at regional shopping malls. This is an area for future
research. In addition, mall developers must carefully monitor the needs of the middle-of-the-road female fashion shoppers who are likely core shoppers in the mall; these shoppers are highly sought after
due to polarization in the fashion marketplace.
References
Retail Forward. 2005. Economic Forecast: Outlook to 2009. Columbus, OH.
Babin, B. J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value and Gaining
Share of Customer,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 91-100.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. and Griffin, M. (1994), “Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, April, pp. 644-56.
Baker, J., Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), “An Experimental Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions,” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68, pp. 445-460.
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “The Influence of Store Environment on Quality
Inferences and Store Image,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 328-39.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss G.B. (2002), “The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
66, April, pp. 120-141.
Bentler, P.M. (2004), EQS 6 Structural Equation Program Manual. Encino CA: Multivariate Software.
Bellizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E. and Hasty, R.W. (1983), “The Effects of Color in Store Design,” Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 59, pp. 21-45.
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: The Impact of the Physical Surroundings on Customers and Employers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, April, pp. 57-71.
Bloch, P.H., Sherrell, D., and Ridgway, N. (1986), “Consumer Search: An Extended Framework,”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 119-126.
Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N., and Dawson, S.A. (1994), “The Shopping Mall as Consumer Habitat,”
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bodzin, S. (2003) “New Life for Old Malls,” Journal of Housing and Community Development, Vol.
60 No. 3, May/June, p. 51.
Case, T. (2003), “No Stopping Shopping”, Brandweek, September, pp. 23-26.
Chebat, J-C. and Michon, R. (2003), “Impact of Ambient Odors on Mall Shoppers’ Emotions, Cognition, and Spending: A Test of Competitive Causal Theories,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 191-197.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach,” Journal of Retailing, Vo. 58, Spring, pp. 34-57.
Feldman, L. (2004), “Successful Investment and Turnaround Strategies for Distressed Shopping Centre Properties," Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 32-39.
Fiore, A.M. and Ogle, J.P. (2000), “Facilitating the Integration of Textiles and Clothing Subject Matter by Students. Part One: Dimensions of A Model and Taxonomy,” Textiles and Clothing Research
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
Fisher,J.D. (1974), “Situation Specific Variables as Determinants of Perceived Environmental Aesthetic Quality and Perceived Crowdedness,” Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 8, August, pp.
177-88.
Goldsmith, R.E., Heitmeyer, J.R. and Freiden, J.B. “Social Values and Fashion Leadership,” Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-45.
Gutman, J. and Mills, M.K. (1982), “Fashion Life Style, Self-Concept, Shopping Orientation,
and Store Patronage: An Integrative Analysis.” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 64-86.
Hazel, D. (2005), “New lease on lifestyle,” Chain Store Age, (November, pp. 126-128.
Holbrook, M.B. (1986), "Emotion in the Consumption Experience: Toward A New Model of Human
Consumer," Edited by R. Peterson, W.D. Hoyer & W.R. Wilson, The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theories and Applications, Lexington MA: Heath, pp. 17-52.
Holbrook, M.B. and Corfman, K. (1985), "Quality and Value in the Consumption Experience:
Phaedrus Rides Again," Edited by R. Peterson. Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and
Merchandise. Lexington MA: Heath, pp. 31-57.
Kooijman, D. (2002), “A Third Revolution in Retail? The Dutch Approach to Leisure and Urban Entertainment,” Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 214-229.
Laroche, M., Teng, L., Michon, R., and Chebat, J.-C. “Incorporating Service Quality into Consumer
Mall Shopping Decision Making: A Comparison between English and French Canadian Consumers,"
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 157-163.
Lazarus, R. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, New York NY: Oxford University Press.
Levitt, T. (1980), “Marketing Success through Differentiation of Anything,” Harvard Business Review, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 83-91.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Monroe, M.C. (2003), “Not just malls, but ‘alls’”, National Real Estate Investor, Vol. 45 No. 12, December, p. 54.
Michon, R. and Chebat, J.-C. (2004), “Cross-cultural Mall Shopping Values and Habitats: A Comparison Between English- and French-Speaking Canadians,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57,
pp. 883-892.
Michon, R., Chebat, J.-C. and Turley L.W. (2005), “Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the
mall environment on shopping behaviour”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 576– 583.
Michon, R., Smith, D.R., Yu, H., and Chebat, J.-C. (2007), “The Well-Dressed Female Shopper goes
to the Mall: Fashion Orientation and The Mall Shopping Experience”, The La Londe Conference in
Marketing Communications and Consumer Behavior, June 2007, La Londe-les- Maures, France.
Shim, S. and Bickle, M. (1994), “Benefit Segments of the Female Apparel Market: Psychographics,
Shopping Orientations, and Demographics,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 1-12.
Shim, S. and Kotsiopulos, A. (1993), “A Typology of Apparel Shopping Orientation Segments
Among Female Consumers,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Simmons, J. and Hernandez, T. (2004), Power Retail: Close to Saturation?, Centre for the Study of
Commercial Activity, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P.W (1996), “Improving the Store Environment:
Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations And Behaviors?” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, April, pp. 6781.
Stockil, P. (1972), The Mall. Enclosed Shopping Centres. Edited by C. Darlow. London: Architectural
Press, pp. 52-62.
Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V. and Lee, K.H. (2004), “Attributes Beliefs and Spending as Antecedents to
Shopping Value”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1067-1073.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, Ronald E. (2000), “Atmospheric Effects on Shopping Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49, pp.193–211.
Wheaton, W.C. (2000), “Percentage Rent in Retail Leasing: The Alignment of Lanlord-Tenant Interests,” Real Estate Economics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 185-204.
Figure 1: Hypothesized Model
H2
Mall Perception
Hedonic
value
H5
H1
H3
Product
Perception
Approach
behavior
H4
Utilitarian
value
H6
Figure 2: Tested Model for three fashion cohorts
Standardized Coefficients (z-value)
Mall Perception
Hedonic
value
.429 (5.174)
R2 = .184
.571 (7.930)
R2 = .326
.550 (2.094)
.618 (7.772)
R2 = .382
Product
Perception
Utilitarian
value
.20 (1.733)
R2 = .04
X2 = 148.778, df = 108, Method = ML
CFI = .980, Std RMR = .048, RMSEA = .036
Approach
behavior
Figure 3: Standardized path coefficients between Product perception and Utilitarian value
Path Coefficients
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Low
Medium
Fashion orientation
High
Table I: Scale Items, Factor Loadings* and Reliability Coefficients
1
2
3
4
5
Mall Perception (Adapted from Fisher, 1974) (α = .94)
Dull or Bright?
Drab or Colourful?
Boring or Stimulating?
Unlively or Lively?
Depressing or Cheerful?
Uninteresting or Interesting?
Uncomfortable or Comfortable?
Tense or Relaxed?
.865
.863
.858
.817
.812
.724
.666
.616
.152
.133
.116
.170
.060
.287
.157
.101
.039
.084
.096
.131
.141
.241
.168
.154
.045
.058
.050
.020
.018
.022
.095
.096
.025
.020
.076
.064
.025
.059
.159
.113
Perception of products (from Bellizi, Crowley, Hasty, 1983) (α = .76)
Style of products offered: Outdated or Up to Date?
Product selection: Inadequate or Adequate?
Quality of products available: Low or High?
.273 .743
.286 .736
.289 .726
.150
.106
.234
.084 .068
.015 .087
.058 .172
Hedonic shopping (from Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994) (α = .78)
Compared with other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable
While shopping, I felt a sense of adventure
I enjoyed being immersed in exciting new products
This shopping trip truly felt like an escape
This shopping trip was truly a joy
.189 .062
.724
.111 .156
.189
.083
.132
.138
.070
.186
.229
.161
.712
.691
.691
.609
.187
.219
.065
.312
Utilitarian shopping value (from Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994) (α = .57)
While shopping, I found just the item(s) I was looking for
I accomplished just what I wanted to do on this shopping trip
I couldn't buy what I really needed
.105 .065
.085 .077
.006 .084
.124
.376
.226
.797 .001
.701 .041
.656 .234
.185 .100
.141
.008 .827
.002 .177
.062
.091 .768
.086 .027
.234
.088 .730
Approach behaviour (Adapted from Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) (α = .74)
I like this shopping centre
This shopping centre is a place where I would easily speak to a
salesperson
This is a kind of place where I would spend more money than expected
* Derived from EFA
.068
.050
.089
.133
Table II: Multigroup Standardized Coefficients and Fit Statistics
Dependent
variables
Independent
variable
Product Per- Mall
ception
perception
Fashion
Segment
Low:
Medium:
High:
Hedonic
Product Per- Low:
value
ception
Medium:
High:
Utilitarian
Product Per- Low:
value
ception
Medium:
High:
Approach
Hedonic value Low:
behaviour
Medium:
High:
Covariance Hedonic/
Low:
Utilitarian value
Medium:
High:
Standardized
coefficients
.605
.526
.599
.571
.669
.643
.297
.478
.096
.464
.403
.463
.281
.442
.345
R-Square
.366
.277
.359
.326
.448
.413
.088
.229
.009
.215
.163
.215
Indirect effects of Mall Perception on Approach behaviour
Standardized
coefficients
Approach
Mall
Low:
.160
behaviour
perception
Medium:
.142
High:
.178
X2 = 463.684,
df = 372,
ML Multigroup fit statistics
CFI = .954,
RMSEA = .052
z-value
7.983
Constrained
7.533
Constrained
1.903
3.491
0.705
1.998
Constrained
3.189
Constrained
z-value
4.464
Constrained