The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA, and
AbstractPurpose – In line with changes in consumer demand, models used in empirical study of the shoppingexperience have expanded. Reflecting the integrative (experiential and utilitarian) nature ofshopping experience, the paper aims to propose an overarching stimulus-organism-response basedshopping experience framework. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual paper offers a framework that integratescomponents of both the hedonic experience related consciousness-emotion-value model and theutilitarian experience-related cognition-affect-behavior model. In this paper, articles crossing hedonicand utilitarian boundaries are briefly presented, and the array of variables used in empirical studies ofshopping experience, with an emphasis on brick-and-mortar shopping experiences, are synthesized foreach component of the framework. Findings – The resulting framework is an inclusive overarching structure that explains theconsumer shopping experience. This framework is useful for both academia and industry. It may helporient academics to the diverse body of existing shopping experience literature and help researchersdevelop empirical studies blurring hedonic and utilitarian boundaries of consumer experience. For industry professionals, it may be used to guide development of successful shopping experiences. Research limitations/implications – The paper does not provide empirical testing of theproposed framework. However, the paper suggests directions for future research, includingempirically examining the framework’s structural relationships. Originality/value – The paper presents the framework as a means of giving order to theever-expanding body of shopping experience literature.
IntroductionCurrent shopping experiences involve more than consumer acquisition of goods. Theyalso involve seemingly tangential experiences to acquisition of goods resulting fromthe broadly defined shopping environment, such as an elaborate store design,educational events, recreation, and entertainment. One visit to a Niketown store withits museum case-like display of “Sneakers of the rich and famous” and stunningmultimedia shows or to an American Girl Place store with its theater, cafe´ and specialevents centered around its primary product (dolls) and it becomes clear that the
Ann Marie Fiore would like to acknowledge Yi-Tung Lo and Hye-Jeong Kim who provided
assistance in the compilation of literature and assembly of the reference list. This project was q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
partially funded by the College of Human Sciences at Iowa State University.
shopping experience has come a long way. This experience involves more than merely
selecting from the never-ending shelves of products using rational evaluation of
product features. In line with changes in consumer shopping experience, models usedin empirical study of the experience have expanded.
However, these models have not been combined to reflect the integrative
(experiential and utilitarian) nature of shopping experience. For example, research
suggests a consumer’s shopping experience vacillates between or enmeshes rationaland hedonic elements. Hedonic value from a pleasing store design influenced perceivedutilitarian value of a product, which in turn affected store patronage intentions (Bakeret al., 2002). To reflect the integrative nature of shopping experience, the present paperproposes an overarching stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) based framework that:
incorporates components from both hedonic experience-related and utilitarian(rational) experience-related models;
offers a set variables for each component resulting from synthesizing shoppingexperience research literature.
The shopping experience entails consumer processes (e.g. product evaluation, attitudeformation) and responses (e.g. satisfaction, or purchase behavior) affected by aspects ofthe shopping environment (e.g. brick-and-mortar retail store, shopping center, catalog,and online store), situation, and consumer characteristics. Shopping experience is anexpansive topic; the content of this paper will emphasize research regardingbrick-and-mortar retail shopping experience and weave in examples of literatureaddressing other retail venues. Space limitations do not allow a detailed summary ofempirical design and findings.
Framing the shopping experienceMuch of the research regarding consumption experience during the 1970s was groundedin the information-processing approach (Bettman, 1979) that regarded the consumer tobe a logical thinker, who aimed to purchase the best product from available productchoices. Based on this approach, the consumer is envisioned to be a goal-directedproblem solver, who searches for product-related information, weighs evidence, andarrives at a carefully considered evaluation leading to a purchase decision (Holbrookand Hirschman, 1982). Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) article, which delineatedthe experiential view of consumption experience, presented a new model forunderstanding consumer behavior. Holbrook and Hirschman proposed that in contrastto the information-processing (utilitarian) approach, some consumption experiences arebetter explained by an experiential approach, which posits that an interaction with theproduct, service, and/or shopping environment can be intrinsically satisfying, orsatisfying for its own sake. Here, information search activity during the shoppingexperience has more to do with providing sensory or cognitive stimulation andsatisfying curiosity than determining a product’s potential for utilitarian functionality.
Two models explaining shopping experienceTwo models, the consciousness-emotion-value (C-E-V) model and cognition-affect-behavior(C-A-B) model, are relevant to explaining shopping experience. According to
Holbrook (1986), the C-A-B model reflects an information-processing approach where Experiential and
purchase decision and brand choice are key outcomes. In the C-A-B model, thoughts or
beliefs about the product antecede product evaluation, which is followed by purchasedecision and brand choice. Yet, as will become evident, the C-A-B model does not fully
capture the nature of many shopping experiences, particularly those fostered by emergentretail trends. Building on Holbrook and Hirschman’s (1982) experiential approach toconsumption, Holbrook (1986) proposed the C-E-V model of the consumption experience,
which he compared to the widely held C-A-B model. The C-E-V model captures elements ofthe shopping experience not represented by the C-A-B model. However, components ofboth models are useful to identify the diversity of mechanisms underlying theshopping experience. In the following section, we will explicate the integration of the twomodels into an overarching framework of the shopping experience.
The C-E-V model is dynamic with feedback loops between components.
In Holbrook’s C-E-V model, consciousness includes not only the C-A-B model’scognitions or beliefs about consumer products and services, but also includes a varietyof mental events (in response to informational inputs) such as fantasies, imagery,memories, subconscious thoughts, and unconscious processes that occur during theconsumption experience. Likewise, emotion expands beyond narrowly conceived affect(i.e. favorable disposition or liking) of the C-A-B model to include subjective feelingstates within the individual, such as joy and excitement. Research supports Holbrook’sproposition that emotion is a key link in the shopping experience. Emotional statesstimulated by brick-and-mortar retail design (Baker et al., 1992; Bellizzi et al., 1983;Bellizzi and Hite, 1992; Bruner, 1990; Crowley, 1993; Dennis and Newman, 2005;Donovan et al., 2002) and online store design (Eroglu et al., 2003; Menon andKahn, 2002) mediated consumer responses towards products or shoppingenvironments.
Instead of focusing on purchase behavior, which is the consumer goal in the C-A-B
model, Holbrook’s C-E-V model focuses on value derived by the consumer during theconsumption experience. Value taps what the consumer perceives he or she gains fromthe consumption experience and includes fun (mental play) and aesthetic pleasure fromimagery and sensory elements of the shopping experience. Holbrook and Hirschman(1982) saw these forms of pleasure as the experiential (non-instrumental) value of theconsumption experience. Experiential value differs from instrumental (utilitarian)value, which entails shopping efficiency and making the right product choice basedon logical assessment of information regarding the product’s performance orfunctionality.
Completing the description of the C-E-V model, consumption experience is influenced
by inputs of the person variable (i.e. attributes of the individual, such as personality,intelligence, and gender that influence thinking, feeling, and behavior), environmentvariable (i.e. the physical elements of the product/brand and the symbolic unit used todesignate the product such as a web site promotion), and lastly, the person-environmentinteraction variable or the situation (e.g. shopping with friends).
Stimulus-organism-response frameworkWhereas the C-E-V and C-A-B models differ in their view of the human nature, eachhas received empirical support as an underlying mechanism of consumer shoppingexperience. The mechanism at work may fluctuate depending on type of product
purchased and other inputs identified by Holbrook (1986). For instance, a consumer
may make a rational decision – buy the brand of white athletic socks with odor
guard – when shopping alone, in a hurry, and faced with the choice of two brands.
Given the relevance of both models to understanding shopping experience, each will
be situated within the S-O-R framework of environmental psychology (Mehrabian andRussell, 1974), which has been widely adopted to explore the impact of
brick-and-mortar (Baker et al., 2002; Bitner, 1992; Donovan et al., 2002) and online(Eroglu et al., 2001; Mathwick et al., 2001) shopping environments on consumerresponses. Moreover, examples of research will be presented that support theintegration of experiential and utilitarian model components during shoppingexperience. Figure 1 shows the integration of model components within the S-O-Rframework and offers a set of variables for each component synthesized from empiricalstudies of shopping experience. A discussion of each component within the frameworkfollows. Creative play-E.g., customizing goodsMemories -E.g., nostalgic thoughts
Person and Person-Environment (Input variable; C-E-V)Personal traits-E.g., arousal seeking tendency Demographic characteristics
The stimulus is the impetus within the shopping environment with potential to affect
the consumer’s cognitive/consciousness and affective/emotional processes. The C-E-V
model’s environment (input) variable represents the stimulus. The stimuli examined inempirical research vary by type of shopping environment (e.g. brick-and-mortar store,shopping centers, internet, catalog). Moreover, researchers (Baker et al., 2002; Bitner,1992; Turley and Milliman, 2000) synthesizing literature regarding the effect of the
brick-and-mortar retail environment on consumer responses have arrived at differentlystructured factors that nevertheless encompass the same stimulus variables. Bakeret al.’s (2002) parsimonious ambient, design, and social factors capture the exterior,general interior, store layout, interior displays, and human stimulus variablesproposed by Turley and Milliman (2000) and the ambient, space/function, andsigns/symbols/artifacts variables proposed by Bitner (1992). Because of theirparsimony, the ambient, design, and social factors will be used to organize examplesof empirical research stimuli.
The ambient factor includes non-structural elements of the retail environment
(e.g. music, scent, lighting). The variables studied differ by ambient cue. For instance,pertinent aspects of scent include:
congruity with other cues (Bone and Ellen, 1999; Fiore et al., 2000; Mattila andWirtz, 2001; Schifferstein and Blok, 2002);
Pleasantness (Fiore et al., 2000; Knasko, 1995; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;Spangenberg et al., 1996).
Whereas significant aspects of music include:
intensity or volume (Spangenberg et al., 2004);
pleasantness (Chebat et al., 2001; Dube´ and Morin, 2001);
style such as jazz or top 40 hits (Areni and Kim, 1993; Yalch and Spangenberg,1990); and
tempo (Eroglu et al., 2005; Milliman, 1982).
The design factor is comprised of physical elements of the store including exteriorfeatures (e.g. parking), general interior features (e.g. floor coverings, color), store layoutfeatures (e.g. floor space allocation), and interior display features (e.g. signage). The social factor encompasses human features related to interactions with staff (e.g. understaffing) and fellow customers (e.g. crowding).
The majority of research regarding the effect of the shopping environment on
approach responses has employed an experimental method, controlling all but onestimulus variable (Bellizzi and Hite, 1992; Grossbart et al., 1990; Hornik, 1992;Spangenberg et al., 1996; Yalch and Spangenberg, 1990). There are a few exceptions tothis tendency. For example, Baker et al. (1992) examined the effect of a combinationof ambient cues (lighting and music) and social cues (number and friendliness ofemployees). Fiore et al. (2000) explored the combined effect of product display method
et al. (2005) examined retail density and scent. Eroglu et al.
(2005) investigated music tempo and retail density.
ModeratorsThe moderators are characteristics of the individual or shopping situation thatinfluence the strength and direction of the relationship between the stimulus and
response. The person and person-environment (input) variables of the C-E-V modelrepresent moderating variables. Person variables studied include personal traits,demographic characteristics, and market segments. Some of the personal traits thathave received attention by researchers are:
atmospheric responsiveness (Grossbart et al., 1990);
cultural values (Overby et al., 2004; Tse et al., 1988);
decision-making style (Sharma and Stafford, 2000; Wesley et al., 2006);
sensation-seeking or arousal-seeking tendency (Fiore et al., 2003, 2004;Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1992); and
shopper style or orientation (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990; Morin and Chebat, 2005).
Demographic characteristics explored include:
age (Yalch and Spangenberg, 1990; Areni and Kim, 1993);
educational and income levels (Dawson et al., 1990);
ethnicity (Herche and Balasubramanian, 1994); and
gender (Yalch and Spangenberg, 1993).
Market segments consist of combinations of psycho-demographic and lifestylecharacteristics that differentiate segments of shoppers (Ogle et al., 2004; Sit et al., 2003;Swinyard and Smith, 2003) with labels such as “apathetic shopper,” “demandingshopper,” and “entertainment shopper.”
Person-environment variables (i.e. situation variables) that have been found to
influence the shopping experience include time pressure (Park et al., 1989), levelof involvement (Wakefield and Baker, 1998), motivations for shopping (Eroglu andMachleit, 1990), and knowledge of the shopping environment (Sirgy et al., 2000). Moderating variables employed in studies of brick-and-mortar retail shoppingexperience have been equally useful in studies of catalog shopping (Anderson et al.,2003; Gehrt and Carter, 1992), and online shopping (Lee et al., 2006; Li et al., 1999;O’Cass and Fenech, 2003; Schlosser, 2003).
OrganismThe organism entails mediating processes between the stimulus and consumers’response. The consciousness, emotion, and value variables along with the cognitionand affect variables reflect the mediating mechanisms within the organism. Moderating variables may influence these processes. Each component of theorganism will be discussed separately, but it is important to remember that thesecomponents are interrelated.
Cognition in the C-A-B model represents only a portion of the mental activity that
affects consumer behavior. Cognition consists of beliefs, thoughts, or perceptionsformed through direct interaction with consumer offerings (i.e. goods, services,
shopping environments), processing secondary source information (e.g. advertisements,friend’s word-of-mouth, blogs, online product reviews) (Blackwell et al., 2001), andcomparison of information against representative cognitive schemas and memory
(Blackwell et al., 2001; Holbrook, 1986; Olson, 1980). Furthermore, shoppingenvironment cues may stimulate this mental activity, represented by the number ofthoughts generated by a sales encounter and depth of information processing (Chebatet al., 2001), as well as the amount of time spent processing information about stimuli(e.g. brand names) encountered in the environment (Morin and Ratneshwar, 2000).
Beliefs about products, brands, and retailers are inferred from information available
from shopping environment cues (Dube´ and Morin, 2001; Kim et al., 1996), whichreflects the process of inferential belief formation. In particular, the formation ofutilitarian service quality and merchandise quality inferences from experiential storeenvironment cues has been addressed by a number of researchers (Baker et al., 1994,2002; Chebat and Michon, 2003; Sweeney and Wyber, 2002). Ambient odor (Chebat andMichon, 2003), music (Sweeney and Wyber, 2002), and a combination of social, design(Baker et al., 1994), and ambient cues (Baker et al., 2002) have fed inferences aboutquality and consequent perceptions of store image (Baker et al., 1994) or consumerbehavior or intentions towards the retailer. Baker et al. (2002) also found that thiscombination of cues helped respondents infer perceptions regarding monetary price,time costs, and psychological costs.
In addition, perceived risk (Ha, 2005), perceived store personality (d’Astous and
Levesque, 2003) or brand personality (Kim, 2000) and consumer self-perceptions(i.e. actual self-image and ideal self-image) play a role in the effect of shoppingenvironment cues on consumer behavior. For instance, using attributes of the shoppingenvironment to form inferences about retail patron image, consumers seek imagecongruity between the retail patron image and self-image (Sirgy et al., 2000) todetermine retailer patronage.
ConsciousnessConsciousness expands beyond the lower-order mental processes (MacInnis and Price,1987) of cognition. It also includes higher-order cognitive processes, such as productuse-related fantasy (Fiore, 2002), product-related imagery (Bone and Ellen, 1992;Peracchio and Meyers-Levy, 1997), creative play, and recalling pleasurable memories(Holbrook, 1986) that influence response to consumer offerings. Whereas MacInnis andPrice (1987) summarized literature that supports the effect of imagery on approachresponses in retail and non-retail settings, they noted that much remains to be doneto understand the role of imagery in consumer experiences. Research has begun toblossom related to the influence of higher order cognitive processes induced by store(Fiore et al., 2000), catalog (Fiore and Yu, 2001; Motes et al., 1989), and online (Schlosser,2003; Song et al., n.d.) shopping environment cues on consumer responses. Forinstance, research (Fiore et al., 2000) examining the effect of store display and scentcues found that pleasurable imagery of sensory qualities of a product and fantasiesinvolving the use of a product had a positive influence on consumer responses.
Likewise, Fiore and Yu’s (2001) catalog study found that pleasurable imagery and
fantasies influenced consumer responses. However, in line with research by Motes et al.
(1989), the imagery copy (i.e. text describing a pleasurable product use scenario) of thecatalog stimuli did not have a significant effect on imagery or fantasy.
Moreover, growing attention is being paid to the effect of play and entertainment on
consumer responses. For instance, researchers have examined how interactive features
of shopping environments offer entertainment (Mathwick et al., 2001; Raney et al.,2003) and an opportunity to play such as being able to creatively mix and matchproducts (Fiore et al., 2005a, b) or customize products (Fiore et al., 2003). Shang et al.’s(2005) recently introduced concept of cognitive absorption (a composite measureincluding enjoyment, exciting curiosity, arousing imagination, and blocking outdistractions) requires additional study.
AffectThe term “affect” is used interchangeably with “emotion” in consumer behaviorresearch, which is seen by researchers to be problematic (Batra, 1986). However, as partof the information-processing based C-A-B model, Affect differs from Emotion. Affectis defined as favorable disposition toward a stimulus that leads to relative preferencefor the stimulus from a group of options (Batra, 1986). Attitudinal conditioningmechanisms (Kim et al., 1996) help explain the mediating effect of shoppingenvironment cues on affect towards products, brands, and retailers. Through directaffect transfer, positive affect towards shopping environment cues is directlytransferred to products, brands, and retailers. Through inferential belief formation,affect-shaping beliefs about products, brands, and retailers are inferred frominformation available through environmental cues. For instance, qualitative researchby DeNora and Belcher (2000) suggested that cutting-edge club music played in anapparel retail setting may lead the customer to infer that the retailer is trend setting,which generates positive affect towards the retailer and its products.
Operationally, affect is frequently measured through attitude scales, which tap
evaluations of various aspects of the shopping experience, such as:
brands (Kim et al., 1998; Morris and Boone, 1998);
brick-and-mortars stores (Ogle et al., 2004);
merchandise or products (Oliver et al., 1993; Fiore, 2002);
promotions such as advertisements (Bone and Ellen, 1992) or store displays(Fiore et al., 2000);
service encounters (Johnson-Hillery and Kang, 1996); and
shopping malls (Eastlick and Shim, 1995).
Relationships between attitudinal measures (e.g., attitude towards an ad and attitudetowards a brand; Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Kamins, 1990) have also been examined. Moreover, some studies (Kamins, 1990; Koernig, 2003; Martin et al., 2005) employedboth attitude and approach response variables (e.g. purchase or purchase intentions)as dependent measures without testing their relationships.
Affect has been tapped using a multi-attribute measure (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) Experiential and
and a global attitude measure (Engel et al., 1995). Studies generally use one type of
attitude measures, but a few studies have used both types (Fiore et al., 2000; Fiore,2002; Kamins, 1990). The multi-attribute expectancy-value measure (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1980), based on the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), is asummation of a subject’s evaluation scores for critical attributes of the consumeroffering multiplied by the importance of each respective attribute. For instance, in
determining attitude toward a store environment, liking and importance scores forcritical attributes of music, smell, space, temperature, interior design uniqueness,logical organization of merchandise, and staff availability may be summed. The globalattitude measure captures more experiential assessments because it does not dependon attribute assessments. These measures commonly use items such as liking, overallevaluation, pleasantness, goodness, and overall liking.
EmotionAs noted, emotion of the C-E-V model expands beyond the C-A-B model’s narrowlyconceived affect (i.e. favorable disposition or liking) to include subjective feelingstates within the individual, such as joy, anger and excitement. Meshingexperiential and utilitarian processes, Holbrook and Hirschman (1982, p. 136) wrote“the information-processing perspective emphasizes only one aspect of hedonicresponse – namely, like or dislike of a particular brand (attitude) or its rank relativeto other brands (preference).” They saw this attitudinal component as representingonly a small subset of the emotions and feelings influenced by experiential aspects ofconsumer offerings. Ask any bridal shop sales associate trying to placate a “bridezilla”(i.e. term used to define the bridal store patron, who is half bride-to-be and halfinsatiable monster) and they will unequivocally corroborate that like-dislike is toonarrow a range for describing consumer emotions.
Emotion includes experimentally produced “mood” which is defined as a mild,
transient, subjectively perceived affective state, not an intense emotion and notdirected at specific consumer offerings (Swinyard, 1993). One mood scale (Peterson andSauber, 1983) used by researchers (Ward and Barnes, 2001; Machleit and Mantel, 2001)contains five semantic differential word pairs (sad/happy, bad mood/good mood,irritable/pleased, depressed/cheerful, and competent/not competent). Beyond mood,which precedes the shopping experience, Emotion also taps the feeling state created bythe shopping experience (Donovan et al., 1994). Various structures of emotion havebeen developed (see Holbrook, 1986 for a summary). For instance, “positive affect” and“negative affect” dimensions have been posited by a number of researchers (Babin andAttaway, 2000; Mano and Oliver, 1993), but vary in item composition between studies.
However, this section will focus on Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974)
pleasure-arousal-dominance (PAD) paradigm because it has been implementedfrequently in the study of the effects of shopping environments or cues on emotions. These include:
music in ads (Kellaris and Mantel, 1996);
music in stores (Sweeney and Wyber, 2002);
scent (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Knasko, 1995);
shopping center environment (Dennis and Newman, 2005; Sayed
the combination of music and scent in stores (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001); and
the brick-and-mortar store environment (Babin and Darden, 1995).
According to Mehrabian and Russell (1974), pleasure is the degree to which a person
feels good, joyful, or happy. Arousal is the degree to which a person feels excited,stimulated, alert or active. Dominance is the degree to which the person feelsunrestricted or in control of the situation. Arousal is seen as a major motivation forexperientially-oriented consumers (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982) and an amplifier ofthe effect of positive or negative hedonic tone of consumption experiences (Kellaris andMantel, 1996; Mano and Oliver, 1993). Dominance has found some (Foxall andGreenley, 1999; Ward and Barnes, 2001) but significantly less empirical support thanpleasure and arousal (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Sayed et al., 2003) resulting in itsabsence as a variable in studies (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Dennis and Newman, 2005;Knasko, 1995; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Sweeney and Wyber, 2002).
In support of the framework proposed here, studies implementing PAD have
examined the effect of emotion on value (Babin and Attaway, 2000) and approachresponses (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Dennis and Newman, 2005; Mattila and Wirtz,2001; Sherman et al., 1997). Two causal theories explaining the effect of shoppingenvironment cues on consumer behavior (Chebat and Michon, 2003) further support theframework proposed in this paper. Figure 2 shows models for the two theories thatshow linkages between C-E-V and C-A-B components (i.e., emotion, cognition,behavior). Some studies have treated emotions and cognitions as responses within theorganism without proposing causality between emotions and cognitions (Eroglu et al.,2001; Michon et al., 2005), whereas other studies have tested the causality betweenthese variables (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Chebat and Slusarczyk, 2005; Ward andBarnes, 2001).
In the first model of Figure 2, pleasure and arousal generated by the shopping
environment have a mediating effect on cognitions and behaviors toward the product,brand, or retailer. This is the theoretical foundation for most studies using PAD. Research (Izard et al., 1984; Zajonc and Markus, 1982, 1984, 1985) supports the
Emotion-cognition model used in environmental psychology based shopping environment studies.
Figure 2. Models of causal theoriesexplaining the
The competing cognitive theory of emotion model also used in shopping environment studies.
emotion-cognition model. Zajonc and Markus (1982, 1985) posited that emotion, Experiential and
omnipresent in human consciousness, influences cognitive processes.
The second model, which is based on Lazarus’ (1991) cognitive theory of emotions
and which has also received empirical support (Chebat and Michon, 2003; Ward and
Barnes, 2001), illustrates that environmental cues influence perceptions of theshopping environment and merchandise quality, which then influence emotions andresulting consumer behaviors. Thus, emotion has a mediating effect on the relationship
between cognition and consequent consumer behaviors. The two models of Figure 2support the reciprocal relationships between components of the organism proposed inthe framework.
ValueWhereas value is identified in only one of the two models (i.e. C-E-V), it is pertinent toboth; information processing leads to identification of utilitarian value (Holbrook andHirschman, 1982). Therefore, the framework does not limit the relationship of value toC-E-V components of the organism.
Perceived value is the culmination of perceived benefits derived from search,
acquisition, use, ownership, appreciation, recollection, fantasizing, discussion, and/ordisposal of one or more of these offerings (i.e. goods, services, shopping environments)(Fiore and Ogle, 2000). Perceived value could be considered part of cognition because itinvolves beliefs about the consumer offering. We separate it out as a component in theframework because of its prominence in the C-E-V model and because of itsexperiential element, which we will soon discuss.
Cognitive/consciousness and affect/emotion processes of the organism activated
during pre- and post-shopping may accentuate the perceived value associated with ashopping experience. For instance, the perceived value from the time saving nature ofone-stop-shopping in a superstore (that is, of course, discounting the time it takes toassemble the search team to recover one’s wandering partner in the vast domain) maybe accentuated by the emotional arousal derived from a dinnertime discussion of theexciting new products explored.
Empirical research confirms that both experiential value and utilitarian value
are derived from consumer offerings contributing to the shopping experience,including:
eating establishments (Gilmore and Pine, 2002; Hanefors and Mossberg, 2003;Pullman and Gross, 2003);
goods (Bell et al., 1991; Fiore et al., 2003; Morganosky, 1987);
interactions with sales staff (Hornik, 1992);
marketing materials (Fiore and Yu, 2001);
online shopping environments (Childers et al., 2001; Fiore et al., 2005a; Koufariset al., 2002);
shopping center environments (Dennis and Newman, 2005; Finn and Louviere,1996; McGoldrick and Thompson, 1992; Severin et al., 2001); and
Store environments (Babin et al., 1994; Swinyard, 1993; Yalch and Spangenberg,1990).
Holbrook (1999, p. 186) and Fiore and Ogle (2000) emphasized “compresence,” which is
defined as “a co-mingling of multiple types of value in any one consumption
experience”. Holbrook (1999) and Fiore and Ogle (2000) forwarded typologies of valuerelevant to consumer offerings. Both typologies itemize similar benefits, supported byempirical research, but implement different organizational dimensions. Holbrook’sintrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of value are similar to Fiore and Ogle’s (2000)
experiential and utilitarian dimensions, respectively. Experiential benefits arenon-instrumental, or rewarding and pleasurable in and of themselves. Utilitarianbenefits are rewarding because they help one attain external aims or goals such associal or economic gain (Berlyne, 1974; Holbrook, 1987). According to Fiore and Ogle(2000), experiential benefits include sensual pleasure, beauty, creative expression, andalternative existence (i.e. where a desired situation and/or persona are createdphysically and/or in imagination). Conversely, they itemized efficiency, physicalcomfort, protection and safety, self-acceptance, and status as examples of utilitarianbenefits.
Empirical findings support the intertwined nature of experiential and utilitarian
value associated with shopping experience. For example, Babin and Babin (2001) foundthat utilitarian shopping value associated with store patronage had a significantinfluence on hedonic value. In effect, a customer’s repeated (patronage) behaviortoward a store could lead to more efficient acquisitions of goods because desired itemsare easy to locate, which may allow time for more leisurely browsing, thus potentiallyenhancing utilitarian and hedonic shopping value.
ResponseThe response is the concluding result of the internal processes of the organism,expressed as approach (or avoidance) shopping-related behaviors or intentions towarda product/brand, service, or shopping environment such as staying in (or leaving) thestore, spending more (less) money than planned in a store, purchasing products, orreturning to the store (Bitner, 1992). This interpretation of the response closely alignswith, yet expands upon, the behavior component of the C-A-B model that focuses onbrand choice or purchase decision.
Holbrook (1986) emphasized that value is the outcome of the consumption
experience, including post-purchase product use, which indicates that value may beconceived as a post-response outcome. Perceived value influences consumer selection,evaluation, purchase, use of, and ultimate satisfaction with consumer offerings ofthe shopping experience. Moreover, perceived value derived from one offering of theshopping experience can affect outcomes towards other offerings. For instance,experiential value from a pleasing store design influenced perceived utilitarian value ofa product, which in turn affected store patronage intentions (Baker et al., 2002). Therefore, components of the C-A-B model and C-E-V model are enmeshed. A double-headed arrow between organism and response in Figure 1 reflects theserelationships.
Donovan and Rossiter’s (1982) conceptualization of approach-avoidance behaviors
as the dependent variables blazed the trail for a cadre of brick-and-mortar and onlinestore shopping experience researchers. Donovan and Rossiter examined the effect ofthe retail environment on actual resource expenditure (i.e. amount of time and moneyspent). Forsythe and Bailey (1996) and Babin et al. (1994) followed suit by examining
actual time and money spending at the store, respectively. Augmenting approach Experiential and
response measures, researchers (Iyer, 1989; Yalch and Spangenberg, 1990) examined
perceived resource expenditure (i.e. perceptions of amount of time spent shopping, levelof unplanned or impulse purchases). Instead of actual behavior, behavioral intentions
such as purchase intentions (Bellizzi and Hite, 1992; Spangenberg et al., 1996),willingness to purchase (Baker et al., 1992), and amount willing to pay for a product(Fiore et al., 2000) have been explored. Also, the approach response has been
operationalized as a measure of satisfaction with the shopping experience (Eroglu et al.,2003; Machleit et al., 1994) and loyalty towards the brand (Bawa et al., 1989).
Composite approach response variables have also been implemented. For instance,
Zeithaml et al. (1996) proposed a multi-dimensional construct for behavioral intentionscomposed of word-of-mouth, price insensitivity, purchase intentions, and complaintbehavior toward a retailer. Based on previous work (Dodds et al., 1991; Zeithaml et al.,1996), Baker et al. (2002) developed a patronage intention construct, which includedwillingness to recommend, willingness to buy, and shopping likelihood. Similar toModerator variables, measures used to tap approach responses in brick-and-mortarsettings have been routinely adapted to explore these responses towards other retailoutlets such as catalogs (Fiore and Yu, 2001) and retail web sites (Fiore et al., 2005a;Gehrke and Turban, 1999; Lynch et al., 2002; Menon and Kahn, 2002). This completesthe discussion of the integrative a framework and its components.
Conclusion and implicationsIn closing, we encourage the use of the proposed framework to give order to theever-expanding body of shopping experience literature. Readers interested in anin-depth review of shopping environment literature should refer to summary articlesby Baker et al. (2002), Bone and Ellen (1999), and Turley and Milliman (2000). When reading the literature, associating research variables with frameworkcomponents may facilitate organization of the similarities and differences in theliterature.
The proposed framework may help researchers develop empirical studies blurring
experiential and utilitarian approaches to shopping experience. Moreover, futureresearch may investigate new interrelationships among framework components. For instance, the effect of preexisting mood on cognitions towards and perceived valuederived from the environmental cues of the shopping experience can be explored. In turn, the effect of these variables on change in the consumer’s affect and patronageintentions towards the store can be explored. Using an in-situ research methodology(i.e. gathering observational and verbal data in the actual retail setting) may help theresearcher more accurately capture mood, emotion, and cognitions from exposure tothe environmental cues in the store, and uncover the roles of mood and cognition inshaping value and behavior.
Empirical evidence (Babin and Babin, 2001) suggests the evolving nature of
experiential and utilitarian value resulting from pre- and post-shopping experiencesregarding the product. For instance, perceived value associated with a product orbrand may be altered during post-purchase discussions that occur in the growingnumber of online communities centered on a product category (e.g. handbags, shoes) orbrand. Future research may explore the role of perceived value from a fuller rangeof product-related experiences on behavior variables.
The proposed framework may also guide industry professionals in the development
of successful shopping experiences. It reveals the complexity of variables in play when
developing a successful shopping experience. For instance, emotion evoked byimagery (consciousness) fostered by store displays, may help shape content of beliefs(cognition) about the product or brand (Isen et al., 1992; Meloy, 2000; Lee and Sternthal,1999). These relationships among variables of the organism should be considered when
developing a retail environment that is designed to reflect longer-term brand strategies.
1. Consumption experience includes shopping experience. Consumption experience also
includes pre-shopping elements such as attention to product ads, as well as post-purchaseproduct use and product disposal. Our framework, while focusing on shopping experience,recognizes the effect of other consumption experience elements on shopping experience.
ReferencesAjzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Anderson, C.E., Burns, D.J. and Reid, J.S. (2003), “The next evolutionary step for regional
shopping malls”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 27-59, availableat: www.reuw.washington.edu/JSCR/2005Articles/JSCRV12_1A2Teens.pdf (accessed23 February, 2006).
Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1993), “The influence of background music on shopping behavior:
classical versus top-forty music in a wine store”, in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT,pp. 336-40.
Babin, B.J. and Attaway, J.S. (2000), “Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining
share of a customer”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49, pp. 91-9.
Babin, B.J. and Babin, L. (2001), “Seeking something different? A model of schema typicality,
consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 54, pp. 89-96.
Babin, B.J. and Darden, W.R. (1995), “Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 47-70.
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, pp. 644-56.
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,pp. 328-39.
Baker, J., Levy, M. and Grewal, D. (1992), “An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 445-60.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, D., 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 No. 2, pp. 120-41.
Batra, R. (1986), “Affective advertising: role, processes, and measurement”, in Peterson, R.A.,
Hoyer, W.D. and Wilson, W.R. (Eds), The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: EmergingTheories and Applications, Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 53-86.
Bawa, K., Landwehr, J.T. and Krishna, A. (1989), “Consumer responses to retail marketing
environments: an analysis of coffee purchase data”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65, pp. 471-95.
Bell, S.S., Holbrook, M.B. and Solomon, M.R. (1991), “Combining esthetic and social value to
explain preferences for product styles with the incorporation of personality and ensemble
effects”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 243-74.
Bellizzi, J.A. and Hite, R.E. (1992), “Environmental color, consumer feelings, and purchase
likelihood”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 347-63.
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.
Berlyne, D.E. (1974), Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps Toward an Objective
Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation, Hemisphere, Washington, DC.
Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, Addison-Wesley,
Bitner, M.J. (1992), “Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 57-71.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W. and Engel, J.F. (2001), Consumer Behavior, Harcourt College
Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P.S. (1992), “The generation and consequences of communication-evoked
imagery”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 93-104.
Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P.S. (1999), “Scent in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 169-91.
Bruner, G.C. (1990), “Music, mood, and marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 94-104. 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 BusinessResearch, Vol. 56, pp. 529-39.
Chebat, J-C. and Slusarczyk, W. (2005), “How emotions mediate the effects of perceived justice on
loyalty in service recovery situations: an empirical study”, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 58, pp. 664-73.
Chebat, J-C., Chebat, C.G. and Vaillant, D. (2001), “Environmental background music and in-store
selling”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 115-23.
Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J. and Carson, S. (2001), “Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for
online retail shopping behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77, pp. 511-35.
Crowley, A.E. (1993), “The two-dimensional impact of color on shopping”, Marketing Letters,
d’Astous, A. and Levesque, M. (2003), “A scale for measuring store personality”, Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 455-69.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. and Ridgway, N. (1990), “Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail
outcomes”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 408-27.
Dennis, C. and Newman, A. (2005), “An environmental psychology approach to consumers’
choices of shopping centres”, in Dennis, C., Newman, A. and Marsland, D. (Eds), Objects ofDesire: Consumer Behaviour in Shopping Centre Choices, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire,pp. 169-84.
DeNora, T. and Belcher, S. (2000), “When you’re trying something on you picture yourself in a
place where they are playing this kind of music – musically sponsored agency in theBritish clothing retail sector”, The Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 81-101.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effects of price, brand and store information
on buyers’ product evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 307-19.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: the environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, pp. 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R. and Nesdale, A. (1994), “Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G. and Nesdale, A. (2002), “Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 283-94.
Dube´, L. and Morin, S. (2001), “Background music pleasure and store evaluation: intensity effects
and psychological mechanisms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 107-13.
Eastlick, M.A. and Shim, S. (1995), “Ethnic differences in shopping center patronage:
a comparison of Hispanic- and Anglo-Americans”, Journal of Shopping Center Research,Vol. 2 No. 1, available at: www.reuw.washington.edu/JSCR/IndArticles/Eastlick_N195.pdf(accessed 10 June, 2006).
Engel, F.J., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1995), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed., Dryden Press,
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66, pp. 201-21.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Chebat, J.C. (2005), “The interaction of retail density and music
tempo: effects on shopper responses”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 577-90.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2001), “Atmospheric qualities of online retailing:
a conceptual model and implications”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54, pp. 177-84.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A. and Davis, L.M. (2003), “Empirical testing of a model of online store
atmospherics and shopper responses”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 139-50.
Finn, A. and Louviere, J.J. (1996), “Shopping center image, consideration, and choice: anchor store
contribution”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, pp. 241-51.
Fiore, A.M. (2002), “Effects of experiential pleasure from a catalogue environment on approach
responses towards fashion apparel”, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 6No. 2, pp. 122-33.
Fiore, A.M. and Ogle, J.P. (2000), “Facilitating the integration of textiles and clothing subject
matter by students. Part I: dimensions of model and taxonomy”, Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31-45.
Fiore, A.M. and Yu, H. (2001), “Effects of imagery copy and product samples on responses
towards the product”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 37-47.
Fiore, A.M., Jin, H-J. and Kim, J. (2005a), “For fun and profit: hedonic value from image
interactivity and responses towards an online store”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22No. 8, pp. 669-94.
Fiore, A.M., Kim, J. and Lee, H-H. (2005b), “Effects of image interactivity on approach responses
towards an online retailer”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 38-53.
Fiore, A.M., Lee, S-E. and Kunz, G. (2003), “Psychographic variables affecting willingness to use
body-scanning”, Journal of Business Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 271-87.
Fiore, A.M., Lee, S-E. and Kunz, G. (2004), “Individual differences, motivations, and willingness
to use a mass customization option of fashion products”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 835-49.
Fiore, A.M., Yan, X. and Yoh, E. (2000), “Effects of product display and environmental
fragrancing on approach responses towards a product and pleasurable experiences”,Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-54.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to the Experiential and
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Flynn, L.R., Goldsmith, R.E. and Eastman, J.K. (1996), “Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: two
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2,
Forsythe, S.M. and Bailey, A.W. (1996), “Shopping enjoyment, perceived time poverty, and time
spent shopping”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 185-91.
Foxall, G.R. and Greenley, G.E. (1999), “Consumers’ emotional responses to service
environments”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 46, pp. 149-58.
Gehrke, D. and Turban, D. (1999), “Determinants of successful website design: relative
importance and recommendations for effectiveness”, Proceedings of the 32nd HawaiiInternational Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1-8.
Gehrt, K.C. and Carter, K. (1992), “An exploratory assessment of catalog shopping orientations:
the existence of convenience and recreational segments”, Journal of Direct Marketing,Vol. 6, pp. 29-39.
Gilmore, J.H. and Pine, B.J. II (2002), The Experience is the Marketing, Strategic Horizons LLP,
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B. and Lapidus, R.S. (1990), “Environmental dispositions
and customer response to store atmospherics”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 21, p. 225.
Ha, H. (2005), “The relationships between 3D advertisings and risk perceptions on the web: the
role of brand and emotion”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 27No. 2, pp. 55-65.
Hanefors, M. and Mossberg, L. (2003), “Searching for the extraordinary meal experience”,
Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 249-70.
Herche, J. and Balasubramanian, S. (1994), “Ethnicity and shopping behavior”, Journal of
Shopping Center Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, available at: www.reuw.washington.edu/JSCR/resultsJSCRkey.php (accessed 27 April, 2006).
Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods
and propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 92-101.
Holbrook, M.B. (1986), “Emotions in the consumption experience: toward a new model of
consumer behavior”, in Peterson, R.A., Hoyer, W.D. and Wilson, W.R. (Eds), The Role ofAffect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theories and Applications, Heath, Lexington, MA,pp. 17-52.
Holbrook, M.B. (1987), “The study of signs in consumer esthetics: an egocentric review”,
in Umiker-Sebeok, J. (Ed.), Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signsfor Sale, Mouton de Gruyter, New York, NY, pp. 73-121.
Holbrook, M.B. (1999), “Introduction to consumer value”, in Holbrook, M.B. (Ed.), Consumer
Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research, Routledge, London, pp. 1-28.
Holbrook, M.B. and Batra, R. (1987), “Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer
responses to advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, pp. 404-20.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
fantasies, feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 132-40.
Hornik, J. (1992), “Tactile stimulation and consumer response”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Isen, A.M., Niedenthal, P.M. and Cantor, N. (1992), “An influence of positive affect on social
categorization”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 16, pp. 65-78.
Iyer, E.S. (1989), “Unplanned purchasing: knowledge of shopping environment and time
pressure”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 65, pp. 40-57.
Izard, C.E., Kagan, J. and Zajonc, R.B. (1984), “Introduction”, in Izard, C.E., Kagan, J. and
Zajonc, R.B. (Eds), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior, Cambridge University Press,New York, NY, pp. 1-14.
Johnson-Hillery, J. and Kang, J. (1996), “Elderly consumers and retail sales personnel: an
examination of attitudes and services”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,available at: www.reuw.washington.edu/JSCR/IndArticles/Johnson-Hillery_N296.pdf(accessed 10 June, 2006).
Kamins, M.A. (1990), “An investigation into the ‘match-up’ hypothesis in celebrity advertising:
when beauty may be only skin deep”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 19, pp. 4-13.
Kellaris, J.J. and Mantel, S.P. (1996), “Shaping time perceptions with background music: the effect
of congruity and arousal on estimates of ad durations”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 13No. 5, pp. 501-15.
Kim, H-S. (2000), “Examination of brand personality and brand attitude within the apparel
product category”, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 243-52.
Kim, J., Allen, C.T. and Kardes, F.R. (1996), “An investigation of the mediational mechanisms
underlying attitudinal conditioning”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, pp. 318-28.
Kim, J., Lim, J.S. and Bhargava, M. (1998), “The role of affect in attitude formation: a classical
conditioning approach”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 143-52.
Knasko, S.C. (1995), “Pleasant odors and congruency: effects on approach behavior”, Chemical
Koernig, S.K. (2003), “E-scapes: the electronic physical environment and service tangibility”,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 151-67.
Koufaris, M., Kambil, A. and LaBarbera, P.A. (2002), “Consumer behavior in web-based
commerce: an empirical study”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 6 No. 2,pp. 115-38.
Lazarus, R.S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Lee, A.Y. and Sternthal, B. (1999), “The effect of positive mood on memory”, Journal of Consumer
Lee, H-H., Fiore, A.M. and Kim, J. (2006), “Technology acceptance model, shopping orientation,
image interactivity technology, and consumer responses toward an online retailer”,International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 621-44.
Li, H., Kuo, C. and Russell, M.G. (1999), “The impact of perceived channel utilities, shopping
orientations, and demographics on the consumer’s online buying behavior”, Journal ofComputer Mediated Communication, Vol. 5 No. 2, available at: www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue2/hairong.html (accessed 15 July, 2003).
Lynch, P.D., Kent, R.J. and Srinivasan, S.S. (2002), “The global internet shopper: evidence from
shopping tasks in twelve countries”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 3,pp. 15-23.
McGoldrick, P.J. and Thompson, M.G. (1992), “The role of image in the attraction of the out of
town centre”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 2No. 1, pp. 81-98.
Machleit, K.A. and Mantel, S.P. (2001), “Emotional response and shopping satisfaction
moderating effects of shopper attribution”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54,pp. 97-106.
Machleit, K.A., Kellaris, J.J. and Eroglu, S.A. (1994), “Human versus spatial dimensions of
crowding perceptions in retail environments: a note on their measurement and effect on
shopping satisfaction”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 5, pp. 183-94.
MacInnis, D.J. and Price, L.L. (1987), “The role of imagery in information processing: review and
extensions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 473-91.
Mano, H. and Oliver, R.L. (1993), “Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption
experience: evaluation, feeing, and satisfaction”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20,
Martin, B., Sherrard, M. and Wentzel, D. (2005), “The role of sensations seeking and need for
cognition on web site evaluations: a resource matching perspective”, Psychology &Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 109-26.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N. and Rigdon, E. (2001), “Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and internet shopping environment”, Journalof Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 273-89.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MIT Press,
Meloy, M.G. (2000), “Mood-driven distortion of product information”, Journal of Consumer
Menon, S. and Kahn, B. (2002), “Cross-category effects of induced arousal and pleasure on the
internet shopping experience”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78, pp. 31-40.
Michon, R., Chebat, J.C. and Turley, L.W. (2005), “Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the
mall environment on shopping behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 5,pp. 576-83.
Milliman, R.E. (1982), “Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, pp. 86-91.
Morganosky, M.A. (1987), “Aesthetic, function, and fashion consumer values: relationships to
other values and demographics”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1,pp. 15-19.
Morin, M. and Chebat, J.C. (2005), “Person-place congruency: the interactive effects of shopper
style and atmospherics on consumer expenditures”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8No. 2, pp. 181-91.
Morin, M. and Ratneshwar, S. (2000), “The impact of ambient scent on evaluation, attention, and
memory for familiar and unfamiliar brands”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2,pp. 157-65.
Morris, J.D. and Boone, M.A. (1998), “The effect of music on emotional response, brand attitude,
and purchase intent in an emotional advertising condition”, Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 25, pp. 518-26.
Motes, W.H., Hilton, C.B. and Fielden, J.S. (1989), “Reactions of creative variations of a direct
response ad”, Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 3, pp. 16-24.
O’Cass, A. and Fenech, T. (2003), “Web retailing adoption: exploring the nature of Internet users
web retailing behaviour”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 10, pp. 81-94.
Ogle, J.P., Hyllegard, K.H. and Dunbar, B. (2004), “Predicting patronage behaviors in a
sustainable retail environment: adding retail characteristics and consumer lifestyleorientation to the belief-attitude-behavior intention model”, Environment & Behavior,Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 717-41.
Oliver, R.L., Robertson, T.S. and Mitchell, D.J. (1993), “Imaging and analyzing in response to new
product advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12, pp. 35-49.
Olson, J.C. (1980), “Encoding process: levels of processing and existing knowledge structures”,
in Olson, J. and Arbor, A. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Association forConsumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 154-60.
Overby, J.W., Gardial, S.F. and Woodruff, R.B. (2004), “French versus American consumers’
attachment of value to a product in a common consumption context: a cross-nationalcomparison”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 437-60.
Park, C.W., Iyar, E.S. and Smith, D.C. (1989), “The effects of situational factors on in-store
grocery shopping behavior: the role of store environment and time available for shopping”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 422-33.
Peracchio, L.A. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1997), “Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a
resource-matching perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, pp. 178-91.
Peterson, R. and Sauber, M. (1983), “A mood scale for survey research”, in Murphy, P. (Ed.), AMA
Educators’ Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 409-14.
Pullman, M.E. and Gross, M.A. (2003), “Welcome to the experience economy: where you can
check out, but you can never leave”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 215-31.
Raney, A.A., Arpen, L.M., Pashupati, K. and Brill, D.A. (2003), “At the movies on the web: an
investigation of the effects of entertainment and interactive web content on site and brandevaluations”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 38-53.
Sayed, I.M., Farrag, D.A. and Belk, R.W. (2003), “The effects of physical surroundings on
Egyptian consumers’ emotional states and buying intentions”, Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Blok, S.T. (2002), “The signal function of thematically (in)congruent
ambient scents in a retail environment”, Chemical Senses, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 539-49.
Schlosser, A.E. (2003), “Experiencing products in the virtual world: the role of goal and imagery
in influencing attitudes versus purchasing intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 184-98.
Severin, V., Louviere, J.J. and Finn, A. (2001), “The stability of retail shopping choices over time
and across countries”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Shang, R-A., Chen, Y-C. and Shen, L. (2005), “Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations for
consumers to shop online”, Information & Management, Vol. 42, pp. 401-13.
Sharma, A. and Stafford, T.F. (2000), “The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’ perceptions
of salespeople and customer persuasion: an empirical investigation”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 183-91.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A. and Smith, R.B. (1997), “Store environment and consumer purchase
behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4,pp. 361-78.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A. and Lotz, S. (2000), “Assessing the impact of Internet shopping on store
retailing among mall shoppers and internet users”, Journal of Shopping Center Research,Vol. 7 No. 2, available at: www.reuw.washington.edu/JSCR/resultsJSCRkey.php (accessed10 June, 2006).
Sirgy, M.J., Grewal, D. and Mangleburg, T.M. (2000), “Retail environment, self-congruity, and
retail patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 49, pp. 127-38.
Sit, J., Merrilees, B. and Birch, D. (2003), “Entertainment-seeking shopping center patrons: the
missing segment”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31
Song, K., Fiore, A.M. and Park, J. (n.d.), “Telepresence and fantasy in online apparel shopping
experience”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management (in press).
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 No. 2, pp. 67-80.
Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B. and Sprott, D.E. (2004), “It’s beginning to smell (and sound) a
lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent and music in a retail setting”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp. 1583-9.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1992), “The role of optimum stimulation level in
exploratory consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 434-48.
Sweeney, J.C. and Wyber, F. (2002), “The role of cognitions and emotions in the
music-approach-avoidance behavior relationship”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16No. 1, pp. 51-69.
Swinyard, W.R. (1993), “The effect of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on
shopping intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 271-80.
Swinyard, W.R. and Smith, S.M. (2003), “Why people (don’t) shop online: a lifestyle study of the
internet consumer”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 567-97.
Tse, D.K., Wong, J.K. and Tan, C.T. (1988), “Toward some standardized cross-cultural
consumption values”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 387-95.
Turley, L.W. and Milliman, R.E. (2000), “Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior:
a review of the experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2,pp. 193-211.
Wakefield, K.L. and Baker, J. (1998), “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on
shopping response”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 515-39.
Ward, J.C. and Barnes, J.W. (2001), “Control and affect: the influence of feeling in control of the
retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 54, pp. 139-44.
Ward, P.W. and Davies, B.J. (2003), “Ambient smell and retail environment: relating olfaction
research to consumer behavior”, Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,pp. 289-302.
Wesley, S., LeHew, M. and Woodside, A.G. (2006), “Consumer decision-making styles and mall
shopping behavior: building theory using exploratory data analysis and the comparativemethod”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 535-48.
Yalch, R.F. and Spangenberg, E.R. (1990), “Effect of store music on shopping behavior”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, pp. 55-63.
Yalch, R.F. and Spangenberg, E.R. (1993), “Use of store music for store zoning: a field
experiment”, in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,Association of Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 632-6.
Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1982), “Affective and cognitive factors in preferences”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 123-31.
Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1984), “Affect and cognition: the hard interface”, in Izard, C.E.,
Kagan, J. and Zajonc, R.B. (Eds), Emotions, Cognition, and Behavior, CambridgeUniversity Press, New York, NY, pp. 73-102.
Zajonc, R.B. and Markus, H. (1985), “Must all affect be mediate by cognition?”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 362-3.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 31-46.
Ann Marie Fiore is a Professor in the College of Human Science at Iowa State University and isthe Director of Graduate Education for the Textiles and Clothing program. Her research andteaching focus on the effects of hedonic experience and experiential marketing on consumerbehavior. She publishes mainly in marketing and e-commerce related journals. Ann Marie Fioreis the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Jihyun Kim is an Assistant Professor in Apparel, Housing and Resource Management at
Virginia Tech. Her research focuses on consumer behavior and marketing including e-commerce. She publishes primarily in marketing related journals. E-mail: [email protected]
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
MEDICAL DRUG INTERACTIONS WITH STREET DRUGS A resource by and for drug users Compiled by Julie Klems, NEED (Needle Exchange Emergency Distribution, Berkeley, CA) This copy is made available for reference. The original is in zine format and can be purchased by contacting Julie at the address given in the booklet. Editorial Note: No clinical studies have ever been done on the interactions