HEDONIC SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS IN COLLECTIVISTIC AND

INDIVIDUALISTIC CONSUMER CULTURES

Heiner Evanschitzky* Professor of Marketing, Aston Business School, Marketing Group, Aston Triangle,

Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK (h.evanschitzky@aston.ac.uk)

Oliver Emrich (Assistant Professor of Distribution Management and E-Commerce. University of St.Gallen,

Institute of Retail Management, Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St.Gallen. oliver.emrich@unisg.ch)

Vinita Sangtani (Assistant Professor of Marketing. Mike Cottrell School of Business, North Georgia College

and State University. vsangtani@northgeorgia.edu )

Anna-Lena Ackfeldt (Lecturer in Marketing . Aston Business School, Marketing Group, Aston Triangle,

Birmingham, B4 7ET, UK. a.ackfeldt@aston.ac.uk )

Kristy E. Reynolds (Bruno Associate Professor of Marketing. Department of Management and Marketing,

Culverhouse College of Commerce, The University of Alabama. kreynold@cba.ua.edu)

Mark J. Arnold (Senior Associate Dean, Professor of Marketing. Department of Marketing, John Cook

School of Business, Saint Louis University. arnoldm2@slu.edu )

*) corresponding author

==========================================================

ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

First received in October 10, 2013 and was under review for 4½ months.

Replication Editor: John G. Lynch

============================================================

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

HEDONIC SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS IN COLLECTIVISTIC AND

INDIVIDUALISTIC CONSUMER CULTURES

We reinvestigate what constitutes hedonic customer experiences in collectivistic versus

individualistic cultures using four country samples (N=2,336) in Germany and the U.S. as

well as Oman and India. Across country samples, intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences are associated with the same underlying hedonic shopping motivations as shown

in the original U.S. context. In comparison with individualistic cultures, we find that a

hedonic shopping experience in collectivistic cultures is less strongly associated with self-

oriented gratification shopping, yet more strongly associated with others-oriented role

shopping.

*FINAL APPROVED MANUSCRIPTClick here to view linked References

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

1. Motivation for the Study

Although a rich body of literature investigates customer experiences from a hedonic versus

utilitarian perspective, little research has examined the cross-cultural variation in what

constitutes hedonic experiences in a retail setting, and the underlying hedonic shopping

motivations consumers have in different cultures. Replicating Arnold and Reynolds’ (2003)

data in the U.S. in three countries, we investigate if intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences in collectivistic societies are driven by the same hedonic shopping motivations as

in individualistic societies.

2. Expected Cultural Differences

Hedonic shopping experiences are deemed as a critical component for companies to

differentiate themselves in in Eastern markets, emphasizing the relevance of research on

culturally-influenced drivers of hedonic shopping (see Web-Appendix 1). Hedonic shopping

motivations consist of six shopping dimensions (Arnold & Reynolds, 2003): adventure,

gratification, idea, role, social, and value. These six hedonic shopping motivations mediate the

link between fundamental drivers within the goal system hierarchy, which are likely to be

universal across cultures, and enjoyable shopping outcomes (Arnold & Reynolds, 2012).

Therefore, we expect that all hedonic shopping motivations are cross-culturally relevant for

the customer experience.

H1: In individualistic consumer cultures (i.e., USA, Germany), intrinsically enjoyable

customer experiences are associated with all hedonic shopping motivations.

H2: In collectivistic consumer cultures (i.e. India, Oman), intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences are associated with all hedonic shopping motivations.

However, important differences may arise in the weighting of these hedonic shopping

motivations for the customer experience. In the U.S., Arnold and Reynolds (2003) found that

intrinsically enjoyable customer experiences are particularly strongly associated with

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

adventure and gratification shopping. Especially the link to gratification shopping may be

stronger in individualistic than in collective cultures because gratification shopping serves

personal goals which are more pronounced in individualistic cultures (Singelis, 1994). In

contrast, consumers in collectivistic cultures less often feel the right to engage in self-

gratification, but feel obliged to more strongly aim at maintaining groups’ resources,

relationships, and mutual obligations such as inherent in role shopping (Triandis, McCusker,

& Harry, 1990).

H3: In collectivistic cultures, the association of intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences with gratification shopping is weaker, and the association with role

shopping is stronger than in individualistic cultures.

In cross-cultural comparisons, attention must be devoted to the reflective measurement;

that is, whether the different weighting of hedonic motivations is real or results only from

differences in the mapping of underlying latent constructs (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998).

Moreover, differences in income between Western and Eastern markets may bias the

association of hedonic shopping motivations with intrinsically enjoyable experiences.

H4: Cross-cultural differences in the weighting of hedonic shopping motivations for

intrinsically enjoyable customer experiences are not confounded by differences in

reflective measurement or in income.

3. Method and Samples1

We conducted studies in two individualistic countries (U.S. and Germany) and in two

collectivistic countries (India and Oman) retaining the original US data (Table 1). In line with

Arnold and Reynolds (2003), we use hedonic shopping motivations (7-point Likert scales

ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”) as independent variables and

measure intrinsically enjoyable customer experiences as outcomes by the flow scale (7-point

1 Data is available from IJRM website. Due to missing values, the final dataset has been reduced to 2,336

instead of 2,501. However, results remain stable when models are run on the full dataset with imputed data.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

Likert scale from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”; Bloch et al., 1994).

Among socio-demographic measures, income levels vary significantly between countries so

we compute a four level relative income variable that approximately divides respondents into

quartiles of the income distribution for each country sample (coded 1 for the lowest income

class and 4 for the highest income class). As an indicator for collective orientation, the

generosity scale (7-point Likert scale from 1=”Strongly Disagree” to 7=”Strongly Agree”;

Belk, 1985) validates that collectivistic country samples have a significantly higher generosity

score than individualistic country samples (India and Oman: 4.88; U.S. and Germany: 4.68,

t=4.60, p<.05).

4. Findings

Regarding H1 and H2, we separately test path coefficients between each hedonic shopping

motivation and flow in all country samples. Because the flow construct is operationalized as

one item assessing the overall shopping flow experience and three items that reflect flow

based on distorted time perceptions, the model considers covariance between residual errors

of the three related items. For all country samples, we find that each hedonic shopping

motivation is positively associated with flow, replicating Arnold and Reynolds (2003) finding

for the U.S. (see Web-Appendix 2). Confirming H1 and H2, the conceptualization of six

hedonic shopping motivations is relevant to investigate hedonic shopping experiences across

cultures. However, as posited in H3, cross-cultural differences may occur regarding the

relative strength of associations which we will investigate next.

The comparison of relationships between constructs across cultures requires partial metric

invariance which is provided if at least one indicator besides the marker item for each

construct has invariant (i.e., equivalent) factor loadings across cultures (Steenkamp &

Baumgartner, 1998). We specify a model with at least two factor loadings per construct that

are held equal across samples while not constraining the remaining (non-invariant) items. This

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

partial mediation model results in 14 out of 22 factor loadings that are fixed (Web-Appendix

3). Using chi-square difference testing, the partial metric invariance model is compared with a

model where all factor loadings are free across samples (Byrne, Shavelson, & Muthén, 1989).

Across all country samples, the partial metric invariance model did not differ significantly

from the model with free factor loadings (Δχ2

27=36.34, n.s.), confirming partial metric

invariance (see Appendix 1). We also successfully performed invariance models for the

pooled individualistic and collectivistic samples (see Web-Appendix 4).

To test H3, we simultaneously examine the path coefficients of hedonic shopping

motivations on flow in a multi-group model with pooled samples for individualistic cultures

(U.S. and Germany) and collectivistic cultures (India and Oman) (see Table 2). At first, we

assess stepwise for each path if coefficients significantly differ between individualistic and

collectivistic cultures. We compare a model where all paths are free across samples with six

models in which one path of interest is fixed, respectively. Significant differences in chi-

square indicate that paths differ between individual and collectivistic cultures. In line with H3,

we find that the association of gratification shopping with flow is stronger in individualistic

than in collectivistic cultures (Δχ2

1=24.32, p<.05). In collectivistic cultures, stronger

associations with flow are indicated for role shopping (Δχ2

1=5.77, p<.05), adventure shopping

(Δχ2

1=5.91, p<.05), and value shopping (Δχ2

1=7.04, p<.05), compared with individualistic

cultures.

To test H4, we assess interaction effects between hedonic shopping motivations and

cultural differences.2 Model 1 shows significant associations between all six hedonic

shopping motivations (operationalized as average scores) and flow, even when controlling for

cultural difference (coded as 1 for collectivistic cultures and 0 for individualistic cultures) and

income (see Table 3). Model 2, with interaction terms between cultural difference and

hedonic shopping motivations as well as income, provides support for the hypothesized

2 Additional invariance tests for multi-group comparisons are included in the Web-Appendix.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

cultural differences in the association of gratification and role shopping with flow. For

collectivistic cultures, the association between flow and gratification shopping is weaker (β=-

.19, t=-5.07, p<.05), and the association between flow and role shopping is stronger (β=.10,

t=2.92, p<.05), compared with individualistic cultures. These results remain robust if

including interactions between hedonic shopping motivations and income (Model 3), and if

considering three way interactions between hedonic shopping motivations, cultural difference,

and income (Spiller, Fitzsimons, Lynch, & McClelland, 2013; see Web-Appendix 6).

In summary, we can rule out that findings for H3 are caused by reflective measurement

differences or are confounded by differences in income.

—Tables 2 & 3—

5. Discussion

Our findings suggest that the association between intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences and hedonic shopping motivations varies significantly between cultures. While

we can replicate in a cross-cultural context that all shopping motivations are relevant for

hedonic experiences, major differences occur with regards to the significance of gratification

and role shopping in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures. In individualistic cultures,

shopping is intrinsically most enjoyable if gratification (or adventure) shopping motivations

are underlying the customer experience. In collective cultures, it seems to be socially less

accepted to gratify oneself through shopping, making gratification shopping less appealing. In

contrast, role shopping is more strongly associated with intrinsically enjoyable customer

experiences in collectivistic than in individualistic cultures. This supports that flow-like

shopping experiences are more strongly promoted by self-oriented shopping motivations in

individualistic cultures and by others-oriented shopping motivations in collectivistic cultures.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

REFERENCES

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing,

79(2), 77–95. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00007-1

Arnold, M. J., & Reynolds, K. E. (2012). Approach and Avoidance Motivation: Investigating

Hedonic Consumption in a Retail Setting. Journal of Retailing, 88(3), 399–411.

doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2011.12.004

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World. Journal of

Consumer Research, 12(3), 265–280. doi:10.2307/254373

Bloch, P. H., Ridgway, N. M., & Dawson, S. A. (1994). The shopping mall as consumer

habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 23–42. doi:10.1016/0022-4359(94)90026-4

Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor

covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance.

Psychological Bulletin, 105(3), 456–466. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456

Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism A Study of Cross-Cultural

Researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248.

doi:10.1177/0022002186017002006

Singelis, T. M. (1994). The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

doi:10.1177/0146167294205014

Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,

Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated

Regression. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288. doi:10.1509/jmr.12.0420

Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing Measurement Invariance in

Cross‐National Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–107.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Harry, C. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and

collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1006–1020.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

TABLES

Table 1

Sample characteristics

Samples Individualism

scorea

N Gender

(female)

Age

<36 years)

U.S. 91 233 67% 55%

Germany 67 931 48% 52%

India 48 885 40% 87%

Oman 38 287 53% 94% a On Hofstede’s individualism scale with scores of 91 and 67 representing highly individualistic and scores of 48

and 38 representing collectivistic consumer cultures (Hofstede center 2013). Oman was not explicitly

investigated by Hofstede, but is supposed to have a very low individualism score between 25 for Arab emirates

and 38 for other Arab countries (Hofstede center 2013). In India and Oman, the major share of population is

below 36 years (India: 63%) with a median age of 26.7 years in India and 24.7 years in Oman, which is even

higher in urban areas, and a higher share of the male population (CIA 2013). Therefore, we deem the samples as

a good representation of the overall population.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

Table 2

Two-group comparison test for equality of path coefficients

Simultaneous path assessment for each sample Test of equality of path coefficients

between pooled samples

Individualistic cultures

(U.S. and Germany) Collectivistic cultures

(India and Oman)

Individualistic versus collectivistic

β (t-value) β (t-value) Δχ2(1)

ADV .29* (4.35) .53* (7.22) 5.91*

GRA .29* (5.59) -.04 (-1.00) 24.32*

IDE .18* (5.12) .13* (3.63) .81

ROL .07 (1.76) .20* (4.94) 5.77*

SOC .13* (2.82) .07 (1.40) .83

VAL .08* (2.69) .20* (5.96) 7.04*

Note: Path coefficients were estimated for the individualistic and collectivistic samples in a two-group

comparison model. For equality testing of regression coefficients, we subsequently constrained the path of

interest to be equal across groups, and compared the chi-square difference to the model where all path

coefficients are freely estimated.

* p<.05

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

Table 3

Interactions of hedonic shopping motivations with cultural differences / income

Differences of collectivist versus individualist cultures

Cultural difference (1=collectivistic/0=individualistic)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Adventure shopping (ADV) .22 (10.78)* .22 (7.32)* .17 (3.26)*

Gratification shopping (GRA) .12 (6.66)* .23 (8.03)* .16 (3.35)*

Idea shopping (IDE) .14 (8.47)* .17 (6.99)* .27 (6.48)*

Role shopping (ROL) .10 (5.94)* .05 (2.07)* .11 (2.57)*

Social shopping (SOC) .08 (4.50)* .10 (3.99)* .11 (2.44)*

Value shopping (VAL) .07 (5.01)* .06 (2.91)* .08 (2.12)*

Cultural Difference (CUL) 1.04 (19.30)* 1.40 (6.76)* 1.26 (5.96)*

Income (INC) -.05 (-2.80)* -.10 (-3.69)* .01 (.08)

CULxINC .11 (2.81)* .17 (3.90)*

ADVxCUL -.02 (-.47) -.01 (-.36)

GRAxCUL -.19 (-5.07)* -.19 (-5.11)*

IDExCUL -.06 (-1.79) -.06 (-1.74)

ROLxCUL .10 (2.92)* .09 (2.79)*

SOCxCUL -.06 (-1.62) -.06 (-1.72)

VALxCUL .03 (.94) .03 (.92)

ADVxINC .02 (.92)

GRAxINC .03 (2.09)*

IDExINC -.04 (-2.89)*

ROLxINC -.02 (-1.70)

SOCxINC -.00 (-.26)

VALxINC -.01 (-.70)

R2 .714 .730 .734

Note: Unstandardized path coefficients are displayed. The models were calculated using average scores for

hedonic shopping motivations. These results could be replicated using integration of latent factors based on a

Monte Carlo simulation with 5,000 integration points (see Web-Appendix 6).

* p<.05

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

1

HEDONIC SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS IN COLLECTIVISTIC AND INDIVIDUALISTIC CONSUMER CULTURES

APPENDIX Appendix 1 Test statistics for comparison between partial metric invariance model and unrestricted model

Model χ2 df Δ χ2 Δdf RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR

Basic model (free factor loadings) 2139.416 752 .056 .936 .921 .056

Partial metric invariance model 2175.760 779 36.344 (n.s.) 27 .055 .935 .923 .057

χ2 = chi-square, df=degrees of freedom, Δ χ2 = chi-square difference, RMSEA=Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, CFI=Comparative Fit Index, TLI=Tucker-Lewis Index, SRMR= Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

2

Appendix 2 Descriptive statistics for the country samples

U.S. Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Adventure 3.00 1.56 1 2 Gratification 3.91 1.61 .72 1 3 Idea 3.57 1.57 .46 .52 1 4 Role 4.83 1.56 .37 .46 .30 1 5 Social 3.41 1.56 .63 .60 .47 .43 1 6 Value 4.79 1.68 .35 .42 .18 .37 .32 1 7 Flow 3.68 1.70 .65 .62 .37 .39 .52 .32 1 Germany Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Adventure 2.86 1.42 1 2 Gratification 3.18 1.51 .61 1 3 Idea 2.72 1.48 .44 .44 1 4 Role 3.99 1.65 .42 .46 .30 1 5 Social 2.76 1.47 .44 .39 .44 .39 1 6 Value 3.42 1.71 .31 .29 .21 .30 .26 1 7 Flow 2.49 1.43 .56 .55 .48 .41 .45 .29 1 India Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Adventure 3.90 1.41 1 2 Gratification 3.69 1.60 .52 1 3 Idea 4.38 1.60 .39 .40 1 4 Role 4.95 1.47 .32 .30 .30 1 5 Social 4.00 1.46 .30 .36 .36 .37 1 6 Value 4.41 1.60 .17 .17 .22 .14 .25 1 7 Flow 4.52 1.35 .43 .33 .40 .36 .31 .24 1 Oman Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Adventure 3.98 1.36 1 2 Gratification 3.80 1.57 .49 1 3 Idea 4.73 1.51 .30 .36 1 4 Role 4.77 1.32 .21 .18 .36 1 5 Social 4.55 1.40 .16 .09** .22 .31 1 6 Value 4.75 1.35 .17 .12* .20 .22 .29 1 7 Flow 4.59 1.17 .24 .20 .16 .22 .13* .21 1 All correlations are significant at the p<.01 level, except * significant at the p<.05 level and ** not significant.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

3

WEB-APPENDIX Web-Appendix 1 Vignette

Relevance of hedonic shopping experiences in collectivistic consumer cultures

In most Eastern retail markets, organized retailing has only a market share of less than ten percent but market potential is huge such as in India with an estimated retail turnover of 350 billion US-dollar and growth rates of 15-20 percent per year (PriceWaterhouseCoopers: Winning in India’s retail sector 2011). According to retail experts, differentiation is an important competitive factor:

”Many retailers will be looking to enter the Indian market – but successful entry will require nimble adaptation to unique consumer demands” (Nathan Associates, 2011). “Shopping is all about drama. You need to create excitement” (Samar S. Sheikhawat, VP Marketing, Spencer’s Retail).

Examples:

• Indian retailer Bharti tries to enhance social shopping as a central hedonic component through wider shopping aisles, allowing more people in a group to approach the displays.

• Luxury retailer Hermes aims to cater for adventure shopping by integrating an art gallery in its retail location in Mumbai.

• Competition in India between retail chains and small mom-and-pop stores, called ‘kirana’ stores, has induced many retailers to offer bargains and large discounts, setting value shopping in the focus of most retailers.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

4

Web-Appendix 2 Association between flow and hedonic shopping motivations across country samples U.S. Germany India Oman Flow Single regression β (t-value) Single regression β (t-value) Single regression β (t-value) Single regression β (t-value) ADV .81

(10.11) .79

(15.17) .54

(8.77) .53

(3.38)

GRA .71 (9.03)

.57 (14.75)

.22 (6.89)

.25 (3.62)

IDE .43 (5.82)

.50 (12.69)

.28 (8.76)

.17 (2.39)

ROL .50 (5.87)

.48 (11.33)

.38 (8.54)

.21 (2.67)

SOC .63 (8.08)

.64 (12.65)

.34 (7.82)

.32 (2.43)

VAL .41 (4.68)

.38 (8.29)

.29 (6.60)

.37 (3.75)

Note: For all country samples, flow is separately regressed on each hedonic shopping motivation. All path coefficients are significant at p<.05.

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

5

Web-Appendix 3 Partial metric invariance of samples – factor loadings Factors U.S. GER India Oman IND COL Flow Most of the time I go shopping at malls, stores, or shopping complexes I feel that I am in flow

.65 .65 .65 .65 .64 .64

I loose track of time when I am in the store, shopping complex or at the mall

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Time seems to fly by when I'm shopping at the mall, retail stores or shopping complexes

1.00 1.00 1.00 .75 1.01 .96

When I leave a retail store, mall, or shopping complexes, I'm sometimes surprised to see that it is dark outside

1.03 .80 .95 .61 .87 .87

Adventure

To me, shopping is an adventure 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I find shopping stimulating 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 Shopping makes me feel like I am in my own universe .92 .99 1.33 1.48 .98 1.39 Gratification

When I'm in a down mood, I go shopping to make me feel better 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 To me, shopping is a way to relieve stress .98 .98 .98 .98 .99 .99 I go shopping when I want to treat myself to something special .61 .61 .51 .61 .57 .53 Idea

I go shopping to keep up with the trends .98 .80 .98 .85 .89 .96 I go shopping to keep up with new fashions 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I go shopping to see what new products are available .73 .73 .73 .73 .74 .74 Role

I like shopping for others because when they feel good I feel good

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

I enjoy shopping for my friends and family 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.05 1.05 I enjoy shopping around to find the perfect gift for someone .89 .98 .75 .32 1.00 .66 Social

I go shopping with my friends or family to socialize 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I enjoy socializing with others when I shop .83 .83 1.09 1.30 .88 1.13 Shopping with others is a bonding experience 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.01 1.01 Value

For the most part, I go shopping when there are sales 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I enjoy looking for discounts when I shop 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.25 1.25 I enjoy hunting for bargains when I shop 1.19 1.25 1.12 0.68 1.19 1.01 χ2 (df) of partial metric model 2175.760 (779) 1667.114 (383) χ2 (df) of free factor loading model 2139.416 (752) 1660.428 (376) Δ χ2(Δdf) 36.344 (27), n.s. 6.69 (7), n.s. Note: The partial metric invariance measurement model is displayed with unstandardized factor loadings. Items in italics are non-invariant across country samples. The final solution comprises 14 items with invariant factor loadings out of a total of 22 items across the four country samples. The chi-square difference (Δχ2

27=36.34, n.s.) shows that the partial metric invariance model does not significantly differ from a model with free factor loadings. Therefore, partial metric invariance exists across the four country samples. Moreover, fixing the 14 invariant items across pooled individualistic (IND) and collectivistic (COL) samples (unstandardized factor loadings are shown) also yields no significant chi-square difference (Δχ2

7=6.69, n.s.) between partial metric invariance model and free model. Partial metric invariance exists between individualistic and collectivistic samples and also within individualistic and collectivistic samples (within-samples chi-square tests are reported in Web-Appendix 4). χ2 = chi-square, df=degrees of freedom, Δ χ2 = chi-square difference

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

6

Web-Appendix 4 Test statistics for invariance models within pooled individualistic and collectivistic samples Samples Model χ2 df Δ χ2 Δdf Within individualistic samples (U.S. and Germany)

Baseline model (free factor loadings) 1162.026 376 Test for invariance of factor loadings (partial metric invariance model)

1171.621 385 9.595 9 n.s.

Test for invariance of factor covariance and variance* (partial correlation invariance model)

1204.799 409 33.178 24 n.s.

Within collectivistic samples (India and Oman

Baseline model (free factor loadings) 977.390 376 Test for invariance of factor loadings (partial metric invariance model)

989.681 385 12.291 9 n.s.

Test for invariance of factor covariance and variance* (partial correlation invariance model)

1017.194 410 27.513 25 n.s.

Note: Comparing the partial metric invariance model with 16 invariant items out of 22 items to a model with free loadings yields no significant chi-square differences within individualistic samples (for U.S. and Germany, Δχ2

9=9.60, n.s) and within collectivistic samples (for India and Oman, Δχ29=12.29, n.s), confirming partial

metric invariance. *We test invariance of correlations within individualistic and collectivistic samples by comparing a model, where covariances and variances are fixed, to the partial metric invariance model as baseline. The covariance between idea shopping and flow is not invariant for the individualistic samples, U.S. and Germany, as well as for the collectivistic samples, India and Oman (the collectivistic sample also has a non-invariant variance of idea shopping). This non-invariant relationship suggests that cultural factors other than individualism/collectivism might be accountable for this difference. Furthermore, social and gratification shopping co-occur more often in the U.S. than in Germany and more often in India than Oman (these differences are easily detectable by inspecting the correlations in the Appendix 2; the U.S. also has higher covariance between social and adventure shopping and between value and gratification shopping than Germany). Relaxing these parameters yields a non-significant difference of chi-square within individualistic samples (for U.S. and Germany, (Δχ2

24=33.18, n.s) and within collectivistic samples (for India and Oman, Δχ2

25=27.51, n.s), confirming a partially invariant correlation model. According to Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), requirements for invariance testing depend on the goal of the research. The minimal requirement for the testing of associations between constructs (which is the case in this article) is partial metric invariance which is fully established (Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). But also higher degrees of invariance, which are desirable, can be established for the substantial correlations in the hedonic shopping motivations model (which contains a large magnitude of relationships). Because the most strongly varying correlations involving idea and social shopping are not subject to our hypotheses, non-invariance of the five mentioned parameters does not interfere with testing our hypotheses as partial invariance of covariances and variances can be established by relaxing the non-invariant parameters. χ2 = chi-square, df=degrees of freedom, Δ χ2 = chi-square difference Fort

hcom

ing IJ

RM Volu

me 31 #

3 (20

14)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

7

Web-Appendix 5 Interactions of hedonic shopping motivations with cultural differences Differences of collectivist versus

individualist cultures Cultural difference (1=collectivistic/0=individualistic)

Differences within individualist cultures Cultural difference (1=Germany/0=U.S.)

Differences within collectivist cultures Cultural difference (1=India/0=Oman)

Adventure shopping (ADV) .21 (11.21)* .21 (7.54)* .45 (5.75)* .10 (1.97)* Gratification shopping (GRA) .12 (6.89)* .22 (8.02)* .28 (3.54)* .05 (1.05) Idea shopping (IDE) .14 (8.76)* .15 (6.53)* -.01 (-.10) .01 (.26) Role shopping (ROL) .10 (6.19)* .06 (2.67)* .12 (1.95) .10 (1.94) Social shopping (SOC) .07 (4.39)* .10 (4.22)* .10 (1.36) .02 (.33) Value shopping (VAL) .07 (5.12)* .06 (3.21)* .03 (.49) .09 (2.04)* Cultural Difference (CUL) 1.06 (20.16)* 1.60 (9.30)* -.66 (-1.97)* -1.27 (-3.62)* ADVxCUL -.01 (-.19) -.19 (-2.18)* .12 (2.11)* GRAxCUL -.17 (-4.70)* -.04 (-.44) .00 (.03) IDExCUL -.03 (-.83) .21 (3.09)* .14 (2.85)* ROLxCUL .07 (2.37)* -.06 (-.84) .04 (.66) SOCxCUL -.07 (-1.96) .04 (.48) .03 (.57) VALxCUL .02 (.70) .02 (.34) -.02 (-.36) R2 .719 .730 .626 .456 Notes: A basic model with cultural difference (collectivistic/individualistic) and hedonic shopping motivations as independent variables shows that consumers in collectivistic cultures generally report a higher shopping flow than consumers in individualistic cultures. More importantly, the differences of individualistic versus collectivistic cultures are assessed by additionally including product terms of cultural difference with each hedonic shopping motivation. Intrinsically enjoyable customer experiences in collectivistic cultures are less strongly associated with gratification shopping (β=-.17, t=-4.70, p<.05) and more strongly associated with role shopping (β=.07, t=2.37, p<.05), compared with individualistic cultures. No further cultural differences exist for the other hedonic shopping motivations. We can also rule out that country differences exist within individual and collectivistic cultures regarding our hypotheses as shown by non-significant interactions of gratification and role shopping with country-specific dummy variables ((Germany/US) and (India/Oman)). Only the association of flow with idea shopping and the association of flow with adventure shopping vary between Germany and the U.S. and between India and Oman which suggests that other cultural factors than individualism/collectivism might be accountable for these differences. * p<.05

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er

8

Web-Appendix 6 Interactions of hedonic shopping motivations, cultural differences, and income Differences of collectivist versus individualist cultures

Cultural difference (1=collectivistic/0=individualistic) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Adventure shopping (ADV) .36 (8.06)* .33 (3.87)* .25 (1.51) .31 (1.44) Gratification shopping (GRA) .08 (3.27)* .24 (5.56)* .17 (2.18)* .25 (2.16)* Idea shopping (IDE) .11 (5.50)* .16 (5.08)* .27 (5.01)* .23 (2.92)* Role shopping (ROL) .11 (4.10)* .05 (1.16) .17 (1.88) .18 (1.63) Social shopping (SOC) .06 (2.20)* .07 (1.62) .08 (.96) .17 (1.49) Value shopping (VAL) .08 (4.17)* .06 (2.20)* .06 (1.21) .06 (.92) Cultural Difference (CUL) 1.01 (18.97)* .72 (6.82)* .58 (4.91)* .61 (5.10)* Income (INC) -.06 (-3.02)* -.12 (-4.14)* -.15 (-4.85)* -.18 (-5.37)* CULxINC .12 (3.11)* .18 (4.04)* .18 (4.00)* ADVxCUL .15 (1.33) .17 (1.44) .04 (.13) GRAxCUL -.30 (-5.19)* -.30 (-5.16)* -.43 (-3.04)* IDExCUL -.09 (-2.04)* -.09 (-2.04)* -.01 (-.09) ROLxCUL .17 (2.52)* .16 (2.33)* .04 (.28) SOCxCUL -.08 (-1.41) -.09 (-1.53) -.22 (-1.48) VALxCUL .04 (1.04) .05 (1.16) .01 (.14) ADVxINC .03 (.53) -.02 (-.27) GRAxINC .03 (1.37) .01 (.29) IDExINC -.05 (-2.57)* -.03 (-1.03) ROLxINC -.04 (-1.49) -.05 (-1.25) SOCxINC -.00 (-.11) -.03 (-.71) VALxINC -.00 (-.10) -.01 (-.41) ADVxCULxINC .08 (.83) GRAxCULxINC .04 (.70) IDExCULxINC -.03 (-.80) ROLxCULxINC .05 (.86) SOCxCULxINC .04 (.78) VALxCULxINC .02 (.48) Note: Model computation uses integration of latent factors based on a Monte Carlo simulation with 5,000 integration points, resulting in a replication of the results displayed in Table 3. Unstardardized path coefficients are displayed. Additionally, model 4 includes three way interactions between hedonic shopping motivations, cultural difference, and income. No three way interaction is positive. This model further supports that the association of flow with gratification shopping as well as with role shopping differs between collectivistic and individualistic cultures irrespective of income. Model 4 serves to rule out that income biases the found the cross-cultural differences in associations of hedonic shopping motivations with flow, which is confirmed as no three-way interaction is significant. Please note that path coefficients for two-way interactions and simple effects in Model 4 cannot be interpreted because the base level of income is without the range of actual scale values (in case of significant three way interactions, floodlight analysis should be used to interpret these coefficients, see Spiller et al. 2013). * p<.05

Forthc

oming

IJRM V

olume 3

1 #3 (

2014

)

Replic

ation

Corn

er