store-choice behavior for pre-owned merchandise

J BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31

Store-Choice Behavior for Pre-Owned Merchandise

William K. Darley University of Toledo

Jeen-Su Lim University of Toledo

The authors develop a conceptual model that incorporates the antecedents of store patronage in the context of second-order retail system. The model is tested and cross-validated with in-store survey data from two cities. The results indicate that general attitude toward store type (GAST) is an important antecedent variable in secondhand goods store choice behavior. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Three decades ago, Martineau (1958) introduced the concept of store image into the marketing literature. He viewed store image as “the way in which the store is defined in the shopper’s mind, partly by an aura of psychological attributes” (p. 47). Over the years, there have been various attempts to understand store image and its relationship to store patronage as well as how store image develops (Mazursky and Jacoby, 1986). Extensive reviews of the topic can be found in Lincoln and Samli (1979), Linquist (1974), Hirschman (1981), and Berkowitz et al. (1978).

This extensive research effort has focused, however, on conventional retail outlets (e.g., Sears, K-Mart) and their first-order retail goods or unused goods. Little research has focused on second-order retail outlets or secondhand stores (e.g., Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul) with their attendant pre-owned merchandise. Consequently, the knowledge accumulated pertaining to the relationships among secondhand store image and patronage as well as their antecedents appears to be incomplete. Such relationships generally have been ignored (Riecken et al., 1979; O’Reilly et al., 1984).

With the prevailing economic uncertainties and financial constraints of today, many consumers are turning to second-order retail outlets for their merchandise. In 1982, such establishments with payroll accounted for about $3.8 billion in sales (1982 Census of Retail Trade, RC 82-1-l), and these stores accounted for about

Address correspondence to William K. Darley, Assistant Professor of Marketing. The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43615.

Journal of Business Research 27, 17-31 (1993) 0 1993 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc.

014%2963/93/$6.@‘J

655 Avenue of the Americas. New York. NY 1010

18 .I BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31

W.K. Darley and J.-S. Lim

$4.3 billion in 1987 in sales (1987 Census of Retail Trade, RC 87-A-52), a 13.3% change from 1982 to 1987.

The paucity of published research on the topic of pre-owned merchandise and second-order retail outlets (Yavas and Riecken, 1981; O’Reilly et al., 1984) has led to calls for research that identify and categorize those who shop in secondhand stores (Gourley and Ronga, 1983). Yet, very few data-based research studies have dealt with the topic of non-conventional retailing and pre-owned merchandise, and even fewer studies have dealt with store image and store patronage pertaining to second-order retailing (Healy and Dovel, 1975; Yavas et al., 1982; Gourley and Ronga, 1983; Winakor and Martin, 1963).

The purpose of our research is to investigate the antecedents of store patronage among secondhand goods shoppers. We examine the impact of attitude toward secondhand goods stores, store image, and perceived product quality on store patronage, using a structural equation method. Survey data of shoppers from two cities are employed to evaluate these relationships. Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses described in the subsequent section.

Hypotheses

The Influence of General Attitude Toward Store Type

General attitude toward store type (GAST) is defined as a person’s overall evaluation of a store type and/or predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to a certain type of retail outlet; for example, second-order retail outlet (Allport, 1935; Peter and Olson, 1987). GAST is thus a global affective construct that is consistent with Wright’s (1975) affect referral. In the context of decision-making strategy, the individual avoids reviewing any specific attribute information concerning alternatives, but he or she relies instead on previously formed global affective judgements of the alternatives (Wright, 1975).

Fazio and Zanna (1981) in their “process model” of attitude-behavior relations, suggest that a readily accessible attitude serves to guide information processing in a particular situation. Thus, when an individual holds general attitudes toward a store type such as second-order retail outlets, those attitudes are readily accessible and seem likely to impact the individual’s store-specific quality perceptions and store-specific attitudes (Bauer and Greyser, 1968; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). GAST, therefore, is expected to have a direct effect on store-specific image and quality perceptions through the process of generalization (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989) as well as “spill over” effects on store patronage through the process of affect transfer (Lutz, 1985).

Consequently, the influence of store image on consumer store-choice behavior will vary significantly depending on such factors as type of product purchased (for example, pre-owned versus unused merchandise), market segment (Engel et al., 1990), and type of store (for example, conventional retail outlets versus second- order retail outlets). Determining which stores are acceptable and which are un- acceptable to the consumer entails a comparison process involving perceived characteristics of the stores and the evaluative criteria of the core customers (Engel et al., 1990). Individuals who view stores as being similar would behave in a similar way toward such stores (Singson, 1975; Assael, 1987). The aforementioned is consistent with the categorization theory (Mervis and Rosch, 1981).

Store-Choice and Pre-Owned Merchandise J BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31

19

b GMT (5,)

Figure 1. Theoretical constructs and their interrelationships.

KEY: x, denotes “thrift stores in general provide good value for the money” x1 denotes “thrift stores in general have courteous employees” x3 denotes “thrift stores in general provide enjoyable shopping” x4 denotes “thrift stores in general are attractive places to shop” x5 denotes “thrift stores in general offer the best selection of unique merchandise”

x6 denotes “this store is clean and well maintained” x, denotes “this store’s sales clerks are helpful” x8 denotes “this store carries a wide selection of products”

x, denotes quality relating to clothing items x1,, denotes quality relating to non-clothing items

SI (52) I

) QP (5s)

y, denotes frequency of store visit 1 sp (%I

Categorization research suggests that people make inferences about a product by categorizing it at the product class level, the product type level, and the brand level. These inferences are likely to be evaluative in character (Sujan and DeKleva, 1987). Consumers can infer much about an object merely by knowing to which general category of meaning it belongs. This categorization allows consumers to predict many of the characteristics of a specific object (Peter and Olson, 1987) in a specific category. Extending these ideas to GAST, one would expect subjects to make inferences that translate into specific stores based on their classification of second-order retail outlets. This would thus suggest that store type evaluations may influence evaluations about the individual stores and subsequently store-specific image. In addition, how one feels about secondhand goods stores in general is

20 .I BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31


likely to influence one’s perceived product quality of any individual secondhand goods store.

In summary, a subject’s general affective reactions toward second-order retail outlets will affect his or her attitude toward specific stores and store choice within the second-order marketing system. Thus, while GAST is a more global attitudinal construct, store image reflects overall consumer attitude toward an individual store (Bearden, 1977). Extrapolating from these ideas, the following hypotheses are thus proposed.

Hl A: General attitude toward secondhand goods stores is related positively to store image (&, > 0).

HlB: General attitude toward secondhand goods stores is related positively to store- specific perceived product quality (& > 0).

HlC: General attitude toward secondhand goods stores is related positively to store patronage (r,, > 0).

The InJEuence of Store Image on Store Patronage

Image formations, mental processes whereby information and experiences are pro- cessed and evaluated, result in predispositions that generally guide patronage (Granbois, 1981). The closer the store’s image to the consumer’s needs, the more positive the individual’s predispositions toward that store and the greater the prob- ability the consumer will shop in the store (Assael, 1987; Monroe and Guiltinan, 1975). Store image also has been found to be more clearly differentiated and better articulated for recent shoppers as compared with less-recent shoppers (Acito and Anderson, 1979).

Image and patronage have been found to be closely related (Arnold et al., 1983). Image evaluations have been found to be directly related to store loyalty (Sirgy and Samli, 198.5). In a study by Arnold et al. (1983), location, price, assortment, fast checkout, friendly and courteous service, weekly specials, and pleasant shopping environment were critical determinants of patronage for consumers in four countries. The first two determinants, location and price, appeared to dominate the choice process (Arnold et al., 1983). Additionally, the image of a shopping area was found to significantly affect shopping trips and expenditure behavior (Wee, 1986).

It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that consumers form impressions of stores and that these images, in turn, have significant impact on store patronage. Thus, the following hypothesis is presented.

H2: Store image is positively related to store patronage (-ylz > 0).

Store Image and Product Quality

One extrinsic cue relevant to forming impressions of product quality is store image. Past studies have shown perceived product quality to be related to the physical attributes and prestige of the store. Store image has been found to significantly affect perceptions of product quality (Stafford and Enis, 1969). Research by Darden and Schwinghammer (1985) suggests that store cues also may affect shopper quality perceptions of product categories found in store chains. Render and O’Connor

Store-Choice and Pre-Owned Merchandise J BUSN RES 1!993:27:17-31

21

(1976) also demonstrated that in some cases image of stores relates to the perceived quality of some product categories. Similarly, the awareness of store image influ- enced product quality as reported by Andrews and Valenzi (1971) as well as by Szybillo and Jacoby (1972). Consumers’ quality perceptions have been shown to be strongly affected by extrinsic cues such as retail store reputation (Wheatley and Chiu, 1977). However, it is reasonable to expect that an individual’s perception of the quality of merchandise carried by a particular store can affect one’s store perceptions.

Although these studies did not pertain to pre-owned merchandise and second- order retail outlets in particular, we expect the relationship to hold true for the foregoing. Hence, extrapolating from the aforementioned studies, we propose hypothesis 3.

H3: Store image is positively related to store-specific product quality evaluation (+,? > 0).

The Influence of Perceived Product Quality on Store Patronage

It also is generally agreed that a consumer’s perception of quality of a store’s merchandise is related to the patronage of that store (Jacoby and Mazursky, 1985; Olshavsky, 1985). Perceptions of product quality and preferences of products are closely linked to choice behavior (Pessemier, 1980). A consumer’s preference for an alternative is assumed to be based on product quality perception, which in turn may be based on extrinsic cues (Olson, 1977).

Product quality perceptions are likely to influence store choice. Research by Darden and Schwinghammer (1985) shows that consumers perceive the quality of a product differently depending upon the store type from which the purchase was made. Extrapolating from these studies, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H4: Perceived product quality is positively related to store patronage (y,, > 0).

Methodology

Subjects and Procedure

The data were obtained using an in-store, self-administered questionnaire method. The questionnaires were administered in secondhand goods stores that belong to a single chain. These stores were located in two cities within a midwestern county. The data were collected on the same days during a 2-week period.

At each store, two trained store personnel approached customers and solicited their participation in “a national study to guide the thrift chain in its efforts to better serve its customers.” Potential respondents were told that the questionnaires would take about 3 minutes to complete and that responses were to be kept con- fidential. Neither monetary nor non-monetary incentives were given to the respondents.

Two hundred forty-one usable questionnaires were obtained from City 1, and 218 were obtained from City 2. With the exception of gender, the two sets of respondents resembled one another in terms of the relevant demographics such as age, income, and household size (Table 1).

22 J BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31 W.K. Darley and J.-S. Lim

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Subjects

Characteristics

City 1 City 2

N % N %

Total

Sex

Male

Female

Age Under 24

25-34

35-44

45-54

over 55 Income

Under 10.000 lO,OOO-19,999

20,000-24,999 25.OOG34,999

Over 35,000

Household

l-2 persons

3-4 pesons

5 or more

241 100 218 100

38 15.8 68 31.2 203 84.2 150 68.8

27 11.2 2x 12.8 53 22.0 4x 22.0 65 30.0 47 21.6 35 14.5 41 18.8 61 25.3 54 24.8

70 29.0 62 28.4 52 21.6 63 28.9 69 28.6 50 22.9 22 9.1 19 x.7 28 11.7 24 11.1

1 IO 45.6 87 39.9 90 37.3 77 35.3 41 17.1 54 24.8

Measures

The instrument employed in this study contained items measuring general attitude toward thrift stores and store-specific measures pertaining to product quality perceptions, store image, and store patronage. Also included in this inquiry were ancillary items such as age, gender, income, and household size.

General attitude toward store type was measured using 5, ‘jr-point Likert scale items anchored by “very strongly agree” (+ 3) and “very strongly disagree (- 3).” Subjects were asked to indicate his or her agreement or disagreement with the five attitude statements about thrift stores in general (e.g., Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul).

The statements were: “Thrift stores in general (e.g.. Goodwill, Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul) . . . (a) provide good value for the money; (b) have courteous employees; (c) provide enjoyable shopping; (d) are attractive places to shop; and (e) offer the best selection of unique merchandise. This approach to measuring attitudes parallels the perspective of other studies (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Korgaonkar et al., 198.5).

Store image pertained to the specific store the subject was visiting and was measured using a 3-item Likert scale. The statements about the specific retail store used to measure store image were: “This store is clean and well maintained”; “This store’s sales clerks are helpful;” and “This store carries a wide selection of products.” These three items were selected to represent each of the three most important components underlying store image (merchandise-related aspects, service-related aspects, and pleasantness of shopping in the store) as identified by Mazursky and Jacoby (1986). Subjects were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with the statements on a 7-point scale anchored by “very strongly agree (+ 3)”


23

Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations”

Variable

Developmental Sample Validation Sample (City 1) (City 2)

Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation

Store Type Attitude (CAST) Value Courteous Enjoyable Attractive Selection

Store Image (SI) Atmosphere Personnel Selection

Quality Perceptions (QP) Clothing Non-clothing

Store Patronage Frequency of visits

2.10 1.12 1.80 1.37 2.36 0.94 2.23 1.04 2.14 1.14 2.19 1.02 1.85 1.30 1.93 1.22 1.70 1.29 1.57 1.41

2.31 1.31 2.41 1.15 2.49 0.98 2.44 1.02 2.25 1.41 2.14 1.50

3.28 0.52 3.32 0.55 3.13 0.54 3.06 0.65

2.86 1.05 2.51 1.07

“Varianceicovariance matrices are available upon request

and “very strongly disagree (- 3).” The foregoing approach is consistent with the conceptualization and operationalization of store image (Engel et al., 1990, p. 584- 586; Lincoln and Samli, 1979).

Respondents were asked to indicate how they perceived the quality of clothing items and non-clothing items at this type of store. Respondents rated their perception of quality on two 4-point scales of “very poor” (1) to “very good” (4). The foregoing operationalization of perceived product quality is similar to the one employed in Darden and Schwinghammer (1985).

Store patronage was measured by assessing the frequency of shopping at the specific store. This item was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from more than once a week (4) to less than once a year (1).

Analysis and Results

Overview

Data from City 1 and City 2 were analyzed separately via LISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). Because the procedures and measures were identical, cross- validation was used to test the robustness of the estimated parameters. For this purpose, data from City 1 were treated as the developmental sample, and City 2 data constituted the validation sample (Table 2). Correlation matrixes of variables for the two cities are presented in Appendix 1.

Testing of the Hypotheses with Data from City 1

Figure 1 depicts the measurement models and structural parameters that were estimated by LISREL 7 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989). The Figure 1 model shows that one’s general attitude toward store type (GAST) is related to the individual’s

24 J BUSN RES 19Y3:27:17-31


Table 3. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates and Standard Errors

Path

From To

GAST*SI

GAST-QP

QP ++SI

GAST+SP

SI +SP QP +SP

City 1 (n = 241) City 2 (n = 218)

Unstandardized Unstandardized

Estimate” Ax’ Estimate” Ax’

,249 62.12** .172 45.35**

,109 .94** ,186 22.73**

,166 13.53** ,223 15.86**

,374 9.42** .209 10.35**

.141 .()I .096 1.00

.227 3.3t?* ,207 4.59**

“I$ valws are covariance *p < .I(). **p < .os.

store-specific image (SI) and quality perceptions (QP), and directly affects store patronage (SP). Product quality perceptions and store image are hypothesized as influencing store patronage directly.

In testing the model in Figure 1, the measurement errors and factor loadings were fixed at 0 and 1.0, respectively, for store patronage. The measurement errors were assumed not to covary. The hypotheses were tested following the procedure suggested by Walters and Mackenzie (1988). The contributions of each of the hypothesized relationships were evaluated separately by deleting each relationship, one at a time, from the full model (x’ = 74.5, df = 39, p = .OOl). The chi-square differences between the full and reduced models were examined to see if the changes were significant. Table 3 provides the unstandardized parameter estimates and the chi-square difference tests of significance for the hypothesized relationships. The results in Table 3 indicate that all the proposed relationships were significant at p < .lO except for one path. The exception was the path from store image (SI) to store patronage (SP). Each of the significant LISREL estimates was in the hypothesized direction. All of the lambda x values in the measurement model were significant at the .05 level for the City 1 and City 2 data. The foregoing provides support for hypotheses lA, lB, lC, 3, and 4.

The measurement model was further analyzed using the procedures suggested by Bagozzi (1980) and by Fornell and Lacker (1981). The resulting indicator and construct reliabilities are reported in Table 4. In general, these estimates suggest acceptable indicator and construct reliabilities. With the exception of two indicators, all indicator reliabilities are above .60. The construct reliability estimates range from .64 to .88.

Table 5 provides the standardized LISREL estimates, chi-square values, root mean square residual, and goodness-of-fit indexes for both the proposed and re-

Table 4. Reliability and Shared Variance Estimates

Indicator Reliability Range

Construct Number of Indicators City 1 City 2

Construct

Reliability

City 1 City 2

GAST 5 .61-.96 .577.93 .88 .81

Store Image 3 .56-.hl .63-.82 .64 .68


25

Table 5. Standardized Parameter Estimates and Goodness-of-Fit Indices

Path

From To Parameter

City 1 City 2

Proposed Model Reduced Model Proposed Model Reduced Model

GAST+SI GAST+QP QP +SI GAST+SP SI +SP

QP +SP

$21 ,650

$31 ,264

$32 .367

YII ,221

Y12 - ,091

YI3 ,159 x XI ,590

-Yxz ,729

Yx:, ,938 h x4 ,854 x x5 ,724 x Xh ,648 x x7 ,577 A xx ,601 A x9 ,700 x XI” ,652 A Yl 1.000

.650

.264 ,363 ,166 -

,134 ,590 ,729 ,938 ,854 ,724 ,649 ,577 ,600 ,698 ,655

1.000

,532 ,463 ,344 .094 .069 ,186 ,447 .771 ,848 ,735 ,567 ,721 ,835 ,328 ,900 ,529

1.000

,534 .465 .348 ,130

,195 ,448 ,770 ,848 .734 ,568 ,721 ,834 ,330 ,896 ,531

1.000

Joreskog & Sorbom GFI .949 ,905 Adjusted GFI ,914 ,839 Bentler & Bonett GFI ,923 ,849 X’ldflp-value (74.54139 dfl.001) (111.20/39 dfl.00) Root mean residual square ,037 ,077

duced models. The resulting chi-square for the model in Figure 1 is 74.54 (df = 39, p = .OOl) with a Joreskog and Sorbom goodness-of-fit index of .949 and a Bentler and Bonett (1980) goodness-of-fit index of .923.

When the one insignificant path is deleted, the chi-square associated with the reduced model is 75.06 (df = 40, p = .OOl) with a Joreskog and Sorbom goodness- of-fit index of .949 and a Bentler and Bonett goodness-of-fit index of .923. The goodness-of-fit indexes in Table 5 indicate that the hypothesized full model fits the City 1 data relatively well. The results show GAST to be positively related to store image (.650), to quality perceptions (.264), and to store patronage (.221). The indirect effect of GAST on store patronage is .153, which is slightly smaller than its direct effect of .221. In this case, store image is positively related to quality perception (.367) but not to store patronage. Finally, there is a positive relationship between quality perception and store patronage (.159).

Cross-Validation with Data from City 2

To validate the results reached about the proposed relationships, data obtained from City 2 were subjected to the same analyses performed on the City 1 data. Table 3 shows the chi-square difference tests of significance. All the significant paths for the City 1 data were significant for the City 2 data.

The chi-square for the full model is 111.20 (& = 39, p = .OO) with a Joreskog and Sorbom goodness-of-fit index of .905 and a Bentler and Bonett goodness-of- fit index of .839 (Table 5). When the insignificant path is deleted, the chi-square associated with this reduced model is 110.97 (df = 40, p = .OO) with a Joreskog

26 J BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31


and Sorbom goodness-of-fit index of .905 and a Bentler and Bonett goodness-of- fit index of .852. Although the proposed model showed a marginal fit to the City 2 data, the pattern of significant paths and the goodness-of-fit indexes appear to confirm the proposed model (Figure 1).

Comparison of Parameter Estimates

In the final phase of the analysis, we examined the stability of the structural estimates obtained from the City 1 and City 2 data. The parameter estimates from City 1 were compared with the corresponding estimates from City 2. The proposed Figure 1 model was estimated simultaneously using the two sets of data without equality constraints in a multi-sample version of LISREL 7. This resulted in a single chi-square for the two data bases. Next, one parameter was constrained to be equal in the two groups (cities), and the model was reestimated. A chi-square difference test was performed between the values obtained from the unconstrained model and the constrained model with 1 degree of freedom. This procedure was repeated for each of the five significant parameter estimates in Table 2, one at a time. The results showed that only one parameter estimate, &, , was significantly different in the two samples (Ax’ = 4.97, elf = 1, p < .Ol). The City 2 data show significantly larger unstandardized parameter estimates of &, (.249) than those of the City 1 data (. 172).

Conclusions and Discussions

The results from the developmental and validation samples provide strong and consistent support for the hypothesized model (Figure 1). For both samples, GAST with product quality perception (QP), GAST with store image (SI), product quality perception (QP) with store image (SI), GAST to store patronage (SP), and product quality perception (QP) to store patronage (SP) linkages were found to be significant. These were also in the hypothesized direction. However, the store image (SI) to store patronage (SP) linkage was not significant. The one hypothesis that was not supported by either data set was H2A, which hypothesized a positive SI- SP link.

Although previous research suggests that store image (SI) does have influence on store patronage (SP) (Monroe and Guiltinan, 1975), the results obtained were inconsistent with the store image-store patronage linkage in this case. This result may be secondhand stores-specific. It is conceivable that individual store image may not be a critical factor because not many secondhand competitive stores are available in a given city or market area. Alternatively, this result may be due to somewhat low construct reliability of store image.

The multi-group analysis also showed the relative strengths of the relationships specified in the Figure 1 model to be consistent across the developmental and validation samples. The only significant difference between the two groups pertains to the GAST to store image linkage. Thus, it appears that GAST exerts direct and indirect effects through the two variables of store image and product quality perceptions on SP. A plausible explanation for the result is that some people may have a positive store type attitude (GAST) but may forget to consider such stores

Store-Choice and Pre-Owned Merchandise J BUSN RES lW3:27:17-31

27

Limita ltions and Future Research

in their evoked set of stores, or they may even be embarrassed to be seen by friends in secondhand goods stores due to the negative stigma associated with such stores.

While this study used in-store subjects as the sample, the findings are nonetheless provocative. Among other things, the foregoing conclusions suggest that general attitude toward store type is an important determinant of store patronage along with perceived product quality and store image. It may thus behoove second-order retailing outlets to be concerned about how people feel generally toward this group of stores. A group effort to promote stores that market secondhand goods may benefit store patronage of the member stores. By strengthening individual predispositions toward these types of stores, such stores, individually and collectively, could benefit from increased traffic and sales.

By being positioned closer to first-order retail outlets (e.g., discount stores), those stores selling secondhand goods might be subject to a “rub off” effect that would lead to increases in patronage. Such positioning would be likely to influence evaluations regarding this group of stores and would most likely lead to positive affect toward each store. By promoting the attainable values from shopping at second-order retail outlets in relation to discount stores, the second-order retail outlets stand to gain a share of the market in this kind of intertype competition.

Generalizations from the findings of this study are limited in that this study only investigated second-order retail outlets. It is generally agreed that intratype competition among second-order retail outlets is less fierce and less complex than one would expect within the first-order retailing system where intratype competition is more complex and intense. Studies have shown that store images vary among different types of stores (Jain and Etgar, 1977; Schiffman et al., 1977). Thus, while GAST (general attitude toward store type) was found to be significantly related to perceived product quality, store image and store patronage in the case of second- order retail outlets, whether the same underlying processes identified in Figure 1 would operate for the first-order retailing system, is yet to be probed.

One limitation relates to the fact that the data were collected in-store from secondhand stores that belong to a single chain. Thus, external validity may be limited due to sampling procedures and lack of consideration of interstore competition. It should be noted, however, that the data were obtained from “real” consumers who were already in a “shopping mode”; this study employed people who shop at secondhand stores. Thus, they may be better able to judge store image and product quality than those who have never shopped there. In addition, research by Acito and Anderson (1979) has shown that store image is more clearly differentiated and better articulated by recent than less recent shoppers. Also, subjects participated at their own free will and were not compensated in any way. In these respects, this study may possess relatively greater external validity when compared with other studies.

Studies involving store patronage have employed either one, two, or three of the following: frequency, amount of money spent, driving time, and distance traveled (see for example, Brunner and Mason, 1968; Nevin and Houston, 1980; Sewall, 1983; Korgaonkar et al., 1985; Golden and Zimmer, 1986; and Wee, 1986). It is difficult to determine whether the presence of these measures of patronage would

28 .I BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31


have affected the results. Also, driving time and distance traveled are not as ap- plicable for second-order retail outlets as one would expect for first-order retail outlets. In addition to the four primary measures used in the study, intentions to patronize could have been included.

There are several other questions that remain to be answered with regard to GAST, store image, and store patronage research. Future research should investigate the processes underlying GAST formation and its antecedents for other store types as well as GAST’s influence on yet other antecedents of store patronage. In addition, other factors such as attitude toward wearing pre-owned clothing, the potential stigma associated with second-order retail outlets, personal values and beliefs, and bargain consciousness as well as their interrelationships in the context of the aforementioned model, should be investigated.

Store choice behavior remains a complex phenomenon and so it is quite un- realistic to assume that one type of variable alone can account for a substantial proportion of the variance in store choice behavior (Schiffman et al., 1977). Thus, the suggested investigations should provide greater understanding of and insights into store choice behavior.

The authors thank the associate editor and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Appendix 1.

A. Correlations for City 1

Yi X, XZ X, X, X, X, X, X* X, X,0

Y, 1.000 Xl 0.148 1 000 XZ 0.111 0.462 1 .ooo

X, 0.188 0.551 0.708 X, 0.175 0.442 0.596

X? 0.181 0.523 0.455

X,> 0.078 0.184 0.291

X, 0.076 0.309 0.290

X* 0.048 0.238 0.248 X, 0.159 0.229 0.111

Xi,, 0.083 0.161 0.128

B. Correlations for City 2 Y, 1.000 X, 0.15x 1.000

X2 0.130 0.285 1.000 X? 0.186 0.335 0.703

X, 0.154 0.309 0.548

X, 0.168 0.491 0.358 X, 0.140 0.187 0.270

X, 0.150 0.179 0.388 X” 0.050 0.276 0.183

XV 0.234 0.332 0.254

X,,, 0.096 0.266 0.133

1.000

0.801

0.656

0.392

0.386

0.339

0.163

0.157

1 .ooo

0.617

0.414 0.315

0.387 0.207

0.337

0.187

1 000 0.680

0.420

0.324 0.273

0.124

0.155

1 .OOO

0.523

0.220

0.285 0.149 0.310

0.198

1 .tK)o 0.271 1 ,000 0.251 0.347 0.341 0.421

0.120 0.108 0.199 0.167

1 .ooo 0.214 1.000 0.224 0.611 0.325 0.200

0.325 0.246

0.339 0.174

1 .ooo 0.338

0.192

0.162

1 .OOO 0.259

0.214

0.112

1.000 0.149

0.148

1.000

0.340

0.206

1.000

0.457

1.000

0.476

1.000

1.000

References

Acito. Franklin, and Anderson, Ronald D., The Influence of Learning on Store Image Differentiation: An Empirical Demonstration. 1979 Educators’ Conference Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Chicago. IL, 1979, pp. 500-503.


29

Allport, Gordon W., Attitudes, in A Handbook of Social Psychology. C. A. Murchison, ed., Clark University Press, Worcester, MA. 1935, pp. 798-844.

Andrews, I. Robert, and Valenzi, Enzo R., Combining Price, Brand, and Store Cues to Form an Impression of Product Quality. Proceedings 79th Annual Convention, American Psychological Association, Washington D.C., 1971, pp. 649450.

Arnold, Stephen J., Oum, Tae H., Tigert, Douglas J., Determinant Attributes in Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional and International Comparisons. Journal of Marketing Research 20 (May 1983): 149-1.57.

Assael, Henry, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Action, PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston, MA. 1987.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Causal Models in Marketing, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1980.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (August 1981): 375-381.

Bauer, Raymond A,. and Greyser, Stephen A., Advertising in America: The Consumer View, Harvard University, Boston, MA. 1968.

Bearden, William O., Determinant Attributes of Store Patronage: Downtown Versus Out- lying Shopping Centers. Journal of Retailing 53 (Summer 1977): 15-22.

Bentler, Peter M., and Bonett, Douglas G., Significant Tests and Goodness for Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structure. Psychological Bulletin 88 (1980): 588-606.

Berkowitz, Eric N., Deutscher, Terry, and Hansen, Robert A., Retail Image Research: A Case of Significant Unrealized Potential, in 1978 Educators’ Proceedings. Subhash C. Jain, ed., American Marketing Association, Chicago. 1978, pp. 62-66.

Brunner, James A., and Mason, John L., The Influence of Driving Time Upon Shopping Center Preferences. JournaZ of Marketing 32 (April 1968): 57-61.

Darden, William R., and Schwinghammer, JoAnn, The Influence of Social Characteristics on Perceived Quality, in Patronage Choice Behavior in Perceived Quality: How Con- sumers View New Stores and Merchandise. Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson, eds., D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA. 1985, pp. 161-172.

Engel, James F., Blackwell, Roger D., and Miniard, Paul W., Consumer Behavior, The Dryden Press, Chicago, IL. 1990.

Fazio, Russell H., and Zanna, Mark P., Direct Experience and Attitude-Behavior Con- sistency, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. L. Berkowitz, ed., Academic Press, Inc., New York. 1981, pp. 161-202.

Fishbein, Martin, and Ajzen, Icek, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wiley, Reading, MA. 1975.

Fornell, Claes, and Lacker, David F., Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unob- servable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February 1981): 39-50.

Golden, Linda L., and Zimmer, Mary R., Relationships Between Affect, Patronage Fre- quency and Amount of Money Spent With a Comment on Affect Scaling and Measure- ment, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13. Richard J. Lutz, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 1986, pp. 53-57.

Gourley, David R., and Ronga, Ellen G., Second Hand Stores: The Resurgence of An Old Form of Retailing. Arizona Business 1 (1983): 16-22.

Granbois, Donald, An Integrated View of the Store Choice/Patronage Process, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8. Kent B. Monroe, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 1981, pp. 693-695.

Healy, Denis F., and Dovel, Thomas D., The Garage Sale: A Growing Force in the Dis- tribution of Used Household Goods. Working Paper Series, #755, University of Dela- ware, Dover, Delaware, 1975, pp. 1-14.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C., Retail Research and Theory, in Review of Marketing 1981. Ben

30 .I BUSN RES 1993:27:17-31 W.K. Darley and J.-S. Lim

M. Enis and Kenneth J. Roering, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago. 1981, pp. 120-133.

Jacoby, Jacob, and Mazursky, David, The Impact of Linking Brand and Retailer Images on Perceptions of Quality, in Perceived Quality: How Consumers View New Stores and Merchandise. Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson, eds., D.C. Heath and Company, Lex- ington, MA. 1985, pp. 155-159.

Jain, Arun, and Etgar, Michael, Measuring Store Image Through Multidimensional Scaling of Free Response Data. Journal of Retailing 52 (Winter 1977): 61-70.

Joreskog, Karl, and Sorbom, Dag, LISREL 7 User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software, Inc., Mooresville, IN. 1989.

Korgaonkar, P. K., Lund. Daulat. and Price, Barbara, A Structural Equations Approach Toward Examination of Store Attitude and Store Patronage Behavior. Journal of Re- tailing 61 (Summer 1985): 39-60.

Lincoln, Douglas J., and Samli, A. Coskun, Definitions, Dimensions, and Measurement of Store Image: A Literature Summary and Synthesis. Proceedings: Southern Marketing Association 1979. Conference, Carbondale, Illinois. 1979, pp. 430-433.

Linquist. Jay D., Meaning of Image. Journal of Retailing 50 (Winter 1974): 29-38.

Lutz, Richard J., Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework, in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects: Theory, Re- search and Application. L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum As- sociates, Hillsdale, NJ. 1985, pp. 45-63.

MacKenzie, Scott B., and Lutz, Richard L., An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context. Journal of Marketing 53 (April 1989): 48-65.

Martineau, Pierre, The Personality of the Retail Store. Harvard Business Review 36 (Jan- uary-February 1958): 47-55.

Mazursky, David, and Jacoby, Jacob, Exploring the Development of Store Images. Journal of RetaiZing 62 (Summer 1986): 145-165.

Mervis, Carolyn B., and Rosch, Eleanor, Categorization of Natural Objects. Annual Review of Psychology 32 (1981): 89-115.

Monroe, Kent B., and Guiltinan, Joseph B., A Path-Analytic Exploration of Retail Pa- tronage Influences. Journal of Consumer Research 2 (June 1975): 19-27.

Nevin, John R., and Houston, Michael J., Image As A Component of Attraction to In- traurban Shopping Areas. Journal of Retailing 56 (Spring 1980): 77-93.

Olshavsky. Richard W., Perceived Quality in Consumer Decision Making: An Integrated Theoretical Perspective, in Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Mer- chandise. Jacob Jacoby and Jerry C. Olson, eds.. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA. 1985, pp. 3-29.

Olson, Jerry C.. Price as an Informational Cue: Effects in Product Evaluations, in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior. Arch G. Woodside, Jagdish N. Sheth, and Peter D. Bennett, eds., North Holland, New York. 1977, pp. 267-286.

O’Reilly, Lynn, Rucker, Margaret, Hughes, Rhonda, Gorang, Marge, and Hand, Susan, The Relationship of Psychological and Situational Variables to Usage of a Second-order Marketing System. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 12 (3) (1984): 53-76.

Pessemier, Edgar A., Store Image and Positioning. Journal of Retai/ing 56 (Spring 1980): 94-106.

Peter, J. Paul, and Olson, Jerry C., Consumer Behavior: Marketing Strategy Perspectives, Richard D. Irwin, Inc.. Homewood. IL. 1987.

Render, Barry, and O’Connor, Thomas S., The Influence of Price, Store Name and Brand Name on Perception of Product Quality. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 4 (Fall 1976): 722-730.


31

Riecken, Glen, Yavas, Ugur, and Battle, Charles, Pre-owned Merchandise Buying: A Ne- glected Retailing Phenomenon. Development in Marketing Science 2 (1979): 58-62.

Schiffman, Leon G., Dash, Joseph F., and Dillon, William R., The Contribution of Store- Image Characteristics to Store-Type Choice. JournaZ of Retailing 53 (Summer 1977): 3- 14 ff.

Sewall, Murphy A., Comments on Store Patronage and Adoption Processes, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10. Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds., Asso- ciation for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI, 1983, pp. 362-363.

Singson, Richards L., Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Store Image and Shopping Behavior. Journal of Retailing 51 (Summer 1975): 38-52.

Sirgy, M. Joseph, and Samli, A. Coskun, A Path Analytic Model of Store Loyalty Involving Self-Concept, Store Image, Geographic Loyalty, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 13 (3) (1985): 265-291.

Stafford, James E., and Enis, Ben M., The Price-Quality Relationship: An Extension. Journal of Marketing Research 6 (November 1969): 456-458.

Sujan, Mita, and DeKleva, Christine, Product Categorization and Inference Making: Some Implications for Comparative Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December 1987): 372-378.

Szybillo, George J., and Jacoby, Jacob, The Relative Effects of Price, Store Image, and Intrinsic Product Differences on Product Quality Evaluation, in Proceedings 3rd Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research. M. Venkatesan, ed., Association for Consumer Research, College Park, MD. 1972, pp. 180-186.

Walters, Rockney G., and Mackenzie, Scott B., A Structural Equation Analysis of the Impact of Price Promotions on Store Performance. Journal of Marketing Research 25 (February 1988): 51-63.

Wee, Chou Hou, Shopping Area Image: Its Factor Analytic Structure and Relationships With Shopping Trips and Expenditure Behavior, in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13. Richard J. Lutz, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. 1986, pp. 48-52.

Wheatley, John J., and Chiu, John S. Y., The Effects of Price, Store Image and Product and Respondent Characteristics on Perception of Quality. Journal ofMarketing Research 14 (May 1977): 181-186.

Winakor, Geitel, and Martin, Marcella, Used-Clothing Sales in a Small City. Journal of Home Economics 55 (5) (May 1963): 357-359.

Wright, Peter, Consumer Choice Strategies: Simplifying vs. Optimizing. Journal of Mar- keting Research 12 (February 1975): 60-67.

Yavas, Ugur, and Riecken, Glen, Heavy, Medium, Light Shoppers and Nonshoppers of a Used Merchandise Outlet. Journal of Business Research 9 (1981): 243-253.

Yavas, Ugur, Riecken, Glen and Clabaugh, Maurice, Perceived Risk in Store Choice in the Second Order Market. Developments in Marketing Science 5 (1982): 151-154.

store-choice behavior for pre-owned merchandise

Documents