Involvement and the tourist shopper: Using the ... - SAGE Journals

Journal of Vacation Marketing

Volume 11 Number 2

Involvement and the tourist shopper: Using the involvement construct to segment the American tourist shopper at the mall Bharath M. Josiam,* Tammy R. Kinley and Youn-Kyung Kim Received (in revised form): November 2004 Anonymously refereed paper *School of Merchandising and Hospitality Management, University of North Texas, 343D Chilton Hall, Chestnut & Ave. C, PO Box 311100, Denton, TX 76203-1100, USA Tel: 940-565-2429; Fax: 940-565-4348; E-mail: [email protected]

Bharath Josiam is an associate professor at the University of North Texas. Bharath’s research interests span several aspects of consumer behavior in hospitality and tourism, including tourist shoppers, youth travel, ethnic restaurant patronage, and spring-break travel. He is North American associate editor for the Journal of Vacation Marketing, and also serves as a reviewer for other scholarly journals. Tammy Kinley is an associate professor at the University of North Texas. Tammy’s research interests span several aspects of consumer behavior, including tourist shoppers, gift-giving behavior of grandmothers, and gender differences in apparel shopping. Youn-Kyung Kim is an associate professor at the University of Tennessee. Youn-Kyung’s research focuses on the relationships of ethnic marketing, mall shopping behavior, non-store retailing, consumer efficiency, tourist shopping, and international retailing.

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS: involvement, tourism, shopping, tourist shopper, segmentation

There is great interest in understanding the complex behaviors of consumers. One facet of consumer behavior is the ‘involvement’ construct. Involvement is a person’s perceived relevance of the object

based on inherent needs, values, and interests. There is a plethora of shopping malls all over the US. Major metropolitan cities are over-malled! Despite the abundance of malls close to their residence, American travelers shop at comparable malls while tourists in another city. There exists a gap in the literature about this phenomenon. This study surveyed 485 tourist shoppers residing in metropolitan areas to address this gap. It examined the interplay of their shopping involvement with demographics, push motivators, pull motivators, shopper-tourist cluster typologies, and the amount of time and money spent shopping while on a trip. This study created a profile of tourists based on their level of shopping involvement. It segmented them into high-, medium-, or low-involvement tourist shoppers. The more highly involved tourist shoppers were female and had limited formal education. Further, they indicated they were more interested in shopping than in many other activities. Involvement levels were consistently associated with both push and pull factors in a hierarchical manner. Respondents strongly motivated to shop by push and pull factors were consistently found to be highly involved tourist shoppers. Involvement was a significant predictor of overall satisfaction with a shopping center. Involvement levels were significantly linked to tourist-shopper cluster typologies. High-involvement tourist shoppers were significantly more likely to have saved for shopping on their trip. However, involvement was not found to be a predictor of time or money spent on shopping while on a trip.

Journal of Vacation Marketing Vol. 11 No. 2, 2005, pp. 135–154, & SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi. www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1356766705052571

Page 135

Involvement and the tourist shopper

INTRODUCTION Shopping is reported to be the most popular pastime of American vacationers,1 so malls and shopping centers can be major tourist attractions. Tourism shopping literature has focused on shopping as a leisure activity for tourists for purchase of souvenirs, buying exotic or foreign items, or simply as a means of entertainment.2 Gordon3 said that tourists often feel they must take something home from a trip; while being a tourist, a person is no longer working, serious, responsible, or thrifty. ‘They spend money on small foolish items because it is not an ordinary time’ (p. 139). Further, Timothy and Butler4 reported that tourist shopping is not limited to souvenirs; it includes items such as clothes, jewelry, books, arts and crafts, duty-free goods, and electronic goods. People generally do not go to a vacation destination with a shopping list; rather shopping becomes a by-product of other experiences or shopping might be an added attraction of an area.5 Shopping centers as a tourist pursuit are important because they create an inviting environment and incentive to travel, develop an attractive tourist product, and provide a source of pleasure and excitement.6 Shopping is also a big component of travel expenditures.7 PURPOSE Finn et al.8 provided a brief overview of shopper typologies that summarized varied approaches to psychographic segmentation based on shopping orientation, motivation, and browsing activity. Identifying the reasons consumers make certain shopping choices, especially in the non-routine tourist role, has two distinct advantages. Retail marketers can better reach selected targeted consumer groups efficiently, while simultaneously providing the right information at the right time in the right place for those targeted consumers. Despite the important role of shopping as a motivator, an activity, and an attraction for tourists, this topic is underrepresented in the literature.9 Furthermore, only one study has addressed why any person residing in a large

Page 136

metropolitan area with multiple shopping opportunities takes the time and trouble to shop in a comparable shopping environment in another city.10 This study was designed to address this gap, and particularly the role of the involvement construct in understanding this consumer behavior of the tourist. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine how the involvement construct could be used as a tool to segment tourists at a shopping center. The push-pull motivation theory was used as a framework, and various individual characteristics and shopping center attributes were examined to see how they affected consumer outcome variables. THE INVOLVEMENT CONSTRUCT Tour operators, tourism promotion organizations, merchants, retail stores, shopping center management, and others need a deep understanding of the wants, needs, and perceptions of their tourist customers. One important psychographic facet of consumer behavior is the involvement construct. Involvement, a widely used concept in consumer behavior literature, is defined as a person’s perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values, and interests11 which can be used to explain individual differences.12 High-involvement purchases are those that are considered important or personally relevant to the consumer and cause him or her to seek information about the choice alternatives. Low-involvement purchases are those that have low importance or relevance to the consumer and cause him or her to seek little or no evaluative information.13 Its consequences are types of searching, information-processing, and decision-making,14 making it an important construct because of its potential effect on attitude toward an activity, receptivity to promotional stimuli, behavior with respect to the activity, and decision-making. Involvement and shopping More highly involved consumers are apt to add shopping time beyond their original intentions15 and might be more responsive to

Josiam, Kinley and Kim

store promotions.16 Dholakia et al.17 found that married men who reported joint responsibility with their spouses enjoyed shopping in malls. Increased arousal, involvement, and escapism may indicate a hedonically valuable shopping experience for some consumers.18 When shopping for clothing specifically, Seo et al.19 found that male college students indicating high involvement in casual clothing purchased more items of clothing, spent more money on clothing, and placed higher importance on brand names than did the consumers indicating lower involvement. Shim and Kotsiopulos20 also found that highinvolvement consumers were usually the most fashion conscious, brand-name oriented, and exhibited a preference for shopping at specialty stores. When it is a social activity, shopping is considered to be a leisure pursuit,21 thus it may be assumed that tourist shoppers begin with a positive mood orientation. Swinyard22 hypothesized that consumers’ moods may influence when and what they buy, how much they spend, how much they shop, etc. Shoppers in a good mood with higher involvement in the shopping activity might associate positive emotions with the store they have selected for shopping. Indeed, he found shoppers in a good mood who were more involved in shopping judged the shopping experience more favorably. Some consumers may receive pleasure directly from the time spent exploring the shopping environment.23 People tend to get more excited about things they enjoy doing; conversely people who do not enjoy shopping are apt to be less excited about the experience. Since involvement with shopping has been found to have a positive effect on repatronage intention, perhaps engaging the less-involved shopper with temporary events that might draw their interest can increase their excitement, at least temporarily.24

Involvement and tourism Level of involvement has been linked to motivation for leisure choices, including

travel, as well as satisfaction with the activity.25 In their research with student travelers and their level of involvement with going on a spring break vacation, Clements and Josiam26 found that while both travelers and nontravelers during the spring break were predominantly categorized as ‘high involvement’ with spring break travel, the travelers had significantly higher levels of involvement. From this they concluded that those with higher levels of involvement found the time and money to overcome the barriers to travel and actually traveled during the spring break. A follow-up study27 using the same involvement scale found that travelers had high levels of involvement, consistent with the previous study. It also found a significant link between travel ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivators and involvement levels. Interestingly, Josiam et al.28 also found that college females had a high lever of involvement than males for spring break travel, and that involvement was higher for students who desired the specific attributes a particular destination promised. Another paper from this research also found significant links between involvement levels and spring break vacation drinking behaviors.29 Zalatan30 studied the involvement of wives in different tasks involved with pleasure trips. While wives were less involved in the financial aspects of travel, they were highly involved with pre-trip research and decision-making at the destination site. Specifically, wives indicated high involvement with shopping and selecting restaurants. Education and income were found to be predictors of the level of involvement of wives in this study. Fodness31 found that wives were more likely to conduct the prevacation information search and Anderson and Littrell32 found that shopping provided women with entertainment and adventure.

TRAVEL MOTIVATIONS: PUSH-PULL MOTIVATORS A well-documented theoretical framework for analyzing tourism motivations is the con-

Page 137


cept of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivations.33 ‘Push’ motivations are the sociopsychological needs that motivate a person to travel. Given a choice of many appealing destinations which offer similar attractions, ‘pull’ factors reflect unique attributes of a given destination that motivate the tourist to visit there to the exclusion of others. For example, a harsh winter might motivate or ‘push’ people to travel to beach destinations, seeking sun, surf, and sand. While there are many beach destinations with sun, surf, and sand on offer, ultimately, the tourist can only go to one place. Both Miami and Daytona in Florida are beach destinations. An architect may decide to go to Miami, rather than Daytona, because he is interested in the Art Deco period architecture on display in Miami, a specific and unique ‘pull’ factor that tips the scale in favor of visiting Miami. The distinction between ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors is useful for providing a logical and temporal sequencing explanation for tourism behavior.34

Push-pull framework and shopping behavior Since one aspect of the study was to examine the motivations of tourist shoppers and the attractions of shopping centers to tourists, this push-pull motivational framework was adapted as follows.

• A person living in a large metropolitan area has a number of shopping options close to home and could do their shopping while at home. What are the push factors that motivate this person to shop when they are tourists? • Given that there are many shopping centers in the destination, what are the attributes or pull factors that motivate the tourist to select a given shopping center to the exclusion of others?

Tourist shoppers: Push motivators When traveling, an individual’s shopping behavior is markedly different from his/her

Page 138

normal shopping activity. Money is spent more casually and more non-essential items are bought.35 Consumers gain satisfaction from shopping itself, apart from the purchase of products.36 Shopping for unique items or items less expensive than the price they could be purchased for at home may even be viewed as sensible economic behavior.37 Purchasing items not available ‘at home’ can serve to enhance an individual’s desire for uniqueness,38 and shopping can be a social activity conducive to spending time with friends and relatives.39 Souvenirs become tangible evidence of the travel experience purchased to sustain memories of the trip.40 Tourist shoppers: Pull motivators Why would tourists from an urban origin shop in a mall on vacation? Store mix and product offerings in most regional malls are quite similar. The primary difference between most regional malls is location. It would be logical that most shoppers would shop in the mall closest to their home; however, it is relatively common for people to travel to shop or shop when traveling.41 Tourists in Florida and Atlanta have cited shopping as a popular activity and specific benefit of travel,42 as it becomes more of a leisure activity than a means to acquire needed goods.43 This may be true especially in cities that report shopping to be the number one tourist activity.44 There is inherent pleasure in shopping.45 Tarlow and Muehsam46 predicted a number of years ago that shopping would continue to be the primary purpose of travel, especially as shopping centers and malls distinguish themselves as a vacation destination. Most malls have little to offer that is unique.47 Evans48 reports that every mall seems to have the same six anchors and the same 150 national retailers. Even so, the opportunity to shop can be a tourist attraction at varying scales. Malls are attractive: they offer convenience, familiarity, safety, and a sense of escapism.49 Shopping in an attractive and diversified environment can be the element that leads to a leisure experience.50 In a study of West Edmonton Mall,


Butler51 reported results from a marketing survey that cited shopping, sightseeing, and curiosity as three of the top four reasons why tourists visit the mall. A shopping mall itself, if unique enough, can be a tourist attraction. That uniqueness may be size (West Edmonton Mall or Mall of America) or the entertainment options provided. When Kinley et al.52 asked tourists which specific attributes were important in making a mall selection, general priorities included a friendly, organized, safe, clean, and pleasant environment and, the perceived image of the mall or shopping center. Similarly, Jansen-Verbeke53 found shopping facilities and decor to be very important, while the greatest criticism of the mall was the lack of variety in the retail assortment. Dawson et al.54 posit that the ‘ultimate survival of all retail establishments depends on providing outlet features that generate patronage among a significant segment of consumers’ (p. 409). In the overstored US, this proposition is an impetus for aggressively pursuing the tourist market in addition to building a strong base with resident shoppers.

RESEARCH MODEL AND OBJECTIVES Using the involvement construct and the push-pull motivation theory as a framework, this study examined how various individual characteristics and shopping center attributes affected the consumer outcome variables of expenditure, repatronage intention, and recommendation to other people. This study uses the National Tourism Resources Review Commission’s definition of a ‘tourist’ as a person who travels away from his or her home for a distance of at least 50 miles.55 For this study, a ‘tourist shopper’ is defined as a person who shops while traveling. Study participants were limited to persons living in large cities who have shopped at another large city while traveling during the past year. The specific objectives of this study were to:

(1) identify the level of involvement of the tourist with the concept of ‘shopping as a tourist’;

(2) examine the relationship between tourist-shopper involvement segments and demographics characteristics; (3) identify the key factors of the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivators; (4) compare tourist shopper involvement segments in terms of push motivators, pull motivators, outcome variables (expenditure, revisit intention, and recommendation), and predictor variable (saver/non-saver for shopping); (5) examine the relationship between tourist involvement segments and previously identified tourist cluster typologies; (6) identify the role of involvement, demographic characteristics, and push and pull motivators in predicting outcomes (see Figure 1).

METHODS Focus group interviews Focus groups supplemented by some empirical validation provide a reasonable basis for identifying performance dimensions for measurement.56 In order to generate items beyond what would be identified through literature review, two separate focus group interviews were conducted with convenience samples averaging nine consumers each (seven females and two males) between the ages of 25 and 35. Care was taken to include males and females and single persons as well as members of families with children. The criteria for inclusion were that participants must reside in the metropolitan area and must have shopped in a comparable metropolitan area within the past year. In both focus groups, a free flow of input was encouraged. Each session lasted for about an hour. The sessions were taped, and then transcribed. The tapes and transcripts were reviewed in the development of the final questionnaire. In the focus group interviews, participants were asked to respond to several open-ended questions regarding push motivators and pull motivators: ‘When you were traveling and you went shopping, why did you go shopping?’ (push); ‘How do you decide where to go?’ (pull); and ‘What kinds of shopping do you like to do

Page 139


Figure 1

Research model

Shopping center Involvement levels of the tourist shopper

Demographic Characteristics · · · · · ·

Gender Marital status Ethnicity Income Education Number of children

Pull Motivator

Push Motivator ·

Shopping motivation as a tourist

·

· · ·

Expenditure Revisit intention Recommendation to others

had traveled more than 50 miles to a large metropolitan city within the past year, and the shopping center they visited while traveling in the city was comparable to a shopping center at home. A total of 485 surveys were collected from the four cities: 125 from Chicago, 128 from Dallas/Ft Worth Metroplex, 114 from Atlanta, and 118 from Washington, DC.

there?’ (pull). The themes that emerged from the focus group discussions, along with scales from the literature,57 were used in developing the push and pull motivators included in the questionnaire.

Sample and data collection The sampling frame of tourist shoppers consisted of brokered telephone lists from four metropolitan areas (Chicago, Dallas/Ft Worth, Atlanta, and Washington, DC). A computer-assisted telephone interview was utilized for data collection. Potential respondents were screened by two criteria: they Figure 2

Shopping center attributes

Outcome Variables

Instruments The involvement construct was measured using a 10-item bipolar scale (Figure 2) adapted from the one originally developed

Shopper tourist involement scale Please rate the following items on the scale given. When I am a tourist, shopping is: 1 2 3 Unimportant Boring Means nothing to me Worthless Not beneficial Irrelevant Unexciting Unappealing Nonessential Unwanted

Page 140

4

5

6

7 Important Interesting Means a lot to me Valuable Beneficial Relevant Exciting Appealing Essential Wanted


by Zaichowsky.58 The Zaichowsky scale has been used in several studies.59 The version used in this study was the same as the scales adapted and used by Clements and Josiam60 and Josiam et al.61 to measure Involvement as it relates to tourists. All respondents were asked to indicate their level of involvement with the concept of shopping while a tourist on each item on a seven-point scale in which 1 indicated the lowest level of involvement and 7 indicated the highest level of involvement. To obtain an individual’s involvement score, the responses were summed and then a mean was calculated. Push motivators reflected shopping motivation while traveling. The respondents were asked to indicate the level of importance of various motivations for shopping on a five-point rating scale (ranging from 1, ‘not important’, to 5, ‘very important’). Among the examples of push motivators were ‘buying souvenirs’, ‘shopping in different kinds of stores’, and ‘seeing local stores unique to the area’. The pull factors were derived from Jenkins,62 Thach and Axinn,63 and the focus group interviews. Pull motivators were queried of tourist shoppers by asking: ‘How important is each one of the following attributes when you selected the shopping center?’ The attributes consisted of 28 items such as ‘architecture’, ‘popularity of the center’, and ‘nightlife and entertainment’. The responses were measured on a five-point rating scale (ranging from 1, ‘not important’, to 5, ‘very important’). Outcome variables included the total estimated expenditure of money and time on the last trip in the shopping center, and behavioral intention (e.g. overall satisfaction, intention to revisit, recommending to other people). Additionally, demographic information profiled shoppers on gender, marital status, number of children, education, and household income. RESULTS A total of 485 usable surveys were collected. Survey respondents were primarily female,

married, with no children living at home. The majority were white, had earned at least a bachelor’s degree, and reported an income of $70,000 or more (Table 1). These demographics differ from the general American population, limiting the generalizability of the study.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the sample N

(%)

Demographics Gender Female 312 64.3 Male 173 35.7 Marital status Married 314 65.8 Single 163 34.2 Ethnicity African-American 93 22.3 White American 324 77.7 Income $30,000 or less 35 8.8 $30,001–50,000 73 18.3 $50,001–70,000 72 18.0 $70,001–90,000 77 19.3 $90,001 or more 142 35.6 Education High school or less 78 16.4 Some college 64 13.5 Two-year college degree 36 7.6 Four-year college degree 142 29.9 Graduate degree 154 32.5 Household size One 92 19.0 Two 203 41.9 Three 84 17.3 Four 72 14.9 Five or more 31 6.4 Number of children under age 18 living with respondent Zero 350 72.3 One 64 13.2 Two 53 11.0 Three 12 2.5 Four or more 5 1.0 Note. Totals differ due to missing data.

Page 141


Objective 1. Identify the level of involvement of the tourist with the concept of ‘shopping while a tourist’ The 10-item involvement scale used for this study was modeled after the involvement scale developed by Zaichowsky.64 Chronbach’s alpha was computed to determine reliability of the scale. The computed score of 0.9554 is consistent with the 0.95 alpha reported by Zaichowsky65 in the original study, 0.96 reported by Clements and Josiam,66 and 0.93 reported by Josiam et al.67 The mean involvement score was found to be 4.22 (SD ¼ 1.46). The median score, at 4.30, was quite close to the mean, reflecting a normal distribution of these scores (Table 2). Interestingly, this mean score with an older, more educated, generally female consumer was much lower than that found by Clements and Josiam68 and Josiam et al.69 with student tourists. The range of mean involvement scores was divided into three categories of low (score of 1–2.99), medium (3–4.99), and high (5–7) involvement. This is consistent with some earlier studies on tourist involvement levels.70 Almost half of the sample was classified as tourists with ‘medium involvement’ with shopping. About a fifth was found to have ‘low involvement’, and another third ‘high involvement’. It is not surprising that the lowest numbers were in the ‘low involvement’ category, as one of the screening questions was ‘Did you visit a shopping center in the city when you were a tourist there?’ Non-shoppers were not surveyed for this study (Table 2).

Objective 2. Examine the relationship between tourist shopper involvement segments and demographic characteristics Using the cross-tabs procedure with chisquare statistics and the correlations procedure, the three tourist shopper involvement segments were compared in terms of demographic characteristics (Table 3). Significant differences were displayed by gender, ethnicity, and education (Table 3). Females were underrepresented in the lowinvolvement segment, while males were underrepresented in the high-involvement segment. Both genders had a majority in the medium-involvement segment. White Americans were found to be predominantly in the medium-involvement segment. African-Americans were overrepresented in the high-involvement category and underrepresented in the low-involvement category. However, both racial groups were most likely to be in the medium-involvement category. With respect to education, highly involved tourists were overrepresented among those with lower levels of education, while a greater percentage of low-involvement tourists were among those with higher levels of education (e.g. four-year college or graduate degree). A weak but significant positive correlation was found between number of children below 18 and tourist shopping involvement levels. Perhaps those with more children found a vacation to be the ideal time to shop without being bothered by their children! Martial status, income, and household size

Table 2: Tourist shopper involvement levels Low involvement (1–2.99) N (%) Numbers and percentages 95 (19.6) Mean involvement score ¼ 4.22 Median involvement score ¼ 4.30 Modal involvement score ¼ 5.00 Reliability of 10-item scale; alpha ¼ 0.9554

Page 142

Medium involvement High involvement (3–4.99) (5–7.00) N (%) N (%) 234 (48.2)

156 (32.2)


Table 3: Demographic characteristics by involvement segment: Frequencies and means Low-involvement tourists N (%) Demographics Gender Female Male Marital status Married Single Ethnicity African-American White American Income $30,000 or less $30,001–50,000 $50,001–70,000 $70,001–90,000 $90,001 or more Education High school or less Some college Two-year college degree Four-year college degree Graduate degree Household size Number of children under 18 years old

Medium-involvement High-involvement tourists tourists N (%) N (%) Chi-square 28.56**

40 (42.1) 55 (57.9)

155 (66.2) 79 (33.8)

117 (75.0) 39 (25.0)

67 (71.3) 27 (28.7)

150 (65.2) 80 (34.8)

97 (63.4) 56 (36.6)

9 (11.0) 73 (89.5)

39 (19.6) 160 (80.4)

45 (33.1) 91 (66.9)

7 (20.0) 12 (16.4) 11 (15.3) 12 (15.6) 28 (19.7)

16 (45.7) 32 (43.8) 40 (55.6) 42 (54.5) 68 (47.9)

12 (34.3) 29 (39.7) 21 (29.2) 23 (29.9) 46 (32.4)

1.68 (ns) 16.042** 4.094 (ns)

21.127** 9 (11.5) 30 (38.5) 11 (17.2) 34 (53.1) 4 (11.1) 19 (52.8) 30 (21.1) 69 (48.6) 39 (25.3) 79 (51.3) Pearson correlation ¼ 0.08(ns) Pearson correlation ¼ 0.12*

39 (50.0) 19 (29.7) 13 (36.1) 43 (30.3) 36 (23.4)

Note. Totals differe due to missing data. *p , 0.05, **p , 0.01, ns ¼ no significant difference between categories

were not found to be significantly related to involvement levels.

Objective 3. Identify the key factors of the ‘push’ and ‘pull’ motivators Factor analysis was employed to identify the natural groupings of the 22 push motivators and the 27 pull motivators. The researchers then named the factors with titles reflecting their core concepts. From the 22 push motivators, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation produced six factors. These factors

displayed medium-to-high reliabilities, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.54 to 0.78 (Table 4). The researchers labeled the factors as follows. • Factor 1: Boredom Buster. Tourists who are pushed to go to the mall to avoid boredom. They are getting bored in their hotel and want to pass time at the mall people-watching, or just wandering through stores. • Factor 2: Shoppertainment Seeker. Tourists who go to a shopping center to entertain themselves. To them shopping

Page 143


Table 4: Factor analysis of push motivators and relationship with involvement levels of tourist shopper segments Factor loading

Low Medium High involvement involvement involvement means means means F-values

Factor 1: Boredom Buster Alpha ¼ 0.78; eigenvalue ¼ 2.71; explained variance ¼ 12.34 To get out of the hotel 0.789 1.93 To pass time 0.751 2.16 To do people-watching 0.641 1.80 To eat while there 0.629 2.33 To enjoy a different store layout 0.440 1.89 Factor 2: Shoppertainment Seeker Alpha ¼ 0.73; eigenvalue ¼ 2.44; explained variance ¼ 11.10 To see local/unique store 0.679 3.04 To treat myself 0.634 2.68 Shop in different kinds of stores 0.613 2.97 To enjoy a vacation 0.587 3.29 To be entertained 0.547 2.44 Factor 3: Socializing Shopper Alpha ¼ 0.70; eigenvalue ¼ 2.18; explained variance ¼ 9.93 To socialize with friends or family 0.770 2.60 Entertainment for the entire family 0.697 2.25 To benefit from others’ shopping 0.539 1.88 expertise Factor 4: Gift/Souvenir Shopper Alpha ¼ 0.65; eigenvalue ¼ 2.03; explained variance ¼ 9.21 To buy gifts while there 0.763 2.77 Buy specialties for others 0.726 3.15 To buy a souvenir 0.622 1.83 Factor 5: Shopping Connoisseur Alpha ¼ 0.61; eigenvalue ¼ 1.91; explained variance ¼ 8.67 Shop at upper-end stores 0.734 2.35 Larger stores with more choices 0.622 2.43 Factor 6: Functional Shopper Alpha ¼ 0.54; eigenvalue ¼ 1.77; explained variance ¼ 8.06 Buy things I forgot 0.745 2.49 To enjoy lower sales tax 0.653 1.69 Enjoy climate control 0.481 2.58

2.65 2.77 2.20 3.02 2.69

3.15 3.06 2.61 3.47 3.54

21.519 12.681 11.500 18.925 50.810

3.87 3.56 3.76 3.83 3.29

3.95 4.10 4.07 4.38 3.90

19.328 37.676 23.085 21.473 38.424

3.18 2.53 2.35

3.62 3.09 2.88

15.392 11.563 16.340

3.24 3.67 2.04

3.74 4.04 2.72

18.765 15.563 14.628

3.11 3.23

3.44 3.79

21.079 32.677

2.74 2.22 2.95

3.08 2.75 3.60

4.835 15.108 14.164

Note. All reported F-values of ANOVA analyses in this table are significant at p , 0.001.

is a personal indulgence on vacation. • Factor 3: Socializing Shopper. Tourists who go shopping with others as a form of socializing. For them the social aspects of shopping with their family and friends are a strong push motivator to go to a shopping center while a tourist. • Factor 4: Gift/Souvenir Shopper. Tour-

Page 144

ists who feel ‘pushed’ to shop to buy gifts and souvenirs for others. Presumably, shopping is more of a functional/goaldirected activity for them, but with a giving dimension. • Factor 5: Shopping Connoisseur. Tourists who have the taste and money to shop at high-end stores. They seek larger


stores with more choices, presumably as they have the interest and ability to identify and buy the finer things in life. • Factor 6: Functional Shopper. These tourists are pushed to shop purely at a functional level. They need to buy what they forgot to bring, or they are seeking

lower tax rates, or simply more comfortable settings. From the 27 pull motivators, principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation produced four factors. These factors displayed medium-to-high reliabilities, with

Table 5: Factor analysis of pull motivators and relationship with involvement levels of tourist shoppers

Pull motivator

Factor loading

Low Medium High involvement involvement involvement means means means F-statistics

Factor 1: Merchandise/Ambience Alpha ¼ 0.85; eigenvalue ¼ 4.47; explained variance ¼ 15.95 Quality of products 0.76 4.05 Merchandise selection 0.76 3.87 Variety of stores 0.72 3.81 Attractive decor 0.62 3.35 Higher end retail stores 0.61 2.93 Pleasant atmosphere 0.61 3.73 Occupied shops 0.53 3.24 Contemporary 0.42 2.52 Factor 2: Entertainment Alpha ¼ 0.86; eigenvalue ¼ 4.32; explained variance ¼ 15.43 Unique architecture/buildings 0.77 2.32 Fairs, exhibits, festivals, or cultural events 0.73 2.21 Lively atmosphere 0.65 2.63 Reflective of local culture 0.63 2.79 Nightlife/entertainment 0.62 2.15 Restaurant choices 0.59 2.54 Facilities for information and tours 0.56 2.14 Factor 3: Mall Basics Alpha ¼ 0.81; eigenvalue ¼ 3.37; explained variance ¼ 12.02 Enclosed mall 0.66 3.14 Number of large department stores 0.65 2.74 Family-friendly 0.61 2.89 Well-known brands 0.57 3.47 Popularity of center 0.51 2.45 Convenient parking 0.45 3.58 Having a movie theater 0.42 2.10 Safety of center 0.42 3.73 Factor 4: Convenience Alpha ¼ 0.71; eigenvalue ¼ 2.27; explained variance ¼ 8.11 Close to hotel/motel 0.79 3.16 Conveniently located 0.67 3.52 Convenience of other stores 0.53 3.58 Close to airport 0.46 1.65

4.38 4.27 4.28 3.89 3.29 4.22 3.70 3.02

4.61 4.52 4.55 4.22 3.67 4.49 3.97 3.56

12.03 14.42 19.84 20.33 9.48 17.85 10.12 20.30

2.84 2.62 3.35 3.26 2.35 3.15 2.62

3.39 3.00 3.90 3.77 2.98 3.58 3.13

18.24 9.19 32.49 16.47 14.15 16.47 14.76

3.19 3.03 3.44 3.86 3.14 3.96 2.07 4.22

3.88 3.70 3.95 4.23 3.71 4.06 2.69 4.47

11.30 18.65 16.97 13.42 25.40 3.94 9.76 13.70

3.36 3.82 3.97 2.00

3.82 4.02 4.24 2.42

7.34 5.06 10.23 12.05

Note. All reported F-values of ANOVA analyses in this table are significant at p , 0.001.

Page 145


Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.71 to 0.86 (Table 5). The researchers labeled these as follows.

access, making them an easy choice for something to do/somewhere to go to while on vacation.

• Factor 1: Merchandise/Ambience. Tourists who are pulled to a mall that offers quality products, wide selection of merchandise in a pleasant/contemporary/ attractive ambience. • Factor 2: Entertainment. Tourists who go to a shopping center that can entertain them with unique architecture, fairs/ festivals, and restaurants/nightlife. • Factor 3: Mall Basics. Tourists who seek a mall that is safe, popular, and has a number of large department stores. For them the predictability of the mall is probably a strong attraction. • Factor 4: Convenience. Tourists who are attracted to malls that are convenient to

Objective 4. Compare tourist shopper involvement segments in terms of push motivators, pull motivators, outcome variables, and saver/nonsaver predictor variable Using ANOVA procedures, the three tourist shopper involvement segments were compared in terms of push motivators (Table 4), pull motivators (Table 5), and outcome variables (Table 6). Cross-tabs procedure was used to examine the relationship between involvement segments and the saver/nonsaver predictor variable (Table 7).

Table 6: Outcomes by tourist involvement segments

Outcomes Overall satisfaction Recommendation to family/friends Revisit intention Money expenditure Time expenditure

Lowinvolvement tourists (N ¼ 95)

Mediuminvolvement tourists (N ¼ 230)

Highinvolvement tourists (N ¼ 155)

3.88 3.64 3.66 $651.49 2.95

4.32 4.29 4.25 $795.18 3.84

4.39 4.39 4.42 $767.51 4.17

F-statistic 11.584* 17.443* 15.309* 0.210 (ns) 0.709 (ns)

Note. Totals differ due to missing data. *p , 0.001; ns ¼ no significatn differences between groups

Table 7: Saver/non-saver by tourist involvement segments Lowinvolvement tourists N (%) Tourist saver types Those who saved for shopping on trip 19 (20.4) Those who did not save for shopping 74 (79.6) on trip Totals 93 (100) *p , 0.001

Page 146

Mediuminvolvement tourists N (%)

Highinvolvement tourists N (%)

80 (34.8) 150 (65.2)

87 (56.1) 68 (43.9)

230 (100)

139 (100)

Chi-square statistic 34.343*


Push motivations and involvement segments Significant differences were consistently displayed across the board by for each of the push motivators (Table 4). A hierarchical effect was seen. Without any exceptions, those who gave high ratings to the push motivators for shopping also fell in the highinvolvement category consistently, while those who ascribed low importance to the push motivators fell into the low-involvement category. Shoppers in the mediuminvolvement category had intermediate scores on the push motivator variables. Furthermore, the highest scores on the push factors were on the ‘Shoppertainment Seeker’ factor items, while the lowest scores were reported on functional items such as ‘to buy a souvenir’, or ‘to enjoy lower sales tax’. It appears that high-involvement tourist shoppers are driven by the social, leisure, and hedonic facets of shopping.

Pull motivations and involvement segments Significant differences were also consistently displayed across the board by for each of the pull motivators (Table 5). Once again, a hierarchical effect was seen. Specifically, the highest scores on the four pull motivation factors were exhibited by high-involvement tourists; the lowest scores, by low-involvement tourists. While the importance of each of the four factors varied significantly among the three involvement shopper segments, further analysis of the individual means of the pull motivators indicates several similarities (Table 5). All three groups regarded ‘quality of products’, ‘variety of stores’, ‘pleasant atmosphere’, ‘merchandise selection’, and ‘safety of center’ as very important. On the other hand, all three groups ascribed little importance to ‘close to airport’, ‘having a movie theater’, ‘nightlife and entertainment’, and ‘fairs, exhibits, festivals, or cultural events’. This suggests that the tourist shopper is ‘pulled’ to the mall as a great place to shop rather than because of other non-shopping

activities that may be located in the mall such as movie theaters. These findings are particularly true of high-involvement tourist shoppers, who view the act of shopping itself as an entertainment/leisure activity. They are not seeking other forms of entertainment in the mall.

Outcomes and involvement segments The three involvement segments differed significantly in overall satisfaction, recommendation to family/friends, and revisit intention (Table 6). The high-involvement tourist shoppers had highest levels of overall satisfaction. They were also most likely to recommend the center to family or friends, and to return to the center. Again, a hierarchical effect was seen with the low-involvement segment being the least likely to be satisfied or to recommend the center. There were no significant differences in money expenditure and time expenditure among the three segments.

Saver/non-savers and involvement segments One of the outcome variables was phrased as: ‘Did you save money for shopping on the trip?’ The possible responses were a simple yes/no dichotomy. The cross-tabs analysis illustrates the results of the relationship between savers and non-savers with reference to tourist involvement segments (Table 7). The three involvement segments differed significantly in their propensity to save for tourism shopping. Not surprisingly, the majority of the high-involvement tourist shoppers had indeed saved to shop on the trip, while an overwhelming majority of the lowinvolvement tourist shoppers had not saved to shop on the trip. Again, a hierarchical effect was seen, with the low-involvement segment being the least likely to have saved and the medium-involvement segment somewhat more likely to have done so. The high-involvement segment had the highest proportion of savers.

Page 147


Objective 5. Examine the relationship between tourist involvement segments and previously identified touristshopper cluster typologies Kinley et al.71 previously analyzed this dataset from another perspective using cluster analysis to create a tourist-shopper typology. They identified three types of tourist shoppers.

• Shopping tourists – characterized by placing high importance on core shopping issues. • Experiential tourists – characterized by viewing shopping as a form of entertainment and self-indulgence on a trip. • Passive tourists – characterized by a minimal desire to shop. Since involvement segments were also a form of psychographic segmentation, it was decided to compare the two different approaches to segmentation. The cross-tabs analysis illustrates the results of the relationship between the cluster segments and the involvement segments (Table 8). A majority of the low-involvement tourists were found to be ‘passive tourists’, while only a small minority of the high-involvement tourists were found to be ‘passive tourists’. Most of the high-involvement tourists were evenly categorized as ‘shopping tourists or ‘experiential tourists’ (Table 8). Indeed, this analysis lends credence to both approaches (cluster segment typologies and involvement level segments) and points to the internal validity of the analyses.

Objective 6. Identify the role of involvement, demographic characteristics, and push/pull motivators that predict outcome variables To predict outcomes based on demographic characteristics and motivators, two multiple regression analyses were employed with overall satisfaction and revisit intention as the dependent variables (Table 9). Significant predictors of overall satisfaction were merchandise/ambience, gift/souvenir shopper, and involvement scores. The more likely tourists were to be ‘pushed’ to go shopping by the need to buy gifts for others and ‘pulled’ to a specific mall by merchandise/ambience factor items, the more likely they were to be satisfied with the center. The more they were involved with ‘tourist shopping’ the greater was their overall satisfaction. Revisit intention was predicted by three ‘pull’ factor variables: entertainment, merchandise/ambience, and mall basics. Those who were ‘pulled’ to that specific shopping center by its attributes such as merchandise selection, lively atmosphere, unique architecture, safety, and convenience indicated they intended to revisit the center. Involvement levels were not a significant predictor of revisit intentions. Each one of the push and pull factors and demographic variables was initially entered into the regression equation. An iterative process was utilized to identify the most

Table 8: Tourist clusters by tourist involvement segments

Tourist cluster typologies Shopping tourist Experiential tourist Passive tourist Totals *p , 0.001

Page 148

Lowinvolvement tourists N (%)

Mediuminvolvement tourists N (%)

Highinvolvement tourists N (%)

25 (28.7) 7 (8.0) 55 (63.2) 87 (100)

112 (54.1) 48 (23.2) 47 (22.7) 207 (100)

63 (45.3) 63 (45.3) 13 (9.4) 139 (100)

Chi-square statistic 98.933*


Table 9: Regression analysis: Outcome variables

Variable/Factor Merchandise/ambience factor Entertainment factor Mall basics factor Gift/souvenir shopper factor Involvement scores Final statistics r d.f. f r2

Overall satisfaction

Revisit intention

Beta

Beta

0.344** ns ns 0.111* 0.116* 0.413 387 26.281 0.164

0.418** 0.127** 0.133** ns ns 0.457 416 36.307 0.203

*p , 0.05; **p , 0.01; ns ¼ not significant

powerful predictors, taking into consideration issues of multi-collinearity. Motivation and involvement variables were found to be the most powerful predictors, while weaker predictors dropped out of the final equation. DISCUSSION AND APPLICATIONS The findings of this study conclusively support the role of the involvement construct as an important psychographic segmentation tool with relationship to understanding consumer behavior among tourists. Almost without exception, the involvement segments showed significant relationships to demographic, motivational, and outcome variables, consistent with earlier studies. A closer look at these results with a discussion in the context of the literature is warranted.

‘high involvement’ with spring break travel. Those findings pointed to the strong desire for going on a spring break vacation. The researchers concluded that there was already high aggregate demand for this type of travel, and the job of the marketer was to stimulate demand only for a given destination by focusing on its pull factors. In this study, however, only a third (32 per cent) of respondents were categorized as being highly involved with tourist shopping. This suggests that marketers have a tougher job, since they first have to generate aggregate demand for tourism shopping before they can focus on the pull factors of their shopping center. This low level of interest in mall shopping while a tourist is consistent with the literature cited earlier that shows a declining interest nationwide in mall shopping.

Involvement scores and segments First, the shorter 10-item involvement scale used in this study compared to the original 20-item scale used by Zaichowsky72 was shown to be reliable and consistently usable as a discriminating scale, permitting it to be used in future studies confidently. Second, the use of high/medium/low categorization was also shown to be consistently usable. Earlier studies73 had categorized over 80 per cent of the student respondents as having

Involvement and demographics Consistent with earlier studies,74 this study indicated that women showed greater involvement in shopping while on vacation than did men. Women are typically the purchasing agents for the family unit. Time spent shopping on vacation may be more leisure and less task oriented, unlike shopping during daily routines for family needs. Indeed, Zalatan75 indicated wives particularly are highly involved in collecting information for

Page 149


a vacation, selecting tourist sites, and shopping expenditures. While all education categories exhibited a higher than average involvement in shopping while on vacation, respondents with less formal education seemed to find tourist shopping more important and exciting than their more educated counterparts. Perhaps this can be attributed to the ease of shopping; it is very familiar, very easy to find activities appropriate for everyone in the family at a mall, and there are relatively few unknowns in this vacation activity. Similarly, AfricanAmericans being overrepresented in the high-involvement categories could be linked to their lower education and income levels. Interestingly, when income was examined there was not a clear pattern, indicating that income level is not a predictor in tourist shopping involvement.

Why tourists shop: Involvement and push motivators The findings show that rather than treating tourists as being a homogeneous group of tourist shoppers, mall operators need to address them as distinctive segments. Specifically, the high- and medium-involvement segments that comprise the majority of tourist shoppers are already motivated to shop. Here the challenge for the operator is to get them to their center. On the other hand, low-involvement tourist shoppers are not particularly interested in shopping. They have to be motivated to shop by giving them many reasons to do so. This study also shows that the high-involvement Socializing Shopper and Shoppertainment Seeker ascribe great importance to the entertainment and ambience aspects of the shopping center. Operators, however, cannot ignore mall basics such as climate control, merchandise selection, and store variety as these contribute to both core shopping needs and the overall experience. Interestingly, some of the strongest push motivators were personal motivations (‘to enjoy a vacation’, ‘to buy something special for others’, and ‘to treat myself’), rather than mall or product focused.

Page 150

Mall promotions might focus on personal enjoyment of the shopping environment as well as the unique aspects of individual shopping centers. While all of the tourists in this study indicated they had shopped in a mall while traveling, it is interesting that ‘getting out of the hotel’ was not a strong enough motivator to go to the shopping center. Malls should give tourists reasons to shop and to choose their particular mall. Advertisements should focus on pleasurable aspects of the shopping center (i.e. store variety, unique local stores, and the indulgence aspects of the mall like day spas or gourmet coffee shops and restaurants).

Where tourists shop: Involvement and shopping center pull factors Here again, involvement was found to be a consistent segmentation variable. The factor analysis shows that the strongest pull factors are the core issues in shopping such as depth and breadth of merchandise. These are closely followed by the role of the mall as an entertainment center. Center operators should try to incorporate unique design elements and different stores to give the tourist a reason to come to their center. In the context of low factor loadings, the findings suggest that the majority of tourist shoppers are sufficiently motivated to overcome the barriers of inconvenient location if the center is unique and localized. (This is consistent with Kinley et al.76 ) Promotional materials targeted to tourists should emphasize the unique aspects of the mall. The findings indicate that tourist shoppers are interested in mall options for the purpose of shopping. While tourists, they do not seek out the entertainment options the mall has to offer such as movie theaters and nightlife entertainment. In fact, in one focus group participant commented ‘I can see a movie at home’. Going to a movie is inherently a leisure activity that one engages in at home. On the other hand, shopping may be regarded as a chore at home but a leisurely pursuit while traveling. The mall attributes determined to be most


important to attracting tourist shoppers can be controlled by the mall developers and managers via environmental control and tenant mix. Tourists desire quality, variety, assortment of both stores and merchandise, pleasant atmosphere, and safety. Highly involved tourist shoppers are even more ‘pulled’ by these attributes to visit a comparable mall on vacation. The job of the marketer is to target these highly involved shoppers more effectively and efficiently. Involvement and outcomes Involvement levels were significantly related to overall satisfaction, revisit intentions, and recommendation to others. This is consistent with earlier studies.77 This suggests that the high-involvement shopper should be targeted, while special programs and promotions might help to increase involvement levels of others. No linkage could be easily established between involvement levels and time and money spent at the mall. Perhaps expenditure is a function of budget/propensity to spend or save. This suggests that marketers need to focus efforts on getting high-involvement customers to their center rather than on stimulating interest in tourism shopping. This will ensure that tourists spend on their premises. Involvement and savers/non-savers In line with the preponderance of the evidence from this study, involvement levels were shown to be clearly linked to the tourist’s intent to shop. Tourists saving with the intention to shop were correctly classified as ‘high involvement’. This points to the need to target such tourists by merchants.

Involvement segments and cluster typologies Involvement segments were found to be logically linked to the cluster typologies, with previously identified ‘passive tourists’ also shown to be ‘low-involvement’ tourist

shoppers. This is not surprising in the context of the consistent ability of the involvement segments to discriminate among other variables. ‘Shopping tourists’, of course, exhibited the highest involvement in shopping while on vacation. These consumers like to shop in different kinds of stores, buy things for others, and hunt for bargains. The ‘experiential tourists’ also indicated a high level of involvement. These tourists are more entertainment oriented; they like to treat themselves to something fun and enjoy social interactions. The ‘passive tourists’ would rather avoid the mall altogether, so their low scores on shopping involvement are not a surprise. These findings conclusively support the role of the involvement construct as an important study and segmentation tool. Prediction of outcomes In a multiple regression, involvement levels were found to be a better predictor of overall satisfaction than any of the demographic variables and many of the motivational variables. The most important pull factor was the merchandise/ambience factor, while the most important push factor was gift/souvenir shopper. In line with earlier conclusions, this suggests that core shopping issues such as breadth and depth of merchandise offered in pleasant surrounds would motivate a tourist to visit a specific mall, particularly the highinvolvement tourist shopper. Involvement levels could not predict revisit intentions. Here again, core mall and shopping issues were stronger predictors. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In summary, this study has shown that shopping is an integral part of the tourism experience, even for tourists with access to comparable shops and malls at home. The involvement construct has been shown to be a valuable tool to segment tourist shoppers psychographically. The findings of this study will enable academics and practitioners to understand better the motivations of the tourist shoppers and the attributes they seek

Page 151


in shopping centers. Such an understanding will enable them to identify viable market segments, develop strategies for more targeted marketing messages, create better promotional programs, and design shopping centers to attract tourist shoppers. This understanding will also serve to increase the number of tourist shoppers and encourage them to spend more time and money while shopping, providing a competitive advantage to shopping centers. REFERENCES (1) Goeldner, C. R., Brent Ritchie, J. R., and McIntosh, R. W. (2000) Tourism: Principles, Practices, Philosophies. New York: John Wiley & Sons; Reed, D. (1997) ‘A tale of two leaves: Outlet shopping’, Wall Street Journal, 17 (October): 1. (2) Reed, ref. 1 above; Littrell, M. A., Baizerman, S., Kean, R., and Gahring, S. (1994) ‘Souvenirs and tourism styles’, Journal of Travel Research, 33(1): 3–11; Timothy, D. J. and Butler, R. W. (1995) ‘Cross border shopping: A North American perspective’, Annals of Tourism Research, 22(1): 16–34; Law, R. and Au, N. (2000) ‘Relationship modeling in tourism shopping: A decision rules induction approach’, Tourism Management, 21(3): 241–9; Kim, S. and Litrell, M. A. (1999) ‘Predicting souvenir purchase intentions’, Journal of Travel Research, 38(2): 153–62. (3) Gordon, B. (1986) ‘The souvenir: Messenger of the extraordinary’, Journal of Popular Culture, 20(3): 135–46. (4) Timothy and Butler, ref. 2 above. (5) Thomas, I. F. and LeTourneur, C. (2001) ‘Resort retail’, UrbanLand, August: 50–1. (6) Jansen-Verbeke, M. (1987) ‘Women, shopping and leisure’, Leisure Studies, 6(1): 71–86. (7) Turner, L. W. and Reisinger, Y. (2001) ‘Shopping satisfaction for domestic tourists’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(1): 15–27; Warnaby, G. and Davies, B. F. (1997) ‘Commentary: Cities as service factories? Using the servuction system for marketing cities as shopping destinations’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 25(6): 204–10. (8) Finn, A., McQuitty, S., and Rigby, J. (1994) ‘Residents’ acceptance and use of a

Page 152

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15) (16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

mega-multi-mall: West Edmonton Mall evidence’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11: 127–44. Getz, D. (1993) ‘Tourist shopping villages: Development and planning strategies’, Tourism Management, 14(1): 15–26; Heung, V. C. S. and Cheng, E. (2000) ‘Assessing tourists’ satisfaction with shopping in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China’, Journal of Travel Research, 38(4): 396–404; Law and Au, ref. 2 above. Kinley, T. R., Josiam, B. M., and Kim, Y. K. (2003) ‘Why and where tourists shop: Motivations of tourist shoppers and their preferred shopping center attributes’, Journal of Shopping Center Research, 10(1): 7–28. Zaichowsky, J. L. (1985) ‘Measuring the involvement construct’, Journal of Consumer Research, 12: 341–52; Gursoy, D. and Gavcar, E. (2003) ‘International leisure tourists’ involvement profile’, Annals of Tourism Research, 30(4): 906–26. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., and Goldman, R. (1981) ‘Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based prescription’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27: 1915–26. Elliott, R. and Hamilton, E. (1991) ‘Consumer choice tactics and leisure activity’, International Journal of Advertising, 10: 325–32; Josiam, B. M., Smeaton, G., and Clements, C. J. (1999) ‘Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2): 167–75. Rothschild, M. L. (1984) ‘Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions’, Advances in Consumer Research, 11: 216–17. Finn et al., ref. 8 above. Volle, P. (2001) ‘The short-term effect of store-level promotions on store choice, and the moderating role of individual variables’, Journal of Business Research, 53(2): 63–73. Dholakia, R. R., Pedersen, B. and Hikmet, N. (1995) ‘Married males and shopping: Are they sleeping partners?’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 23(3): 27–33. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., and Griffin, M. (1994) ‘Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value’, Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 644–56. Seo, J.-I., Hathcote, J. M., and Sweaney, A. L. (2001) ‘Casualwear shopping behaviour of college men in Georgia, USA’,


(20)

(21)

(22)

(23) (24)

(25)

(26) (27) (28)

(29) (30) (31)

(32)

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 5(3): 208–22. Shim, S. Y. and Kotsiopulos, A. (1992) ‘Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part I’, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(2): 48–57. Bergadaa, M., Faure, C., and Perrien, J. (1995) ‘Enduring involvement with shopping’, Journal of Social Psychology, 135(1): 17–25. Swinyard, W. R. (1993) ‘The effects of mood, involvement, and quality of store experience on shopping intentions’, Journal of Consumer Research, 20: 271–80; Tarlow, P. E. and Muehsam, M. J. (1992) ‘Wide horizons: Travel and tourism in the coming decades’, The Futurist, 26(5): 28–32. Babin et al., ref. 18 above. Wakefield, K. L. and Baker, J. (1998) ‘Excitement at the mall: Determinants and effects on shopping response’, Journal of Retailing, 74(4): 515–39. Clements, C. J. and Josiam, B. M. (1995) ‘Role of involvement in the travel decision’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 1(4): 337–48; Josiam, B. M., Hobson, J. S. P., Dietrich, U. C., and Smeaton, G. (1998) ‘An analysis of the sexual, alcohol, and drug related behavioral patterns of students on spring break’, Tourism Management, 19(6): 501–13; Williams, D. R. (1984) ‘A developmental model of recreation choice behavior’, in Stankey, H. and McCool, S. (eds) Proceedings: Symposium on Recreation Choice Behavior. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture; Gursoy and Gavcar, ref. 11 above. Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above. Josiam et al., ref. 25 above. Josiam, B. M, Smeaton, G., and Clements, C. J. (1999) ‘Involvement: Travel motivation and destination selection’, Journal of Vacation Marketing, 5(2): 167–75. Josiam et al., ref. 25 above. Zalatan, A. (1998) ‘Wives’ involvement in tourism decision processes’, Annals of Tourism Research, 25(4): 890–903. Fodness, D. (1992) ‘The impact of the family life cycle on the tourism decision-making process’, Journal of Travel Research, 31(2): 8–13. Anderson, L. F. and Littrell, M. A. (1995) ‘Souvenir-purchase behavior of women tourists’, Annals of Tourism Research, 22: 328–48.

(33) Crompton, J. L. (1979) ‘Motivations of pleasure vacation’, Annals of Tourism Research, 6(4): 408–24; Fodness, D. (1994) ‘Measuring tourist motivation’, Annals of Tourism Research, 21(3): 555–81; Dann, G. (1977) ‘Anomie, ego-enhancement and tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 4(4): 184–94; Jenkins, O. H. (1999) ‘Understanding and measuring tourist destination images’, International Journal of Tourism Research, 1(1): 1–15; Josiam et al., ref. 28 above; Kim, E. and Lee, D. (2000) ‘Japanese tourists’ experience of the natural environments in North QLD region – Great Barrier Reef experience’, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 9(1/2): 93–113; Thach, S. V. and Axinn, C. N. (1994) ‘Patron assessments of amusement park attributes’, Journal of Travel Research, 32(3): 51–60. (34) Dann, G. M. (1981) ‘Tourist motivation: An appraisal’, Annals of Tourism Research, 8(2): 187–219; Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (35) Butler, R. W. (1991) ‘West Edmonton Mall as a tourist attraction’, Canadian Geographer, 35(3): 287–95. (36) Bloch, P. H. and Richins, M. I. (1983) ‘Shopping without purchase: An investigation of consumer browsing behavior’, in R. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout (eds) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 389–93. Ann Arbor: Michigan Association for Consumer Research; Buttle, F. (1992) ‘Shopping motives: Constructionist perspective’, Service Industries Journal, 12(3): 349–67; Christiansen, T. and Snepenger, D. J. (2002) ‘Is it the mood or the mall that encourages tourists to shop?’, Journal of Shopping Center Research, 9(1): 7–26. (37) Butler, ref. 35 above. (38) Burns, D. J. and Warren, H. B. (1995) ‘Need for uniqueness: Shopping mall preference and choice activity’, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 23(12): 4–12. (39) Christiansen and Snepenger, ref. 36 above. (40) Littrell et al., ref. 2 above. (41) Burns and Warren, ref. 38 above. (42) Fodness, ref. 33 above; Kent, W. E., Shock, P. J., and Snow, R. E. (1983) ‘Shopping: Tourism’s unsung hero(ine)’, Journal of Travel Research, 21(4): 2–4. (43) Butler, ref. 35 above. (44) Halkias, M. (2001) ‘Tourists welcome’, Dallas Morning News, 4 August: 1F, 3F.

Page 153


(45) Dawson, S., Bloch, P. H., and Ridgway, N. M. (1990) ‘Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail outcomes’, Journal of Retailing, 66(4): 408–27. (46) Tarlow and Muehsam, ref. 22 above. (47) Butler, ref. 35 above. (48) Evans, M. (1999) ‘Let us entertain you’, Journal of Property Management, 62(2): 54–8. (49) Butler, ref. 35 above. (50) Jansen-Verbeke, ref. 6 above. (51) Butler, ref. 35 above. (52) Kinley, T., Kim, Y. K., and Forney, J. (2002) ‘Tourist destination shopping center: An importance-performance analysis of attributes’, Journal of Shopping Center Research, 9(1): 51–72. (53) Jansen-Verbeke, ref. 6 above. (54) Dawson et al., ref. 45 above. (55) Hunt, J. D. and Layne, D. (1991) ‘Evolution of travel and tourism terminology and definitions’, Journal of Travel Research, 29(4): 7–11. (56) Oliver, R. L. (1981) ‘Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings’, Journal of Retailing, 57(3): 25–48. (57) Jenkins, ref. 33 above; Thach and Axinn,

Page 154

ref. 33 above. (58) Zaichowsky, ref. 11 above. (59) Seo et al., ref 19 above; Wakefield and Baker, ref. 24 above. (60) Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above. (61) Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (62) Jenkins, ref. 33 above. (63) Thach and Axinn, ref. 33 above. (64) Zaichowsky, ref. 11 above. (65) Zaichowsky, ref. 11 above. (66) Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above. (67) Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (68) Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above. (69) Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (70) Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above; Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (71) Kinley et al., ref. 10 above. (72) Zaichowsky, ref. 11 above. (73) Clements and Josiam, ref. 25 above; Josiam et al., ref. 28 above. (74) Anderson and Littrell, ref. 32 above; Fodness, ref. 31 above; Zalatan, ref. 30 above. (75) Zalatan, ref. 30 above. (76) Kinley et al., ref. 10 above. (77) Babin et al., ref. 18 above; Swinyard, ref. 22 above; Wakefield and Baker, ref. 24 above.