Anda di halaman 1dari 35

Running Head: STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

The final, definitive version of this paper has been published in Paradigm, December 2015 by
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd., All rights reserved. Copyright (2015) Institute of
Management Technology.
Link for final article
http://par.sagepub.com/content/19/2/152.abstract
Reference for final published article
Gupta, A. K., & Shukla, A. V. (2015). Store Choice Behaviour for Consumer Durables in NCTDelhi: Effect of Shoppers Demographics. Paradigm, 19(2), 152-169. doi:
10.1177/0971890715609847
Store Choice Behavior for Consumer Durables in NCT-Delhi: Effect of Shoppers
Demographics

Author 1: Anoop Kumar Gupta


Email: anoop.kumar13jan@bimtech.ac.in
Mobile Number: +91 9868997448
Affiliation: PhD Research Scholar at Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater Noida,
U.P., India and Assistant Professor of Marketing with Department of MBA in Maharaja Agrasen
Institute of Technology, Sector 22, Rohini, New Delhi, India.

Author 2: A.V. Shukla


Email: av.shukla@bimtech.ac.in
Mobile Number: +91 9717705560
Affiliation: Professor of Marketing at Birla Institute of Management Technology, Greater
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Anoop Kumar Gupta,


Department of MBA, Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Technology, Sector 22, Rohini, New
Delhi-110086.
Emails: anoop.kumar13jan@bimtech.ac.in
anoopkg@live.com

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

ABSTRACT
Retail shopping behavior is an important area for market researchers. Most of the research has
focused on studying the effect of store characteristics on store choice behavior, that too in the
context of grocery and apparel retailing; whereas studies for understanding the effect of
consumer characteristics on store choice behavior particularly for consumer durables have been
comparatively less. The purpose of this study is to explore if demographic variables like gender,
occupation, and age affect store choice behavior for consumer durable goods. Data was collected
by a structured questionnaire from 177 respondents in National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTDelhi). Discriminant analysis of the collected data was done to understand if customers could be
grouped on the basis of their characteristics of gender, occupation, and age for store choice
behavior. Results indicated that gender and occupation do not make significant differences
whereas age has significant effect on the store choice behavior for consumer durable goods.
Possible implication for retailers strategy is that market can be segmented on the basis of age.

Keywords: Store choice behavior, consumer durables, demographics, discriminant analysis


JEL Classification: D12

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

Store Choice Behavior for Consumer Durables in NCT-Delhi: Effect of Shoppers


Demographics

Retailing has been defined as business activities involved in selling goods and services to
consumers for their personal, family or household use (Berman and Evans, 2010). The retail
sector in India is growing at a good pace. KPMG (2014) estimates the Indian retail market at
USD 534 billion, and is largely unorganized and fragmented. But the sector is growing, evolving
and shifting from unorganized to organized with BCG (2015) estimating size of retail sector to
reach USD 1 trillion by the year 2020 and size of organized retail to reach USD 180 billion from
current size of USD 60 billion. With the growth in organized retail, the Indian consumer
especially in urban areas, is exposed to modern1 format retail stores. Example of modern formats
include department stores like Marks & Spencer, supermarkets like Big Bazzar, Hypermarkets
like MORE, franchise stores like Van Heusen, discount stores like KBs Fair Price and consumer
durables stores like TATA Croma, Reliance Digital and many others. Organization of Indian
retail sector is estimated to be 8% by KPMG (2014) and 10% by BCG (2015). Going by the
estimates the sector is still in infancy stage. The organization of consumer durables2 retail is
comparatively higher and stands at 12% (IBEF, 2014). This is largely because consumer
durables require minimal investments in backend infrastructure (Deloitte, 2013); have good
market growth and promising potential, the sector is witnessing a surge in entry of organized
retailers, both offline and online. Electronic retailers (e-tailers) like Flipkart, Snapdeal and
Amazon are getting large contributions of their revenues through consumer durables sales. PwC
(2014) estimates share of consumer durables sales to be 34% of the e-tailing sector. Some
consumer durable manufacturers are now adding online sales channel to their channel mix, like

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

Panasonic is planning to start their online store and Godrej Appliances is tying-up with online
marketplaces like Flipkart and Amazon (Mitra and Pinto, 2014).
The retailing space is getting crowded with addition of whole new range of retail formats.
Probably retailers might need information regarding consumer buying behaviour for consumer
durables. But currently, there is limited information and literature availability in the public
domain for shopping behavior of Indian consumers particularly for consumer durables. Whereas
extant literature indicates strong relationship between shopper characteristics and store choice
behavior (see, for example: Aaker and Jones, 1971; Leszczyc, Sinha and Timmermans, 2000),
this relationship has not been explored much in the context of store choice behavior for
consumer durables. This study attempts to understand the effect of consumer characteristics like
gender, occupation, and age on store choice behavior for consumer durable goods in NCT-Delhi.
Though this study is confined to NCT-Delhi, reveals some interesting facts about the
relationships between consumer characteristics and shopping behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Store Choice
Retail shopping behaviour is an important area of research globally (Sinha and Banerjee,
2004). Store choice behavior across various purchasing situations has been area of interest for
marketing researchers for many years (Carpenter and Moore, 2006; Sinha, Banerjee and Uniyal,
2002). The shopper behaviour differs according to: the context of shopping (Sinha, Banerjee and
Uniyal, 2002); place of shopping and level of involvement in shopping act (Berman and Evans,
2005). This implies differences in apparel, grocery and consumer durable shopping behavior, as

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

they are different types of goods (Copeland, 1923). Furthermore need has been felt to understand
shopping behaviour in the Indian retailing context (Sinha and Banerjee, 2004).
Store choice is largely considered to be a cognitive process (Sinha and Banerjee, 2004),
and has been studied in variety of contexts like: location influence (Fotheringham, 1988; Kim
and Jin, 2001; Meyer and Eagle, 1982); pre-purchase information of brand (Dash, Schiffman
and Berenson, 1976); consumer perceived risk inherent in the product purchase decision
(Hisrich, Dornoff, and Kernan, 1972); shopping costs and derived utility (Bell and Lattin, 1998;
Tang, Bell and Ho, 2001); threshold shopping value (Malhotra, 1983); hedonic utility of
shopping (Lumpkin, Greenberg and Goldstrucker, 1985); store ambiance (Kotler, 1973);
monetary and non-monetary costs (Zeithaml, 1988); type of shopping trips (Kahn and
Schmittlein, 1989); travel time (Fox, Montgomery and Lodish, 2004); nature of decision and
decision process (Leszczyc, Sinha and Timmermans, 2000). Store choice has also been studied in
the context of store image and argued to be influenced by consumer demographics (Martineau,
1958). Another area researched amply is of store patronage, which comprises key concepts of
store choice and frequency of store visits (Pan and Zinkhan, 2006), and has contributed to the
knowledge stream of store choice behavior.
Leszczyc et al. (2000) conceptualized the store choice decision as a problem situation
requiring solution, and having two stages. The two stages pertain to information processing for
store location, and shopping trip incidence timings. Kahn and Schmittlein (1989) also found
these two stages to be correlated. These decisions were found to be influenced by shopper
characteristics (Leszczyc and Timmermans, 1997). In an exploratory study Sinha, Banerjee and
Uniyal (2002) found that convenience plays a major role in store choice behavior for grocery
items and merchandise plays important role for consumer durables. Literature review indicates

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

that consumer buying behavior, for consumer durables, has not been researched much (Mitchell,
1999). A lot of research has been done in the domain of store choice behavior, but availability of
literature on store choice behavior for consumer durables is limited.
Store Choice and Shopper Demographics
Extant literature for effect of shopper demographic characteristics on store choice
behavior is available and studies have largely been done for grocery and apparel shopping in the
context of store patronage and shopping orientation (Carpenter and Balija, 2010). Store choice is
considered to be a hierarchal process wherein it is preceded by store format choice (GonzlezBenito, Bustos-Reyes and Muoz-Gallego, 2007), which in turn is an element of store patronage
behavior (Lumpkin and Burnett, 1992), implying that store patronage is a wider concept which
encompasses store format choice followed by store choice. Though store choice and store
format choice are distinct concepts, the factors predicting them have been studied in an
overlapping manner.
Thenmozhi and Dhanapal (2012) in their study found that demographic profile of the
consumer affects and explains store choice behavior. Theodoridis and Priporas (2009) in their
study on store choice behavior of Greek consumers for computers found that demographics have
strong influence on the choice behavior and can predict it. They also found that location
convenience is not an important determinant in store choice behavior for a durable like
computer. Similar findings were reported by Gupta (2012), like for national brands of consumer
durable goods, location convenience did not matter much and customers were ready to travel to
city outskirts if public transport was available. Fotheringham and Trew (1993) found significant
effect of income on store choice behavior for major grocery shopping. Their study demonstrated
that, contrary to the common belief, low income customers were ready to travel to farther places

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

for taking advantage of low prices; and higher income customers were ready to forgo savings for
convenience. Gender influence on store choice behavior has been area of interest for marketing
researchers, for quite some time.
Gender and Store choice behavior
Gender differences have been studied in variety of retailer choice context like: store patronage
behavior (Fox, Montgomery and Lodish, 2004); store choice behavior (Baltas and
Papastathopoulou, 2003); retail format choice behavior (Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2004).
Though in a recent review Meyers-Levy and Loken (2014), for consumer goods buying,
summarized that males emphasized functional attributes (hard side) like information
acquisition, economics, and efficiency of the process; females were concerned for the soft side
of the buying process mainly the emotional, social, and experiential aspects of shopping process
and found greater identity related issues, whereas Raajpoot, Sharma and Chebat (2008) argued
about soft side of male customers and hard side of female customers. Exemplars of research
for gender effect on store choice are presented in Table 1. This stream of research has established
gender based difference in store choice behavior in the manner they employ different store
choice criteria, patronize stores, and adopt retail formats. Though some studies were found for
influence of gender on store choice, mostly pertained to grocery and apparel sector, negligible
could be found for consumer durables sector.
Table 1
Exemplars of gender research
Context
Relationship between

Reference
Baltas and

Gender differences
Store choice behavior of males and

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

consumer

Papastathopoulou

females were different with women

characteristics, brand

(2003)

paying more attention to economic

choice and store choice

criteria

criteria
Working women households have
Consumer expenditure
Fox, Montgomery

different store patronage behavior

and Lodish (2004)

and the households patronized fewer

across different retail


formats
stores
Gender effect on risk

Gender differences existed for online


Garbarino and

perceptions in online

buying with women perceiving


Strahilevitz (2004)

retailing

higher risk in online purchasing


Few gender based significant
differences existed in shopping mall

Role of gender and

patronage behavior, namely: men


Raajpoot, Sharma and

work status in shopping

consider employee behavior to be


Chebat (2008)

center patronage

more important and better assortment


makes shopping to be more exciting
for women

Relationship of age and store choice behavior has also been explored to some extent by
the marketing researchers.
Age and Store choice behavior

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

Moschis (1994) argued that age has an influence on customer buying behavior. Age influence on
consumer behavior has been studied in various contexts like: preference for an information
source (e.g. Kinley, Conrad and Brown, 1999); store patronage (e.g. Lumpkin et al., 1985); store
format choice (e.g. Carpenter and Balija, 2010; Nilsson, Garling, Marell and Nordvall, 2014;
Sousa, Yeung and Cheng, 2008); shopping trip behavior (e.g. Kahn and Schmittlein, 1989).
Exemplars of research for age effect on store choice are presented in Table 2. This stream of
research has established the difference of store choice behavior for different age-groups in the
manner they acquire information from their preferred sources, patronize different stores, choose
retail formats, and their shopping trip behavior.
Table 2
Exemplars of age research
Context

Reference

Age differences

Lumpkin,
Young and elderly customers have
Store patronage for

Greenberg and
different likings for store attributes of

apparels

Goldstrucker
physical environment, location and price
(1985)
Day-of-the-week phenomenon

Shopping trip

Kahn and
identified, and dependent on age and

behavior

Schmittlein (1989)
income.
Younger shoppers preferred personal

Preference for

Kinley, Conrad
sources of information than older

information source

and Brown (1999)


shoppers

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

Preference for retail

Sousa, Yeung and

Young customers preferred new retail

formats

Cheng (2008)

formats like online retailers

Preference for online

Carpenter and

Young educated U.S. consumers

retailers

Balija (2010)

preferred online retailers

10

Baby Boomers valued in-store service


Shopping behavior of
and experience, and their shopping
age cohorts of Baby
Parment (2013)

process started with trusted retail store

Boomers and
whereas for Generation Y it started with
Generation Y
the product
Retail format choice

Nilsson, Garling,

Market segments of grocery shoppers

in grocery buying for

Marell and

were identified which differed in terms

major and fill-in trips

Nordvall (2014)

of age

Various studies have found demographic factors to influence the store format choice
behavior (e.g. Nilsson, Garling, Marell and Nordvall, 2014; Prasad and Aryasari, 2011). Tripathi
and Dave (2013) contend that demographics can predict retail format choice. In the context of
shopping mall, occupation has also been found to influence patronage behavior, wherein
qualified professionals or businessmen with larger families are heavier spenders (Kuruvilla and
Joshi, 2010). Sinha, Banerjee and Uniyal (2002) suggested that age and gender have an influence
on store choice behavior, but their study was overarching and had covered a wide variety of
stores, from Paan/Beedi store to consumer durables store.
Taken together, these research studies provide a linkage between consumer demographic
factors of gender, occupation and age, and store choice behavior, thereby indicating presence of

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

11

relationship between them. But most of the studies found in literature were related to food and
grocery, and apparels but studies for retail of consumer durables were not found much. This
study intends to contribute in filling of the gap and explores the linkage between consumer
demographic characteristics of gender, occupation and age and store choice for consumer
durable goods. On the basis of literature review, following research hypothesis were formulated:
Hypothesis 1 (H1) - There is not a significant difference between the store choice behavior of
male and female for consumer durables
Hypothesis 2 (H2) - There is not a significant effect of occupation on the store choice
behavior of customers for consumer durables
Hypothesis 3 (H3) - There is not a significant effect of age on the store choice behavior of
customers for consumer durables

METHODOLOGY
Sampling and Data Collection
The data was collected on thirty one attitude statements pertaining to store choice
behavior and details of gender, occupation and age were also captured. The structured
questionnaire, constructed on five point Likert scale, was administered through personal contact.
The data was collected from 200 individual customers in NCT-Delhi, out of which 177
questionnaires were complete and useable. The respondents were selected through convenience
sampling, due to which, the scope for generalizability of the study may be limited. Nevertheless,
according to Calder, Philips and Tybout (1981) any respondent group can be utilized for theory
application.
Measurement

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

12

Variables affecting store choice behavior were identified through literature survey and
are based on previous studies. The variables such as information search for retail store, product,
price, consumer promotion offers, sources of information (Engel, Blackwell and Miniard, 2008);
retail store types (exclusive or multi-brand), brand preference, store attributes (Kotler, 1973;
Baker, Grewal and Levy, 1992; Arnold, Oum and Tigert, 1983; Sinha, Banerjee and Uniyal,
2002); purchase occasion, shopping convenience, facility of credit, location of store, shopping in
neighborhood markets, reach-ability of store (Briesch, Chintagunta and Fox, 2009; Craig, Ghosh,
and McLafferty 1984; Fotheringham, 1988; Lumpkin and Burnett, 1992; Runyan and Droge,
2008; Sinha and Banerjee, 2004; Singh and Sahay, 2012), parking facility (Lumpkin and Burnett,
1992; Pan and Zinkhan, 2006; Waerden, Borgers and Timmermans, 1998); treatment by in-store
salesperson (Hawes, Rao and Baker, 1993; OCass and Grace, 2008), were identified and
questionnaire was constructed on their basis. Table 3 lists the variables used for building
questionnaire.
Table 3: Variables used for building questionnaire
VAR1

Product information

VAR2

Retail store information

VAR3

Price information

VAR4

Information for consumer promotion

VAR5

Electronics and appliance magazine as a source of information

VAR6

Newspaper as source of information

VAR7

World Wide Web as source of information

VAR8

Social circle as source of information

VAR9

Preference for exclusive brand stores

VAR10 Market survey as source of information (shopping)


VAR12 Preference for international brands
VAR13 Preference for brands

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

13

VAR14 Parking facility


VAR15 Proximity of retail store to home/work place
VAR16 Location of retail store in the market of similar goods
VAR17 Drivability to the store in terms of traffic congestion on the way
VAR18 Availability of public transport for reaching the store
VAR19 Item availability in the store
VAR20 Online purchase option
VAR21 Store ambiance
VAR22 Salesperson mannerisms
VAR23 Level of store service in terms of assistance in choosing a good
VAR24 Item demonstration
VAR25 Salesperson knowledge regarding the product and alternatives
VAR26 List price
VAR27 Discount on list price
VAR28 Exchange price for item trade-in by the consumer
VAR29 Store credit facility
VAR30 Festive occasion driven purchases
VAR31 Need driven purchases
Pilot test and validity
The content validity of the instrument was checked through screening exercise (Sekaran,
2002). The questionnaire was finalized after it was proofread by three marketing academics and
three retail sector professionals. The questionnaire was pre-tested and on the basis of the
debriefing of the pre-test respondents; minor changes were made to improve the clarity and
visual layout of the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested through
Cronbach Alpha () and was found to be 0.746, which exceeds conventional benchmark of 0.70
(Baggozi and Yi, 1988; Nunnaly and Bernstein, 1994).
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

14

Data was edited, coded and analyzed through SPSS software. Discriminant analysis was
done to explore if the collected data, for store choice behavior of consumer durables, can be
discriminated on the basis of gender, occupation and age.
1. Testing for Wilks Lambda () When data was subjected to discriminant analysis with
grouping variable as gender, the discriminant functions Wilks was not significant at 0.05
level (Table 4); therefore the sample data could not be segregated on the basis of gender (Field,
2009). On the basis of available evidence, hypothesis H1 was not rejected.
Table 4: Wilks Lambda for Gender
Test of

Wilks

Function(s)

Lambda

.830

Chi-square

df

29.796

Sig.
31

.528

Then the data was grouped on occupation, Wilks for all the three discriminant
functions (four groups of occupation yielded three discriminant functions) was not significant at
0.05 level (Table 5); therefore again the sample data could not be segregated on the basis of
occupation. On the basis of available evidence, hypothesis H2 was not rejected.
Table 5: Wilks Lambda for Occupation
Test of

Wilks

Function(s)

Lambda

Chi-square

df

Sig.

1 through 3

.493

112.083

93

.087

2 through 3

.692

58.422

60

.534

.853

25.281

29

.664

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

15

Lastly, the data was grouped on age and following are the findings of the analysis:
The three functions together have Wilks as 0.475 (Table 6), which is significant at 0.05

i.

level; the functions together significantly discriminate among the age groups (Field, 2009).
When the first function is removed, the Wilks associated with the second function &

ii.

third function is 0.673, which is not significant at 0.05 level. Therefore, the second function does
not contribute significantly to group differences. Similarly when first and second functions are
removed, third function has Wilks as 0.856, which is not significant at 0.05 level. On the basis
of available evidence, hypothesis H3 stands rejected, which implies that data can be grouped on
the basis of age.
Table 6: Wilks Lambda for Age-Groups
Test of

Wilks

Function(s)

Lambda

Chi-square

df

Sig.

1 through 3

.475

118.127

93

.040

2 through 3

.673

62.806

60

.377

.856

24.671

29

.695

2. Pooled within-groups correlation matrix


Because the matrix has values less than 0.8; therefore problem of multicollinearity is unlikely
between predictors (Malhotra and Birks, 2007; Churchill, Iacobucci and Israel, 2011).
3. Univariate F-ratios
Significance of the univariate F-ratios indicates that, when the predictors were considered
individually only preference to online purchase for low risk purchases, visiting World Wide

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

16

Web (internet) for information and information gathering about a retail store, significantly
differentiate between store choice behaviors of different age-groups (Table 7). Complete matrix
can be viewed in Table 11 (Appendix A).
Table 7: Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks' Lambda

df1

df2

Sig.

Information gathering about a


.953

2.833

173

.040

.872

8.440

173

.000

.945

3.363

173

.020

retail store
Visiting World Wide Web
(internet) for information
Preference to online purchase for
low risk purchases

4. Percentage of variance explained for Age-Groups (Table 8):


a.

First discriminant function explains 48.7% of the variance in the data, and is

significant as well.
b.

Second function explains 31.7% of the variance but is not significant.

c.

Third function explains 19.6% of the variance and is not significant.

Table 8: Eigenvalues for Age-Groups

Function

Eigenvalue

% of

Cumulative

Canonical

Variance

Correlation

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

17

.418a

48.7

48.7

.543

.272a

31.7

80.4

.462

.168a

19.6

100.0

.380

First 3 canonical discriminant functions were used in the analysis

5. The standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients


The results for standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients produced in Table 12
(Appendix B); for Function 1, coefficients of the variables like Visiting World Wide Web
(internet) for information is 0.499; Importance of store service level for choosing an item is
0.450; and Purchase Occasion is 0.438; indicating that these variables have greater
discriminating ability.
6. Hit Ratio (Age-wise)
Classification results (Table 9) indicate that 45.2% in less than 25 years, 83.7% in 25-34 years,
52.3% in 35-50 years, and 50% in more than 50 years were correctly classified. On overall
basis, correct classification of 67.2% percent cases is achieved, which is more than minimum
classification criteria of 62.5%, considered to be thumb rule for acceptance (Kuruvilla and Joshi,
2010).

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

18

Table 9: Classification Resultsa,c


Predicted Group Membership
AGE-GROUP
Less than 25 to 34 35 to 50 More than Total
25 Years Years
Years
50 Years
Less than 25 Years
14
16
1
0
31
25 to 34 Years
6
77
8
1
92
Count
35 to 50 Years
2
18
23
1
44
More than 50 Years
1
2
2
5
10
Original
Less than 25 Years
45.2
51.6
3.2
0.0
100.0
25 to 34 Years
6.5
83.7
8.7
1.1
100.0
%
35 to 50 Years
4.5
40.9
52.3
2.3
100.0
More than 50 Years
10.0
20.0
20.0
50.0
100.0
Less than 25 Years
6
21
4
0
31
25 to 34 Years
12
64
12
4
92
Count
35 to 50 Years
3
25
12
4
44
CrossMore than 50 Years
2
3
4
1
10
b
Less than 25 Years
19.4
67.7
12.9
0.0
100.0
validated
25 to 34 Years
13.0
69.6
13.0
4.3
100.0
%
35 to 50 Years
6.8
56.8
27.3
9.1
100.0
More than 50 Years
20.0
30.0
40.0
10.0
100.0
a. 67.2% of original grouped cases correctly classified.
b. Cross validation is done only for those cases in the analysis. In cross validation, each case is
classified by the functions derived from all cases other than that case.
c. 46.9% of cross-validated grouped cases correctly classified.

7. Effect size measure for discriminant analysis:


Discriminant analysis on age-group revealed three discriminant functions. The first explained
48.7% of the variance (Table 10), canonical 2 = .295; the second explained 31.7%, canonical
2 = .213; and the third explained 19.6% of the variance, canonical 2 = .144.
Table 10: Canonical
Canonical
Function

% of Variance

48.7

Correlation
.543

2
.295

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

19

31.7

.462

.213

19.6

.380

.144

In combination these discriminant functions significantly differentiated the age-groups,


=0.475, 2(93) = 118.127, p < .05, but removing the first function indicated that second
function did not significantly differentiate the age-groups, =0.673, 2(60) = 62.806, p > .05, also
removal of first and second function did not significantly differentiate the age-groups, =0.856,
2(29) = 24.671, p > .05 (Table 6).
DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND IMPLICATION
This study was undertaken with the purpose to explore whether store choice behavior, for
consumer durables in NCT-Delhi, differs on the basis of gender, occupation and age.
Discriminant analysis on the collected data revealed that the shoppers do-not differ on the basis
of gender and occupation; but differed in terms of age significantly. This implied that the store
choice behavior, for consumer durables, is different among the age groups of less than 25, 25 to
34, 35 to 50 and more than 50 years. The findings also indicated that the shoppers of different
age-groups have different preferences for newer forms of retail formats like online retail, and
usage of internet for information gathering to accomplish shopping task. The outcome of the
research confirms some of the earlier findings, though conducted in other countries, like studies
by Sousa, Yeung and Cheng (2008); Carpenter and Balija (2010), wherein they have reported the
age effect on choice of online retail format. This study also differentiates the behavior of young
and older shoppers in terms of choice of online retail stores and information search through
internet. Another important finding was that while choosing a retail store, shoppers of different
age-groups collected varying levels of information regarding the store. This effectively means

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

20

that shoppers of different age-groups have different information needs, while making a store
choice. This finding is in line with conclusions of meta-analysis done by Maity, Dass and
Malhotra (2014) on information search behavior, wherein they found age effect on information
search behavior to be significant and had argued that young customers search for more
information in comparison to older customers. The findings of the study indicate that a consumer
durable retailer might consider market segmentation on the basis of age-groups. Subsequent to
this the marketing strategy implications may include offering of online retail channel option, and
creating website to offer information regarding the retailer and its offerings.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

21

REFERENCES
Aaker, D.A., & Jones, J.M. (1971). Modeling store choice behavior. Journal of Marketing
Research, VIII, 38-42.
Arnold, S.J., Oum, T.H., & Tigert, D.J. (1983). Determinant attributes in retail patronage:
Seasonal, temporal, regional, and international comparisons. Journal of Marketing
Research, 20(2), 149-157.
Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Baltas, G., & Papastathopoulou, P. (2003). Shopper characteristics, product and store choice
criteria: A survey in the Greek grocery sector. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 31(10), 498-507.
BCG. (2015). Retail 2020: Retrospect, reinvent, rewrite. Retrieved 15 February 2015, from
Retailers Association of India http://www.bcgindia.com/documents/file181823.pdf
Bell, D.R., & Lattin, J.M. (1998). Shopping behavior and consumer preference for store price
format: Why large basket shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Science, 17(1), 6688.
Berman, B., & Evans, J.R. (2010). Retail management-a strategic approach (11 ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Briesch, R.A., Chintagunta, P.K., & Fox, E.J. (2009). How does assortment affect grocery store
choice? Journal of Marketing Research, XLVI, 176189.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W., & Tybout, A.M. (1981). Designing research for application. Journal
of Consumer Research, 8(2), 197-207.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

22

Carpenter, J.M., & Balija, V. (2010). Retail format choice in the US consumer electronics
market. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 38(4), 258-274.
Carpenter, J.M., & Moore, M. (2006). Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail
format choice in the US grocery market. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 34(6), 434-452.
Churchill, G.A., Iacobucci, D., & Israel, D. (2011). Marketing research: A South Asian
perspective. India: Cengage Learning.
Copeland, M.T. (1923). Relation of consumer buying habits to marketing methods. Harvard
Business Review, 1(April), 282-289.
Craig, C.S., Ghosh, A., & McLafferty, S. (1984). Models of retail location process: A review.
Journal of Retailing, 60(1), 5-36.
Dash, J.F., Schiffman, L.G., & Berenson, C. (1976). Risk- and personality-related dimensions of
store choice. Journal of Marketing, 40(1), 32-39.
Deloitte. (2013). Indian retail market-opening more doors. Retrieved 6 June 2014, from Deloitte
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomIndia/Local%20Assets/Documents/Thoughtware/Indian_Retail_Report_Opening_more_
doors.pdf
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D., & Miniard, P.W. (2008). Consumer behaviour (1 ed.). New Delhi,
India: South Western.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3 ed.). California: SAGE Publications.
Fotheringham, A.S. (1988). Consumer store choice and choice set definition. Marketing Science,
7(3), 299-310.
Fotheringham, A.S., & Trew, R. (1993). Chain image and store-choice modeling: The effects of

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

23

income and race. Environmeant Planning, 25, 179-196.


Fox, E.J., Montgomery, A.L., & Lodish, L.M. (2004). Consumer shopping and spending across
retail formats. Journal ofBusiness, 77(S2), S25-S60.
Garbarino, E., & Strahilevitz, M. (2004). Gender differences in the perceived risk of buying
online and the effects of receiving a site recommendation. Journal of Business Research,
57, 768 775.
Gonzlez-Benito, O., Bustos-Reyes, C.A., & Muoz-Gallego, P.A. (2007). Isolating the
geodemographic characterisation of retail format choice from the effects of spatial
convenience. Marketing Letters, 18(1/2), 45-59.
Gupta, A.K. (2012). Retail store selection criteria used by customers in Delhi-NCR: Implications
for the retailers. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT & Management,
2(5), 147-151.
Hawes, J.M., Rao, C.P., & Baker, T.L. (1993). Retail salesperson attributes and the role of
dependability in the selection of durable goods. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 13(4), 61-71. doi: 10.1080/08853134.1993.10753967
Hisrich, R.D., Dornoff, R.J., & Kernan, J.B. (1972). Perceived risk in store selection. Journal of
Marketing Research, 9(4), 435-439.
IBEF. (2013). Consumer durables. Retrieved 25 April 2014, from India Brand Equity
Foundation http://www.ibef.org/download/consumer-durable-august-2013.pdf
IBEF. (2014). Consumer durables. Retrieved 28 Dec 2014, from India Brand Equity Foundation
http://www.ibef.org/download/Consumer-Durables-March-2014.pdf
Kahn, B.E., & Schmittlein, D.C. (1989). Shopping trip behaviour: An empirical study. Marketing
Letters, 1(1), 55-69.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

24

Kim, J.O., & Jin, B. (2001). Korean consumers patronage of discount stores: Domestic vs
multinational discount store shoppers profiles. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3),
236-255. doi: 10.1108/07363760110393092
Kinley, T.L., Conrad, R.A., & Brown, G. (2000). Personal vs. Non-personal sources of
information used in the purchase of mens apparel. Journal of Consumer Studies &
Home Economics, 24(1), 67-73. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2737.2000.00126.x
Kotler, P. (1973). Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49(4), 48-64.
KPMG. (2014). Indian retail: The next growth story. Retrieved 28 Dec 2014, from KPMG
https://www.kpmg.com/IN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/BBGRetail.pdf
Kuruvilla, S.J., & Joshi, N. (2010). Influence of demographics, psychographics, shopping
orientation, mall shopping attitude and purchase patterns on mall patronage in India.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(4), 259-269. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.02.003
Leszczyc, P.T.L.P., Sinha, A., & Timmermans, H.J.P. (1997). Store-switching behavior.
Marketing Letters, 8(2), 193204.
Leszczyc, P.T.L.P., Sinha, A., & Timmermans, H.J.P. (2000). Consumer store choice dynamics:
An analysis of the competitive market structure for grocery stores. Journal of Retailing,
76(3), 323345.
Lumpkin, J.R., & Burnett, J.J. (1992). Identifying store choice determinants of mature
customers. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8(1), 89-102.
Lumpkin, J.R., Greenberg, B.A., & Goldstucker, J.L. (1985). Marketplace needs of the elderly:
Determinant attributes and store choice. Journal of Retailing, 61(2), 75-105.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

25

Maity, M., Dass, M., & Malhotra, N.K. (2014). The antecedents and moderators of offline
information search: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2), 233-254. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2014.03.001
Malhotra, N.K. (1983). A threshold model of store choice. Journal of Retailing, 59(2), 3-21.
Malhotra, N.K., & Birks, D.F. (2007). Marketing research (3 ed.). England: Pearson Education.
Martineau, P. (1958). The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review, 36, 47-55.
Meyer, R.J., & Eagle, T.C. (1982). Context-induced parameter instability in a disaggregatestochastic model of store choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(1), 62-71.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Loken, B. (2014). Revisiting gender differences: What we know and what
lies ahead. Journal of Consumer Psychology. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.06.003
Mitchell, V.W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. European
Journal of Marketing, 33(1/2), 163-195.
Mitra, S., & Pinto, V.S. (2014, September 3). E-tail bug bites consumer durables firms, Business
Standard. Retrieved from http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/ecommerce-catches-the-eye-of-consumer-durables-companies-this-festive114090101119_1.html
Moschis, G. (1994). Consumer behavior in later life: Multidisciplinary contributions and
implications for research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(3), 195-204.
doi: 10.1177/0092070394223001
Nilsson, E., Garling, T., Marell, A., & Nordvall, A.-C. (2014). Who shops groceries where and
how? the relationship between choice of store format and type of grocery shopping.
The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 25(1), 1-19.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

26

doi: 10.1080/09593969.2014.940996
Nunnaly, J.D., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Pan, Y., & Zinkhan, G.M. (2006). Determinants of retail patronage: A meta-analytical
perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82(3), 229243.
Parment, A. (2013). Generation Y vs. baby boomers: Shopping behavior, buyer involvement and
implications for retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 189199.
Prasad, C.J., & Aryasri, A.R. (2011). Effect of shopper attributes on retail format choice
behaviour for food and grocery retailing in India. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 39(1), 68-86. doi: 10.1108/09590551111104486
PwC. (2014). Evolution of e-commerce in India: Creating the bricks behind the clicks. Retrieved
09 Dec, 2014, from ASSOCHAM
http://www.pwc.in/assets/pdfs/publications/2014/evolution-of-e-commerce-in-india.pdf
Raajpoot, N.A., Sharma, A., & Chebat, J.-C. (2008). The role of gender and work status in
shopping center patronage. Journal of Business Research, 61(8), 825-833. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.009
Sekaran, U. (2002). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4 ed.): Wiley.
Sengupta, A. (2008). Emergence of modern Indian retail: An historical perspective. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 36(9), 689-700. doi:
10.1108/09590550810890939
Singh, H., & Sahay, V. (2012). Determinants of shopping experience: Exploring the mall
shoppers of National Capital Region (NCR) of India. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management, 40(3), 235-248. doi: doi:10.1108/09590551211207184
Sinha, P.K., & Banerjee, A. (2004). Store choice behaviour in an evolving market. International

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

27

Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 32(10), 482-494. doi:


10.1108/09590550410558626
Sinha, P.K., Banerjee, A., & Uniyal, D.P. (2002). Deciding where to buy: Store choice behaviour
of Indian shoppers. Vikalpa, 27(2), 13-28.
Sousa, R., Yeung, A.C.L., & Cheng, T.C.E. (2008). Customer heterogeneity in operational e
service design attributes. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 28(7), 592-614. doi: doi:10.1108/01443570810881776
Tang, C.S., Bell, D.R., & Teck-Hua, H. (2001). Store choice and shopping behavior: How price
format works. California Management Review, 43(2), 56-74.
Thenmozhi, S.P., & Dhanapal, D. (2012). Store choice behaviour in retail outlets. Global
Management Review, 6(2), 10 - 23.
Theodoridis, C.D., & Priporas, C.-V. (2009). Store choice in computer retailing: The case of
home users in Greece. EuroMed Journal of Business, 4(1), 58-68. doi:
10.1108/14502190910956693
Tripathi, G., & Dave, K. (2013). Store format choice and relationship quality in apparel retail: A
study of young and early-middle aged shoppers in New Delhi region. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 20, 479487.
Waerden, P.v.d., Borgers, A., & Timmermans, H. (1998). The impact of the parking situation in
shopping centres on store choice behaviour. GeoJournal, 45, 309-315.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

28

FOOTNOTES
1

The modern retail stores are different from traditional retail stores on aesthetics, service

(largely are self-service), cleanliness, price and promotional schemes (Sengupta, 2008).
2

According to IBEF (2013) consumer durables comprise of consumer electronics (brown

goods) and Consumer appliances (white goods).

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

29

APPENDIX A
Table 11: Tests of Equality of Group Means
Wilks'
Lambda

df1

df2

Sig.

Information gathering about


features and benefits of the
.984

.920

173

.432

.953

2.833

173

.040

.989

.626

173

.599

.968

1.925

173

.127

.971

1.713

173

.166

.983

.979

173

.404

.872

8.440

173

.000

item and available


alternatives
Information gathering about a
retail store
Information gathering about
the prices of the item
Information gathering about
the sales promotions schemes
on the item
Use of electronics and
appliance magazines as
information source
Use of newspaper as
information source
Visiting World Wide Web
(internet) for information

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

30

Reliance on social circle for


.966

2.049

173

.109

.986

.800

173

.496

.995

.288

173

.834

.975

1.469

173

.225

.992

.457

173

.713

.992

.467

173

.706

.997

.175

173

.913

.993

.434

173

.729

.987

.779

173

.507

.984

.957

173

.415

gathering information
Preference for exclusive
brand stores
Market survey for gathering
information regarding the
item
Preference for International
Brands
Preference for National
Brands
Preference for branded items
Convenience in terms of
parking facility
Convenience in terms of
retail store proximity to home
or office
Importance of retail store
location in the market of
similar items
Importance of drivability to
the store (Traffic condition
on way to the store)

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

31

Importance of availability of
Public transport for the retail

.995

.285

173

.836

.986

.793

173

.499

.945

3.363

173

.020

.972

1.689

173

.171

.959

2.489

173

.062

.981

1.100

173

.351

.979

1.236

173

.298

.987

.785

173

.504

.999

.076

173

.973

.993

.395

173

.757

.968

1.927

173

.127

store
Importance of item
availability in the store
(Touch & Feel)
Preference to online purchase
for low risk purchases
Importance of store ambiance
Importance of salesperson
mannerisms
Importance of store service
level for choosing an item
Importance of item
demonstration
Importance of salesperson
knowledge
Importance of list price of the
item
Importance of discount
quantity
Exchange Price importance
of the item

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

32

Importance of retailer credit


.964

2.173

173

.093

.996

.250

173

.861

.965

2.112

173

.101

facility
Festival Importance for
timing of purchase
Purchase Occasion

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

33

APPENDIX B
Table 12: Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients
Function
1

Information gathering about features


and benefits of the item and available

.086

.192

-.115

.095

.532

-.071

-.076

.022

.107

.303

.062

-.367

.042

-.350

.181

-.369

.060

-.012

.499

-.191

-.559

.190

.377

.087

.148

-.050

-.074

alternatives
Information gathering about a retail
store
Information gathering about the prices
of the item
Information gathering about the sales
promotions schemes on the item
Use of electronics and appliance
magazines as information source
Use of newspaper as information
source
Visiting World Wide Web (internet)
for information
Reliance on social circle for gathering
information
Preference for exclusive brand stores

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

34

Market survey for gathering


-.280

.023

-.128

.171

-.232

.492

Preference for National Brands

-.198

.246

-.271

Preference for branded items

-.147

-.036

.139

.048

.088

.102

-.268

.032

-.504

.053

-.244

.038

-.259

.133

.277

.120

-.141

.126

.111

-.077

.187

.172

.336

.085

.131

-.152

-.124

.296

-.045

.143

information regarding the item


Preference for International Brands

Convenience in terms of parking


facility
Convenience in terms of retail store
proximity to home or office
Importance of retail store location in
the market of similar items
Importance of drivability to the store
(Traffic condition on way to the store)
Importance of availability of Public
transport for the retail store
Importance of item availability in the
store (Touch & Feel)
Preference to online purchase for low
risk purchases
Importance of store ambiance
Importance of salesperson
mannerisms

STORE CHOICE BEHAVIOR FOR CONSUMER DURABLES

35

Importance of store service level for


-.450

.016

-.275

-.205

-.314

-.237

.045

.436

.055

Importance of list price of the item

-.123

.140

-.237

Importance of discount quantity

-.049

-.269

.284

.263

-.422

.045

.091

.399

.524

.217

-.198

.076

.438

-.266

.124

choosing an item
Importance of item demonstration
Importance of salesperson knowledge

Exchange Price importance of the


item
Importance of retailer credit facility
Festival Importance for timing of
purchase
Purchase Occasion