Anda di halaman 1dari 13

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Does price sensitivity and price level influence store price image and T
repurchase intention in retail markets?

Ana Paula Graciola , Deonir De Toni, Vinicius Zanchet de Lima, Gabriel Sperandio Milan
University of Caxias do Sul, Business and Social Sciences, Department of Business Administration, 1130, Francisco Getúlio Vargas, Caxias do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul
95070-560, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In today's competitive price environment, customers are more sensitive to store price image as a driver of the
Retail price image decision of where to buy. This paper addresses the impact of store price image on repurchase intentions in the
Repurchase intention context of retail markets in the south of Brazil. The moderating effects of price sensitivity and price level are also
Price level analyzed. A comprehensive model reports determinants of repurchase intentions. A descriptive quantitative
Price sensitivity
research study is undertaken, based on an applied survey. Partial least squares–structural equation modeling
(PLS–SEM) is used, supported by Smart-PLS 3.2.7. The model sample includes 207 customers, university students
who had experienced retail purchases in different formats of supermarkets. The data analysis yields surprising
findings. Results show that store price image positively impacted on customer repurchase intentions, with low
and high price levels moderating these effects. Price sensitivity also presented moderating effects as another
important variable acting on the relation between store price image and repurchase intentions for both low and
high price sensitivity customers. The implications of these findings are discussed with suggestions for future
research.

1. Introduction better perceived shopping value (Diallo et al., 2015). Furthermore, the
opening of new stores or new retailers in a specific marketplace may
To achieve competitiveness, retail industry markets need to respond offer disruptive market price levels. In this perspective, with these
urgently with innovative strategies to recent modifications in customer perceptions of modified and varied market prices, customers may make
behavior (Ferguson, 2014; Kim et al., 2014; Diallo et al., 2015). A few cross-retail comparisons based on acquired market knowledge (Urbany
decades ago, the food retail market was dominated by high–low pricing et al., 1996).
strategies, with large and comprehensive stores offering wide assort- In this context, Zielke (2011) pointed out that future research
ments. Nowadays, emerging retail formats such as convenience stores should better comprehend the formation of emotions as part of a re-
and hard discount stores are modifying the retail industry (Dolbec and tailer's price image. Zielke (2014) presented the management implica-
Chebat, 2013). In seeking to understand consumer behavior, retailers tions of dealing with discount retailers in low-price environments. Fu-
should observe their customers’ purchasing power, spending patterns, ture research should study in depth how customers interpret low or
shopping trips, and increasing environmental awareness (Kim et al., high prices, and to which causes they attribute these low and high
2014) to better fit the customers’ needs. prices (Zielke, 2014). So, in this study, low and high prices are posited
Retailers’ evaluation of price image is an important tool to in- as a moderator of the relations under investigation. Furthermore, cus-
vestigate their price positioning in the customers’ minds, to predict a set tomers tend to be sensitive to the dispersion of prices within a store's
of customer priorities and, if necessary, derive appropriate measures to assortment, rather than just the overall price level (Alba et al., 1994;
meet these priorities (Zielke, 2006). Customers assess a service or Hamilton and Chernev, 2013). This means that adding high prices can
product through a sequence of evaluation and choice tasks. They have either raise or reduce a store's overall price image (Hamilton and
to compare the alternative price to a reference price, making it essential Chernev, 2010). Thus, price advertising contributes to increasing price
to understand how the reference price is shaped (Peschel et al., 2016). sensitivity by allowing the customers to focus more on prices than
Also, in periods of crisis, customers look for low prices in association shopping (Kaul and Dick, 1995; Hamilton and Chernev, 2013).
with good quality and positive social interaction, as an example of Overall store price image influences repurchase intentions (Chang


Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: anagraciola@gmail.com (A.P. Graciola), deonirdt@terra.com.br (D. De Toni), vinizanchet@gmail.com (V.Z. de Lima), gabmilan@terra.com.br (G.S. Milan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.014
Received 2 November 2017; Received in revised form 10 May 2018; Accepted 25 June 2018
0969-6989/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

and Wang, 2014). From this viewpoint, the main aim of this article is to (Zeithaml, 1988; Sànchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Seven
verify the relation between store price image and the repurchase in- dimensions have thus been identified as influencing retail price image,
tention in the context of retail markets in the south of Brazil. Moder- namely: quality, perceived value, price level perception, price fairness,
ating effects of price sensitivity and price level are added to this fra- positive emotions, negative emotions, and symbolic factors. Below, the
mework. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next constructs that make up the retail price image will be examined in turn.
section presents the theoretical framework in the fields of retail price
image and repurchases intentions. An empirical survey based on cus- 2.1.1. Quality
tomers (a student sample) as the method, detailed data analysis, and The broadly accepted positive relation between perceptions of high
main results are the presented. Finally, the paper ends with a general price with good quality (Völckner and Hofmann, 2007; Zeithaml, 1988;
discussion of the main findings, implications for theory and manage- Diallo et al., 2015). Conversely, when a service or product is cheap and
ment, limitations, and the outlook for future research. offers poor value, customers may conclude that the store's service or
product quality is low, or interpret it as a sign of negative relations
2. Theoretical framework between price and different quality aspects (Zielke, 2011, 2014; Diallo
et al., 2015). Also, for Hellier et al. (2003), perceived quality is asso-
2.1. Disentangling store price image multidimensionality ciated with the customer's overall assessment of the service delivery
process.
Price is one of the most relevant market signs of retail competition Customers believe that price and quality are positively related, and
(Lichtenstein et al., 1993; Zielke, 2006). The prominence of price is a price may be seen as an indicator of quality in a competitive environ-
given in all purchase situations. Moreover, price is a complex stimulus ment market (Grewal et al., 1998). From the service quality perspec-
and many customers also perceive price more broadly, for example, tive, Parasuraman et al. (1988) define service quality as the bond be-
customers use price to indicate product quality (Lichtenstein et al., tween the customer's expectations of the service and their perception of
1993). the active experience (Kitapci et al., 2014).
Price image formation is a complex process, because it depends on
different factors, such as limited knowledge and information mechan- 2.1.2. Perceived value
isms for obtaining prices; price evaluation being a subjective process, For Emery (1969), value for money is the association between price
each price evaluation of a single product should be analyzed together and quality rating. Zeithaml (1988) points out that customer see value
with the overall price image of the whole store (Zielke, 2006). In this in different ways. Some of them define it simply as low price, others see
field, Zielke (2006) defined price image as a multidimensional attitude only the benefits they receive, and still others evaluate quality as a
toward the retailer's price level, value, price fairness, and frequency of value derived from the product or service that they paid for, or look at
sales (Hamilton and Chernev, 2013). Dickson and Sawyer (1990) value as what they get for what they give. In this context, Dodds and
commented that consumers are heterogeneous when it comes to their Monroe (1985) clarify perceived value as the balance between per-
attention and response to prices and price promotions. ceived quality and sacrifice, and these dimensions are influenced by the
Price image is defined as a fundamental marketing phenomenon, products’ prices (Zielke, 2006).
with antecedents and consequences that influence consumer decision Perceived value is the overall evaluation of the net worth of the
behavior. It is related to other constructs, such as reference price or service, and is related to the customer's assessment of what is received
store image, for example. Price image is often defined as the overall (benefits) and what is given (costs or sacrifice) (Zeithaml, 1988; Hellier
level of prices that customers match with a specific seller. In other et al., 2003). Zielke (2011) states that value for money presents positive
words, price image is a unidimensional construct that reflects a custo- impacts of enjoyment and negative impacts of distress, anger, fear,
mer's overall impression of the retailer's prices and is not analyzed in an contempt, and shame. In other words, low prices may reduce distress
isolated situation (Hamilton and Chernev, 2013). and anger if the perceived value is favorable; cheap prices may over-
Another vein of thought says that store price image is developed by come anger and distress by offering value. Low prices may therefore
a dynamic process (Hamilton and Cherney, 2013; Alba et al., 1994). As increase shopping intentions if the customer's distress and anger are
customers visit a store and are exposed to and informed by the actual reduced by value (Zielke, 2011).
prices in that store, they gradually update their store price beliefs
(Büyükkurt, 1986; Mägi and Julander, 2005; Nyström, 1970; 2.1.3. Price level perception
Feichtinger et al., 1988; Lourenço et al., 2015). This kind of “learning Zielke (2010) found that price image is a multidimensional con-
process” may be understood when customers are looking for price cues struct, with price level and price value image acting as the main di-
that result in updating store price knowledge (Gauri et al., 2008; mensions of store price image (Zielke, 2006, 2010, 2014). However,
Urbany et al., 1996). price level image refers only to the amount of money paid for the same
A relevant implication about price image found by Hamilton and product or service, while the price value image reflects product quality
Chernev (2013) is that it is not defined by prices alone, but depends on and store attributes. A discount store can be seen as cheap in terms of
all the marketing-mix variables. As a key marketing function, the pro- price level, but not automatically in terms of value (Zielke, 2006).
vision of information is essential to a retailer's strategic positioning. For Retailers should pay more attention to price-level image, which
Büyükkurt (1986), customers assemble perceived product prices into an means how cheap or expensive the store is in the customers’ view.
overall retail price image; thus, a positive product price perception can Value for money is the relationship between the returns customers get
influence all price–value dimensions of retail (Diallo et al., 2015). for the prices they pay (Zielke, 2010). However, for Hamilton and
The importance of price in retailing introduces a multidimensional Chernev (2013), customers can evaluate the same price as less favor-
retail price image concept as a latent variable (Zielke, 2011; Diallo able when it is related to a low store price image, compared with a high
et al., 2015). In this context of multidimensionality, Zielke (2006) re- store price image. Also, sellers should be able to evaluate the price
cognized several price image dimensions, but price level and value reference levels in the market; it is likely that the retailer's price image
perception seem to be the constructs that best represent price image. may adjust to comparisons of price (Hamilton and Chernev, 2013).
Others researchers have analyzed the theoretical structure of price
image, with studies related to price image, brand, and retail environ- 2.1.4. Price fairness
ment (Zielke, 2006, 2010, 2010; De Toni et al., 2014), symbolic factors In considering price level and price value image, the dimension that
of price image (Allen, 2006; De Toni and Mazzon, 2013; De Toni and differentiates between them is price fairness. Price fairness is therefore
Mazzon, 2014), price fairness (Campbell, 2007) and perceived value commonly combined with an assessment of how fair a price adjustment

202
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

is perceived to be. Furthermore, the fairness concept depends on the Netemeyer, 1999; Zielke, 2006). When prices impress and/or surprise
context of how price adjustments are implemented and whether dif- customers in a negative way, they may leave the establishment with a
ferences in prices can be justified by the selling companies. sense of coldness. Furthermore, when customers feel afraid of paying
Transparency of prices can be seen as part of price fairness, with cus- too much (Zielke, 2006), they can experience negative emotions, as will
tomers often claiming that sellers try to mask price information (Zielke, be discussed below.
2006).
The concept of price fairness has been defined as the judgment of a 2.1.6. Negative emotions
price as being reasonable, acceptable, or fair (Bolton et al., 2003; Xia Narrowly defined, price perception represents the sum of money
et al., 2004). The cognitive definition of price fairness derives from that needs to be delivered for particular goods or services. Higher prices
comparisons to references or norms. People compare specific prices generally negatively affect purchase probabilities. However, customers
between two kinds of products or services and then consider the overall perceive price more broadly as a complex stimulus, rather than acting
range of prices. The conceptual meanings they achieve can be under- strictly just in a “negative role” in the disbursement of economic re-
stood from the several aspects of price fairness (Finkel, 2001; Xia et al., sources (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). For Diallo et al. (2015), pricing
2004). By experiencing a particular event, people may know what is strategies should be exercised with attention, because the results for
unfair, but it is more difficult to distinguish what fairness really is (Xia each regional service's or product's price perceptions may have negative
et al., 2004). Xia et al. (2004) defined price fairness as the customer's effects on emotions toward the store. A lower price image may con-
associated emotions in comparing a retailer's price with others as rea- tribute to negative emotions (Diallo et al., 2015).
sonable, acceptable, or justifiable, having as references for comparison Customers may be embarrassed to buy from cheap retailers, or even
their own selves, other customers, or different retailers. consider that cheap prices could be a result of unethical retailer policies
Understanding price fairness is necessary to avoid the negative (Zielke, 2011). In this context, emotions seem to be an obvious part of
consequences of perceived unfair price policies. Price unfairness leads retail price image. Furthermore, customers’ own experiences may be
to negative consequences for the retailers, by provoking negative word associated with feelings like anger, excitement, and unhappiness that
of mouth, abandonment of the store, and so on (Campbell, 2007; Xia are related to particular retail prices (Zielke, 2011). In this vein, ne-
et al., 2004; Hamilton and Chernev, 2013). Moreover, price image can gative emotions may vary in type and intensity, and can be associated
influence fairness judgments through comparative offers to customers with price fairness (Xia et al., 2004).
who judge a price as unfair compared with goods or services at the
same level, but with higher prices. In the same vein, customers can 2.1.7. Symbolic dimension
compare a price as being unfair if the comparison occurs between two Cognitive price image impacts on price-related emotions. These
sellers both with low store price images, as opposed to comparisons emotions also derive from social prestige and social responsibility, for
made between retailers with low store price image and high store price example, from saving money (Zielke, 2011). As a symbolic dimension,
image (Hamilton and Chernev, 2013). cheap prices are related to saving money, but this may potentially be
incongruent with the goals of social status and social responsibility if
2.1.5. Positive emotions customers associate cheap prices with inferior quality and unethical
Price image multidimensionality involves emotions, which form an practices of sellers (Roseman, 1984; Roseman et al., 1990; Zielke,
essential part of this construct. Cognitive price image dimensions can 2011).
influence several specific price-related emotions and analyzing these Discounted prices can increase the congruence with status goals and
can contribute to understanding the customer's reactions to cognitive also reduce negative feelings of contempt and shame by selling luxury
price perceptions (Zielke, 2011). Emotions play an important role in items at very competitive prices. This attitude will attract customers
price-related contexts (O’Neill and Lambert, 2001); appraisals of si- from wider social classes to these retailers and raise the social accept-
tuations or beliefs evoke a specific range of emotions (Roseman and ability of buying in such stores (Zielke, 2011).
Smith, 2001). The assortment of items on offer has a relation with price image as a
Integrating emotions to understand retail price image is essential in function of the degree to which products that compose the assortment
perceiving a customer's reactions to the retailer's pricing activities. Also, can produce a specific symbolic meaning for customers. The assortment
retail price images are multidimensional latent variables and are de- represents not only the variety of items, but expresses the retailer's
fined as price-related emotions (Zielke, 2011). The multidimensionality identity (Aaker, 1999; Akerlof and Kranton, 2000; Hamilton and
of a price image is an “entire array of associations” related to an object; Chernev, 2013). Furthermore, products/services can be associated with
these associations may involve both cognition and emotions (Blackwell customers’ self-expression when it comes to higher prices (Chernev
et al., 2001). In this direction, some researchers argue that price fair- et al., 2011).
ness, in a price comparison context, leads to both positive and negative
feelings (Xia et al., 2004; Zielke, 2011). Emotional states and/or reac- 2.2. Relating store price image and repurchase intention
tions are related to the pricing policies of sellers, and customers can feel
happy, angry, or surprised when they perceive prices from retail stores Customers’ choices, their purchasing decisions and attitudes are
(Zielke, 2006; O’Neill and Lambert, 2001). guides in using holistic constructs to evaluate how cheap or expensive
Positive emotions tend to result in positive shopping intentions and specific stores are (Arnold et al., 1983; Mazumdar et al., 2005;
negative emotions lead to negative shopping intentions (Zielke, 2011). Hamilton and Chernev, 2013; Lourenço et al., 2015). Emotions as part
For Barlow and Maul (2000), customers’ positive experiences from re- of retail price image have an impact on goal-oriented behavior (Bagozzi
tailers’ products/services are defined by emotional value (Ariffin et al., et al., 1998). Also, the emotional dimension may have an essential
2016). For Bagozzi et al. (1999), specific emotions may increase pur- impact on shopping intentions beyond price-level perceptions or value
chase intentions and customers may repurchase if they are satisfied (Xia for money.
et al., 2004). Future purchase intentions are related to customer sa- Some researchers consider repurchase intention as subsequent re-
tisfaction (Durvasula et al., 2004). purchase behavior (Bemmaor, 1995; Mittal and Kamakura, 2001;
As a positive emotion, the state of pleasure is experienced as a Morwitz et al., 1993; Hellier et al., 2003). The concept of repurchase
feeling of enjoyment and positive reinforcement. Excitement is rated on intention is approached by Lee et al. (2011) as the revisit intention that
a single dimension, ranging from the sleep level to frantic excitement, associates positive bonds with service quality and satisfaction (Kitapci
and is related to the extent to which one feels unrestricted or free to act et al., 2014). Furthermore, service quality perceptions are a precursor
in different ways (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974; Bearden and to word-of-mouth recommendations and repurchase intentions

203
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

(Anderson, 1998; Kitapci et al., 2014). Choi and Kim (2013), Wu and on a product's or service's attractiveness or utility. While product's price
Chen (2014), and Ariffin et al. (2016) confirm that the customer's sensitivity is often observed individually, its impact has not been en-
perceived quality positively impacts on repurchase intentions. In gen- tirely explored when it comes to the location where the customer is
eral, higher perceived quality leads to stronger repurchase intentions situated (Shrivastva et al., 2016).
(Ariffin et al., 2016). A survey applied to Indian customers found out that price sensitivity
Price image or overall store price image may thus become a critical is one of the strongest consumer behaviors. In India, there are many
issue for retailers (Chang and Wang, 2014). In that repurchase inten- prudent customers who are sensible to the prices and will not be
tions are influenced by perceived price, which includes store price “ripped off” by the sellers. The young Indian male population presented
image, rather than by actual price only (Dodds et al., 1991). So, we more price sensitivity, a useful insight for marketing managers (Gupta,
propose: 2011).
Price information can be related to customers who are more or less
H1. Store price image impacts positively on repurchase intention.
price-conscious (Lichtenstein et al., 1990; Wakefield and Inman, 2003).
In the same way, researchers have studied the influence of demo-
graphics on price elasticity (Hoch et al., 1995) or psychographics psy-
2.3. Price level and price sensitivity as moderating variables
chographics (Urbany et al., 1996) on price sensitivity (Wakefield and
Inman, 2003). However, the specific effect of social situations on cus-
Several studies show clearly that many consumers use price as an
tomer's price sensitivity has not been examined by researchers.
indication of product or service quality. Price level is perceived in a
Wakefield and Inman (1993) examined the conjunction between
“positive role,” in other words, higher prices positively affect purchase
consumption occasion (hedonic/functional) and social context (non-
intentions (Erickson and Johansson, 1985; Lichtenstein et al., 1988;
social/social) in boosting sensitivity. They found that customers are
Tellis and Gaeth, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988; Lichtenstein et al., 1993). The
relatively less sensitive to price for hedonic products than for functional
use of price as an indicator of product or service quality clearly varies
products. Also, customers with lower levels of price sensitivity are in-
depending on the situation (Monroe and Krishnan, 1985; Lichtenstein
sensitive to either hedonic and functional services or goods. However,
et al., 1993).
as the price sensitivity increases, the difference between functional and
Journal selections from MSI in 2014 (MSI, 2014) point to the fra-
hedonic price sensitivity is remarkable (Wakefield and Inman, 2003).
mework developed by Hamilton and Chernev (2013) that shows the key
According to Hamilton and Chernev (2013), while consumer-spe-
drivers of price image formation and their consequences for consumer
cific factors can affect price image and lead to price sensitivity, this
behavior. Furthermore, they highlight the overall level of prices, where
dynamic depends on the consumers’ style of processing information and
a retailer can define a low price image even having high prices, or
their familiarity with market prices (Hamilton and Chernev, 2013; MSI,
conversely, retailers can have a high price image despite the fact that
2014). The focus of this paper is to therefore understand customers’
they are offering a low price level for products and/or services
perceptions of supermarket environments with different levels of price
(Hamilton and Chernev, 2013; MSI, 2014). Therefore, when it comes to
(high and low) and with differing price sensitivity (high and low).
high and low price levels, we hypothesize that they present moderating
When it comes to high and low price sensitivity, we posit that it has the
effects as follows:
following moderating effects:
H2a. If the price level is low, then the relation between the store price
H2c. If the price sensitivity level is low, the relation between the store
image with the repurchase intention will be positive, but weaker.
price image and the repurchase intention will be positive, but weaker;
H2b. If the price level is high, then the relation between the store price
H2d. If the price sensitivity level is high, the relation between the store
image with the repurchase intention will be positive and stronger.
price image and the repurchase intention will be positive and stronger.
Price sensitivity can be seen as the weight and/or influence con-
joined to price in a consumer's evaluation of a service or product
(Erdem et al., 2002). Price sensitivity refers to the way that customers
2.4. Proposed theoretical model
perceive and respond to changes or differences in products’ or services’
prices (Monroe, 1973; Wakefield and Inman, 1993) and influences
Based on the theoretical review, Fig. 1 shows the relations between
routine decisions in response to changes in price (Bucklin, Gupta and
constructs and their respective hypotheses.
Han, 1995; Wakefield and Inman, 2003). Erdem et al. (2002) point out
that customers’ price sensitivity must have increased in recent years,
because they are now more aware of substitutes (Erdem et al., 2002) QL
and/or competitors. Furthermore, a firm's past customers may be more MODERATORS
Price sensitivity
price sensitive because they believe that they deserve preferential PV Price Level
treatment (Lee and Fay, 2017).
A premium or high level price is associated with higher quality. The H2a (+) | H2b (+)
H2c (+) | H2d (+)
relationship between consumer price sensitivity and marketing mix has PL
frequently been investigated (Erdem et al., 2002). For Erdem et al.
(2002), price sensitivity may be moderated by the sensitivity of con- Store Price Repurchase
PF
sumers to uncertainty about a given product's attributes. In other Image H1(+) Intention
words, customers that perceived or expected higher quality may have
their price sensitivity decreased; consistent higher perceived quality PE
can lead to lower price sensitivity (Erdem et al., 2002).
Shrivastva et al. (2016) find that in the ways customers perceive
price gains and price losses, the impact of price sensitivity on con- NE
sumption shows significant differences between populations, in this
case, urban and rural. There is also variation in price sensitivity towards
a product or service across different stores and chains. Consumer be- SY
havior related to price changes is an important dynamic input for
companies’ strategic decisions. Furthermore, price sensitivities depend Fig. 1. Proposed theoretical model.

204
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Table 1 Table 2
Sources of store price image scale. Sample characteristics.
Source: Literature review by Scopel (2014).
Variable Frequency Percentage
Constructs Sources scales adapted from
Gender
Quality (QL) Zeithaml (1988), Zielke (2010) Female 108 52.1
(four items) Sweeney et al. (1999), Male 95 45.9
Perceived Value (PV) Rust et al. (2001), Missing Value 4 1.9
(five items) Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002), Age (years old)
Zeithaml (1988), Zielke (2006), 18–22 47 22.7
Sheth et al. (1991), Cross and Dixit (2005), 23–27 84 40.6
De Toni and Mazzon (2013) 28–32 26 12.6
Price Level (PL) Zielke (2006, 2010, 2011), 33–37 22 10.6
(six items) Winer (1986), Rajendran and Tellis (1994), 38–42 7 3.4
De Toni and Mazzon (2013) > 43 9 4.3
Price Fairness (PF) Bolton et al. (2003), Missing Value 12 5.8
(four items) Xia et al. (2004), Family monthy income
Munnukka (2006), Zielke (2010) < $ 500,32 22 10.6
Positive Emotions (PE) Lazarus (1991), Zielke (2011) $ 500,63–750,48 38 18.4
(four items) O’Neill and Lambert (2001), Sweeney and Soutar $ 750,79–1250,79 58 28.0
(2001), $ 1251,11–2501,59 52 25.1
Peine et al. (2009), $ 2501,90–3809,52 22 10.6
Negative Emotions (NE) Lazarus (1991), Zielke (2011) $ 3809,84–5003,17 6 2.9
(seven items) O’Neill and Lambert (2001), > $ 5003,49 8 3.9
Sweeney and Soutar (2001), Missing Value 1 0.5
Peine et al. (2009), Monthy spending on grocery shopping
Symbolic Dimension (SY) Vinson et al. (1977), < $ 158,73 47 22.7
(four items) Levy (1981), Dichter (1985), $ 159,05–253,97 71 34.3
Rucker and Galinsky (2008) $ 254,29–825,40 78 37.7
$ 825,71–1428,57 7 3.4
> $ 1428,89 1 0.5
Missing Value 3 1.4
3. Method and data

3.1. Procedure 3.2. Statistical technique

This study is based on a survey that was conducted among custo- The data were analyzed using the partial least squares–structural
mers who had experienced retail purchases in different kinds of su- equation modeling (PLS–SEM) approach supported by SmartPLS® 3.2.7.
permarkets, with high and low levels of price, within the last 12 PLS–SEM is a nonparametric method that minimizes the amount of
months. We used a convenient customer sample of management un- unexplained variance. The technique differs from the method of max-
dergraduate students from the south of Brazil. An important concern for imum likelihood-based (CB-SEM), which requires a normal distribution
the research is to obtain a sampling equivalence (Malhotra et al., 2012). of data and assumes normally distributed residuals (Ringle et al., 2015;
Participants were invited to remember and register a recent purchase. Thiele et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2017).
First of all, the instrument was structured to measure the store price
image, as a formative second-order factor, using the following con-
structs and measurement scales already pretested by Scopel (2014) in 4. Data analysis and results
the Brazilian context (see Table 1).
Furthermore, this study analyzed the relation of these constructs 4.1. Sample and measurement
with the Repurchase Intention (RI) (five items) from Noyan and Simsek
(2012). All these constructs include the moderation level of price (high Table 2 shows the descriptive analysis of the demographic char-
and low), so customers answered a single research question for two acteristics of the respondents. A total of 239 cases were obtained as the
types of supermarket, with low and high prices. These items can be seen initial student sample. However, only 207 valid and usable ques-
in the scales described in the Appendix A. tionnaires were considered. Thirty-two cases were eliminated, as they
As another moderating construct, the customers were then asked to presented more than 5% of missing data. Mean value replacement with
answer questions about their Price Sensitivity (PS) (five items), using a SmartPLS® 3.2.7 should only be used when the dataset exhibits ex-
scale adapted from Gupta (2011) and Shrivastva et al. (2016). All the tremely low levels of missing data, with less than 5% of values missing
constructs’ scales range from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = totally agree. per indicator (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore, only cases with missing
Respondents were asked about their frequency of purchase. Finally, the values below 5% were kept in this research. Out of this total of 207
respondents answered questions about their profile, such as gender, age, cases, 108 (52.1%) were female and 95 (45.9%) were male; 84 (40.6%)
schooling, monthly income, and amounts spent on purchases in super- were between 23 and 27 years old. Monthly family income varied from
markets. $750.79 to $1250.79, comprising 58 (28%) respondents. Fifty-two re-
After the questionnaire was developed, content validation was per- spondents (25.1%) had a family income from $1251.11 to $2501.59.
formed to understand the relation of the content with the construct under Furthermore, 78 respondents (37.7%) had a monthly spend on grocery
analysis (Hair et al., 2010). The data collection instrument was submitted shopping from $254.29 to $825.40, while 71 (34.3%) respondents had
to a small group of experts who analyzed and checked the suitability of a monthly spend from $159.05 to $253.97.
the indicators selected to represent the constructs discussed. Moreover,
the pre-test was applied to 60 respondents through auto-fill.

205
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Table 3 stages were performed in PLS–SEM for the measurement of the re-
Results for reflective measurement models. flective-formative model: evaluation of the measurement model and the
Variables Items Convergent Validity Internal Consistency structural model (Hair et al., 2017).
Reliability

Loadings AVE Cronbach's CR 4.3. Evaluation of the measurement model


alpha
> 0.70 > 0.50 > 0.60 > 0.60
To validate a reflective measurement model, it is necessary to un-
Quality (QL) QL1 0.889 0.790 0.912 0.938 derstand the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha and composite
QL2 0.903 reliability), convergent validity (loadings, average variance extracted)
QL3 0.871
and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017).
QL4 0.890
Perceived Value PV1 0.740 0.599 0.832 0.882 Internal consistency reliability of the measurement items was
(PV) PV2 0.757 tested via Cronbach's alpha and all variables were higher than 0.70 (see
PV3 0.826 Table 3). The composite reliability (CR) varies between 0 and 1, with
PV4 0.732
higher values indicating higher levels of reliability. CR values between
PV5 0.811
Price Level (PL) PL1 0.726 0.622 0.878 0.908
0.70 and 0.90 can be regarded as satisfactory. Values above 0.95 are not
PL2 0.871 desirable, because they indicate that all variables are measuring the
PL3 0.857 same phenomenon (Rossiter, 2002; Hair et al., 2016). In this analysis,
PL4 0.819 all values for CR are equal or below 0.95.
PL5R 0.730
Items that are indicators (measures) of a specific reflective construct
PL6R 0.714
Price Fairness PF1 0.911 0.797 0.914 0.940 should converge or share a high proportion of variance (Hair et al.,
(PF) PF2 0.930 2016). Convergent validity was verified by examining the factor item
PF3 0.832 loadings (standardized loadings) to ensure that all variables were above
PF4 0.895
0.70; and that all values of average variance extracted (AVE) (Fornell
Positive PE1 0.855 0.748 0.888 0.922
Emotions PE2 0.845
and Larcker, 1981), were higher than 0.50 (Malhotra et al., 2012; Hair
(PE) PE3 0.888 Jr. et al. 2016) (see Tables 3 and 4). The results showed that convergent
PE4 0.870 validity was achieved and that all measurement items well represented
Negative NE1 0.821 0.738 0.941 0.952 the respective variables.
Emotions NE2 0.890
Discriminant validity is the extent to which a construct is truly
(NE) NE3 0.881
NE4 0.856 distinct from other constructs by empirical standards (Hair et al., 2016).
NE5 0.889 The comparison of the constructs in sharing variance (squared corre-
NE6 0.846 lation) was performed by discriminant validity through the AVE of each
NE7 0.828
construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Table 5 shows that the square
Symbolic SY1 0.877 0.831 0.932 0.952
Dimension SY2 0.946
roots of the AVE (bold) were all distant from the diagonal correlation
(SY) SY3 0.934 values, meaning that there was adequate discriminant validity.
SY4 0.888 Another test for discriminant validity was performed, the hetero-
Repurchase RI1 0.857 0.791 0.934 0.950 trait-monotrait ratio (HTMT), as shown in Table 6. This is an alter-
Intention RI2 0.859
native, more reliable criterion for discriminant validity (Hair et al.,
(RI) RI3 0.892
RI4 0.923 2016). It requires computing bootstrapping confidence intervals with
RI5 0.914 5000 resamples, as suggested by Hair et al. (2016). The columns de-
signated as lower than 2.5% and greater than 97.5% represent the
Note: Reliability and validity tests by using SmartPLS® 3.2.7. lower and upper bounds of the 95% (bias-corrected and accelerated)
confidence interval. Consequently, as can be seen in Table 6, neither of
4.2. Partial least squares–structural equation modeling the relations includes the value zero. For example, the relations be-
tween QL and Store Price Image are 0.070 and 0.160, respectively. This
The concepts related to these analyses are associated with the two is consistent since the conservative HTMT threshold of 0.889 already
stages of the application of PLS–SEM. In this study, two verification supports discriminant validity (see Table 5) (Hair et al., 2016).

Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis for eight factors items loadings and cross loadings.
Factor Items Quality Perceived Value Price Level Price Fairness Positive Emotions Negative Emotions Symbolic Dimension Repurchase Intention

QL1 0.889 0.360 − 0.106 0.221 0.063 0.025 0.165 0.338


QL2 0.903 0.402 − 0.016 0.272 0.157 0.013 0.229 0.357
QL3 0.871 0.363 − 0.115 0.219 0.077 0.069 0.275 0.324
QL4 0.890 0.329 − 0.119 0.213 0.075 0.034 0.323 0.271
PV1 0.352 0.740 0.328 0.433 0.436 − 0.117 0.252 0.442
PV2 0.398 0.757 0.209 0.393 0.363 − 0.014 0.266 0.319
PV3 0.393 0.826 0.218 0.430 0.373 − 0.121 0.218 0.395
PV4 0.264 0.732 0.248 0.291 0.372 − 0.044 0.329 0.382
PV5 0.205 0.811 0.426 0.454 0.490 − 0.189 0.196 0.342
PL1 − 0.031 0.321 0.726 0.352 0.600 − 0.004 0.217 0.292
PL2 − 0.040 0.392 0.871 0.554 0.659 − 0.223 0.068 0.414
PL3 − 0.013 0.330 0.857 0.563 0.605 − 0.177 0.045 0.459
PL4 − 0.037 0.348 0.819 0.569 0.545 − 0.231 0.050 0.471
PL5R − 0.212 0.148 0.730 0.436 0.345 − 0.430 − 0.161 0.325
PL6R − 0.164 0.198 0.714 0.424 0.378 − 0.379 − 0.142 0.285
PF1 0.218 0.458 0.596 0.911 0.503 − 0.306 0.125 0.470
PF2 0.215 0.453 0.603 0.930 0.505 − 0.294 0.114 0.489
(continued on next page)
206
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Table 4 (continued)

Factor Items Quality Perceived Value Price Level Price Fairness Positive Emotions Negative Emotions Symbolic Dimension Repurchase Intention

PF3 0.308 0.522 0.423 0.832 0.398 − 0.265 0.132 0.435


PF4 0.207 0.437 0.580 0.895 0.487 − 0.271 0.079 0.497
PE1 0.062 0.406 0.560 0.426 0.855 0.024 0.228 0.283
PE2 0.114 0.424 0.503 0.386 0.845 0.007 0.253 0.278
PE3 0.089 0.451 0.597 0.475 0.888 − 0.152 0.221 0.345
PE4 0.113 0.537 0.654 0.533 0.870 − 0.238 0.174 0.428
NE1 0.067 − 0.083 − 0.219 − 0.255 − 0.123 0.821 0.193 − 0.113
NE2 0.026 − 0.149 − 0.269 − 0.285 − 0.120 0.890 0.236 − 0.146
NE3 0.061 − 0.095 − 0.238 − 0.257 − 0.090 0.881 0.223 − 0.122
NE4 0.034 − 0.071 − 0.203 − 0.215 − 0.084 0.856 0.267 − 0.125
NE5 0.016 − 0.167 − 0.286 − 0.311 − 0.106 0.889 0.230 − 0.206
NE6 0.068 − 0.092 − 0.308 − 0.312 − 0.100 0.846 0.214 − 0.229
NE7 − 0.046 − 0.122 − 0.218 − 0.267 − 0.066 0.828 0.236 − 0.195
SY1 0.316 0.280 0.060 0.132 0.248 0.232 0.877 0.157
SY2 0.261 0.308 − 0.000 0.121 0.214 0.231 0.946 0.123
SY3 0.233 0.291 − 0.010 0.099 0.185 0.218 0.934 0.112
SY4 0.191 0.288 − 0.046 0.103 0.260 0.284 0.888 0.118
RI1 0.371 0.532 0.445 0.510 0.388 − 0.116 0.204 0.857
RI2 0.356 0.499 0.394 0.471 0.320 − 0.169 0.132 0.859
RI3 0.257 0.338 0.451 0.472 0.341 − 0.215 0.065 0.892
RI4 0.324 0.415 0.422 0.449 0.345 − 0.189 0.138 0.923
RI5 0.306 0.352 0.433 0.445 0.341 − 0.170 0.076 0.914

Note: Bold values are items loadings higher than 0.700 at SmartPLS® 3.2.7.

Table 5
Correlation and average variance extracted (AVE).
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(1) Symbolic Dimension 0.912 0.250 0.265 0.009 0.320 0.126 0.277 0.141
(2) Positive Emotions 0.250 0.865 − 0.116 0.643 0.530 0.532 0.110 0.392
(3) Negative Emotions 0.265 − 0.116 0.859 − 0.313 − 0.132 − 0.319 0.038 − 0.192
(4) Price Level 0.009 0.643 − 0.313 0.793 0.348 0.564 − 0.130 0.421
(5) Perceived Value 0.320 0.530 − 0.132 0.348 0.774 0.522 0.412 0.485
(6) Price Fairness 0.126 0.532 − 0.319 0.564 0.522 0.893 0.263 0.530
(7) Quality 0.277 0.110 0.038 − 0.130 0.412 0.263 0.889 0.365
(8) Repurchase Intention 0.141 0.392 − 0.192 0.421 0.485 0.530 0.365 0.890

Note: The average variance extracted (AVE) of each construct are values in diagonal, below the diagonal line are the shared values variances (r squared) and above
the diagonal are the correlations values at SmartPLS® 3.2.7.

Table 6
Confidence intervals for HTMT.
lower than 2,5% upper than 97,5% Sig. HTMT confidence interval does not include 1

QL → Store Price Image 0.070 0.160 0.000 Yes


PV → Store Price Image 0.215 0.273 0.000 Yes
PL → Store Price Image 0.282 0.342 0.000 Yes
PF → Store Price Image 0.265 0.312 0.000 Yes
PE → Store Price Image 0.227 0.278 0.000 Yes
NE → Store Price Image − 0.264 − 0.076 0.001 Yes
SY → Store Price Image 0.038 0.151 0.001 Yes
H1 Store Price Image → RI 0.528 0.672 0.000 Yes

Table 7
Structural model assessment procedure.
Collinearity Assessment Significance of the path coefficients Level of R2 f2 effect size
VIF Hypothesized relationships R2 f2

QL → Store Price Image 1.459 0.117 884.876


PV → Store Price Image 1.879 0.242 2950.008
PL → Store Price Image 2.664 0.308 3378.032
PF → Store Price Image 2.182 0.284 3508.424
PE → Store Price Image 2.308 0.250 2564.975
NE → Store Price Image 1.275 − 0.189 2657.396
SY → Store Price Image 1.313 0.097 684.335
H1 Store Price Image → RI 1.000 0.609 0.370 0.588

207
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

4.4. Evaluation of the structural model capabilities. In this way, the collinearity analysis tests for variance in-
flation factor (VIF) values below 5. In this study, all VIF values were
The structural model's predictive capabilities and the relationship below 5. The hypothesized relationships exist among the constructs, so
between the constructs were tested by running the coefficients of standardized values between − 1 and 1 measure these relations, with
determination R2 (explained variance) and f2 (effect size) (Hair et al., estimated path coefficients close to + 1 representing strong positive
2016). Table 7 shows the steps to determine the model's predictive relationships and vice versa for negative values.

Fig. 2. Model resolution by SmartPLS using PLS algorithm.

208
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

The coefficient of determination (R2 value) represents a measure of low sensitivity respectively. This was tested with multi-group analysis
in-sample predictive power (Rigdon, 2012; Sarstedt and Mooi, 2014; in Smart-PLS 3.2.7, by splitting up the moderator into two dummy
Hair et al., 2016). R2 values of 0.20 are considered high in disciplines variables, which were then included in the model (Hair et al., 2016).
such as consumer behavior (Hair et al., 2016). In this analysis, R2 Based on the sample of 207 cases, 83 (40.1%) customers presented low
presented a value of 0.370; this means that 37% of repurchase intention sensitivity, 82 (39.6%) customers had high sensitivity, and 42 (20.3%)
was explained by the store price image. The f2 effect size measures the customers were eliminated, resulting in a final sample of 165 re-
strength of each variable in explaining endogenous variables; this spondents. This counterbalance was used in the research of
means it represents the evaluation of the R2 values of all endogenous Zaichkowsky (1985). So, using an average of a seven-point scale for
constructs (Hair et al., 2016). According to Hair et al. (2016), effect size each customer's scale sensitivity, the scale was divided into three parts.
values below 0.02 represent weak effects or indicate that there is no The first quintile (40% sample) represents customers with low sensi-
effect. Finally, Hair et al. (2016) suggest that the goodness-of-fit index tivity, the middle one (20%) was eliminated, and the third quintile
should not be used to determine model fit. (40% sample) represents customers with high sensitivity. This moder-
Fig. 2 presents the SmartPLS model and results yielded by PLS al- ating variable allowed an understanding of the effects of customer price
gorithm. This illustration relates to the findings of Tables 3–7. sensitivity on grocery environments as presented at Table 10.
Table 8 shows the latent variable R2 for repurchase intention is Interesting results were found in Table 10 about the moderating
0.370 in the general framework, which means that store price image effect of price sensitivity. First, the store price image (low sensitivity)
explains 37% of repurchase intention. In this vein, H1 is validated impacted on repurchase intention (β = 0.544, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.296,
(β = 0.609, p = 0.000, 95% CI = 0.530–0.672). Furthermore, it was 95% CI = 0.288–0.659). Hence, H2c is validated. It was possible to
possible to verify that the dimension of store price image present sig- verify that negative emotions (NE) toward the store price image did not
nificant correlations as a second-order construct. present significant relations when moderated by the price sensitivity,

Table 8
General model resolution by SmartPLS using PLS algorithm and Bootstrapping.
Hypotheses Path Coefficient Standard Error t-value p-value R2 Confidence Intervals Results
General Framework

QL → Store Price Image 0.117 0.115 5.010 0.000 0.069|0.160


PV → Store Price Image 0.242 0.240 16.394 0.000 0.215|0.273
PL → Store Price Image 0.308 0.306 19.311 0.000 0.280|0.343
PF → Store Price Image 0.284 0.282 24.173 0.000 0.264|0.311
PE → Store Price Image 0.250 0.248 19.931 0.000 0.228|0.278
NE → Store Price Image − 0.189 − 0.184 3.393 0.001 − 0.264|− 0.074
SY → Store Price Image 0.097 0.096 3.443 0.001 0.039|0.150
H1 Store Price Image → RI 0.609 0.608 17.242 0.000 0.370 0.530|0.672 H1 Supported

Note: t-value should be greater than 1.96 (positive or negative) to be significant at < 0.05. Confidence interval neither of the relations includes the value zero.

4.5. The moderating effect of price level for both high price sensitivity (β = −0.155, p = 0.061, 95% CI = −
0.254 to 0.068) and low price sensitivity (β = − 0.233, p = 0.229,
The moderating effect of price level was checked by splitting the 95% CI = − 0.395 to 0.238). In addition, the symbolic dimension (SY)
sample into two groups, with high and low price levels respectively. This did not present significant relations in the model when moderated by
was tested by running analyses in Smart-PLS 3.2.7 (Hair et al., 2016). the price sensitivity for low price sensitivity (β = 0.081, p = 0.277,
Each respondent replied for both price levels (low and high prices), so 95% CI = − 0.095 to 0.231).
both groups comprised 207 customers. Table 9 presents all indexes. Furthermore, a significant link was found between store price image
The moderating effect of price level, for Sobel (1982), is seen when (high sensitivity) and repurchase intention (β = 0.704, p = 0.000, R2
the value for the critical ratio for the difference is above or below 1.96, = 0.495, 95% CI = 0.592–0.788). Thus, H2d is strengthened. For cus-
p < 0.05, which means that there is an indirect effect of price level. tomers with both lower and higher price sensitivity, the store price
Table 9 shows that only the negative emotions (NE) did not present image impacted on repurchase intentions. However, based on the R2
significant differences associated with price level, for both low price values for low and high price sensitivity, it was found that 49.5% of
level and high price level. repurchase intention was explained by the store price image when
However, the store price image (low price level) impacted on re- customers presented high price sensitivity. On the other hand, 29.6% of
purchase intention (β = 0.445, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.198, 95% repurchase intention was explained by the store price image when
CI = 0.304–0.565). Hence, H2a is validated. In addition to this, a sig- customers presented low price sensitivity.
nificant link occurred between store price image (high price level) and
repurchase intention (β = 0.650, p = 0.000, R2 = 0.422, 95% 5. General discussion
CI = 0.563–0.725). Thus, H2b is strengthened. So, customers at high
price levels present stronger impacts on the relation between the store 5.1. Theoretical contributions and managerial implications
price image and repurchase intentions. Customers at low price levels
decrease the impact, or present a weaker impact on the relation be- First, we identified the relevant findings of research related to direct
tween the store price image on repurchase intentions, because the R2 effects within the theoretical framework. The price level and perceived
value (R2 = 0.198) is lower in comparison with that of the high price value better explained the price image, as pointed out by Zielke (2006).
level (R2 = 0.422). Using the general framework of this study, the price level was found to be
the most representative construct of store price image, as a reflective-
4.6. The moderating effect of price sensitivity formative second-order construct, followed by price fairness, positive
emotions, and the perceived value. The perceived value was the fourth
The moderating effect of price sensitivity was checked by splitting construct that best explained the store price image. However, in the case of
the sample in two groups according to price sensitivity, with high and high price levels, perceived value better explained the store price image,

209
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Table 9
Moderating effect of price level.
Hypotheses Path coefficient Standard Error t-value p-value R2 Confidence intervals Results

H2a: Low Price Level


QL → Store Price Image 0.216 0.029 7.462 0.000 0.158|0.272
PV → Store Price Image 0.257 0.017 14.759 0.000 0.229|0.299
PL → Store Price Image 0.239 0.022 10.650 0.000 0.201|0.291
PF → Store Price Image 0.255 0.018 14.147 0.000 0.227|0.300
PE → Store Price Image 0.278 0.018 15.419 0.000 0.250|0.327
NE → Store Price Image − 0.100 0.106 0.944 0.345 − 0.249|0.101
SY → Store Price Image 0.161 0.035 4.547 0.000 0.089|0.228
H2a Store Price Image → RI 0.445 0.067 6.630 0.000 0.198 0.304|0.565 H2a Supported
H2b: High Price Level
QL → Store Price Image 0.211 0.024 8.662 0.000 0.170|0.268
PV → Store Price Image 0.307 0.018 17.104 0.000 0.279|0.351
PL → Store Price Image 0.200 0.023 8.832 0.000 0.157|0.248
PF → Store Price Image 0.280 0.021 13.586 0.000 0.247|0.328
PE → Store Price Image 0.226 0.019 11.666 0.000 0.195|0.269
NE → Store Price Image − 0.074 0.108 0.691 0.490 − 0.245|0.102
SY → Store Price Image 0.202 0.035 5.859 0.000 0.127|0.259
H2b Store Price Image → RI 0.650 0.041 15.667 0.000 0.422 0.563|0.725 H2b Supported

Note: t-value should be greater than 1.96 (positive or negative) to be significant at < 0.05. Confidence interval neither of the relations includes the value zero.

Table 10
Moderating effect of price sensitivity.
Hypotheses Path Coefficient Standard Error t-value p-value R2 Confidence Intervals Results

H2a: Low Price Level


QL → Store Price Image 0.162 0.060 2.694 0.007 0.039|0.268
PV → Store Price Image 0.258 0.247 6.514 0.000 0.183|0.326
PL → Store Price Image 0.275 0.039 7.092 0.000 0.207|0.349
PF → Store Price Image 0.300 0.026 11.468 0.000 0.273|0.351
PE → Store Price Image 0.270 0.032 8.367 0.000 0.219|0.335
NE → Store Price Image − 0.233 0.194 1.203 0.229 − 0.395|0.238
SY → Store Price Image 0.081 0.073 1.111 0.267 − 0.095|0.213
H2c Store Price Image → RI 0.544 0.086 6.312 0.000 0.296 0.288|0.659 H2c Supported
H2b: High Price Level
QL → Store Price Image 0.101 0.028 3.640 0.000 0.046|0.155
PV → Store Price Image 0.238 0.019 12.763 0.000 0.203|0.273
PL → Store Price Image 0.316 0.021 15.110 0.000 0.281|0.364
PF → Store Price Image 0.276 0.016 17.075 0.000 0.251|0.318
PE → Store Price Image 0.237 0.015 15.597 0.000 0.211|0.271
NE → Store Price Image − 0.155 0.082 1.877 0.061 − 0.254|0.068
SY → Store Price Image 0.095 0.033 2.886 0.004 0.033|0.162
H2d Store Price Image → RI 0.704 0.052 14.336 0.000 0.495 0.592|0.788 H2d Supported

Note: t-value should be greater than 1.96 (positive or negative) to be significant at < 0.05. Confidence interval neither of the relations includes the value zero.

following by price fairness and positive emotions. Negative emotions did fairness in different ways for low and high price level stores. In parallel,
not impact on store price image at either low or high price levels. This positive emotions also presented a significant difference between both
result about negative emotions was also found by Scopel (2014). On the price levels, for low and high price stores. An interesting definition by
other hand, at low price levels, positive emotions best explained the store Xia et al. (2004) for price fairness is that customers display emotions
price image, following by price fairness and price level. when a retailer's price is reasonable, acceptable, or justifiable, in com-
Zielke (2011) indicated, for future research, the formation of emo- parison with those of competing retailers (Xia et al., 2004). As con-
tions as part of a retailer's price image. Therefore, as a contribution to tributions of this research, these positive emotions could be related to
this research, positive emotions are seen as bonds that support both the price fairness. As noted by Zielke (2006), when customers feel afraid to
general and the moderating frameworks. However, for negative emo- pay too much, they may feel negative emotions.
tions, the general framework showed relations being supported, while The first hypothesis examined the impact of store price image on
low price and high price levels did not support bonds. So, this result can repurchase intention. It tested the relations between perceived higher
be related to the idea supported by Lichtenstein et al. (1993), which quality and stronger repurchase intentions (Choi and Kim, 2013; Wu
highlights customers’ perception more broadly and in a more complex and Chen, 2014; Ariffin et al., 2016). To understand the overall store
way than playing just a “negative role.” price image may become a critical issue for retailers (Chang and Wang,
This study sought to answer the research questions proposed by 2014).
Zielke (2014) and provide greater depth in understanding how customers The second hypotheses (H2a and H2b), examined the direct effects
respond to low and high prices. As feedback on this issue, the moderating of store price image on repurchase intentions, with moderating effects
price level is seen to present different values for low and high levels of that can provide a wider and more comprehensive vision of the con-
prices. Specially, the relations between store price image and price sumer behavior under study. Thus, besides the hypotheses tested by the
fairness, and store price image and positive emotions, showed significant general framework, stores with low or high store price image presented
differences between the multi-group analyses. According to these find- significant further hypotheses, showing that overall store price image
ings, it is possible to support the idea that customers perceived price (low/high level) will impact positively on repurchase intentions. These

210
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

findings are corroborate in the literature; for Dodds et al. (1991), re- price image, as argued by Hamilton and Chernev (2013). Furthermore,
purchase intentions are conducted by perceived value, more than just a qualitative approach may ask customers about overall price level,
the actual price, while for Chang and Wang (2014), the dimensions of price image, comparative judgment, and so on. Going further, future
price image, as price value, price fairness, and price pleasure, impact on studies could examine customers’ acquisition of store price image be-
repurchase intentions. However, the main finding of this research is liefs in the context of conflicting information from retailers (Hamilton
that customers with low price level perceptions decrease this impact, and Chernev, 2013).
presenting a weaker impact on the relation between the store price In addition, future research should consider the use of a longitudinal
image on repurchase intention, in comparison with customers with high approach, to better understand how the store price image evolves over
price level perceptions. time; this approach could also contribute to retailer managers better
With regard to the moderating effect of price sensitivity, the second understanding changes in customer behavior. Furthermore, a biblio-
hypotheses (H2c and H2d), show that the store price image will impact metric review of store price image could be produced, to better com-
on repurchase intention with weaker or stronger relations, depending prehend new research possibilities, fresh construct relations, and also
on the moderating effects of price sensitivity. Also, as pointed out by new signs of research gaps.
Hamilton and Chernev (2013) and MSI (2014), the customers’ in- In this vein, future research could focus on brand retail credibility as
formation processing style and familiarity with market prices is one of related to price sensitivity. Beyond that, others studies may investigate
the factors that influences the relation with price sensitivity. Possession strong and/or weak brand valuations and their relation to price pre-
of information can contribute to the customer having more or less price miums. For this reason, Erdem et al. (2002) suggested that consumers
sensitivity. As argued in the theoretical section—by Erdem et al. with higher price sensitivity are consistent across brands in their be-
(2002), for example—low price sensitivity can be associated with havior; however, stronger brands tend to command premium prices.
higher perceived quality; customers who expected higher quality may From this study, stronger retail brands will be interpreted as operating
exhibit less price sensitivity. Furthermore, experienced higher quality with higher store price images that command premium prices.
can lead to lower price sensitivity (Erdem et al., 2002). This means that Another research line that should be broadened and deepened is the
a customer who is easily influenced by higher quality impressions tends focus on the impact of negative emotions on store price image, to un-
to have lower price sensitivity. derstand better why these bonds were not supported in this research for
both low and high price level stores. In this vein, Lichtenstein et al.
5.2. Future research and limitations (1993) argued that negative emotions are a complex stimulus, with
customers perceiving price through a broad range of influences.
Future research could focus on understanding the formation of store

Appendix A

Variable Scale items

Quality QL01–This supermarket has a good quality


QL02–The quality of this supermarket is perfectly acceptable
QL03–The quality of this supermarket is better compared to other supermarkets
QL04–This supermarket has high quality
Perceived value VP1–The money I spend at this supermarket is well spent.
VP02–The old saying “you get what you pay for” is true for this supermarket
VP03–The set of benefits in the supermarket is compatible with all sacrifices/ actual costs
VP04–The benefit you get buying at this supermarket is very high
VP05–The price of this supermarket is appropriate to what I get for my money
Price level PL01–The price of this supermarket is very low
PL02–This is a cheap supermarket
PL03–The price of this supermarket is lower compared to other supermarkets
PL04–This is a low level supermarket
PL05R–The price of this supermarket is very high
PL06R–The price of this supermarket is expensive
Price fairness PJ01–This supermarket offers a fair price
PJ02–This supermarket offers an acceptable price
PJ03–The price in this supermarket is justifiable
PJ04–This supermarket offers a reasonable price
Positive emotions PE01–I am excited about the price of supermarket
PE02–The price of this supermarket makes me feel happy
PE03–I am very satisfied with the price of supermarket
PE04–I like the price of this supermarket
Negative emotions NE01–The price of this supermarket makes me feel sad
NE02–I feel depressed when I think about the price of supermarket
NE03–I feel sad when I think about the price of supermarket
NE04–The price of this supermarket makes me feel unhappy
NE05–I feel angry when I think about the price of this supermarket
NE06–I am afraid to pay too much for the price of this supermarket
NE07–The price of this supermarket makes me angry

211
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Symbolic dimension SB01–This supermarket will make me feel more powerful


SB02–This supermarket will allow me a prominent position in society
SB03–This supermarket will help to increase my status
SB04–This supermarket will improve favorably the perception of others regarding myself
Repurchase intention RI01–I plan to do most of my future shopping in this supermarket
RI02–If I go shopping today, I will go to this supermarket again
RI03–I do most of my shopping in this supermarket
RI04–When I go shopping, I consider this supermarket first
RI05–When I go shopping, this supermarket is my first choice
Price sensitivity (moderator) PS01–I buy as much as possible sale/discounted prices
PS02–Supermarkets with the lowest prices are usually my choice
PS03–I am willing to put in extra effort to find lower prices
PS04–I usually go and check the products and their prices in several supermarkets before buying
PS05–Price is more important than the supermarket brand

References shoppers. J. Mark. 54 (3), 42–53.


Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., 1985. The effect of brand and price information on subjective
product evaluations. Adv. Consum. Res. 12 (1), 85–90.
Aaker, J.L., 1999. The Malleable Self: the role of self-expression in persuasion. J. Mark. Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand, and store in-
Res. 36 (1), 45–57. formation on buyers' product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 28 (3), 307–319.
Akerlof, George A., Kranton, Rachel E., 2000. Economics and identity. Q. J. Econ. 115 (3), Dolbec, P.-Y., Chebat, J.-C., 2013. The impact of a flagship vs. a brand store on brand
715–753. attitude, brand attachment and brand equity. J. Retail. 89 (4), 460–466.
Alba, J.W., Susan, M.B., Terence, A.S., Joel, E.U., 1994. The influence of prior beliefs, Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S., Mehta, S.C., Tang, B.P., 2004. Forging relationships with
frequency cues, and magnitude cues on consumers' perceptions of comparative price services: the antecedents that have an impact on behavioural outcomes in the life
data. J. Consum. Res. 21 (2), 219–235. insurance industry. J. Financ. Serv. Mark. 8 (4), 314–326.
Allen, M., 2006. A dual-process model of the influence of human values on consumer Emery, F., 1969. Some psychological aspects of price. In: Taylor, B., Wills, G. (Eds.),
choice. rPOT 6 (1), 15–49. Pricing Strategy. Staples Press, London, pp. 98–111.
Anderson, E.W., 1998. Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. J. Serv. Res. 1 (1), 5–17. Erdem, T., Swait, J., Louviere, J., 2002. The impact of brand credibility on consumer price
Ariffin, S., Yusof, J.M., Putit, L., Shah, M.I.A., 2016. Factors influencing perceived quality sensitivity. Int. J. Res. Mark. 19 (1), 1–19.
and repurchase intention towards green products. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Erickson, G.M., Johansson, J.K., 1985. The role of price in multi-attribute product eva-
Internacional Conference on Marketing and Retailing (5th INCOMaR), vol. 37, pp. luations. J. Consum. Res. 12 (2), 195–199.
391–396. Feichtinger, G., Luhmer, A., Sorger, G., 1988. Optimal price and advertising policy for a
Arnold, S.J., Oum, T., Tigert, D.J., 1983. Determinant attributes in retail patronage: convenience goods retailer. Mark. Sci. 7 (2), 187–201.
seasonal, temporal, regional, and international comparisons. J. Mark. Res. 20 (2), Ferguson, J.L., 2014. Implementing price increases in turbulent economies: pricing ap-
149–157. proaches for reducing perceptions of price unfairness. J. Bus. Res. 67 (1), 2732–2737.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H., Pieters, R., 1998. Goal-directed emotions. Cogn. Emot. 12 Finkel, N.J., 2001. Not Fair! The Typology of Commonsense Unfairness. American
(1), 1–26. Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gopinath, M., Nyer, P.U., 1999. The role of emotions in marketing. J. Acad. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
Mark. Sci. 27 (2), 184–206. variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Barlow, J., Maul, D., 2000. Emotional Value. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Gauri, D., Sudhir, K., Talukdar, D., 2008. The temporal and spatial dimensions of price
Francisco, CA. search: insights from matching household survey and purchase data. J. Mark. Res. 45
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G., 1999. Handbook of Marketing Scales, 2nd ed. SAGE (2), 226–240.
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N.A., 1998. The effect of store name, brand
Bemmaor, A.C., 1995. Predicting behavior from intention-to-buy measures: the para- name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. J.
metric case. J. Mark. Res. 32 (2), 176–191. Retail. 74 (3), 331–352.
Blackwell, R.D., Miniard, P.W., Engel, J.F., 2001. Consumer Behavior, 9th ed. Thomson Gupta, N., 2011. Extent of susceptibility to interpersonal influence and price sensitivity
Learning, Mason, OH. among Indian youth: is there a relationship between these two constructs? Young-.
Bolton, L.E., Warlop, L., Alba, J.W., 2003. Consumer perceptions of price (Un)Fairness. J. Consum. 12 (4), 361–369.
Consum. Res. 29 (4), 474–491. Hair Jr., J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data analysis,
Bucklin, R., Gupta, S., Han, S., 1995. A brand's eye view of response segmentation in 7th ed. Pearson, New Jersey.
consumer brand choice behavior. J. Mark. Res. 32 (1), 66–74. Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2017. A Primer on Partial Least
Büyükkurt, B.K., 1986. Integration of serially sampled price information: modeling and Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
some findings. J. Consum. Res. 17 (3), 357–373. Hamilton, R., Chernev, A., 2010. The impact of product line extensions and consumer
Campbell, M.C., 2007. Says Who?!’ how the source of price information and affect in- goals on the formation of price image. J. Mark. Res. 47 (1), 51–62.
fluence perceived price (Un)Fairness. J. Mark. Res. 44 (2), 261–272. Hamilton, R., Chernev, A., 2013. Low prices are just the beginning: price image in retail
Chang, S.-H., Wang, K.-Y., 2014. Investigating the antecedents and consequences of an management. J. Mark. 77 (6), 1–20.
overall store price image in retail settings. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 22 (3), 299–314. Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A., Rickard, J.A., 2003. Customer repurchase in-
Cherney, A., Hamilton, R., Gal, David, 2011. Competing for consumer identity: limits to tention: a general structural equation model. Eur. J. Mark. 37 (11/12), 1762–1800.
self-expression and the perils of lifestyle branding. J. Mark. 75 (3), 66–82. Hoch, S.J., Kim, B.-D., Montgomery, A.L., Rossi, Peter E., 1995. Determinants of store-
Choi, E.J., Kim, S.H., 2013. The study of the impact of perceived quality and value of level price elasticity. J. Mark. Res. 32 (1), 17–29.
social enterprises on customer satisfaction and re-purchase intention. Int. J. Smart Kaul, A., Dick, R.W., 1995. Empirical generalizations about the impact of advertising on
Home 7 (1), 239–251. price sensitivity and price. Mark. Sci. 14 (3), 151–160.
Cross, R.G., Dixit, A., 2005. Customer-centric pricing: the surprising secret for profit- Kim, Y.-K., Lee, M.-Y., Park, S., 2014. Shopping value orientation: conceptualization and
ability. Bus. Horiz. 48 (6), 483–491. measurement. J. Bus. Res. 67 (4), 2884–2890.
Davis, L., Hodges, N., 2012. Consumer shopping value: an investigation of shopping trip Kirby, A.E., Kent, A.M., 2010. Architecture as brand: store design and brand identity. J.
value, in-store shopping value and retail format. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (2), Product. Brand Manag. 19 (6), 432–439.
229–239. Kitapci, O., Adkogan, C., Dortyol, I.T., 2014. The impact of service quality dimensions on
De Toni, D., Mazzon, J.A., 2013. Imagem de preço de produto: proposição de um modelo patient satisfaction, repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth communication in the
conceitual. RAUSP Rev. Adm. (FEA-USP) 48 (3), 454–468. public healthcare industry. Procedia–Soc. Behav. Sci. 148 (25), 161–169.
De Toni, D., Mazzon, J.A., 2014. Teste de um modelo teórico sobre o valor percebido do Lazarus, R., 1991. Progress on a cognitive motivational relational theory of emotion. Am.
preço de um produto. Revi. Adm. 49 (3), 549–563. Psychol. 46 (8), 819–834.
De Toni, D., Panizzon, M., Milan, G.S., Larentis, F., 2014. As dimensões da imagem de Lee, J., Kim, H., Ko, Y.J., Sagas, M., 2011. The influence of service quality on satisfaction
preço de cursos de pós-graduação lato sensu e seus impactos sobre a lealdade. RACE: and intention: a gender segmentation strategy. Sports Manag. Rev. 14 (1), 54–63.
Rev. Adm. Contabilidade Econ. 13 (2), 499–524. Lee, S.H., Fay, S., 2017. Why offer lower prices to past customers? Inducing favorable
Diallo, M.F., Coutelle-Brillet, P., Rivière, A., Zielke, S., 2015. How do price perceptions of social price comparisons to enhance customer retention. Quant. Mark. Econ. 15 (2),
different brand types affect shopping value and store loyalty? Psychol. Mark. 32 (12), 123–163.
1133–1147. Levy, S.J., 1981. Interpreting consumer mythology: a structural approach to consumer
Dichter, E., 1985. What's in an image. J. Consum. Mark. 2 (1), 75–81. behavior. J. Mark. 45 (3), 49–61.
Dickson, P.R., Sawyer, A.G., 1990. The price knowledge and search of Supermarket Lichtenstein, D.R., Bloch, P.H., Black, W.C., 1988. Correlates of price acceptability. J.

212
A.P. Graciola et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 44 (2018) 201–213

Consum. Res. 15 (3), 243–252. consumption. J. Consum. Res. 35 (2), 257–267.


Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Burton, S., 1990. Distinguishing coupon proneness Rust, R.T., Zeithaml, V.A., Lemon, K.N., 2001. O valor do cliente: o modelo que está
from value consciousness: an acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. J. reformulando a estratégia corporativa, Customer Equity. Bookman, Porto Alegre.
Mark. 54 (3), 54–67. Sànchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., 2007. The concept of perceived value: a
Lichtenstein, D.R., Ridgway, N.M., Netemeyer, R.G., 1993. Price perceptions and con- systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7 (4), 427–451.
sumer shopping behavior: a field study. J. Mark. Res. 30 (2), 234–245. Sarstedt, M., Mooi, E.A., 2014. A Concise Guide To Market Research: The Process, Data,
Lourenço, C.J.S., Gijsbrechts, E., Paap, R., 2015. The impact of category prices on store And Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 2nd ed. Springer, Berlin.
price image formation: an empirical analysis. J. Mark. Res. 52 (2), 200–216. Scopel, A.E.M., 2014. Efeito dos níveis de preço de uma nova marca de produto sobre a
Mägi, A.W., Julander, C.-R., 2005. Consumers' store-level price knowledge: why are some imagem de preço, (Master’s thesis). University of Caxias do Sul, Brazil(Retrieved from
consumers more knowledgeable than others? J. Retail. 81 (4), 319–329. 〈https://repositorio.ucs.br/handle/11338/839〉).
Malhotra, N.K., Birks, D., Wills, P., 2012. Marketing Research: Applied Approach, 4th ed. Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, B.L., 1991. Consumption Values and Market Choice:
Pearson, New York. Theory and Applications. South Western Publishing, Ohio.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press, Shrivastva, A., Pare, S.K., Singh, S., 2016. Place impact on price sensitivity. IJABER 14
Cambridge, MA. (3), 1481–1492.
Mittal, V., Kamakura, W.A., 2001. Satisfaction, repurchase intent, and repurchase beha- Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., Sabol, B., 2002. Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in rela-
vior: investigating the moderating effect of customer characteristics. J. Mark. Res. 38 tional exchanges. J. Mark. 66 (1), 15–37.
(1), 131–142. Sobel, M., 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models.
Monroe, K.B., 1973. Buyers' subjective perceptions of price. J. Mark. 10 (1), 70–80. In: In: Leinhart, S. (Ed.), Sociological methodology Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp.
Monroe, K.B., Krishnan, R., 1985. The effect of price on subjective product evaluations. 290–312.
In: Jacoby, Jacob, Olson, Jerry C. (Eds.), Perceived Quality: How Consumers View Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a
Stores and Merchandise. D. C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, pp. 209–232. multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 (2), 203–220.
Morwitz, V.G., Johnson, E., Schmittlein, D., 1993. Does measuring intent change beha- Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., Johnson, L.W., 1999. The role of perceived risk in the
vior? J. Consum. Res. 20 (1), 46–61. quality-value relationship: a study in a retail environment. J. Retail. 75 (1), 77–105.
MSI–Marketing Science Institute, 2014. Price image is not just about pricing. Mark. Sci. Tellis, G.J., Gaeth, G.J., 1990. Best value, price-seeking, and price a version: the impact of
Inst(Available at: 〈http://www.msi.org/articles/price-image-is-not-just-about- information and learning on consumer choices. J. Mark. 54 (2), 34–45.
pricing/〉, Accessed 31 July 2016). Thiele, K.O., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., 2015. A comparative evaluation of new and es-
Munnukka, J., 2006. Pricing method as a tool for improved price perception. J. Revenue tablished methods for structural equation modeling. In: Close, A.G., Haytko, D.L.
Pricing Manag. 5 (3), 207–220. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Academy of Marketing Science Annual Conference.
Mazumdar, T., Raj, S.P., Sinha, I., 2005. Reference price research: review and proposi- Academy of Marketing, Denver, CO.
tions. J. Mark. 69 (4), 84–102. Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Kalapurakal, R., 1996. Price search in the retail grocery
Noyan, F., Simsek, G.G., 2012. A partial least squares path model of repurchase intention market. J. Mark. 60 (2), 91–104.
of supermarket customers. Procedia Social. Behav. Sci. 62, 921–926. Vinson, D.E., Scott, J.E., Lamont, L.M., 1977. The role of personal values in marketing and
Nyström, H., 1970. Retailing Pricing - An Integrated Economic and Psychological consumer behavior. J. Mark. 41 (2), 44–50.
Approach. Ph. D. thesis, Economic Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Völckner, F., Hofmann, J., 2007. The price-perceived quality relationship: a meta-analytic
Economics. review and assessment of its determinants. Mark. Lett. 18 (3), 181–196.
O’Neill, R.M., Lambert, D.R., 2001. The emotional side of price. Psychol. Mark. 18 (3), Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 1993. Who are the price vigilantes? An investigation of
217–237. differentiating characteristics influencing price information processing. J. Retail. 69
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for (2), 216–233.
measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–43. Wakefield, K.L., Inman, J.J., 2003. Situational price sensitivity: the role of consumption
Peine, K., Heitmann, M., Herrmann, A., 2009. Getting a feel for price affect: a conceptual occasion, social context and income. J. Retail. 79 (4), 199–212.
framework and empirical investigation of consumers' emotional responses to price Winer, R.S., 1986. A reference price model of brand choice for frequently purchased
information. Psychol. Mark. 26 (1), 39–66. consumer products. J. Consum. Res. 13 (2), 250–265.
Peschel, A.O., Zielke, S., Scholderer, J., 2016. Reference price formation for product in- Wu, S.I., Chen, Y.J., 2014. The Impact of Green Marketing and Perceived Innovation on
novations–the role of consistent price-value-relationships. Proc. Food Syst. Dyn. Purchase Intention for Green Products. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 6 (5), 81–100.
101–103. Xia, L., Monroe, K.B., Cox, J.L., 2004. The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of
Rajendran, K.N., Tellis, G.J., 1994. Contextual and temporal components of reference price fairness perceptions. J. Mark. 68 (4), 1–15.
price. J. Mark. 58 (1), 22–34. Zaichkowsky, J.L., 1985. Measuring the involvement construct. J. Consum. Res. 12 (3),
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., Becker, J.-.M., 2015. SmartPLS3 [Computer software]. Retrieved 341–352.
from 〈http://www.smartpls.com〉. Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
Roseman, I.J., 1984. Cognitive determinants of emotions: a structural theory. In: Shaver, model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22.
P. (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology 5. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. Zielke, S., 2006. Measurement of retailers' price images with a multiple-item scale. Int.
11–36. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 16 (3), 297–316.
Roseman, I.J., Smith, C.A., 2001. Appraisal theory: overview, assumptions, varieties, Zielke, S., 2010. How price image dimensions influence shopping intentions for different
controversies. In: Scherer, K., Schorr, A., Johnstone, T. (Eds.), Appraisal Processes in store formats. Eur. J. Mark. 44 (6), 748–770.
Emotion. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 68–91. Zielke, S., 2011. Integrating emotions in the analysis of retail price images. Psychol. Mark.
Roseman, I.J., Spindel, M.S., Jose, P.E., 1990. Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: 28 (4), 330–359.
testing a theory of discrete emotions. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 59 (5), 899–915. Zielke, S., 2014. Shopping in discount stores: the role of price related attributions,
Rossiter, J.R., 2002. The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. Int. J. emotions and value perception. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 21 (3), 327–338.
Res. Mark. 19, 305–335. Zielke, S., Toporowski, W., 2009. Does architecture influence the price image and in-
Rucker, D.D., Galinsky, A.D., 2008. Desire to acquire: powerlessness and compensatory tention to shop in a retail store? Eur. Retail Res. 23 (2), 83–100.

213

Anda mungkin juga menyukai