Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty in India A Scale development and Validation

Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyaltyin India

A Scale development and ValidationAdil Zia 1 Mohd Khalid Azam2 Asif Akhtar3

1 Research scholar Dept. of Business Administration, AMU, Aligarh India2 Prof. Dept. of Business Administration, AMU, Aligarh India

3Assist. Prof. Dept. of Business Administration, AMU, Aligarh India

Adil Zia (Research Scholar), Dept. of Business Administration, FMSR, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Mohammad Khalid Azam (Prof.), Dept. of Business Administration, FMSR, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.Contact E-mail:[email protected]

Asif Akthar (Assist. Prof.), Dept. of Business Administration, FMSR, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.Contact E-mail: [email protected]

AbstractIndia is a nation of shopkeepers with over 12 million retailoutlets. It has one of the highest densities of retail outlets inthe world with one retail outlet for ~90 persons. It can be saidto have entered the second phase of retailing when there is high-speed growth. There are retail chains trying to tap country'svast potential.

Retail businesses are services business (Berry, 1986), most ofservice quality concepts and measurement methods are developed onthe base of the retail stores study. Besides SERVQUAL(Parasuraman et al.1988), measurement methods of service qualityis complemented by SERVPERF (Cronin, Taylor, 1992). The above twoservice quality measurement methods are based on SERVQUAL, notmuch is different except the questionnaire content which ispartly adjusted. In the retail sector, besides the application ofSERVQUAL approach, Dabholkar et al (1996) has developed a

1

specialized measurement scale RSQS (Retail Service QualityScale). While evaluating these models, this has been observedthat SERVQUAL and RSQS are the most widely used measurement toolsin retail service management. Literature review reveals thatavailable scales are not producing the desired results and is notvalid for India (Kaul 2005).

This paper is an attempt to propose a new scale to measureshopping experience and consumer loyalty derived from SERVQUALand RSQS especially for India. This paper is an outcome of adetailed research of retail sector for shopping experience andconsumer loyalty in India. A model has been developed forconsumer loyalty taking shopping experience as a constituentusing ten dimensions. Further there are fifty-three questions inthe questionnaire to test these dimensions. EFA, CFA etc toolshave been used for the study.

Key Words: Retail, Shopping Experience, Consumer Loyalty, Scaledevelopment.

Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty in India: AScale development and Validation

Abstract: India is a nation of shopkeepers with over 12 million

retail outlets. It has one of the highest densities of retail

outlets in the world with one retail outlet for ~90 persons. It

can be said to have entered the second phase of retailing when

there is high-speed growth. There are retail chains trying to tap

country's vast potential. Retail businesses are services business

(Berry, 1986), most of service quality concepts and measurement

methods are developed on the base of the retail stores study.

2

Besides SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al.1988), measurement methods of

service quality is complemented by SERVPERF (Cronin, Taylor,

1992). The above two service quality measurement methods are

based on SERVQUAL, not much is different except the questionnaire

content which is partly adjusted. In the retail sector, besides

the application of SERVQUAL approach, Dabholkar et al (1996) has

developed a specialized measurement scale RSQS (Retail Service

Quality Scale). While evaluating these models, this has been

observed that SERVQUAL and RSQS are the most widely used

measurement tools in retail service management. Literature review

reveals that available scales are not producing the desired

results and is not valid for India (Kaul 2005).

This paper is an attempt to propose a new scale to measure

shopping experience and consumer loyalty derived from SERVQUAL

and RSQS especially for India. This paper is an outcome of a

detailed research of retail sector for shopping experience and

consumer loyalty in India. A model has been developed for

consumer loyalty taking shopping experience as a constituent

using ten dimensions. Further there are fifty-three questions in

3

the questionnaire to test these dimensions. EFA, CFA etc tools

have been used for the study.

Key Words: Retail, Shopping Experience, Consumer Loyalty, Scale development.

Introduction

A lot of the attention focused on the service quality construct

is attributable to the SERVQUAL instrument developed by

Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988) for measuring service

quality. Several studies subsequently employed SERVQUAL to

measure service quality and to assess the validity and

reliability of the scale across a wide range of industries and

cultural contexts (Carman, 1990; Finn and Lamb, 1991; Gagliano

and Hathcote, 1994; Blanchard and Galloway, 1994; Mittal and

Lassar, 1996; Zhao, Bai and Hui, 2002; Witkowski and

Wolfinbarger, 2002; Wong and Sohal, 2003). Little is known about

the service quality perceptions in India (Jain and Gupta, 2004)

because the focus of research has primarily been in the developed

countries (Herbig and Genestre, 1996). Given the relatively

mature markets where the service quality scales have been

developed, it seems unlikely that these measures would be

4

applicable in the Indian context without adaptation. Angur,

Nataraajan and Jahera (1999) examined SERVQUAL in the retail

banking industry and reported a poor fit of the scale to the

empirical data. Despite this, several researchers (Sharma and

Mehta, 2004; Bhat, 2005) have used the SERVQUAL scale in similar

settings with no assessment of the psychometric soundness of the

scale.

Service quality in retailing is different from any other

product/service environment (Finn and Lamb, 1991; Gagliano and

Hathcote, 1994). For this reason, Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz

(1996) developed the Retail Service Quality Scale (RSQS) for

measuring retail service quality. Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz

(1996) replicated their own study and found all RSQS dimensions

and sub-dimensions to be valid in the US. Mehta, Lalwani and Han

(2000) found the RSQS five dimensional structure appropriate for

measuring the service quality perceptions of supermarket

consumers in Singapore. According to Kim and Jin (2002), RSQS is

a useful scale for measuring service quality of discount stores

across two different cultural contexts of the US and South Korea

5

though they reported empirical support for a four-and not a five-

dimensional structure. Boshoff and Terblanche (1997), in a

replication of the Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) study,

report highly encouraging results for the RSQS applicability in

the context of department stores, specialty stores, and

hypermarkets in South Africa. Subhashini (2007) in a replication

of the Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) study for Indian retail

consumers found out that none of the component models of the RSQS

dimensions fits the data indicating that the RSQS factor

structure is not applicable in the Indian retail setting. The

findings of RSQS in India are thus different from those of

previous researchers (Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz, 1996; Boshoff

and Terblanche, 1997) who found all the RSQS component factor

structures as examined in this study to be appropriate.

This study makes an attempt to develop a new scale based on RSQS

scale developed by Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) for

measuring service quality in the Indian context.

Literature Review

6

According to Dholakia (1999), the rationale for shopping is

making physical visits to a shopping site. It is considered as a

household task as well as a form of recreation, relaxation and

entertainment. As per the definition of Lunt and Livingstone

(1992), going out to shop is a conspicuous moment in consumption

(Dholakia, 1999). Howard (2007) also believes shopping to be a

leisure pursuit and with the rapid development of shopping

centers, both retailers and developers are trying to make it more

of a pleasure activity. Tauber (1972) identified eleven motives

of shopping in a market based economy. (Howard, 2007) classified

shopping as role playing and social experience outside home.

According to Wilhelm & Mottner (2005), the teenagers also

preferred going to a shopping mall whose atmosphere was friendly,

attractive and a good place to spend time with friend and made

them feel welcomed.

Consumer loyalty has been defined in various ways ranging from a

probability of repurchase to proportion of purchase (Sivadas &

Baker-Prewitt, 2000). At a more general level, consumer loyalty

can be described as a positive propensity toward a store or brand

7

(East, Hammond, Harris & Lomax, 2000). First-store loyalty (FSL)

is thus the consumer’s expenditure in his/her first store divided

by total consumer expenditure in the particular retail category

(East et al., 2000). Dennis L. Duffy, (2005) establishes the

relationship between how brands are built today and how customer

relationships are cultivated in a manner that leads to loyalty.

Jennifer, (2005) proposed four categories of loyal customers as

captive, convenience-seekers, contented and committed. Samy

Belaid, Azza Temessek Behi, (2011) examine the role of

attachment in consumer brand relationships and its links with

constructs such as trust, satisfaction, commitment and behavioral

loyalty. Yoo-Kyoung (2011) examines the cultural influences on

young consumers' loyalty tendency.

8

Table 1: Summary of researches on scale development

Factor structure for Shopping Experience and Consumer LoyaltyScale (RSECLS)

Combining findings of SERVQUAL and RSQS it has been found that

there are other determinants factors for retail service quality

in Indian context. These determinants were found to be Shopping

Experience and Consumer Loyalty. It follows the integrated

structure where the shopping experience is integrated in the

consumer loyalty.

Consumer loyalty is determined by ten factors of which six are

for Shopping experience and four exclusively for consumer

loyalty. Factors for shopping experience are Engagement,

9

Author Year

Area of research Key arguments / Findings

Kaul 2005

Specialty Apparelstores in India

RSQS dimensions not valid in India. Indian Retailing found to have a four dimension structure.

Siu & Chow

2003

Japanese Super market

Five items deleted due to low alpha value.

Kim & Jin 2002

Discount Stores in US and Korea

Five item designed to measure was fond to be unreliable in both countries. RSQS could not be viewed as a reliable and valid measure for cross culture companies.

Siu & Cheung

2001

Departmental Stores in Hong Kong

Three items deleted. Five factors ofRSQS could not be identified.

Mehta, Lalwani &Han

2000

Supermarket chains in Singapore

RSQS is a better measure in Super market than in electronic goods market

Boshoff &Terblanche

1997

Department stores, supermarket stores and hypermarket stores in South Africa

RSQS was found to be valid and reliable measure.

Expediting, Problem Recovery, Executional Excellance, Brand

experience and Frequent buyers program where as for consumer

loyalty are Shopping motive, Store Facilities, Product Attributes

and Store Attributes. (fig 1)

ObjectiveThe objectives of this paper are:

1. To propose a scale for measuring retail shopping experience

and consumer loyalty for Indian retail consumers.

2. To develop a model showing relationship between shopping

experience and consumer loyalty.

Methodology

The sample comprised retail consumers from Delhi and National

Capital Region. The population was defined as active retail

shoppers where as the sampling frame for the study comprised

consumers from retail market. The sample consisted of 710 retail

shoppers in a mall intercept- type situation. A little over half

of the respondents (53%) were male. Respondents were mostly

between the ages of 22 and 50 (72%). Sixty-five percent of the

respondents were married. Almost seventy per cent of the

10

respondents had at least higher secondary education. Personal

interviews were conducted immediately after the completion of

shopping. Retail shoppers were selected for analysis because they

offer a mix of merchandise and service while individual retail

shops were identified on a convenience-sampling basis. In all,

200 retail stores were selected from Ghaziabad, Noida, Faridabad,

Gurgaon, and Delhi. The whole Delhi was divided into six zones

namely Old Delhi, East Delhi, West Delhi, North Delhi, South

Delhi and Central Delhi. The retail stores varied in their size

from small grocery stores to hypermarkets and were selected

across industries such as food, clothing, consumer durables,

books, music, etc.

Shoppers were selected randomly and interviewed while they waited

in a queue to pay for their goods. Some of them were interviewed

while they were having refreshments after they had finished their

shopping. This allowed for sufficient time to interview them

without interfering with their shopping. The instrument developed

is a questionnaire with 53 questions which employed a 5-point

Likert scale (5-strongly agree to 1-strongly disagree). SPSS 16

11

is used for analyzing data where as AMOS is used to develop the

relationship and the model.

Reliability and Validity of RSECLS (Retail Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty Scale)

Before RSECLS can be used as a measure of shopping experience and

consumer loyalty, it is necessary to assess its reliability and

validity, that is, to ensure that it allows us to obtain accurate

information on the topic. The trustworthiness and stability of an

instrument is determined by its reliability. Reliability refers

to the degree of dependability and stability of a scale (Gatewood

& Field, 1990). It reflects the scales ability to consistently

yield the same responses. Pearson correlation statistic was

applied to determine the strength of association between two

metric variables (Malhotra, 2005). Peterson (1994) writes that

‘there is virtual consensus among researchers that, for a scale

to be valid and possess practical utility, it must be reliable’.

A scale has validity if it is measuring the concept that it is

intended to measure (Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982). The reliability

of the construct is determined by computing the alpha coefficient

of internal consistency (Chronbach, 1951). Nunnally & Bernstein12

(1994) stresses the importance of Chronbach’s coefficient alpha,

because it provides actual estimates of reliability. Further,

Peterson (1994) states the Nunnally recommendations in 1967 that

‘the minimally acceptable reliability for primary research should

be in the range of 0.5 to 0.6, whereas in 1978, he increased the

recommended level to 0.7. Armstrong & Folley (2003) suggest that

‘the closer Chronbach’s coefficient alpha is to 1.0, then, the

more reliable the scale is. Garson (1998) and Lindquist et al.

(2001) say that in general, Chronbach’s coefficient alpha value

of 0.6 is considered acceptable for the exploratory purposes, 0.7

is considered adequate, and 0.8 good for confirmatory purposes.

It is also worth mentioning here that an alpha coefficient of 0.6

and above is considered to be good for research in social

sciences (Chronbach, 1990).

The reliability estimates based on the actual data collected isshown as under.

Table 2: Overall Cronbach’s alpha Scale value = 0.961

Dimension No.

Factors / Dimensions

No of items

Cronbach’s alphas value

Dimension No.

Factors / Dimensions

No of items

Cronbach’s alphas value

D1 Engagement 3 0.781 D6 FrequentBuyer

2 0.654

13

ProgramD2 Expediting 5 0.899 D7 Shopping

Motive3 0.527

D3 ProblemRecovery

3 0.930 D8 StoreFacilities

10 0.851

D4 ExecutionalExcellence

6 0.964 D9 ProductAttributes

6 0.810

D5 BrandExperience

8 0.937 D10 StoreAttributes

2 0.517

As the RSEACLS has 47 main items and 5 demographic variables,

[based on Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz’s (1996) proposed

dimensions] and the reliability of each dimensions was tested.

These variables are further groped into 10 dimensions using

factor analysis. The reliability results suggest that out of 10

dimensions, three dimensions have α value less than 0.7(Table 1).

These dimensions are D6, D7 and D10.

Factor Analysis

In order to develop structure for consumer loyalty for Indian

retail stores, an exploratory factor analysis on all 47 items was

performed. This was performed for the factor structure (Zhao, Bai

and Hui, 2002) using the principal components factoring method

and varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. The results of

the factor analysis indicates that the 47 items do not match the

five-factor structure as described by Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz

14

(1996), In fact, the analysis obtained gives a ten-factor

structure. Also, the factors did not load according to the

factor structure given by Dabholkar (1996). For example, the

third statement on physical aspects does not load on the same

factor as the other five statements on physical aspects. Items in

different dimensions have become mixed and many items have a high

loading for a number of factors. Other rotation methods such as

Equamax rotation with Kaiser Normalization also failed to improve

the factors loading and factor structure. The results indicate

that the customer perceptions scores do not support the five

dimensions of service quality as proposed by Dabholkar, Thorpe

and Rentz (1996). Overall, the analysis gave ten dimensions

instead of the proposed five-factor structure to measure the

Retail Consumer Loyalty in Indian scenario.

Data Analysis and Results

In order to test the reliability of the overall instrument,

Cronbach’s coefficient α was computed reliability coefficients

are shown in Table1. The results show that the overall

reliability of the instrument is satisfactory with α value of

15

0.9626. As the instrument has 47main items and 5 demographic

items, therefore it was divided into 29 variables (based on

Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz’s (1996) proposed dimensions) and the

reliability of each variable was tested. These 29 variables are

further grouped into ten dimensions using factor analysis. The

reliability results suggest that out of ten dimensions three

dimensions have α value less than 0.7 shown in table 2. These are

frequent buyer program, shopping motive and store attributes.

Measurement Model

Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) was used to assess the

overall model with goodness-of fit measures. The recommended

level and calculation of measures are listed in Table 4. As shown

in Table 4 the overall model fit indices show that all goodness-

of-fit measures are within acceptable levels. After the overall

model was accepted, each of the constructs was evaluated

separately by examining the indicator loadings for statistical

significance (Hair et al., 1998).

Hair et al. (1998) suggested that all standardised factor loadings

should reach a significance level of over 0.6. The results of the16

analysis show that all standardised factor loadings are over 0.6

and significant at the p = 0.01 level. With overall model

accepted, each of the dimensions was evaluated separately for

construct reliability (dimension wise) and variance extracted.

Hair et al. (1998). The result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

(CFA) shows model fit (Table: 4)

Table: 4 Model fit for RSECLSS.No.

Parameters

RecommendedValue

ObservedValue

S.No.

Parameters

RecommendedValue

ObservedValue

1 RMSEA <0.08 0.035 7 x2 >0.05 1812 NFI >0.90 0.99 8 P - 03 RMSR <0.05 0.036 9 CMIN/df 2.5 – 4.5 1.7234 SRMSR <0.05 0.0438 10 CFI >0.90 0.975

5 GFI >=0.90 0.928 11 PNFINo threshold levels

0.751

6 AGFI >0.90 0.904 12 NNFI >=0.95 0.965Source: Hair et al. (2006), Arbuckle (2003), Byrne (2001) and Kline (1998)

CONCLUSION

The five-factor structure of service quality developed by

Dabholkar, Thorpe and Rentz (1996) indeed had a major impact on

the business and academic communities. Although this study shows

17

that the data collected do not support their five-factor

structure, the five dimensions are still useful as a foundation

for discussion and determination of areas for improvement in the

service quality of retail stores.

Sureshchander, Rajendran and Kamalnaban (2001) raised the

question of whether service quality scales such as SERVQUAL and

SERVPERF address the ‘critical aspects of customer perceived

service quality’ in India. This study lends further credence to

their argument indicating a high need for basic research into the

Indian retail consumer perceptions of service quality. The

validity and reliability of RSQS in the Indian retail setting

indicate that RSQS can be used to assess the overall service

levels provided by the store and for tracking changes in the

overall service levels over a period of time. However, RSQS would

help identify only three service areas for focus a relatively

clear dimension of ‘Physical Aspects,’ a slightly hazy ‘Problem

Solving’ area, and one confusing generic dimension of ‘Store

Policy.’ Even the six sub-dimensions are highly collinear not

just within the same dimension but even across different

18

dimensions adding to the haziness of dimensions. This severely

restricts the usefulness of the scale as a diagnostic tool for

providing strategic direction.

Retailers wanting greater clarity in identifying service areas

for improvement will be disappointed with the RSQS’s dimensions.

So retailers and researchers applying multi-dimensional service

quality scales developed internationally such as RSQS in the

Indian context are advised to pay special attention to scale

adaptation to ensure that the scale has reliable diagnostic

ability further they can improve their research by applying

RSECLS. International retailers planning a foray into India would

require RSECLS to understand consumers from countries like India.

This study developed a scale & a model which is a tool for

knowing retail consumers. As retailing in India is a recent

phenomenon retail stores in India will have to improve the

Reliability factor of their services significantly in order to

compete. The importance of this research is immense as retailers

want to penetrate in Indian market and the need to know as to how

customers evaluate services and what can be done to measure and19

improve it. Further research in retail would soon be in great

demand and would be contributing to retail development in India.

Table 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Component1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

S1 .766

S2 .641

S3 .545

S4 .682

S5 .830

S6 .641

S7 .728

S8 .763

S9 .853

S10 .869

S11 .848

S12 .730

S13 .827

S14 .783

20

ComponentS15 .79

6S16 .60

6S17 .83

3S18 .79

6S19 .87

9S20 .83

6S21 .89

3S22 .79

8S23 .80

7S24 .74

9S25 .76

8S26 .71

4S27 .73

3S28 .05

8S29 .57

4S30 .63

7S31 .71

3S32 .79

0S33 .52

8S34 .76

0

21

ComponentS35 .56

4S36 .77

4S37 .88

9S38 .69

4S39 .77

4S40 .83

7S41 .42

4S42 .58

0S43 .54

6S44 .85

0S45 .63

1S46 .58

0S47 .66

3S48 .51

4Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.Rotation converged in 12 iterations, KMO Measure 0.875, Total Varianceexplained 71.93%

22

Fig 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis

23

.37D1

.25D2

2.08D3

1.12D4

.59D5

s7

.531

1.00

1s8

.3721

s31

2.083

.83

1

s38.77

23

1.00

1s12

1.3724

1.291s36

.9025 1.121

s10.39

26 1.321s9

.8927

.96

1

s37.59

201.00

1

s23.80

21 .891

s11.98

22 .621

s26.825

1.00

1s25.656

1.41

1s24.637

1.27

1s301.158

.32

1s33.889

1.27

1s181.3010

.42

1s211.0311

.35

1

s20

.7912

s191.1413

.46

1

s22.60

14

1.00

1s17

1.8115

.671s15

.6916

1.221s27

.8417 .991

s14.75

18 1.071s13

1.0119

.66

1

2.44D6

s32

.2841

1.00 1.60D7

2.65D8

.85D9

.25D10

s3

.3148

1.001s4

.5347

.891s1

1.4046

.451

s46.47

45

1.00

1

s47.60

44

.97

1

s48.83

43.84

1

s34.64

42.901

s401.39

41.40 1

s451.10

40.69 1

s16.79

39

.831

s51.09

38

.03

1

s61.00

37

.02

1

s21.53

36

.60

1

s42.28

351.00

1

s43.17

34.89

1

s44.34

33.79 1

s41.80

32.85 1

s35.65

31

.821

s39.70

30

.51

1

s291.33291s28.71

28

1.31

1

.21

.22

.29

.26

.26 .16

.15

.12

.20.34

.25 .17

.15

.19

.08

.23

1.40 1.02

.22

.23

2.17

.62

2.07

.82

.20

.15

1.51

.49

1.36

.18

.16

.99

.43

.91

.42

.04

.39

.09

-.05

.60

.05

.53

2.26

.57

CFA

1.11

1.17

1.00

.22

Fig 1

24

Proposed Structure of Retail Shopping Experience and ConsumerLoyalty Scale (RSECLS)

CO NSUMER LO YALTY

EXECUTIONAL EXCELLANSHO PPING

EXPERIENCE

ENGAGEM ENT

EXPEDITING

PROBLEMRECOVERY

BRANDEXPERIENCE

FREQUENTBUYER

PROGRAM

SHOPPINGM OTIVE

STOREFACILITIES

PRODUCTATTRIBUTE

STOREATTRIBUTE

S7S8S31

S9S10S36S12S38

S11S23

S13S14S27S15S17S22S19S21S18S33S30S24S25

S32

S3S4S1S46S47S48S34S40S45S16S5S6S2S42S43S44S41S35S39

S28S29

S37

S26

S20

25

Appendix 1Factor structure for Retail Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty

Scale (RSECLS)

S No RCECLSDimensions Sub Dimensions Items of questionnaire Mean

Std.Deviatio

n

1 Engagement Helpfulness Employees in this store give prompt service to you 2.91 0.951

2 Engagement Acknowledging & Listening

Employees in this store have the knowledge to answer your questions 2.61 0.938

3 Engagement Place to Enjoy The store is a good place for window shopping 2.91 1.529

4 Expediting Shopping Time Employees are Sensitive to checkout times 2.55 1.062

5 Expediting Shopping TimeEmployees are proactive in helping speedup the process of clearance and delivery

2.53 0.91

6 Expediting Shopping Time billing process is quick 3.2 1.102

7 Expediting Sore service quality

you receive prompt service when you shop at this retailer 2.95 1.01

8 Expediting Sore service quality

Employees are willing to go out of their way to help you 2.87 1.337

9 Problem recovery Complain HandlingEmployees in this store are able to handle your complaints directly and immediately

2.58 1.34

10 Problem recovery Returns and exchange

This store willingly handles returns and exchanges 2.58 1.572

11 Problem recovery Returns and exchange

Returns and exchange terms and conditionsare clearly mentioned 2.72 1.636

12 Executional Excellence

Shopping Convenience

The store layout makes it easy for you tofind what they need 2.59 1.228



The store layout makes it easy for you tomove around in the store 2.48 1.431



This store provides plenty of convenient parking for you 2.53 1.395

15 Executional Excellence Physical Aspects This store has modern-looking equipment

and fixtures 2.6 1.532

16 Executional Excellence Physical Aspects

The physical facilities at this store arevisually appealing( Checkout Counters, Shelves,)

2.44 1.31

17 Executional Excellence Physical Aspects Store has attractive product and

promotional display 3.12 1.523

18 Brand Experience Reliability Store products are free from defects and Haws 2.99 1.052

19 Brand Experience Reliability When this store promises to do something by a certain time, it will do so 2.79 1.124

20 Brand Experience Transactions This store insists on error-free sales transactions and records 3.12 1.187

21 Brand Experience Merchandise

Materials associated with this store’s service (such as shopping bags, catalogues or statements) are visually appealing

2.88 1.357

22 Brand Experience Product VarietyThe store offers a variety of brand namesthat are available in many different sizes

2.99 1.103

26

23 Brand Experience Store Appearance This store has modern-looking equipment and fixtures 2.43 1.26

24 Brand Experience Store Appearance Building is attractive 2.45 1.356

25 Brand Experience Store AppearanceThis store surroundings are clean, attractive, and convenient public areas (e.g., rest rooms)

2.59 1.192

26 Frequent Buyer program Loyalty programs The store has frequent buyer program 2.77 1.651

27 Frequent Buyer program Loyalty programs This store has merchandise available when

the you want it 2.69 0.903

28 Shopping Motives ExploringYou go out for shopping to bargain with the retailer about the price of the product.

3.84 1.385

29 Shopping Motives Exploring You go out for shopping to find a varietyof product in the market. 3.75 1.342

30 Shopping Motives Necessicity You go out for shopping to fulfill your household responsibilities. 4 1.312

31 Store Facilities Separate Kids Play area The store has separate Kids Play area. 3.1 1.767

32 Store Facilities Movie theater The store has good Movie theater 3.17 1.7633 Store Facilities Food Court The store has food court 3.12 1.651

34 Store Facilities Uniqueness of assortment

This store has clean, attractive, and convenient public areas (e.g., rest rooms)

2.74 1.615


the prices at this store always at sidcount 2.93 1.349


Merchandise at this store are always withsome scheam 2.95 1.67


The products available here are not available anywhere else? 2.84 1.536

38 Store Facilities Personal attention This store gives you individual attention 3.28 1.045

39 Store Facilities Courteous Employees in this store are consistently courteous with you 3.3 1.001

40 Store Facilities Enjoyment You go out for shopping just to get out of house. 3.16 1.582

41 Product Attributes Store Brand Image Will you recommend this store to your

friends? 3.69 1.065

42 Product Attributes Store Brand Image Do you frequently visit this store? 3.8 0.915

43 Product Attributes Store Brand Image When you leave the store , you usually

feel that I had a good experience. 3.6 0.937

44 Product Attributes Product price In general the prices are low 3.65 1.192

45 Product Attributes Product price Prices at the store offer value for money 3.9 1.108

46 Product Attributes Product quality This retailers merchandise always meets

your quality standards 3.13 0.959

47 Store Attributes Store Convenience This store has operating hours convenientfor you 4.07 1.064

48 Store Attributes Store Location Location of store is convenient to you 3.41 1.254

References:

27

Angur, M G; Nataraajan, R and Jahera, J S (1999). “ServiceQuality in the Banking Industry: An Assessment in a DevelopingEconomy,” International Journal of Bank Marketing, 17 (3), 116-123.

Anona Armstrong, Patrick Foley, (2003) "Foundations for alearning organization: organization learning mechanisms",Learning Organization, The, Vol. 10 Iss: 2, pp.74 – 82

Bagozzi, R. P. and Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing andTesting Organizational Theories: ABerry, Leonard L (1986). “Retail Businesses are Service Businesses,”Journal of Retailing, 62(1), 3-6.

Boshoff, Christo and Terblanche, Nic S (1997). “Measuring RetailService Quality: A Replication Study,” South African Journal ofBusiness Management, 28(4), 123-128.

Boshoff, Christo and Terblanche, Nic S (1997). “Measuring RetailService Quality: A Replication Study,” South African Journal of BusinessManagement, 28 (4), 123-128.

Carman, J M (1990). “Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: AnAssessment of the SERVQUAL Dimensions,” Journal of Retailing, 66(1),33-55.

Cronbach, L. J. (1991). Coefficient alpha and the internalstructure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334

Cronin, Jr. J J and Taylor, S A (1992). “Measuring Service Quality: AReexamination and Extension,” Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 55-68.

Dabholkar, P A; Thorpe, D I and Rentz, J O (1996). “A Measure ofService Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 3-16.

Dennis L. Duffy, (2005) "The evolution of customer loyaltystrategy", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 Iss: 5,pp.284 – 286

East, R., Gendall, P., Hammond, K., Lomax, W., 2005. Customerloyalty: singular, additive or interactive? AustralasianMarketing Journal 13 (2), 10–26.

East, Robert, Hammond, Kathy and Lomax, Wendy (2008) Measuringthe impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brandpurchase probability. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 25(3), pp. 215-224. ISSN (print) 0167-8116

28

Finn, David W and Lamb, Charles Jr. (1991). “An Evaluation of theSERVQUAL Scales in a Retailing Setting,” Advances in ConsumerResearch, 18 (1), 483-490.

Gagliano, K B and Hathcote, Jan (1994). “Customer Expectationsand Perceptions of Service Quality in Retail Apparel SpecialtyStores,” Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (1), 60-69.

Gagliano, K B and Hathcote, Jan (1994). “Customer Expectationsand Perceptions of Service Quality in Retail Apparel SpecialtyStores,” Journal of Services Marketing, 8 (1), 60-69.

Gatewood, R. and H. Field, 1990. Human Resource Selection. 2ndEdn., The Dryden Press, New York. (Sekaran, Research Methodsfor Business: A skill building approach. 3rd. ed. John Wiley &Son. New York. pp.10-14).

Herbig, Paul and Genestre, Alain (1996). “An Examination of theCross Cultural Differences in Service Quality: The Example ofMexico and the USA,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13 (3), 43-53

Holistic Construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27 (3),459-489.Howard E. (2007), New Shopping Centres: Is Leisure the Answer? ,

International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 8,pp 661-672

Howard E., Reynolds J., Cuthburston C. & Hristov L. (2007),Perspectives on Retail Format Innovation, International Journal ofRetail and Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp 647-660

Jain, Sanjay K and Gupta, Garima (2004). “Measuring ServiceQuality: SERVQUAL vs. SERVPERF Scales,” Vikalpa, 29 (2), 25-37.

Jennifer Rowley, (2005) "The four Cs of customer loyalty",Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 Iss: 6, pp.574 – 581

Kau P, Singh. R (2007).Uncovering retail shopping motives of Indianyouth. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers

Kaul, Subhashini, Measuring retail service quality: Examining applicability ofinternational research perspectives in India, IIMA Working Papers, (2005).

Kim, Soyoung and Byoungho, Jin (2002). “Validating the RetailService Quality Scale for US and Korean Customers of DiscountStores: An Exploratory Study,” Journal of Services Marketing, 7 (2),223-237.

29

Lindquist, J., Vida, I., Plank, R., and Fairhurst, A., TheModified CETSCALE: Validity Tests in the Czech Republic,Hungary, and Poland, International Business Review, Vol. 10, pp. 505-516, 2001.

Lunt, P.K. and Livingstone, S.M. (1992), Mass Consumption andPersonal Identity, Open University Press, Buckingham in Dholakia R.R.(1999), Going Shopping: Key Determinants of Shopping Behavioursand Motivations, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,Vol. 27 No. 4, pp 154- 165

Mehta, Subhash C; Lalwani, Ashok and Han, Soon Li (2000).“Service Quality in Retailing: Relative Efficiency ofAlternative Measurement Scales for Different Product- ServiceEnvironments,” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28(2), 62-72.

Mittal, Banwari and Lassar, Walfried M (1996). “The Role ofPersonalization in Service Encounters,” Journal of Retailing, 72 (1),95-109.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. NewYork: McGraw-Hill. Garson, G.D. 1998. Reliability analysis.Available at

http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/reliab.htm.Parasuraman, A; Berry, L L and Zeithaml, V A (1991). “Refinement andReassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale,” Journal of Retailing, 67(4),420-450.

Parasuraman, A; Berry, L L and Zeithaml, V A (1991). “Refinement andReassessment of the SERVQUAL Scale,” Journal of Retailing, 67(4),420-450.

Parasuraman, A; Berry, L L and Zeithaml, V A (1993). “Research Note:More on Improving Service Quality Measurement,” Journal of Retailing,69(1), 140-147.

Parasuraman, A; Zeithaml, V A and Berry, L L (1985). “A ConceptualModel of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research,”Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.

Parasuraman, A; Zeithaml, V A and Berry, L L (1988). “SERVQUAL: AMultiple-item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of ServiceQuality,” Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.

Parasuraman, A; Zeithaml, V A and Berry, L L (1994). “Reassessment ofExpectations as a Comparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality:

30

Implications for Further Research,” Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 111-124.

Samy Belaid, Azza Temessek Behi, (2011) "The role of attachmentin building consumer-brand relationships: an empiricalinvestigation in the utilitarian consumption context", Journalof Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 Iss: 1, pp.37 - 47

Sharma, Alka and Mehta, Versha (2004). “Service Quality inFinancial Services – A Case Study of Banking Services,” Journal ofServices Research, 4 (2), 205-222.

Sivadas, Eugene and Baker-Prewitt, Jamie (2000). “An Examinationof the Relationship Between Service Quality, CustomerSatisfaction, and Store Loyalty,” International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, 28 (2), 73-82.

Tauber, E.M. (1972), “Why Do People Shop?”, Journal of Marketing, 36,46-49.Warrington, N.H. (2005). Shopping centre development strategiesfor emerging markets in KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa).Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of South Africa.

Wilhelm, W.B. & Mottner, S. (2005). Teens and shopping mallpreferences: A conjoint analysis approach to understanding thegenerational shift toward an experience economy. Journal of ShoppingCenter Research, 12(1), 23-52.

Witkowski, Terrence H and Wolfinbarger, Mary F(2002).“Comparative Service Quality: German and AmericanRatingsAcross Service Settings,” Journal of Business Research, 55 (11), 875-881.

Wong, Amy and Amrik, Sohal (2003). “Service Quality and CustomerLoyalty Perspectives on Two Levels of Retail Relationships,”Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (5), 495- 513.

Yoo-Kyoung Seock, Chen Lin, (2011) "Cultural influence on loyaltytendency and evaluation of retail store attributes: An analysisof Taiwanese and American consumers", International Journal ofRetail & Distribution Management, Vol. 39 Iss: 2, pp.94 – 113

Biological Notes

1. Adil Zia had received MBA from Jamia Hamdard University New Delhi India. Presentlyhe is pursuing PhD at AMU, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh India. He has one year industry

31

and three years teaching experience along with two years of research work. Hisareas of interest include Consumer Behavior and Marketing Management. Email: [email protected]

2. Mohammad Khalid Azam had received PhD and MBA from Aligarh Muslim University UPIndia. Presently he is Professor at AMU, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh India. He has 29years teaching experience along with 25 years of research work. His areas ofinterest include Finance, Consumer Behavior and Marketing Management. Email:[email protected]

3. Asif Akhtar had received PhD and MBA Aligarh Muslim University UP India. Presentlyhe is Assistant Professor at AMU, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh India. He has one yearindustry and five year teaching experience along with five year of research work.His areas of interest include Islamic Banking and Marketing Management. Email:[email protected]

32

Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty in India A Scale development and Validation

Documents

Transcript of Shopping Experience and Consumer Loyalty in India A Scale development and Validation