Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69

doi:10.1

n Corr

E-m

stoel.1@1 Te2 Te

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

Mall attributes and shopping value: Differences by gender andgenerational cohort

Vanessa Jackson a,n, Leslie Stoel b,1, Aquia Brantley c,2

a University of Kentucky, 318 Erikson Hall, Lexington, KY 40506-0050, USAb The Ohio State University, 265 Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1295, USAc University of Kentucky, Department of Merchandising, Apparel and Textiles, 303 Erikson Hall, Lexington, KY 40506, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Hedonic shopping value

Utilitarian shopping value

Gender

Generational cohort

Mall attributes

Attitude

89/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. A

016/j.jretconser.2010.08.002

esponding author. Tel.: +1 859 257 7776.

ail addresses: vpjackson@pop.uky.edu (V. Jack

osu.edu (L. Stoel), shala.brantley@uky.edu (A

l.: +1 614 688 8594.

l.: +1 859 257 4917.

a b s t r a c t

Shopping value is a two-dimensional concept that captures the hedonic and utilitarian benefits derived

from a consumer visit to a retail store. Extending the concept to the context of a shopping mall provides

a measure of the benefits derived from experiencing a set of mall attributes. A number of studies have

looked at antecedents and outcomes of shopping value for retail stores. But only one study has

examined shopping value in the context of a mall and no studies could be located that examine the

moderating effects of gender and generational cohort on mall attribute importance and shopping value.

The current study investigates the extent to which attitudes toward mall attributes and shopping value

derived from a mall visit differ across gender and generational cohorts. Analysis of survey results show

no differences in hedonic and utilitarian shopping values by generational cohort, but generational

differences in attitude toward mall hygiene factors, locational convenience and entertainment features

did exist. Results also show that females derive greater levels of hedonic shopping value from a trip to

the mall and also show more positive attitudes toward mall hygiene factors and entertainment options

in comparison to males. No difference in utilitarian shopping value and attitude toward locational

convenience were found between males and females.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

A key issue for mall developers is ensuring that each mall intheir portfolio maintains relevance with key target customersegments. Retailers and shopping center developers know thatmall patronage is determined by consumer satisfaction with themall shopping experience (Machleit et al., 2005). Shopping valueis a concept that represents the overall benefits derived from ashopping experience and infers satisfaction with that experience(Michon and Chebat, 2004). Shopping value is a two-dimensionalconcept, reflecting the hedonic and utilitarian benefits of ashopping trip (Babin et al., 1994). Thus, in the context of ashopping center it captures consumer response to a set of mallattributes. By understanding satisfaction with mall attributes andthe shopping value that customers derive from a visit to the mall,developers may learn what features drive customers to return. Inaddition, it would be valuable to understand differences in mallattribute satisfaction and shopping value by customer segment,such as gender or generation.

ll rights reserved.

son),

. Brantley).

A generational cohort refers to a consumer segment thatconsists of individuals who come of age in a particular time periodand therefore have similar life experiences during their formativeyears (Hung et al., 2007). A particular cohort is associated withcertain values and priorities which may persist throughout thelifetimes of its members. Since values and priorities of a particulargenerational cohort are unique relative to other cohorts, wewould expect to see differences in shopping value derived from amall visit, as well as satisfaction with various mall attributesacross various generational cohorts.

Beyond these cohorts, the examination of gender differencesmay be necessary because recent evidence shows men areshopping almost as much as women (Firat, 1993; Othnes andMcGrath, 2001). Yet, research indicates that males and femalesexhibit different shopping attitudes and behaviors (Darley andSmith, 1995; Fischer and Arnold, 1994; Qualls, 1987). As a result,it is likely that gender differences exist in shopping value andsatisfaction with mall attributes.

Mall developers and managers need to know which mallfeatures/attributes are favored by their target customers. Themall attributes that can be controlled by developers includethe physical environment, store/tenant mix, mall employees, mallpromotions and other general characteristics of the mall atmo-sphere. In addition, understanding the shopping value resultingfrom a trip to the mall can help mall owners understand whether

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–92

or not their customers had a positive shopping experience.A number of studies have looked at antecedents and outcomesof shopping value for retail stores (Babin et al., 1994, 2007; Jones,et al., 2006; Babin and Attaway, 2000; Jones et al., 2006). But onlyone study has examined shopping value in the context of a mall(Stoel et al., 2004) and no studies could be located that examinethe moderating effects of gender and generational cohort on mallattribute importance and shopping value. Therefore, the purposeof this study is to examine the extent to which attitude towardmall attributes and shopping value derived from a mall visit differacross gender and generational cohorts.

This research makes an important contribution to theliterature on shopping value since it is only the second study toextend application of the construct to the mall context. Theconcept of shopping value appears to be robust enough to apply tothe broader context of the mall experience. The current study alsocontributes to the shopping value literature an examination ofdifference variables, as called for by Jones et al. (2006). Theexamination of satisfaction with mall attributes and shoppingvalue by generational cohort and gender provide mall developerswith important information about differences in preferences andfelt experiences across these unique target segments. Mallrenovations and refinements in mall strategies could benefit bytaking relevant customer segment differences into account.

2. Literature review

2.1. Consumer socialization and cohort theory

A model of consumer socialization (Moschis and Churchill,1978) and cohort theory (Ryder, 1965) were used as theoreticalfoundations for this study to support differences in shoppingvalue and mall attribute importance based on gender andgenerational cohort. The premise of the consumer socializationmodel is that consumer behavior involves interactions betweenthe individual and various agents in specific social settings(Moschis, 1987; Moschis and Churchill, 1978; Ward, 1974).According to researchers, consumer socialization proposes thatsources of influence or ‘‘socialization agents’’ transmit the norms,attitudes, motivations and behaviors of the society to the learneror receiver of the influence (Moschis, 1987; Moschis andChurchill, 1978; Ward, 1974). According to the cohort theoryliterature, consumers’ common experiences with macro-levelsocial, political and economic events that occur during the pre-adult years (Egri and Ralsston, 2004; Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss andHowe, 1991) can translate into segments of consumers with adistinctive set of values, beliefs, expectations and behaviors. Thesevalues, beliefs, expectations and behaviors remain constantthroughout a generation’s lifetime and create generationalidentity (Egri and Ralsston, 2004; Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss andHowe, 1991; Hung et al., 2007). The model of consumersocialization and cohort theory support differences in attitudes,norms and behaviors across different social groups, such asgender groups or generational groups. Therefore, together theseframeworks provide the logic to support the idea that differencesin preferences for mall attributes and in shopping value derivedfrom a trip to the mall vary across different social groups.

2.2. Generational cohorts

A generational cohort refers to a consum-er segment that uses anindividual’s coming-of-age year as a proxy to postulate his or hervalue priorities developed through life experiences during his or herformative years, which may persist throughout that person’s lifetime

(Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss and Howe, 1991; Thau and Heflin, 1997;Morgan and Levy, 2002; Mitchell, 2003). Rogler (2002) postulatedthese life experiences may include cataclysmic events, the formationof a person’s value systems during their pre-adult years, andconsolidation of orientations that include values and goals, assupported by his or her peers, that persist throughout his or her life(Egri and Ralsston, 2004; Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss and Howe, 1991;Thau and Heflin, 1997). According to some researchers, cohortsegmentation provides both the stability that age segmentationoffers (Steenkamp and Hofstede, 2002) and the insights intoconsumer motivations that value segmentation offers (Morgan andLevy, 2002; Mitchell, 2003).

Generational cohort is one type of national subculture thatreflects the value priorities emphasized during a country’sparticular historical period (Egri and Ralsston, 2004). Accordingto researchers, macro-level social, political and economic eventsthat occur during the pre-adult years of a cohort result in agenerational identity comprising a distinctive set of values,beliefs, expectations and behaviors (Egri and Ralsston, 2004;Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss and Howe, 1991). These values, beliefs,expectations and behaviors remain constant throughout a gen-eration’s lifetime (Egri and Ralsston, 2004; Hung et al., 2007;Ingelhart, 1997; Strauss and Howe, 1991). Four major cohortsexist in the United States. Builders were born between 1920 and1945; Baby Boomers between 1946 and 1964; Generation Xmembers were born between 1965 and 1980 and Generation Ybetween 1981 and 1995 (Yan, 2006).

The Builder Generation, also known as Traditionalists, livedduring World War II. The members of this generation areconsidered to be stable, detailed-oriented, thorough, loyal andhard-working people (MBC Global, 2008). Baby Boomers havebeen described as individualistic, competitive free agents withstrong interests in self-fulfillment through personal growth(Parker and Chusmir, 1990). They have lived through and activelyparticipated in political and social transformations such as theCivil Rights Movement and the Sexual Revolution and mostlylikely fought in the Vietnam War (Lehto et al., 2008). This grouphas demonstrated a strong work ethic and high job involvement,which has led to economic security and career success.

Generation X is one of the most highly educated generations.Factors that drive Generation X behavior are their earlydisillusionment with cultural icons, ongoing preoccupation withthe Internet and their seemingly infinite ability to simplify,streamline and enrich the activities and relationships of theirdaily lives (Packaged Facts, 2006). Generation Y is often typified asbeing highly consumption oriented and sophisticated in terms oftastes and shopping preferences (Holtshausen and Styrdom, 2006;Wolburg and Pokrywczynski, 2001). This group has had aprofound impact on retail businesses because Gen Y memberslove to shop (Taylor and Cosenza, 2002). And research shows thatfor members of Generation Y, social motivation predicts percep-tions of atmospheric qualities of a shopping environment,perceptions of excitement at a mall and intention to return to amall in the future (Martin and Turley, 2004).

2.3. Gender cohorts

Previous research shows that males and females exhibitdifferent shopping attitudes and behaviors (Darley and Smith,1995; Fischer and Arnold, 1994; Qualls, 1987). Males and femalesdiffer in many aspects of consumption, product choice andresponse to advertising and product positioning (Zeithaml,1988). Females are also more involved in the purchasingsequence, seek information more actively before making pur-chases, and spend more time in stores than males do (Fischer and

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–9 3

Arnold, 1994). Married men’s involvement in shopping may bedependent on the wife’s work status, with husbands of workingwomen being more involved in shopping (Dholakia et al., 1994).

Research has shown that gender is a predictor of shoppingactivities while on vacation, with females more likely than malesto engage in shopping and browsing (Oh et al., 2004), and femalesmore likely than males to spend more and to prefer differentitems as souvenirs than males (Lehto et al., 2004). Cleveland et al.(2003) show that when shopping for holiday gifts, females makegreater use than males of product-specific and environmentalsources of information, whereas males make greater use ofsalesperson assistance.

2.4. Shopping value

Consumers sometimes want to gain value from their shoppingexperience which goes beyond functional utility and task orientation(Bloch et al., 1986). Shopping provides experiential benefits andgratifications (Holbrook and Corfman, 1985). Zeithaml (1988)reviewed the literature on the common use of the term value. Theresearcher reports that ‘‘value’’ is equated with price, and that its keyrole can be an exchange between costs and benefits. Zeithaml (1988)further defines value as ‘‘what I get for what I give.’’ Kim (2002)reports that value is a multidimensional construct that involves atrade-off between what the consumer receives (e.g., quality, benefits)and what he or she has to give up (e.g., price, sacrifice) in theconsumption experience. Value is defined as all factors, qualitativeand quantitative, subjective and objective, that make up the completeshopping experience (Babin et al., 1994; Schechter, 1984;Zeithaml, 1988). This suggests that value is provided by the ‘‘completeshopping experience,’’ not simply by product acquisition (Babin et al.,1994).

Babin et al. (1994) suggest that perceived shopping value isoperationalized as two dimensions that indicate an assessment ofthe overall worth of shopping activity in terms of utilitarian andhedonic shopping value. According to Babin and Attaway (2000),utilitarian value reflects task-related worth, and hedonic valuereflects worth found in the shopping experience itself, aside fromtask-related motives. Some studies describe ‘‘shopping as work’’(Fischer and Arnold, 1990; Sherry et al., 1993). Still others describe‘‘shopping as fun’’ (Bloch and Bruce, 1984; Sherry et al., 1993).

Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value have both been shownto be correlated with satisfaction (Babin et al., 1994, 2007;Jones et al., 2006) and consumers’ consistent, repeat purchasebehavior (Babin and Attaway, 2000). Jones et al. (2006) examinedinteractions between shopping value and satisfaction. Theyfound that critical outcome variables, such as satisfactionwith the retailer, word of mouth and repatronage anticipation,are influenced more by non-product-related and hedonic aspectsof shopping than by utilitarian aspects. Babin et al. (2007)found that in a gift shopping context, utilitarian value andhedonic shopping value are both positively related to customersatisfaction.

2.5. Generational cohort and shopping value

Littrell et al. (1995) reported that generational cohorts differ intheir utilitarian approach to shopping. Generation X places lessemphasis on a utilitarian approach to shopping, whereas theswing group members, who are later year Builders born between1930 and 1945, place greater emphasis on value, sales andplanning when they shop. The researchers also found that allgenerational cohorts place some importance on retail venuevariables, such as service and selection.

2.6. Gender cohort and shopping value

Chang et al. (2004) found that the role of hedonic shoppingvalue in shopping experience satisfaction differs between malesand females. For females, hedonic shopping value mediates therelationship between the antecedents, such as involvement,variety-seeking tendency and physical store environment, andoverall shopping satisfaction, whereas for males, there is nomediation. Carpenter and Moore (2009) found that regardlessof the type of store females perceive significantly higher levels ofhedonic shopping value, as compared to males. Research hasfound males to be lower than females in task orientation(Kavussanu and Roberts, 2001), suggesting that the utilitarianshopping value may be lower for males.

2.7. Attitude toward mall attributes

A number of studies have sought antecedents to a consumer’sdecision to visit a store or shopping mall. Several variables haveemerged as antecedents to repatronage intention, such asaffective state of shoppers (Baker et al., 1992), mood state ofshoppers (Shim et al., 2000), the match between shoppers’ self-concept and their attitude toward the store (Sirgy et al., 2000),type of store (Babin and Babin, 2001), perception and riskassociated with a particular store (Hawes and Lumpkin, 1986),mall atmospherics (Langrehr, 1991), mall shopping frequency(Roy, 1994), mall image (Finn and Louviere, 1996), mallbrowsing behavior (Jarboe and McDaniel, 1987), location choiceswithin a mall (Ghosh, 1986) and income of consumers (Allardet al., 2009).

Managers and retailers acknowledge the positive impact ofretail atmospherics on shopping behavior (Chebat and Michon,2003; Stoel et al., 2004). Chebat et al., (2009) report that ashopper’s commitment to a given mall is the basis on whichloyalty develops. The researchers also reported that shoppers’commitment to a given mall due to a resistance to changetendency depends on the extent to which (1) they are positivelyaware of the mall characteristics, and (2) they experience self-congruity, which is in turn related to shopper’s perceptions andevaluations of mall image dimensions.

Research has also suggested that the decision to use a mallmay stem from distance and travel time, size of shopping area,characteristics of the shopping area and the cost of shopping tothe consumer (Craig et al., 1984; Talpade and Haynes, 1997).Some studies have found that the choice of a shopping center isdependent on convenience and economic attributes, such asaccessibility, the presence of services (e.g., banks and restaurants)and recreational attributes (e.g., fashionability, variety of stores)(Dawson et al., 1990). Other studies also examined recreationalattributes, such as atmosphere (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982), theimportance of pleasure in a shopping experience (Dawson et al.,1990) and the social aspects of mall shopping (Jarboe andMcDaniel, 1987). One study found that satisfaction with storeenvironment, a key indicator of future patronage, was a directresult of behavior and mood (Babin and Darden, 1995; Fiore andOgle, 2000). Fiore and Ogle (2000) argue that formal, expressiveand symbolic qualities of store environments communicatevarious messages to consumers about both aesthetics andinstrumental value. Baker et al. (1994) report that environmentmay influence consumer inferences about merchandise, servicequality and store image. Chebat and Michon (2003) suggest thatthe mood of a consumer can be influenced by the shopper’sperception of a retail environment.

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–94

2.8. Generational cohort and mall attributes

According to Phillips and Sternthal (1977), people fromdifferent generations experience differences in environmentalstimuli. These differences might be relevant to their evaluation ofshopping centers/malls atmosphere (Anselmsson, 2006). Specificmall attributes have been reported to be favored by variousgenerations. Convenience has been reported to be more importantto older generations (Barnes and Peters, 1982). Parking, traffic andhours of operation are also more important to older consumers asevaluative criteria in shopping center patronage (Gentry andBurns, 1977). Older people rely more on sales people thanyounger people do (Lumpkin and Greenberg, 1982). Phillips andSternthal (1977) reported that older people tend to be more pricesensitive than other consumer segments. Younger segments areconsidered to be window browsers and window shoppers (Jarboeand McDaniel, 1987). And, teenagers use the mall as a place tohang out, meet friends or to make new ones (Shopping CenterAge, 1994).

2.9. Gender cohort and mall attributes

Whereas some research has examined the shopping attitudesand behaviors of males (Lee et al., 2005; Underhill, 1999, 2004)and of females (Michon et al., 2007), a number of studies havedirectly compared male and female shopping attitudes andbehaviors. Lim et al. (2007) found empirical evidence that malesand females evaluate attributes of value-oriented retailersdifferently and these differences carry over to the evaluation ofstore type within the value-oriented retailer category. Raajpootet al. (2008) found few differences in antecedents to mallpatronage between males and females, with males placing greaterimportance than females on employee assistance, and femalesplacing greater emphasis than males on product assortment at themall and convenient access.

Based on the literature reviewed above, we propose thefollowing hypotheses:

H1.

Shopping value will differ by generational cohort. H2. Shopping value will differ by gender cohort. H3. Attitude toward mall attributes will differ by generational

cohort.

H4. Attitude toward mall attributes will differ by gender

cohort.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Data collection and sample

After receiving Institutional Review Board approval for theresearch, data were collected by paid survey professionals at aregional shopping mall in a Midwestern metropolitan area of theUS Professionals were used to decrease the potential for responsebias due to negative participant perceptions of interviewers(Gates and Solomon, 1982). An intercept technique was used toavoid decay that occurs in emotional concepts such as attitudeand shopping value felt as a result of the shopping experience(McIntyre and Bender, 1986). Because shopping value is anoutcome of the shopping experience, shoppers were interceptedas they exited the mall.

Those who agreed were seated at a table provided by the mallfor data collection and presented with the paper-and-pencilsurvey. Large font (size 12 for questions and size 14 for headings)was used with plenty of white space so the survey would be easy

to read for all age groups (Dillman, 2000). As a result of the fontand white space, the survey was five pages, but was completed inabout 10 min by most respondents. Quick completion time helpsdecrease non-response (Gates and Solomon, 1982). Also, a couponfor a free drink was provided to all participants to help boostresponse rate. A member of the survey team was available toanswer participant questions, however to avoid feelings of socialpressure (Gates and Solomon, 1982), the participants completedthe surveys on their own.

The data were collected at a large, in-door regional malltargeting middle-income shoppers. The mall was one of theoriginal malls in the metropolitan area, built in 1980 and wasupdated in the late 1990s. Retail tenants in the mall of interestincluded a regional department store, a national discount store,several service providers (e.g. eye care facility, styling salon,dentist), and an assortment of moderate and budget-pricednational chain specialty stores. The mall also contained a movietheatre, an old-style carousel for the children, a large food-courtand a game area frequented by teens. Shortly after the update, anupscale, fashion-oriented mall was built directly across the street.Thus, while a polarization in target customer segments based onincome was evident for the specialty stores, the national discountstore did attract a very diverse customer base that includedshoppers who patronized the fashion mall.

Over a seven-day period, the survey was administered during awide variety of hours every day, to ensure coverage of morning,afternoon and evening shoppers on both weekdays and weekends(Sudman, 1980). At least two members of the survey team werepositioned at each of the three entrances to the parking lots at alltimes during data collection, with a larger group positioned at themain entrance. A systematic quota sampling routine was followedto obtain both males and females in each of the four generationalcohorts: Builders, Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y. Inaddition to questions measuring the concepts of interest de-scribed below, demographic information was collected to enablethe researchers to classify respondents by gender and genera-tional cohort and to describe the sample.

The intercepts produced a total of 262 usable surveys. Theaverage respondent was 31 years old and a high school graduateearning $25,000–$35,000 per year at a full-time job. Males madeup 48% of the sample. By generation, Builders accounted for about13% of the sample; Boomers, 22%; Generation X, 26% andGeneration Y, 39%. In comparison to the US Census region forthe mall’s metropolitan area, the sample was similar in gendermix, but was younger (in particular, more Gen Y and fewerBuilders), more educated, more likely to have never been married,more likely to be employed, and had a slightly higher income levelthan residents of the census region (see Table 1). The sample wassomewhat closer to the US population on these characteristicsthan it was to the local Census region.

To check for the possible presence of non-response bias, wecompared weekday (early) respondents to weekend (late)respondents using independent sample t-tests on the variablesof interest for this study. No differences were found, suggestingthat non-response bias for these mall shoppers was not aproblem.

4. Measures

4.1. Shopping value

Babin et al. (1994) developed a scale to measure shoppingvalue, the result of an assessment by shoppers of a just-completedshopping experience. Shopping value consists of two dimensions:hedonic and utilitarian. Hedonic value relates to benefits derived

Table 1Demographic characteristics for US, census area and survey sample.

US Census area Samplea

Gender

Males 49.1 47.3 47.7

Females 50.9 52.7 50.4

Generational cohort

Gen Y 9.32 8.67 39.00

Gen X 27.13 28.20 25.87

Baby Boomers 38.18 37.01 22.39

Builders 25.37 26.12 12.74

Median age (years) 35 years 35 years 23 years

Educational attainment (25 years and older)

High school graduate or higher 80.4 76.1 92.4

Bachelor’s degree or higher 24.4 21.3 33.4

Marital status (15 years and older)

Never married 27.7 35.2 43.3

Married 55.6 38.5 35.8

Widowed 6.8 8.9 2.0

Divorced 10.0 14.3 7.5

Employment status (16 years and older)

In labor force 63.9 60.8 66.2

Household income

Less than $10,000 9.5 17.5 7.3

$10,000–$14,000 6.3 9.4 8.1

$15,000–$24,999 12.9 17.0 4.4

$25,000–$34,999 12.8 14.6 19.9

$35,000–$49,999 16.6 15.9 21.3

$50,000–$74,999 19.4 13.7 24.3

$75,000–$99,999 10.2 6.0 10.3

$100,000 or more 12.3 6.0 4.4

Median range (dollars) $35,000–$49,999 $25,000–$34,999 $35,000–$49,999

All numbers expressed as percentages unless stated otherwise. N¼262.

a Some sample categories do not sum to 100 due to missing data.

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–9 5

from purchase- or experience-based emotions felt during theshopping trip and is measured by eleven items such as ‘‘shoppinghere today was truly a joy’’ and ‘‘while shopping I enjoyed beingimmersed in exciting new products.’’ Utilitarian value relates tobenefits felt from accomplishing specific tasks or goals whileshopping and includes four statements such as ‘‘I accomplishedjust what I wanted while in the mall’’ and ‘‘I feel disappointedbecause I’ll have to go to another mall to complete my shopping.’’The response scale was a 5-point Likert scale (5¼strongly agree).Reliability for the hedonic value scale has frequently beenreported in excess of 0.90 (Babin and Darden, 1995; Babin et al.,1994; Jones et al., 2006; Stoel et al., 2004). Reliability for theutilitarian scale has been reported at lower levels, ranging from0.63 to 0.96 (Babin and Darden, 1995; Babin et al., 1994; Joneset al., 2006; Stoel et al., 2004). The present study showed aCronbach alpha of 0.90 and 0.63 for hedonic and utilitarian value,respectively. For hypothesis testing, the mean for the elevenhedonic items was calculated for each respondent and served asthe hedonic shopping value variable in the MANOVA. Likewise,the mean of the four utilitarian items was calculated for eachrespondent and used as the utilitarian shopping value variable forhypothesis testing.

4.2. Attitude toward mall attributes

To capture respondents’ attitudes toward various characteristicsof the mall, the researchers used the attitude toward attributes of aregional mall scale (Shim and Eastlick, 1998), but modified theanchor points by asking for (1) importance of each item and(2) evaluation of or satisfaction with each item, rather than likelinessas measured by Shim and Eastlick (1998). Using 5-point Likert-type

scales, respondents indicated the importance of eighteen mallattributes were (5¼very important), and their satisfaction witheach attribute (5¼very satisfied). For each pair of items, theimportance score was multiplied by the corresponding evaluationscore to calculate attitude (Fishbein, 1963). Principal componentsanalysis was conducted on the eighteen attitude scores, usingvarimax rotation since the resulting factors will be used insubsequent analysis (Hair et al., 1995). Four items showed no factorloadings greater than 0.40, so were dropped. From the remainingfourteen items, three factors with eigenvalues greater than one wererevealed. Attitude towards mall hygiene factors was represented byseven questions, attitude towards entertainment attributes wasrepresented by three questions, and attitude towards locationalconvenience was represented by four questions. Two factor and fourfactor solutions were examined, but the interpretations were notlogical. Results and reliability information are reported in Table 2.For hypothesis testing, the mean of the seven hygiene attributequestions, the three entertainment questions and the four locationalquestions was calculated for each respondent. These three meansrepresented the three mall attribute dimensions in the MANOVA.

The survey asked for the age of the respondent, and age wasused to calculate the birth year. Using birth year, the generationalcohort was determined, as referenced previously.

5. Analysis and results

A 2 (gender)�4 (generation) between-subjects multivariateanalysis of variance was used to test for differences in thedependent variables: hedonic and utilitarian shopping values andattitude toward mall hygiene factors, locational convenience andentertainment.

Table 2Principal components factor analysis: attitude toward mall attributes.

Mall attributes Hygiene factors Location convenience Entertainment

Safety of mall 0.816 0.086 �0.021

Decor of mall 0.592 0.134 0.200

Courtesy of mall personnel 0.753 0.219 0.088

Cleanliness of mall 0.739 0.262 0.074

Atmosphere of mall 0.558 0.337 0.318

Mall facility is enclosed 0.288 �0.129 0.516Location convenient to home �0.004 0.179 0.714Location convenient to work 0.033 0.093 0.770Accessibility from street 0.387 0.297 0.571Mall hours 0.591 0.255 0.137

Safety of parking 0.774 0.070 0.159

Entertainment for children 0.206 0.689 0.300

Entertainment for young adults 0.143 0.848 0.073

Entertainment for adults 0.358 0.859 �0.017

Eigenvalue 5.26 1.52 1.27

Variance explained (%) 37.58 10.84 9.04

Coefficient alpha 0.86 0.65 0.78

Table 3Multivariate and univariate effects.

Multivariate Univariate

Hypoth df Error df F F

Main effects

Generation 15 680 7.19***

Hedonic shopping value 0.82 (ns)

Utilitarian shopping value 0.96 (ns)

Mall attitude: hygiene factors 19.38***

Mall attitude: location convenience 9.92***

Mall attitude: entertainment 3.20*

Gender 5 228 2.47*

Hedonic shopping value 11.12**

Utilitarian shopping value 1.57 (ns)

Mall attitude: hygiene factors 5.36*

Mall attitude: location convenience 2.97 (ns)

Mall attitude: entertainment 4.61*

Interaction effects

Generation by gender 15 680 1.18 (ns)

n po0.05.nn po0.01.nnn po0.001.

Table 4Mall attitude means by generation.

Hygiene factors Location convenience Entertainment

Gen Y 15.66a 15.28a,b 15.40

Gen X 17.70a,b 14.74a 17.25

Boomers 19.86b,c 17.63b,c 18.17

Builders 20.83c 19.34c 16.54

a Homogeneous subset (by column).b Homogeneous subset (by column).c Homogeneous subset (by column).

Table 5Shopping value and mall attitude means by gender.

Hedonic shopping value Hygiene factors Entertainment

Male 3.21 17.86 16.04

Female 3.58 19.19 17.71

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–96

The results in Table 3 show that significant multivariate effectsexist for generation (F¼7.19, po0.001) and gender (F¼2.47,po0.05), but there was no significant interaction effect of genderand generation. Univariate effects show generational differencesin attitude toward mall hygiene factors (F¼19.38, po0.001),locational convenience (F¼9.92, po0.001) and entertainment(F¼3.20, po0.05). And differences by gender exist in hedonicshopping value (F¼11.12, po0.01) and attitude toward hygienefactors (F¼5.36, po0.05) and entertainment (F¼4.61, po0.05).

Examination of the means in Table 4 shows that attitudetoward mall attributes generally becomes more positive with theage of the generational group, with younger cohorts showingpositive attitudes towards hygiene factors, locational convenienceand entertainment features and older generations showing morestrongly positive attitudes than the younger cohorts. The notableexception is that Builder attitude toward mall entertainment isless positive than Boomers and Gen X, but more positive than GenY. The means in Table 5 show that as compared to males, femalesderive greater hedonic shopping value from a trip to the mall andalso have more positive attitudes toward mall hygiene factors andentertainment features.

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–9 7

6. Discussion and implications

Examining the moderating effects of gender and generation onattitude and shopping value provides information useful for mallsegmentation analysis. This research provides evidence thatmembers of different generational cohorts possess differentattitudes about hygiene, location and entertainment attributesof a shopping mall. It further reports that males and females showdifferent attitudes towards mall hygiene and entertainmentfeatures and they feel differently about their experiences atshopping malls in terms of hedonic shopping value derived fromthe visit. By examining gender and generational cohort as keymoderator variables, this study extends previous researchexamining antecedents to (Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin andBabin, 2001; Babin et al., 2004, 2007), moderators of (Babin andDarden, 1995) and outcomes of shopping value (Babin et al., 2004,2007; Jones et al., 2006; Overby and Lee, 2006).

Attitudes in this study were a composite of the importance ofmall attributes and evaluation of those attributes. Hence, theycapture a measure similar to satisfaction or positive affect, whicha number of studies show as antecedents to shopping value(Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin et al., 2004). Since differences inattitudes towards mall attributes were found and could beantecedents to shopping value, it would not be unreasonable toexpect to see generational differences in shopping value also. Yetno generational differences in shopping value were found. Withprior research showing shopping value to be a predictor ofrepatronage intention (Jones et al., 2006), this is important news.The current results suggest that although various mall attitudesmay differ across the generations, there is not a differential effectby generation in shopping value. Thus, mall owners can focus onensuring that various generational cohorts have positive mallattitudes by focusing on key attributes of the mall, includingsafety, decor and cleanliness of the mall, the convenience of andaccess to the mall and desirability of the entertainment featuressuch as restaurants, theaters and conversation areas. The valuethat shoppers derive from their trips to the mall will not vary bygeneration. This simplifies the task of the mall developer, as theresults suggest that shopping value will be derived in a similarway across the generations. Advice to mall developers would be toconcentrate on the mall attributes to please the various genera-tions, and shopping value will take care of itself.

Differences by gender were found in attitudes toward mallhygiene factors and entertainment features, and in hedonic shop-ping value derived from the mall visit, with females scoring higherthan males on all three dimensions. These results are consistentwith prior research showing that women evaluate store attributesdifferently than men (Lim et al., 2007) and are more sensitive thanmen to environmental aspects in the shopping context (Clevelandet al., 2003). In addition, the current research extends the findingsfrom evaluation of store attributes to evaluation of mall attributes.Supporting the results of Raajpoot et al. (2008), the current studyshows some differences between males and females. Differences bygender were not found for attitude toward locational convenience orutilitarian shopping value. Both of these constructs are lesssubjective than the atmospheric mall attributes and hedonic valuederived from a mall visit; shoppers find a location to be convenientor not convenient, and they either accomplish their shopping task orthey do not. The conclusion is derived in a similar manner regardlessof the gender of the shopper. Mall developers, then, can attend todetails that will facilitate achievement of utilitarian shopping valuewithout having to take into account differing reactions by males andfemales. However, developers do need to understand differingattitudes toward atmospheric and entertainment attributes of malesand females, as well as understand how those attributes influencehedonic shopping value.

7. Managerial implications

This study focused on the role of gender and generationalcohort variables that influence mall attribute importance andshopping value. The results of the study support the need toconsider the preferences of gender and generational cohorts interms of mall location, entertainment features and general mallcharacteristics. Which mall attributes are important to eachgenerational group at a particular point in time, and do thoserequirements remain the same because of their lifetime experi-ences? This is the question retailers and mall developers need tofocus on when attempting to increase patronage and repatronage.Results also suggest gender differences in the hedonic shoppingvalue derived from a trip to the mall. So, mall owners also need toconsider the factors driving hedonic shopping value for menversus women. Analyzing these needs on a regular and timelybasis is advised, to enable mall developers to make adjustments inmall attributes, including store mix so that the mall will maintainrelevance with target customer segments over an extended timeperiod.

Customer segments seek out relevant shopping venues basedon their shopping wants and needs. Knowledge of the preferencesof distinct consumer groups is useful in the development ofmarketing communications and promotional strategies, as well asfor designing mall configurations that are likely to generatepatronage and repatronage due to the value creating potential ofthe mall. Advertising materials could express the specificattributes the mall has to offer to the cohorts comprising itscustomer base, either by gender, generation, or both. When aretailer or mall owner finds that a large segment of its consumersare from particular segments (e.g. generation, gender), thecompany can focus on segment relevant ways to facilitate andpromote a shopping experience that will drive shopping value andcreate potential for repatronage.

8. Limitations and future research

The current research was conducted in an older, traditional-style shopping mall targeting middle-income shoppers. Anecdotalevidence suggests that younger generations prefer the newlifestyle malls. Thus, results may not be generalized to otherstyles of malls. This prompts future research to examine male andfemale as well as generational preferences at alternative stylemalls. A key question for future research is the extent to which asingle mall can address differing male and female preferences forvarious mall attributes in ways that will lead to feelingsof hedonic shopping value and, subsequently, to future mallpatronage.

Another interesting topic for future attention concerns theimpact of online shopping on visits to the ‘brick-and-mortar’ mall.The frequency of mall visits have been declining and at the sametime, online shopping is increasing. Whether or not these two arerelated remains to be revealed. But more importantly, how canmalls, mall tenants, or the online stores of mall tenants enticeonline shoppers to visit the physical mall? Does shoppingvalue derived from an online shopping experience transfer tothe physical mall? Does shopping value derived from a visit to thephysical mall transfer to an online shopping experience? Futureresearch exploring the cross-channel effects on shopping valueis needed.

Also, it is important to note that mall intercept surveys do notcapture information from survey avoiders (mall shoppers who donot agree to participate in surveys) (Keillor and Sutton, 1993) orfrom consumers who do not shop in malls (Sudman, 1980).Research has shown that these individuals differ from mall

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–98

shoppers who do agree to participate in intercept surveys (Keillorand Sutton, 1993). Therefore, results cannot be generalized tosuch shoppers. Future research querying shoppers should con-sider multiple data collection methods.

Finally, another limitation relates to the representativeness ofour sample. Gates and Solomon (1982) note the challenge ofobtaining a representative sample using the mall interceptmethod. Although the gender mix of the sample is very close tothe general US population, the generational cohort proportions ofour sample do not reflect the Census region in which the mall inthis study was located, nor are they reflective of the US populationas a whole. Our sample contained more young shoppers (Gen Y)and fewer older shoppers (Builders) relative to the overallpopulation. Care must be taken in interpreting the results,especially for the Builder cohort. Future studies should examinethe attitudes, preferences and shopping value of the generationalcohorts in a variety of mall types to provide a more completeunderstanding of cohort members.

References

Allard, T., Babin, B., Chebat, J., 2009. When income matters: customers evaluationof shopping malls’ hedonic and utilitarian orientations. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Serivces 16, 40–49.

Anselmsson, J., 2006. Sources of customer satisfaction with shopping malls: acomparative study of different customer segments. International Review ofRetail, Distribution and Consumer Research 16, 115–138.

Babin, B., Attaway, J., 2000. Atmospehric affect as a tool for creatnig value andgaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research 49, 91–99.

Babin, B., Babin, L., 2001. Seeking something different? A model of schematypicality, consumer affect, purchase intentions and perceived shopping value.Journal of Business Research 54, 89–96.

Babin, B., Chebat, J., Michon, R., 2004. Perceived appropriateness and its effect onquality, affect and behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Serivces 11,287–298.

Babin, B., Darden, W., 1995. Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Serivces 71, 47–70.

Babin, B., Darden, W., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic andutilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20, 644–656.

Babin, B., Gonzales, C., Watts, C., 2007. Does Santa have a great job? Gift shoppingvalue and satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing 24, 895–917.

Baker, J., Levy, M., Grewal, D., 1992. An experimental approach to making retailstore environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing 69, 445–460.

Baker, J., Grewal, D., Parasuraman, A., 1994. The influence of store environment onquality inferences and store image. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science22 (4), 328–339.

Barnes, N., Peters, M., 1982. Modes of retail distribution: views of the elderly.Akron Business and Economic Review 13, 26–37.

Bloch, P., Bruce, G., 1984. The leisure experience and consumer products:an investigation of underlying satisfactions. Journal of Leisure Research 16,74–88.

Bloch, P., Sherrell, D., Ridgway, N., 1986. Consumer search: an extendedframework. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 119–126.

Carpenter, J., Moore, M., 2009. Utilitarian and hedonic shoping value in the USdiscount sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16, 68–74.

Chang, E., Burns, L, Francis, S., 2004. Gender differences in the dimensionalstructure of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers: therole of hedonic shopping value. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 22,185–199.

Chebat, J.C., El Hedhli, K., Sirgy, M.J., 2009. How does shopper-based mall equitygenerate mall loyalty? A conceptual model and empirical evidence. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services 16, 50–60.

Chebat, J.C., Michon, R., 2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’emotions, cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories.Journal of Business Research. New York 56, 529–539 July.

Cleveland, M., Babin, B., Laroche, M., Ward, P., Bergeron, J., 2003. Informationsearch patterns for gift purchases: a cross-national examination of genderdifferences. Journal of Consumer Behavior 3, 20–47.

Craig, S., Ghosh, A., McLafferty, S., 1984. Models of retail location process: a review.Journal of Retailing 60, 5–36.

Darley, W., Smith, R., 1995. Gender differences in information processingstrategies: an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response.Journal of Advertising 24, 41–56.

Dawson, S., Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., 1990. Shopping motives, emotional states, andretail outcomes. Journal of Retailing 66, 408–427.

Dholakia, R., Pedersen, B., Hikmet, N., 1994. Married males and shopping: are theysleeping partners? International Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-ment 23 27–33.

Dillman, D.A., 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2nded. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Donovan, R., Rossiter, J., 1982. Store atmostphere: an environmental psychologyapproach. Journal of Retailing 58, 34–57.

Egri, C., Ralsston, D., 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparisonof China and the United States. Organization Science 15, 210–220.

Finn, A., Louviere, J., 1996. Shopping center image, consideration and choice:anchor store contribution. Journal of Business Research 35, 241–251.

Fiore, A., Ogle, J., 2000. Facilitating the integration of textiles and clothing subjectmatter by students. Part one: dimensions of a model and taxonomy. Textilesand Clothing Research Journal 18, 31–45.

Firat, F., 1993. Gender and consumption: transcending the feminine?. In: Costa, J.(Ed.), Gender Issues and Consumer Behavior, pp. 205–228.

Fischer, E., Arnold, S., 1990. More than a labor of love: gender roles and christmasgift shopping. Journal of Consumer Research 17, 333–345.

Fischer, E., Arnold, S., 1994. Sex, gender identity, gender role attitudes, andconsumer behavior. Psychology and Marketing 11, 163–182.

Fishbein, M., 1963. An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about anobject and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations 16, 233–240.

Gates, R., Solomon, P.J., 1982. Research using the mall intercept. State of the Art.Journal of Advertising Research 22, 43–49.

Gentry, J., Burns, A., 1977. How ’important’ are evaluative criteria in shoppingcenter patronage? Journal of Retailing 53 73–84.

Ghosh, A., 1986. The value of a mall and other insights from a revised central placemodel. Journal of Retailing 62, 70–97.

Hair, J.E., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1995. Multivariate Data Analysis4th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: New Jersey.

Hawes, J., Lumpkin, J., 1986. Perceived risk and the selection of a retail patronagemode. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14, 37–42.

Holbrook, M., Corfman, K., 1985. Quality and value in the consumption experience:phaedrus rides again. In: Jacoby, J., Olson, J. (Eds.), Perceived Quality: HowConsumers View Stores and Merchandise, pp. 31–57.

Holtshausen, T., Styrdom, J., 2006. Generation Y consumers: behavioral patterns ofselected South African students. The Business Review Cambridge 5, 314–318.

Hung, K., Gu, F., Yim, C., 2007. A social institutional approach to identifyinggeneration cohorts in China with a comparison with American consumers.Journal of International Business Studies 38, 836–853.

Ingelhart, R., 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, andpolitcal change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ.

Jarboe, G., McDaniel, C., 1987. A profile of browsers in regional shopping malls.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15, 46–53.

Jones, M., Reynolds, K., Arnold, M., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value:investigating differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of BusinessResearch 59, 974–981.

Kavussanu, M., Roberts, G.C., 2001. Moral functioning in sport: an achievementgoal perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 23, 37–54.

Keillor, B.D., Sutton, R.J., 1993. An investigation of avoidance behavior inmall-intercept market research. The Journal of Marketing Management 3,50–56.

Kim, Y., 2002. Consumer value: an application to mall and internetshopping. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 30,595–602.

Langrehr, F., 1991. Retail shopping mall semiotics and hedonic consumption. In:Holman, R., Solomon, M. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research. Associationfor Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 428–433.

Lee, S., Ibrahim, M., Hsueh-Shan, C., 2005. Shopping center attributes: anexploratory investigation of their relationship to retail productivity. Journalof Retail and Leisure Property 4, 324–360.

Lehto, Y.X., Jang, S., Achana, F.T., O’Leary, J.T., 2008. Exploring tourism experiencesought: a cohort comparison of baby boomers and the silent generation.Journal of Vacation Marketing 14, 237–252.

Lehto, X., Cai, L., O’Leary, J., Huan, T., 2004. Tourist shopping preferences andexpenditure behaviours: the case of the Taiwanese outbound market. Journalof Vacation Marketing 10, 320–332.

Lim, C., Kim, Y., Park, S., 2007. Consumer perceptions toward retail attributes ofvalue retailers: functions of gender and repatronage intentions. Journal ofCustomer Behaviour 6, 269–282.

Littrell, M., Ma, Y., Halepete, J., 1995. Generation X, baby boomers, and swing:marketing fair trade apparel. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 9,407–420.

Lumpkin, J., Greenberg, B., 1982. Apparel-shopping patterns of the elderlyconsumer. Journal of Retailing 58, 68–89.

Machleit, K., Meyer, T., Eroglu, S., 2005. Evaluating the nature of hassles and upliftsin the retail shopping context. Journal of Business Research 58, 655–663.

Martin, C., Turley, L., 2004. Malls and consumption motivation: an exploratoryexamination of older Generation Y consumers. International Journal of Retailand Distribution Management 32, 464–475.

MBC Global, 2008. Cultural Bridges: Generations Retrieved December 12, 2008,from /http://www.mbcglobal.org/GenerationsBridge.htmlS.

McIntyre, S.H., Bender, S.D.F.G., 1986. The purchase intercept technique (PIT) incomparison to telephone and mail surveys. Journal of Retailing 62, 364–383.

Michon, R., Chebat, J., 2004. Cross-cultural shopping values and habitats: acomparison between English- and French-speaking Candians. Journal ofBusiness Research 57, 883–892.

V. Jackson et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (2011) 1–9 9

Michon, R., Yu, H., Smith, D., Chebat, J.C., 2007. The shopping experience of femalefashion leaders. International Journal of Retail Distribution Management 36,488–501.

Mitchell, S., 2003. American Generations: Who They Are, How They Live, WhatThey Think, 4th ed. Ithaca, NY.

Morgan, C., Levy, D., 2002. Marketing to the Mindset of Boomers and Their Elders.St. Paul, MN.

Moschis, G., 1987. Consumer Socialization: A Life-Cycle Persective. Lexington, MA.Moschis, G., Churchill, G., 1978. Consumer socialization: a theoretical and

empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 15, 599–609.Oh, J., Cheng, C., Lehto, X., O’Leary, J., 2004. Predictors of tourists’ shopping

behaviour. Examination of socio-demogrpahic charateristics and trip typolo-gies. Journal of Vacation Marketing 10, 308–319.

Othnes, C., McGrath, M., 2001. Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior.Journal of Retailing 77, 111–137.

Overby, J., Lee, E., 2006. The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shoppingvalue on consumer preference and intentions. Journal of Business Research 59,1160–1166.

Packaged Facts, 2006. Gen X in the US 2006. Retrieved on December 12, 2008, from/http://www.packagedfacts.com/aboutS.

Parker, B., Chusmir, L., 1990. A generational and sex-based view of managerialwork values. Psychological Reports 66, 947–950.

Phillips, L., Sternthal, B., 1977. Age differences in information processing; aprospective on the aged consumer. Journal of Marketing Research 14, 444–457.

Qualls, W., 1987. Household decision behavior: the impact of husbands’ and wives’sex role orientation. Journal of Consumer Research 14, 264–279.

Raajpoot, N., Sharma, A., Chebat, J., 2008. The role of gender and work status inshopping center patronage. Journal of Business Research 61, 825–833.

Rogler, L., 2002. Historical generations and psychology: the case of the GreatDepression and WWII. The American Psychologist 57, 1013–1023.

Roy, A., 1994. Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retailing 70, 139–161.Ryder, N.B., 1965. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American

Sociological Review 30, 843–861.Schechter, L., 1984. A normative conception of value. Progressive Grocer Executive

Report, 12–14.

Sherry, J., McGrath, M., Levy, S., 1993. The dark side of the gift. Journal of BusinessResearch 28, 225–245.

Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., 1998. The hierarchical influence on personal values on mallshopping attitude and behavior. Journal of Retailing 74 (1), 139–160.

Shim, S., Eastlick, M., Lotz, S., 2000. Assessing the impact of Internet shopping onstore shopping among mall shoppers and Internet users. Journal of ShoppingCenter Research 7, 7–43.

Shopping Center Age, 1994. Teen-agers want to shop until they drop. Chain StoreAge Executive with Shopping Center Age 70, 91–97.

Sirgy, M., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T., 2000. Retail environment, self-congruity, andretail patronage: an integrative model and a research agenda. Journal ofBusiness Research 49, 127–138.

Steenkamp, J., Hofstede, F., 2002. International market segmentation: issues andperspectives. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19, 185–213.

Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., Lee, K., 2004. Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedentsto shopping value. Journal of Business Research 57, 1067–1073.

Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1991. Generations: The history of American’s Future 1584–2069. New York, NY.

Sudman, S., 1980. Improving the quality of shopping center sampling. Journal ofMarketing Research 17, 423–431.

Talpade, S., Haynes, J., 1997. Consumer shoppig behavior in malls with large-scaleentertainment centers. The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business 33, 153–162.

Taylor, S., Cosenza, R., 2002. Profiling later aged female teens: mall shoppingbehavior and clothing choice. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 (5), 393–408.

Thau, R., Heflin, J., 1997. Generations apart: Xers vs. Boomers vs. the Elderly.Amherst, NY.

Underhill, P., 1999. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping. New York.Underhill, P., 2004. The Call of the Mall: The Geography of Shopping. New York.Ward, S., 1974. Consumer Socialization. The Journal of Consumer Research 1, 1–14.Wolburg, J., Pokrywczynski, J., 2001. A psychographic analysis of generation Y

college students. Journal of Advertising Research 41, 33–52.Yan, S., 2006. Understanding generation Y. The Oberlin Review. Retrieved on

December 12, 2008 from /http://www.oberlin.edu/stupub/ocreview/2006/12/08/features/Understanding_Generation_Y.htmlS.

Zeithaml, V., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-endmodel and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52, 2–22.