Assessing Grocery Store Attraction via Cross-Shopping Linkages – Cross-shopping Model

Assessing Grocery Store Attraction via Cross-Shopping Linkages - Cross-shopping ModelDependent variables
In order to test the influence of service quality and use of private label brands on the attraction/sharing concept, the reliability of the measures were assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (see Appendix A). The SERVQUAL scale has five dimensions which include tangibiles (e.g., physical aspects of the store and personnel), reliability (e.g., dependability and accuracy), responsiveness (e.g., prompt service), assurance (e.g., employee knowledge and trustworthiness), and empathy (e.g., customer caring). Parasuraman, et al. found reliability coefficients for the five dimensions ranged from.72 to.86. The current study identified similar reliability coefficients (tangibles =.91; reliability =.83; responsiveness =.87; assurance =.90; and empathy =.86). In addition, questions regarding consumer perceptions of the quality and value of store brands were included in the study and were factor analyzed resulting in two dimensions. The two dimensions included satisfaction with private label brands and a perception that private label brands provide value due to their lower cost. The reliability coefficients for the constructs “private label satisfaction” and “private label value” were.91 and.84, respectively.
Demographic analysis
Prior to addressing the relationships between attraction/sharing with service quality and private label perceptions, consumer demographics were examined. Demographics gathered in the current study include: gender, age, number of persons living at home, education, income, and race. Initially crosstab analysis was used to determine whether consumer demographics accounted for differences between attraction and sharing stores. The results indicate that race was significantly (p < .05) related to differences in the store characteristic of attraction and sharing. African American respondents were proportionately more likely to shop at sharing stores while White/Caucasian respondents were proportionately more likely to shop at attraction stores. Subsequently a multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between consumer demographics and the dependent variables (i.e., service quality dimensions, private label quality, and private label value). The results found no significant differences (p < .05) indicating that consumer demographics are not influencing consumers’ perceptions of the service quality dimensions, private label quality, or private label value.
Attraction/Sharing model
A multivariate analysis of variance was used to model the influence of shopping frequency and the store’s attraction/sharing ratio on consumers’ perceptions of service quality dimensions, private label quality, and private label value. The findings indicate a significant (p =.043) interaction exists between shopping frequency and the store’s attraction/sharing ratio for four of the five service quality dimensions (see Table 8). The significant service quality dimensions include, reliability (p=.048), responsiveness (p=.013), assurance (p=.043), and empathy (p=.021). No significant relationship was found with the service quality dimension of tangibles, private label quality, or private label value (see Table 9). The multivariate analysis of variance found that infrequent shoppers (i.e., shop less than one time per week) perceive attraction stores possess greater reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy, but the opposite was found for frequent shoppers. Frequent shoppers (i.e., shop more than twice per week) perceive sharing stores to possess greater reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (see Figures 2 to 5).

Table 8. MANOVA results for service quality by shopping frequency

Table 9. MANOVA results for private label by shopping frequency

Figure-2

Figure 2. Differences between attraction and sharing stores: Reliability

Figure-3

Figure 3. Differences between attraction and sharing stores: Responsiveness

Figure-4

Figure 4. Differences between attraction and sharing stores: Assurance

Figure-5

Figure 5. Differences between attraction and sharing stores: Empathy

Tags: , ,