looking at gen y shopping preferences and intentions: exploring the role of experience and apparel...

PDFlib PLOP: PDF Linearization, Optimization, Protection

Page inserted by evaluation versionwww.pdflib.com – [email protected]

Looking at Gen Y shopping preferences and intentions:exploring the role of experience and apparel involvementP. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer

Department of Textiles and Consumer Sciences, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Keywords

Apparel, Gen Y, patronage, shoppingexperience, shopping preferences.

Correspondence:

Pauline Sullivan, Department of Textiles andConsumer Sciences, Florida State University,314 Sandels Building, Tallahassee, FL32306-1492, USA.E-mail: [email protected]

doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00680.x

AbstractApparel retailers need more information to reach and increase patronage from GenerationY with $150 billion purchasing power. Experiential retailing, involving one or more ofthe five senses, helps create utilitarian and hedonic benefits for brick-and-mortar apparelshoppers. However, little is known about how Generation Y responds to experientialstrategies. This study of Generation Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers, using a cohortapproach, seeks to determine which dimensions of a shopping experience, as well asshopping involvement level and demographics, are associated with store preference andpatronage intent.

IntroductionApparel retailers need to build a retail brand image consistent withtheir target market in order to develop loyal customers. The youngadult market is increasingly important to know and understandbecause of the amount of money they spend on apparel (Anony-mous, 2002/2003). One of the major issues in appealing to theyouth market today is segmenting these individuals in an appro-priate manner. According to most reports, Generation Y (Gen Y)ranges from 1977 to 1994. This timeframe identifies Gen Y asconsumers between 14 and 31 years old in 2008.

Retailers know consumption grows in the 25- to 34-year-oldsegment as individuals begin to see increases in salaries and homepurchases, and acquire commodities to improve their standard ofliving. Gen Y is expected to be as large and influential as the BabyBoomers. Gen Y consumers’ expenditures on cars, apparel andother items grew by 82 million to exceed those of previous gen-erations (O’Donnell, 2006). As their buying power grows, theseemerging adults learn consumer behaviour patterns that influencethem in later life (Kim et al., 2007).

Excess retail space, retail price deflation, consolidation andgrowth of online retailing contribute to an increasingly challeng-ing and competitive brick-and-mortar retailer market. On thedemand side, consumers have both opportunity and means topurchase what, where and when they please. Their consumptionis fuelled by increasing household income and charge card spend-ing. Pine and Gilmore (2002) suggest companies construct expe-riences, either real or virtual, that afford customers an opportunityto try out and immerse themselves in thrilling and absorbingshopping activities. Consumers will choose and pay for the best

experience, online or in brick-and-mortar stores. Understandingwhat differentiates the shopping experience is important to brick-and-mortar stores, particularly apparel retailers, when creating adifferentiated market position. Experiential retailing is an emerg-ing strategy that attracts consumers through a combination ofhedonic and utilitarian values communicated through multi-sensory retail marketing strategies. This paper examines whichretail experiential marketing strategies resonate with current GenY apparel shoppers.

Experiential retailing makes connections with consumers whovisit stores to interact, not merely to buy merchandise (Kim et al.,2007). This strategy applies a holistic approach to consumptionthat (1) uses emotional, as well as rational, triggers to stimulatebuying; (2) focuses on what customers want out of the retailexperience; and (3) strives to engage customers with more thanraw product. The shopping experience and related lifestyle ofthe consumer become salient in differentiating one retail bundlefrom another. Involvement also is a significant predictor of overallshopping centre satisfaction (Josiam et al., 2005). Thus, shoppinginvolvement is tied to retail patronage.

Although it may be difficult to draw general conclusions aboutGen Y, Schewe and Meredith (2004) suggest a cohort approachbased upon coming-of-age experiences for market segmentation.This study uses a cohort analysis of Gen Y students to explore howexperiential attributes of the shopping experience and shoppinginvolvement influence both patronage and repatronage decisions.The objectives of this study are to (1) determine how experientialvalue influences Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’retail patronage; (2) determine experiential value influences forGen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ retail repatronage;

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

International Journal of Consumer Studies 32 (2008) 285–295 © The Authors

Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

285

mailto:[email protected]

and (3) determine if and how apparel shopping involvement levelis associated with Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar retail patronage andrepatronage.

Literature reviewAs experiential retail emerges as a strategy, lessons learned froma review of related literature identifies concepts relevant to cur-rent practice. Topics include the competitive environment forbrick-and-mortar retailers, experiential retailing, consumer value,apparel involvement (Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Levy and Weitz,2004) and retail patronage (East et al., 2005).

Brick-and-mortar stores in a competitiveretail market

There is a continuing shift away from brick-and-mortar stores toelectronic retailing (Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002). For example,apparel and home products make up an increasing share of the$988 million spent weekly in US online sales (Puente, 2002).However, brick-and-mortar stores have some advantages overelectronic retailers (Chan and Pollard, 2003). Their advantages arelower costs per order and visual displays for attracting customers,and ease of handling returns. Greater hedonic benefit levels areassociated with brick-and-mortar stores than electronic shoppingoutlets, particularly among women and families with a child underthe age of five (Dholakia and Uusitalo, 2002). Experiential retail-ing may offer brick-and-mortar apparel stores a means of differ-entiating themselves from online competition.

Experiential retailing

Kim (2001) indicates that such experiential retail formats attractconsumers seeking enjoyable experiences within their shoppingactivities. The shopping experience expands beyond the tangibleproduct or service to include multi-sensory systems of taste, smell,vision, hearing and kinaesthetic influences (Hirschman andHolbrook, 1982).

Experiential retail marketing strategies create value-added bycommunicating social identity and images through a particularbundled assortment of goods, services and experiences. Experi-ences are created by sensory appeal through imagery, tactilematerials, motion, scents, sounds and other feelings. For example,experiential retailing incorporates entertainment in merchandisingstrategies as a means of attracting additional consumers. Experi-ential retailing seeks to keep consumers in the retail area longerand involve them in the shopping process as a means of increasingsales. The Bass Pro Shop’s outdoor venues, such as runningstreams and large freshwater fish tanks, engage customers in awater experience to stimulate sales of fishing-related lifestyleproducts. Retailers foster an association of a stimulating, enter-taining shopping experience with the consumption of products.Changes in consumer expectations and the retail environment havecontributed to the development of experiential retailing strategies.

Consumers share common shopping motivations across genderand age categories. Shopping destinations choice is based upongood merchandise quality, reasonable prices, a variety of productassortments, product quality and shopping environment (Sullivanand Savitt, 1997; Klein, 1998; Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004). In fact,

86% of men and 87% of women consider reasonable prices impor-tant when deciding where to shop (Klein, 1998). Consumers desirea low-pressure environment and respectful treatment.

Mathwick et al. (2001) suggest an overall experiential-valuecategory encompassing both utilitarian and hedonic utility. Theyargue that experiential value is derived from the consumptionexperience including interactions with direct usage of displayedproducts during the shopping experience or a distanced apprecia-tion (visual pleasure) of goods and services. This suggests thatconsumers may receive value from shopping even if they do notpurchase a product. The hierarchical model of experiential valuedeveloped by Mathwick et al. suggests (1) consumer return oninvestment is an active extrinsic value made up from financialinvestment; (2) service excellence is a reactive extrinsic responseof appreciation towards a firm’s marketing; (3) aesthetic responseis a reactive reflection of the visual elements and service perfor-mance drama; and (4) playfulness is an exchange behaviour fromparticipating in activities that help the consumer escape from theday-to-day world. This model describes how to move the con-sumer from reactive response to consumption to an active partici-pant in the process. It has the ability to help consumers developbrand attitudes and loyalty discussed by Hoch and Deighton(1989).

Mathwick et al.’s (2001) model has seven subscales whichmeasure efficiency, economic value, visual appeal, entertainment,service excellence, escapism and intrinsic enjoyment. Also, devel-oped scale items measure retail preference and future patronageintent. The Mathwick et al. scale was validated on a sample fromInternet shoppers and catalogue shoppers and then used to pre-dict Internet and catalogue preference and future patronage intent.Internet shoppers perceived value for financial and aesthetics wererelated to consumers’ preference for catalogue shopping.

Mathwick et al.’s arguments about what consumers want interms of experience, as well as the usefulness of the experientialvalue scale in developing information about consumer preferenceand patronage, are supported in a study by Mattson et al. (2003),who examined consumer behaviour at two similar eating estab-lishments, one a restaurant and the other a diner with historicaldesignation. Customers’ main motivations to visit the historicdiner were tourism and heritage preferences for history, cultureand sightseeing, in contrast to those preferring to eat at the restau-rant. Good food is an important consideration for both groups ofdiner customers.

Shopping value

The concept of value is complex and affected by many variables.Consumers no longer just purchase goods or services; they investtheir dollar. Value is the consumer’s perception of the ratio of theusefulness of a product or service to its costs (Schroeder, 1985).Traditional measures of product usefulness evaluate utilitarian oreconomic criteria such as price and assortment. In neoclassicaleconomics, utility is a measure of the pleasure, satisfaction or needfulfilment people get from the act of consumption (Nicholson,1987).

Shopping for functional reasons that are task oriented andrational is satisfied by utilitarian value. Perception of utilitarianshopping value is dependent upon satisfying the particular con-sumption need that triggers the shopping trip (Babin et al., 1994).

Shopping preferences and intentions P. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer



286

The utilitarian consumer has a purpose; in order for these con-sumers to feel satisfaction from their shopping trip, a goal mustbe reached. Utilitarian motivations considered in selecting storesinclude location, merchandise assortment, price, advertising/salespromotion, store personnel and services. Utilitarian value alsomay be obtained without a transaction. Simply collecting pertinentinformation regarding a product can appease the utilitarian con-sumer. Thus, utilitarian value helps explain why consumers need‘an errand’ or ‘work’ or goals (Babin et al., 1994, p. 646).

In comparison with utilitarian value, hedonic shopping dimen-sions are more personal or emotional. Consumers have experien-tial shopping motivations, resulting from hedonic or recreationaldesires (Dawson et al., 1990). Hedonic shopping motives reflectthe quality of the shopping experience rather than gatheringinformation or purchasing products (Muhammad and Ng, 2002).Consumers receive multiple benefits from completion of con-sumption experiences, which stimulate their thoughts and sensesand provide cognitive and sensory benefits (Kim, 2001).

Hedonic consumers, like utilitarian consumers, also may expe-rience hedonic value or benefits through vicarious consumption,without the purchase of any goods or services (Babin et al., 1994).Bargain prices may evoke emotional response in a consumerwho perceives a difference between the selling price and the con-sumer’s internal reference price. The response may be an increasein the consumer’s sensory involvement and excitement. Whilecognitive factors account for store selection and most plannedpurchases, the retail environment and emotional states also con-tribute to purchase behaviour (Sherman et al., 1997). Hedonicbenefits desired by consumers are linked with the uniqueness ofthe shopping in-store experience (Carpenter et al., 2005). Theliterature suggests both utilitarian and hedonic motivations influ-ence purchase behaviour and shopping motivations.

Apparel involvement and purchase preferencesand intentions

Zaichkowsky (1985) defines involvement as ‘a person’s perceivedrelevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and inter-ests’ (p. 342). This definition applies to advertisements, productsor purchase decisions. Under high involvement conditions, con-sumers pass through an extended problem-solving process. Underlow involvement, consumers generally do not go through theextended problem-solving process. Zaichkowsky (1985) devel-oped the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) to define theconcept of involvement for products. PII has been used extensivelyby clothing and textile researchers and has been found to bea reliable and valid measure of apparel involvement (Shim andKotsiopulos, 1991). Shim and Kotsiopulos (1991) use the PII scaleto measure apparel involvement and its role in segmenting thebig and tall men’s market. Thomas et al. (1991) also found apparelinvolvement was multidimensional.

The PII scale has been used to examine benefits consumersreceive from apparel purchases. However, its applicability as apredictor of consumers’ preferences for experiential value in shop-ping activities has yet to be considered. This study builds uponprevious research using the PII scale to examine utilitarian andhedonic dimensions of experiential value in shopping. The litera-ture suggests apparel involvement influences purchase behaviourand shopping motivations.

Retail patronage

The definition of retail patronage is germane to our explorationof the role of experience and apparel involvement on shoppingpreferences and intentions. Chetthamrongchai and Davies (2000)define retail patronage as a dichotomous variable covering a2-week period when respondents either visited their main store orspent some money in it or did shop during that period. Baker et al.(2002) define patronage intention as a willingness to recommend,a willingness to buy and shopping methods.

Repeat patronage or repatronage refers to a predictor of loyaltyoutcomes (East et al. 2005). Mathwick et al. (2001) used twodimensions to measure retail (Internet) preference: (1) the retailoutlet as best place shop; and (2) the retail outlet as the first placefor shopping. In their study, the construct future patronage intentcomprised two dimensions: (1) intent to shop from the retail outletin the future; and (2) the retail outlet as the first places to look forcertain types of merchandise. Experiential value variables werepredictive of retail preference future patronage intent for Internetand catalogue shoppers. This suggests experiential value variablesmay be stronger indicators of patronage behaviour because attitu-dinal and behavioural measures of loyalty had relatively low cor-relations with repeat patronage (East et al., 2005).

Gen Y: an important market forapparel retailers

In addition to their substantive spending and high discretionaryincome, Gen Y influences 81% of family apparel purchases, ismore consumption-oriented than previous generations, and isaccustomed to an abundance of goods and services (O’Donnell,2006). In 2002, their projected annual income was $US211 billion,spending approximately $US172 billion and saving $US39 billionper year (Anonymous, 2002/2003). A GenY consumer between 20and 21 years has per capita expenditures of $US7389. Their esti-mated disposable income is between $US115 billion and $US187billion, and indirect purchasing power totals around $US500billion (Niedt, 2004).

Gen Y consumers not only shop for themselves, but also affecttheir parents’ purchases in such categories as home furnishings.About one-third of Gen Y females are recreational quality seekerswith the traits of recreational/hedonistic, perfectionism and brandconsciousness (Bakewell and Mitchell, 2003). They enjoy shop-ping, want quality goods, and are brand loyal, willing to pay morefor brand names.

This cohort, Gen Y, is technologically advanced, entertainmentdriven and shop online. They use the Internet for 15% of theirspending, with males spending 1.7 times as much as femalesonline. Gen Y cohort spends an increased amount on items such aspersonal computers, video games, compact disc players and enter-tainment software (Wilcox, 1996). In general, this group embracestechnology, is difficult to reach through advertising, but drivento shop.

In fact, this cohort is described as the most consumption-oriented of all generations (Wolburg and Pokrywczyniski, 2001).Gen Y also is more racially and ethnically diverse than othergenerations (Brooks, 2005). They consider themselves functionalpurchasers, but are ‘accustomed to abundance’, and seek shopping

P. Sullivan and J. Heitmeyer Shopping preferences and intentions



287

experiences linked to entertainment and celebrities (Wolburg andPokrywczyniski, 2001). Cheap or elite merchandise alike appealto this market segment (O’Donnell, 2006).

This consumer group is idealistic, socially conscious, individu-alistic and anti-corporate. They speak their minds and dress as theyplease. Gen Y is considered the hardest to reach through advertis-ing. Gen Y members celebrate individuality and diversity, but stillseek group association (Wolburg and Pokrywczyniski, 2001).

The cohort approach recognizes people born during the sametime period (approximately 4–5 years) go through life togetherand share defining moments that influence their values, attitudesand purchase behaviour over their lifetime and therefore appropri-ate to examine market segment shopping behaviour (Schewe andMeredith, 2004). Cohort analysis provides a tool for describingconsumer segments and has been used in previous studies (Rentzet al., 1983) and to examine product use (Bonnici and Freden-berger, 1992). Cohort analysis of Gen Y can better help retailersreach this market.

Research hypothesis

To summarize, experiential attributes of the shopping experienceand shopping involvement are explored in terms of their influenceon Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel retail patronage and repatron-age. The following hypotheses are proposed:1. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-riential value on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers whoprefer and do not prefer a retail outlet.2. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-riential value on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers whointend and do not intend to visit retail outlet in the future.3. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of utili-tarian preferences in a shopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retailoutlet.4. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of utili-tarian preferences in a shopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visit aretail outlet in the future.5. There will not be a difference regarding the influence of hedonicpreferences in a shopping experience on GenY’s brick-and-mortarapparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet.6. There will not be a difference regarding the influence ofhedonic preferences in a shopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visitretail outlet in the future7. There will not be a difference regarding apparel involvement onGen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who prefer and do notprefer a retail outlet.8. There will not be a difference regarding apparel involvement onGen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do notintend to visit a retail outlet in the future.

Methods

Sample and data collection

This study sample was drawn from a population of Gen Y con-sumers. The cohort sampling of college students when examining

a market segment was used previously (Cui et al., 2003) in a studyof retail apparel brand shoppers (Carpenter et al., 2005). Thus,this study used cohort analysis on a population of collegestudents because cross-sectional data may have been affected byage (biological, psychological and social role changes), period(changes in the environment, measurement or practice) and cohorteffects (genetic shifts, or interaction of historical situation withage of the group) (Palmore, 1978).

A purposive sampling technique was used to improve theresponse rate. Subjects were selected for the study using an inter-cept technique or convenience sample. The intercept techniqueallowed collection of information from respondents assumed torepresent the population being studied (Aaker et al., 1998). Datacollectors were instructed to randomly intercept consumers inseveral locations on one university campus. Respondents wereasked to participate in the study and could decline, so participationwas voluntary. Respondents then were informed of the studycontent and assured anonymity in responding. Completion of theself-administered survey was voluntary and thus respondents con-sented to participate in the study when they agreed to completethe survey.

The survey was administered to college students at two publicsouthern US universities with a population whose diverse rangeof socio-economic characteristics was consistent with currentUS demographics. Fifty-four completed surveys were collectedthrough an intercept technique and the rest were obtained from aconvenience sampling of college students. Intercept interviewerswere trained in how to execute the process. Surveys were self-administered and responses anonymous. Trained researchers col-lected convenience sample data from college students in a varietyof majors. All respondents were briefed about the survey beforereceiving a copy of the questionnaire.

Instrument development

The self-administered questionnaire was developed based uponthe review of literature. The survey includes three sections. Thefirst section asked respondents about experiential value theyreceive from shopping (Mathwick et al., 2001). The surveyadapted a 5-point Likert scale instrument developed by Mathwicket al. (2001) for this examination of apparel shoppers. The secondsection of the survey used Zaichkowsky’s (1985) PII to define theconcept of involvement for products. The final section collecteddemographic information about the respondents.

Alpha coefficients were calculated to test the internal consis-tency of the Mathwick et al. (2001) scale’s statement items. Analpha coefficient of 0.831 was obtained for the all scale statementitems which indicated a reliability that supported the validity ofscale items (Peter, 1981; Michaelidou and Dibb, 2006).

Results in our study retained all Mathwick et al. (2001) scaleitems, but factor analysis did not yield identical factors whenapplied to a replication sample of brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers. Exploratory factors analysis with a varimax rotation allowedthe maximum variance between the set of variables to be examinedand is an acceptable analysis method for determining if the samesolution is interpretable, logical and meaningful in a replicationsample (Green et al., 2006). Analysis yielded a five-factor solutionfor the experiential value scale (see Table 1), rather than the seven-factor solution found by Mathwick et al. (2001). The analysis




288

yielded five experiential factors salient for Gen Y retail apparelshoppers. Identified factors were (1) escapism and intrinsic enjoy-ment; (2) visual appeal and excellence; (3) entertainment; (4)efficiency; and (5) economic value. These factors accounted for72.562% of the variance in perceptions of experiential retail value.

Table 2 compares factor solutions for Internet and catalogueshoppers with ‘brick’ and ‘mortar’ apparel store shoppers in thisstudy. The two factors escapism and intrinsic enjoyment, con-firmed by Mathwick et al. (2001), were combined into a singlefactor in our study of brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers. Also, thetwo factors visual appeal and excellence were grouped into asingle factor. In addition, four factors identified by Mathwick et al.(2001) were combined into two hedonic items that could enhanceconsumers’ emotional response to the shopping experience.

Part two of the survey collected information about shoppinginvolvement. An existing 5-point Likert scale measure of shoppinginvolvement was used as modified by Kind (1995). Subjects wereasked to indicate their perceptions of clothing on a 7-point seman-tic differential scale (e.g. ‘important . . . unimportant’). Four of theitems were reversed. Lastly, demographic information on variablesrelated to shopping such as gender, age, annual household income,

employment, race or ethnicity and educational attainment levelwas collected.

Results

Description of sample

The purposive sample in this study was drawn from a Gen Ypopulation; 140 completed surveys were collected. Ten completedsurveys were not included in data analysis because respondentsdid not meet the age specifications for Gen Y. This resulted in 130usable surveys for analysis. The sample consisted of more femalerespondents, 68.5%, than male respondents, 31.5%. In terms ofethnicity and race, 79.2% of the sample respondents classifiedthemselves as white, and the remaining 22.8% described them-selves as African American (8.5%), American Indian (1.5%),Asian (3.1%) and other (6.9%). The US Census groups whites andHispanics together. As shown in Table 3, our sample had morefemale than male respondents when compared with the US Gen Ypopulation, as well as university averages. In comparison with USGen Y averages, our sample had a few more whites than average

Table 1 Scale item confirmatory factor analysis

Factor ItemFactorloading H 2 Eigenvalue Cum. %

Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment 5.894 31.021Shopping at my favourite store ‘gets me away from it all’ 0.739 0.660I get so involved at my favourite store when I shop I forget

everything0.838 0.667

Shopping at my favourite store makes me feel like I am inanother world

0.765 0.772

I enjoy shopping at my favourite store for its own sake, notjust for the items I may have purchased

0.594 0.601

I shop at my favourite store for the pure enjoyment of it. 0.594 0.620Visual appeal and excellence 2.977 15.670

The way my favourite store displays its products isattractive

0.797 0.703

My favourite store is aesthetically pleasing 0.892 0.832I like the way my favourite store looks 0.880 0.793When I think of my favourite store, I think of excellence 0.582 0.729I think of my favourite store as an expert in the

merchandise it offers0.557 0.684

Entertainment 2.138 11.252I think my favourite store is very entertaining 0.830 0.789The enthusiasm of my favourite store picks me up 0.629 0.667My favourite store doesn’t just sell products, it entertains

me0.818 0.794

Efficiency 1.359 7.155Shopping at my favourite store is a very efficient way to

manage my time0.820 0.795

Shopping at my favourite store makes my life easier 0.828 0.747Shopping at my favourite store fits with my schedule 0.839 0.748

Economic value 0.846 4.455My favourite store’s products are a good economic value 0.762 0.767Overall, I am pleased with my favourite store’s prices 0.85 0.806The prices of the products I buy from my favourite store are

too high, given the quality of the merchandise-0.751 0.602




289

Tab

le2

Com

paris

onof

Inte

rnet

and

cata

logu

esh

oppe

rsvs

.br

ick-

and-

mor

tar

appa

rels

tore

shop

pers

Inte

rnet

and

cata

logu

efa

ctor

sIt

emB

rick-

and-

mor

tar

appa

rels

tore

fact

ors

Item

1.Vi

sual

appe

alTh

ew

aym

yfa

vour

itest

ore

disp

lays

itspr

oduc

tsis

attr

activ

e.1.

Visu

alap

peal

and

exce

llenc

eTh

ew

aym

yfa

vour

itest

ore

disp

lays

itspr

oduc

tsis

attr

activ

e.M

yfa

vour

itest

ore

isae

sthe

tical

lypl

easi

ng.

My

favo

urite

stor

eis

aest

hetic

ally

plea

sing

.I

like

the

way

my

favo

urite

stor

elo

oks.

Ilik

eth

ew

aym

yfa

vour

itest

ore

look

s.W

hen

Ith

ink

ofm

yfa

vour

itest

ore,

Ith

ink

ofex

celle

nce.

Ith

ink

ofm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

asan

expe

rtin

the

mer

chan

dise

itof

fers

.2.

Ent

erta

inm

ent

valu

eI

thin

km

yfa

vour

itest

ore

isve

ryen

tert

aini

ng.

2.E

nter

tain

men

tI

thin

km

yfa

vour

itest

ore

isve

ryen

tert

aini

ng.

The

enth

usia

smof

my

favo

urite

stor

epi

cks

me

up.

The

enth

usia

smof

my

favo

urite

stor

epi

cks

me

up.

My

favo

urite

stor

edo

esn’

tju

stse

llpr

oduc

ts,

iten

tert

ains

me

My

favo

urite

stor

edo

esn’

tju

stse

llpr

oduc

ts,

iten

tert

ains

me.

3.E

scap

ism

Sho

ppin

gat

my

favo

urite

stor

e‘g

ets

me

away

from

ital

l’.3.

Esc

apis

man

din

trin

sic

enjo

ymen

tS

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

‘get

sm

eaw

ayfr

omit

all’.

Sho

ppin

gat

my

favo

urite

stor

em

akes

me

feel

like

Iam

inan

othe

rw

orld

.S

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

mak

esm

efe

ellik

eI

amin

anot

her

wor

ld.

Ige

tso

invo

lved

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

whe

nI

shop

Ifo

rget

ever

ythi

ng.

Ien

joy

shop

ping

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

for

itsow

nsa

ke,

not

just

for

the

item

sI

may

have

purc

hase

d.I

shop

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

for

the

pure

enjo

ymen

tof

it.5.

Effi

cien

cyS

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

isa

very

effic

ient

way

tom

anag

em

ytim

e.4.

Effi

cien

cyS

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

isa

very

effic

ient

way

tom

anag

em

ytim

e.S

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

mak

esm

ylif

eea

sier

.S

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

mak

esm

ylif

eea

sier

.S

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

fits

with

my

sche

dule

.S

hopp

ing

atm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

fits

with

my

sche

dule

.6.

Eco

nom

icva

lue

My

favo

urite

stor

e’s

prod

ucts

are

ago

odec

onom

icva

lue.

5.E

cono

mic

valu

eM

yfa

vour

itest

ore’

spr

oduc

tsar

ea

good

econ

omic

valu

e.O

vera

ll,I

ampl

ease

dw

ithm

yfa

vour

itest

ore’

spr

ices

.O

vera

ll,I

ampl

ease

dw

ithm

yfa

vour

itest

ore’

spr

ices

.Th

epr

ices

ofth

epr

oduc

tsI

buy

from

my

favo

urite

stor

ear

eto

ohi

gh,

give

nth

equ

ality

ofth

em

erch

andi

se.

The

pric

esof

the

prod

ucts

Ibu

yfr

omm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

are

too

high

,gi

ven

the

qual

ityof

the

mer

chan

dise

.7.

Exc

elle

nce

Whe

nI

thin

kof

my

favo

urite

stor

e,I

thin

kof

exce

llenc

e.I

thin

kof

my

favo

urite

stor

eas

anex

pert

inth

em

erch

andi

seit

offe

rs.

4.In

trin

sic

enjo

ymen

tI

enjo

ysh

oppi

ngat

my

favo

urite

stor

efo

rits

own

sake

,no

tju

stfo

rth

eite

ms

Im

ayha

vepu

rcha

sed.

Ish

opm

yfa

vour

itest

ore

for

the

pure

enjo

ymen

tof

it.




290

(4.1% more), about 10% more African Americans, but was com-parable for other ethnic groups.

Respondents reported a perceived average annual householdincome level of approximately $62 800 per year. This figure ishigher than the US Census Bureau (2003) average and possiblyexplained by the fact that we did not ask students to verify house-hold income. The distribution of annual perceived householdincome was as follows: under $19 999, 16.5%; between $20 000and $39 000, 14.6%; between $40 000 and $69 000, 45.6%; andover $80 000, 23.7%.

Hypothesis testing

Between-group differences regarding retail preference

and future patronage

Hypotheses 1 through 8 were tested using anova. To create adichotomous classification system, scale items used by Mathwicket al. (2001) measured retail preference and future patronageintentions. For each classification, the two dimension measureswere transformed into a 0/1 variable by first summing and thendividing scale items. Grouping indicated 31.5% of respondentshad low retail reference and 68.5% had high retail preference, and31.5% of respondents had low future patronage intentions and68.5% had high future patronage while approximately two-thirdsof Gen Y apparel shoppers exhibited retail loyalty. Shoppinginvolvement was recorded as a score ranging from 1 to 49. Genderand race (white/non-white) were dichotomous variables.

anova was used to determine whether differences existedbetween Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low andhigh retail preference and results shown in Table 4.

Analysis indicates two significant findings regarding efficiency(P � 0.001) and race (P � 0.1). Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparelshoppers with low retail preference placed a greater importance onefficiency and were more likely to be non-white than those withhigh future patronage intentions.

anova was used to determine whether there were differencesbetween Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with futurepatronage intentions. Results are shown in Table 5.

Analysis of Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers withfuture patronage intentions indicates two significant findingsregarding efficiency (P � 0.001) and race (P � 0.1). Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low retail preference placed agreater importance on efficiency and were more likely to be non-white than those with high future patronage intentions. Hypothesis1, there will not be a difference regarding the influence of expe-

riential value on GenY’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ retailpreference, is accepted because only one experiential value factorwas significant between groups. Hypothesis 2, there will not be adifference regarding the influence of experiential value on GenY’sbrick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who intend and do not intendto visit retail outlet in the future, was accepted for the same reason.

Identification of a significant difference in the importance ofefficiency to Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ prefer-ences for a retail outlet and future patronage intentions allowsHypothese 3 and 4 to be rejected. Thus, there was a differenceregarding the influence of utilitarian preferences in a shoppingexperience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers whoprefer and do not prefer a retail outlet and their future patronageintentions.

No significant differences were found between Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers preferences for a retail outlet andtheir future patronage intentions. Hypothesis 5, there will not be adifference regarding the influence of hedonic preferences in ashopping experience on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers’ who prefer and do not prefer a retail outlet, and Hypothesis6, there will not be a difference regarding the influence of hedonicpreferences in a shopping experience on GenY’s brick-and-mortarapparel shoppers who intend and do not intend to visit retail outletin the future, was accepted. In addition, no significant differencesregarding shopping involvement level were Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers’ preferences for a retail outlet and theirfuture patronage intentions. Both Hypothesis 7, there will not be adifference regarding apparel involvement on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers who prefer and do not prefer a retailoutlet, and Hypothesis 8, there will not be a difference regardingapparel involvement on Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shop-pers who intend and do not intend to visit retail outlet in the future,were accepted.

Preference and future retail patronage behaviour

The second stage of data analysis used discriminant analysis withcanonical functions to determine whether between Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low and high levels of retailpreference and future patronage intentions can be associated withexperiential value, shopping involvement, gender and race orethnicity. To classify, low and high dimension measures for eachmeasure, retail preference and future patronage intention, vari-ables were transformed into a 0/1 variable by first summingand then dividing scale items. The independent variables wereescapism and intrinsic enjoyment, visual appeal and excellence,

Table 3 Comparison of sample gender andethnicity with norms

VariableSample(%)

US average(%)

University 1(%)

University 2(%)

Male 68.8 49.1 43.3 43.3Female 31.5 50.9 56.7 56.6White (including Hispanic) 79.2 75.1 80.2 77.5Black 22.8 12.3 11.6 10.7Asian 3.1 3.7 2.9 4.1Native American 1.5 0.9 0.4 0.8Non-resident alien 3.4 5.1Not reported 6.9 1.5




291

Table 4 Comparison of Gen Y apparel shoppers’ retail preference

FactorsMeanpreference Sum of squares d.f.

Meansquare F Significance

Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment Between groups 0.141 1 0.141 0.140 0.709Low 0.0484 Within groups 128.859 128 1.007High -0.0223 Total 129.000 129

Visual appeal and excellence Between groups 0.907 1 0.907 0.906 0.343Low -0.1230 Within groups 128.093 128 1.001High 0.0567 Total 129.000 129

Entertainment Between groups 0.299 1 0.299 0.298 0.586Low 0.0706 Within groups 128.701 128 1.005High -0.0326 Total 129.000 129

Efficiency Between groups 10.611 1 10.611 11.472 0.001***Low 0.4209 Within groups 118.389 128 0.925High -0.1939 Total 129.000 129

Economic value Between groups 0.940 1 0.940 0.939 0.334Low -0.1253 Within groups 128.060 128 1.000High 0.0577 Total 129.000 129

Gender Between groups 0.000 1 0.000 0.001 0.978Low 0 Within groups 28.069 128 0.219High 0 Total 28.069 129

White/non-white Between groups 0.373 1 0.373 3.097 0.081*Low 0.229 Within groups 14.218 118 0.120High 0.1059 Total 14.592 119

Shop involvement score Between groups 0.226 1 0.226 1.716 0.194Low 37.24 Within groups 11.596 88 0.132High 35.26 Total 11.822 89

*P � 0.1, **P � 0.05, ***P � 0.01.

Table 5 Comparison: Gen Y apparel shoppers future patronage intentions

FactorsFuturepatronage Sum of squares d.f.

Meansquare F Significance

Escapism and intrinsic enjoyment Between groups 0.141 1 0.141 0.140 0.709Low 0.807 Within groups 128.859 128 1.007High -0.001 Total 129.000 129

Visual appeal and excellence Between groups 0.907 1 0.907 0.906 0.343Low -3.075 Within groups 128.093 128 1.001High 0.0481 Total 129.000 129

Entertainment Between groups 0.299 1 0.299 0.298 0.586Low 0.636 Within groups 128.701 128 1.005High -0.010 Total 129.000 129

Efficiency Between groups 10.611 1 10.611 11.472 0.001***Low 0.570 Within groups 118.389 128 0.925High -0.009 Total 129.000 129

Economic value Between groups 0.940 1 0.940 0.939 0.334Low 0.166 Within groups 128.060 128 1.000High -0.003 Total 129.000 129

Gender dummy var. Between groups 0.000 1 0.000 0.001 0.978Low 0.5 Within groups 28.069 128 0.219High 0.687 Total 28.069 129

White/non-white Between groups 0.373 1 0.373 3.097 0.081*Low 1.0 Within groups 14.218 118 0.120High 0.134 Total 14.592 119

Shopping involvement score Between groups 0.226 1 0.226 1.716 0.194Low 19.5 Within groups 11.596 88 0.132High 36.14 Total 11.822 89

*P � 0.1, **P � 0.05, ***P � 0.01.




292

entertainment, efficiency, economic value, gender, white/non-white and shopping involvement. Categorical dependant variableswere (1) retail preference; and (2) future patronage intention.

Discriminant analysis for the categorical dependant variableretail preference accounted for 100% of the variance and thefunction had an overall moderate relationship with retail prefer-ence with results shown in Table 6.

Efficiency, non-white, shopping involvement, entertainmentand gender were positively related to low retail preference.Economic value, visual appeal and excellence, and escapism andintrinsic enjoyment were related to high retail preference.

Discriminant analysis for the categorical dependant variablefuture retail patronage accounted for 100% of the variance and thefunction had an overall moderate relationship with retail prefer-ence. Results are shown in Table 7.

Non-white, escapism and intrinsic enjoyment, economic value,gender and entertainment were positively associated with lowfuture patronage intentions. Shopping involvement, visual appealand excellence, and efficiency related to high future patronageintentions.

Conclusion and discussionOverall, results indicate Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparel shopperswith low and high levels of retail preference and future patronageintentions do not differ significantly regarding mean experientialvalue dimensions. However, Gen Y brick-and-mortar apparelshoppers with low retail preference and future patronage intentionplace greater value on efficiency and are more likely to be non-white than those with high levels of retail preference and future

Table 6 Importance of experiential value, shopping involvement and selected demographics in retail preference

Variables Wilks’ Lambda Significance Chi-square Eigenvalue d.f.Function 1correlation

Profile of low (vs. highretail preference)

Function 1 0.862 0.031** 16.884 0.16 8 0.371Efficiency 0.735 More value on efficiencyWhite/non-white 0.405 More diverse raciallyEconomic value -0.225 Less importance on

economic valueShopping involvement score 0.206 Higher involvement in

shoppingEntertainment 0.179 Interested in entertainmentVisual appeal and excellence -105 Less interested in visual

appeal and excellenceEscapism and intrinsic enjoyment -0.012 Less interested in escapism

and intrinsic enjoymentGender 0.008 Slightly more likely to be a

male

*P � 0.1, **P � 0.05, ***P � 0.01.

Table 7 Importance of experiential value, shopping involvement and selected demographics in future retail patronage

VariablesWilks’Lambda Significance Chi-square Eigenvalue d.f.

Function 1correlation

Profile of low (vs. highfuture retail patronage)

Function 1 0.817 0.003* 23.05 0.224 8 0.428Shopping involvement score -0.589 Less shopping involvementWhite/non-white 0.489 More diverse raciallyVisual appeal and excellence -0.432 Less importance on visual

appeal and excellenceEscapism and intrinsic enjoyment 0.353 Value escapism and intrinsic

enjoyment whenshopping

Economic value 0.263 Interested in economicvalue

Gender 0.132 Slightly more likely to be amale

Entertainment 0.065 Slightly interested inentertainment

Efficiency -0.045 Slightly less interested inefficienc

*P � 0.1, **P � 0.05, ***P � 0.01.




293

patronage intentions. These results do not support the argumentsfrom previous studies (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Zaich-kowsky, 1985; Sullivan and Savitt, 1997; Mathwick et al., 2001;Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Josiam et al., 2005) in terms of dif-ferentiating retail market segments of Gen Y brick-and-mortarapparel shoppers. Differences between Gen Y responses to what isimportant in a brick-and-mortar apparel shopping experience andother retail market segments support the need for a cohort productapproach (Rentz et al., 1983; Bonnici and Fredenberger, 1992) toGen Y segmentation.

It is important to note that Gen Y’s brick-and-mortar apparelshoppers with low and high levels of retail preference and futurepatronage intentions can be predicted by experiential value, shop-ping involvement, gender and race or ethnicity. Those with lowlevels of retail preference, rather than high, tended to be moreracially diverse, placed less importance on economic value, moreinvolved in shopping for apparel, were more interested in enter-tainment, less interested in visual appeal and excellence or escap-ism and intrinsic enjoyment, and more likely to be a male. Gen Ybrick-and-mortar apparel shoppers with low future patronageintentions are less likely to be involved with shopping, and findless value in visual appeal and excellence and efficiency. Lowfuture retail patronage is associated with diversity, escapism andintrinsic enjoyment, economic value, being a male and minimalinterest in entertainment. Predictor variables are moderately asso-ciated with retail preference and future patronage intentions andexplain 100% of the variance. This suggests experiential value,shopping involvement, gender and race or ethnicity can be used topredict future patronage behaviour. Thus, results indicate supportfor previous research (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Zaich-kowsky, 1985; Sullivan and Savitt, 1997; Mathwick et al., 2001;Heitmeyer and Kind, 2004; Josiam et al., 2005) as predictors forretail preference and future patronage intentions.

Limitations and recommendations

A larger sample would yield greater ethnic diversity amongrespondents. Also, relationships between gender and race orethnicity regarding experiential value and retail preferences andfuture patronage intent should be examined in greater depth.

Marketers view Gen Y as the most difficult generation to reachthrough advertising mediums. Yet, results from this study indicatefor Gen Y some brick-and-mortar apparel shoppers intend to shopfrom their favourite store, indicating a level of store loyalty.Apparel retailers should develop strategies that encourage andreward loyal patronage at their store because most of this genera-tion is bombarded with promotional advertising, which createsa disinterest in the majority of marketing strategies (Wolburgand Pokrywczyniski, 2001). Creation of a cohesive retail apparelbrand image through a variety of shopping experiences, such asentertainment or visual display, will enhance Gen Y consumers’preferences for their stores. Shopping experiences for Gen Yconsumers store preference also could include use of the physicalstore environment, electronic channels and a focused communica-tions programme. Retail brand image must be carefully con-structed and monitored as these generations’ age and consumptionpatterns change.

Retailers can benefit by the findings of this study by ensuringthat their product displays, aesthetics and store appearance are

maintained at a high level of attractiveness and appeal to optimizeGen Y’s patronage; and therefore, increase levels of consumerpurchasing and stores’ profit. Also, apparel retailers should recog-nize GenY members currently shopping in their stores are likely torevisit and develop strategies that create value over a lifetime.Longitudinal study of Gen Y is required to understand the shift inwhat shoppers want by cohort as this group of consumers have alifetime of consumption ahead of them. This information will helpanticipate their needs as they transition life stages.

ReferencesAaker, D.A., Kumar, V. & Day, G.S. (1998) Marketing Research. John

Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York.Anonymous (2002/2003) Gen Y and the future of mall retailing. Ameri-

can Demographics, 24, J1–J4.Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R. & Griffin, M. (1994) Work and/or fun: mea-

suring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of ConsumerResearch, Inc, 20, 644–656.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. & Voss, G.B. (2002) The influ-ence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandisevalue and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66, 120–141.

Bakewell, C. & Mitchell, V.W. (2003) Generation Y female consumerdecision-making styles. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, 31, 95–96.

Bonnici, J.L. & Fredenberger, W.B. (1992) Cohort analysis: analyzingdata on product use. Journal of Applied Business Research, 8, 1–9.

Brooks, S. (2005) What’s so special about echo boomers? RestaurantBusiness, 104, 34–37.

Carpenter, J.M., Moore, M. & Fairhurst, A.E. (2005) Consumer shop-ping for brands. Journal of Fashion Marketing, 99, 43–53.

Chan, P.S. & Pollard, D. (2003) Succeeding in the dotcom economy:challenges for brick & mortar companies. International Journal ofManagement, 20, 11–17.

Chetthamrongchai, P. & Davies, G. (2000) Segmenting the market forfood shoppers using attitudes to shopping and to time. British FoodJournal, 102, 81.

Cui, Y., Trent, E., Sullivan, P. & Matiru, G. (2003) Cause-related mar-keting: how Generation Y responds. International Journal of Retail &Distribution Management, 31, 310–320.

Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H. & Ridgway, N.M. (1990) Shopping motives,emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 66, 408–427.

Dholakia, R.R. & Uusitalo, O. (2002) Switching to electronic stores:consumer characteristics and the perception of shopping benefits.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 30, 459–470.

East, R., Gendall P., Hammond, K. & Lomax, W. (2005) Consumerloyalty: singular, additive or interactive? Australasian MarketingJournal, 13, 10–27.

Green, G.T., Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J. & DiStefano, C. (2006) Construc-tion and validation of the national survey on recreation and the envi-ronment’s lifestyles scale, Journal of Leisure Research, 38, 513–535.

Heitmeyer, J. & Kind, K. (2004) Retailing in my back yard: consumerperceptions of retail establishments located within new urbanist com-munities, Journal of Shopping Center Research, 11, 33–53.

Hirschman, E. & Holbrook, M. (1982) Hedonic consumption: emergingconcepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46,92–101.

Hoch, S.J. & Deighton, J. (1989) Managing what consumers learn fromexperience. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–20.

Josiam, B.M., Kinley, T. & Kim, Y.-K. (2005) Involvement and thetourist shopper: using the involvement construct to segment the




294

American tourist shopper at the mall. Journal of Vacation Marketing,11, 135–155.

Kim, Y.-K. (2001) Experiential retailing: an interdisciplinary approachto success in domestic and international retailing. Journal of Retailingand Consumer Services, 8, 287–289.

Kim, Y.-Y., Sullivan, P. & Forney, J.C. (2007) Experiential Retailing.Fairchild Publications, Inc, New York.

Kind, K. (1995) Specialty-Size College Age Females: Satisfaction withApparel Fit, Body Cathexis and Retail Attributes. University ofGeorgia, Athens Georgia.

Klein, M. (1998) He shops, she shops. American Demographics, 20, 34.Levy, M.L. & Weitz, B.A. (2004) Retailing Management, 5th edn.

Mcgraw-Hill/Irwin, MA.Mathwick, C., Malhorta, N. & Ridgon, E. (2001) Experiential value:

conceptualization, measurement, and application in the catalog andinternet shopping environment. Journal of Retailing, 77, 39–56.

Mattson, M., Josiam, B.M. & Sullivan, P. (2003) The histourant: heri-tage tourism at Mickey’s dining car. Tourism Management, 25, 453–461.

Michaelidou, N. & Dibb, S. (2006) Product involvement: an applicationin clothing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 442–453.

Muhammad, F.I. & Ng, C.W. (2002) The importance of entertainment inthe shopping center experience: evidence from Singapore. Journal ofReal Estate Portfolio Management, 8, 239–255.

Niedt, B. (2004) Calling Gen next; marketers target a population whosespending power will rival their boomer parents. The Post-Standard(Syracuse, NY): BUSINESS, C1.

Nicholson, W. (1987) Intermediate Microeconomics. The Dryden Press,New York.

O’Donnell, J. (2006) Gen Y sits on top of consumer food chain; they’resavvy shoppers with money and influence. USA Today, 11 October2006, 3B.

Palmore, E. (1978) When can age, period, and cohort be separated?Social Forces, 57, 282–295.

Peter, J.P. (1981) Construct validity: a review of basic issues andmarketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 133–146.

Pine II, B.J. & Gilmore, J.H. (2002) Customer experience places: thenew offering frontier. Strategy & Leadership, 30, 4–12.

Puente, M. (2002) Shoppers, click around for this. USA Today, 4December 2002 1E.

Rentz, J.O., Reynolds, F.E. & Stout, R.G. (1983) Analyzing changingconsumption patterns with cohort analysis. Journal of MarketingResearch, 20, 12–20.

Schewe, C.D. & Meredith, G. (2004) Segmenting global markets bygenerational cohorts: determining motivations by age. Journal of Con-sumer Behaviour, 4, 51–53.

Schroeder, R.G. (1985) Operations Management. McGraw-Hill, NewYork.

Sherman, E., Mathur, A. & Smith, R.B. (1997) Store environment andconsumer purchase behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions.Psychology and Marketing, 14, 361–378.

Shim, S. & Kotsiopulos, A. (1991) Big and tall men as apparel shop-pers: consumer characteristics and shopping behaviour. Clothing andTextile Research Journal, 9, 16–24.

Sullivan, P. & Savitt, R. (1997) Store patronage and lifestyle factors:implications for rural grocery retailers. International Journal of Retailand Distribution Management, 25, 351–364.

Thomas, J., Cassill, N. & Forsythe, S. (1991) Underlying dimensions ofapparel involvement in consumers’ purchase decisions. Clothing andTextile Research Journal, 9, 45–48.

US Census Bureau (2003) American Fact Finder. [WWW document].URL http://www.census.gov (accessed on 1 April 2008).

Wilcox, M.D. (1996) The echo boom starts to make waves. Kiplinger’sPersonal Finance Magazine, 50, 15.

Wolburg, J.M. & Pokrywczyniski, J. (2001) A psychographic analysis ofGeneration Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41,33–52. [WWW document]. URL http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/858/252/39547199w6/purl=rcl_EAIM0 (accessed on 1April 2008).

Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journalof Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.




295

http://www.census.gov

http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com

looking at gen y shopping preferences and intentions: exploring the role of experience and apparel...

Documents