teensâ€™ mall shopping motivations

Kim et al. / TEENS MALL FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL 10.177/1077727X03258701 SHOPPING MOTIV ATIONS

ARTICLE

Teens Mall Shopping Motivations: Functions of Loneliness and Media UsageYoun-Kyung Kim University of Tennessee Eun Young Kim Chungnam National University Jikyeong Kang The University of Manchester

The shopping mall can serve as a venue through which teens can fulfill their needs by socializing with friends, enjoying entertainment, or simply visiting the site. This study tested whether and how mall shopping motivations were related to loneliness and media usage among teen consumers. Data were collected via a mall intercept survey from 531 teens in four large shopping malls in the United States. Findings indicated that mall shopping motivations consisted of five dimensions: service motivation, economic motivation, diversion motivation, eating-out motivation, and social motivation. Results suggest directions for marketers and educators to follow in establishing positive programs to provide social support for teens. Keywords: teens; mall shopping motivations; loneliness; media usage.

Teens need to gain special attention from marketers and scholars in the area of family and consumer sciences because of their unique demographic and psychological characteristics. Teens between the ages of 12 and 19, born in the 1980s to parents of baby boomers or older generation Xers, are growing rapidly in number and consumption power. This population segment is increasing in number at twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (Goff, 1999). Although teens make far less money than adults, they have relatively more disposable income (Zollo, 1995), which is earned from parental allowances and part-time jobs. Furthermore, the decrease in family size because of sociodemographic changes (e.g., delayed marriage, higher divorce

Authors Note: This project was funded by the International Council of Shopping Centers Educational Foundation.Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, December 2003 140-167 2003 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

140

Kim et al. / TEENS MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS

141

rate) allows parents to spend more money on their children (Anderson, 2000). Traditionally, malls attracted consumers through the availability of a wide assortment of stores and merchandise in a single location. Over the years, the mall has grown larger by increasing its range of social and entertainment providers and activities (e.g., special events, food courts, cinemas, and video arcades). By broadening the mix of tenants and activities, the mall has transcended its role as an economic entity to position itself as a center for entertainment and cultural events (Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994; Graham, 1988). In fact, going to the mall has become a major element in the lifestyles of modern U.S. consumers and has been labeled as a culturally ingrained phenomenon (Cuneo, 2000, p. 38). Many consumers consider the mall a premier habitat and spend a relatively long time on-site (Bloch et al., 1994). Despite all these changes, consumers now go to malls less frequently and instead seek convenient shopping through catalogs and the Internet because they have more time pressures than in the past. However, teens, who have more free time for shopping than other population groups (i.e., baby boomers and generation Xers), are shopping at malls in greater numbers today (Kang, Kim, & Tuan, 1996; Richardson, 1993). Although adolescence can potentially be a time of self-identification and new discoveries that lead to new adult roles, this time period also can bring about stress in the form of depression, loneliness, and other psychological difficulties (S. T. Hauser & Bowlds, 1990; McCord, 1990). These psychological stresses may be compounded by the fact that most teens live in nontraditional families with two working parents, stepparents, or a single parent and/or may have unsatisfactory relationships with their friends. During this stage of their lifetime, teens experience decreases in family influences and increases in peer and media influences (Arnett, 1995). According to Wilson and MacGillivray (1998), most teens reveal a strong psychosocial need to belong to and be approved by others who are significant to them. As a result, they conform to peers in lifestyle preferences, such as leisure-time activities, dress, and music (Berndt & Das, 1987; Huston & Alvarez, 1990). Teens consider shopping more of an experience than a routine (Zollo, 1995). They shop to become more independent, socialize with friends, or express themselves (Omelia, 1998). In fact, many retail settings (e.g., record store, video arcade) provide a meeting place for teens who desire to be with their peer group or reference group. Thus, the venue through which teens can

142

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

fulfill their unique needs seems to be a shopping mall where they can socialize with friends, enjoy entertainment, or solve their loneliness or other psychological stresses (Bloch et al., 1994; Omelia, 1998). Given the role the mall plays in meeting teens multiple needs, it seems critical that educators and marketers understand why and how teens exhibit certain consumption behavior in malls. As the first step, this study examined how teens vary in the motivations that bring them to the mall. Next, it assessed how teens various mall shopping motivations are associated with their level of loneliness and media usage, which entailed using the structural model to investigate the causal relationships among these three variables. This study provides useful information for educators to incorporate teens mall shopping motivations into their educational programs. Retailers who develop strategies based on teens special needs for shopping will create a strong relationship with this younger group providing long-term results.RESEARCH BACKGROUND Mall Shopping Motivations

Within a consumer behavior context, motivation refers to the drive, urge, wish, or desire that leads to a goal-oriented behavior (Mowen, 1995). Mall shopping motivation is simply that aspect of motivation that is attributed to shopping in a mall setting. In reviewing the literature, motivations for shopping in malls range from utilitarian motivation to hedonic or experiential motivation (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Bloch et al., 1994; Kang et al., 1996; Roy, 1994). Utilitarian motivation involves satisfying functional needs, such as convenient shopping; procuring goods, services, or specific information; and reducing the costs (i.e., money, time, and effort) that may have to be expended in transportation, finding specific products or services, and waiting in check-out lines (Kim & Kang, 1997). Hedonic or experiential motivation involves satisfying emotional or expressive needs, such as fun, relaxation, and gratification (Bloch, Ridgway, & Nelson, 1991; Roy, 1994). These hedonic satisfactions may be derived from ambience, entertainment, browsing, and social experiences outside the home (e.g., meeting friends, watching people). More specific mall shopping motivation categories were found in the literature. For instance, Bellenger, Robertson, and Greenberg


143

(1977) identified two mall shopping groups based on shopping orientations. Recreational shoppers enjoy shopping as a leisure-time activity. Convenience or economic shoppers approach mall shopping from a time- or money-saving point of view. In Roys (1994) study, mall shopping motivation consisted of three dimensions: functional economic motivation, deal proneness, and recreational shopping motivation. They found that deal-proneness motivation was negatively correlated with visit frequency, which implies that price-sensitive consumers might wait for special sales before mall visits and thus may become relatively infrequent patrons of shopping malls. On the other hand, the degree of recreational shopping motivation was positively correlated with visit frequency, suggesting that people who want to satisfy the needs for affiliation, power, and stimulation visit malls relatively often. Bloch et al. (1994) identified distinct patterns of the mall habitat. The six patterns captured were mall enthusiasts, engaging in a wide range of behaviors that include a high level of purchasing, enjoyment of the mall aesthetics (e.g., physical design, appearance), and experiential consumption escape, representing sensory stimulation, a relief from boredom, and an escape from routine exploration, tapping consumers desires for variety or novelty and enjoyment of exploring new products or stores while in the mall flow, reflecting a pleasurable absorption that is associated with losing track of time knowledge or epistemic, referring to obtaining information about new stores and new products social affiliation, addressing the enjoyment of communicating and socializing with others

Kang et al. (1996) identified six motivation factors of mall shoppers: aesthetic ambience, economic incentives, diversion/browsing, social experience, convenient service availability, and consumption of meal/snack. These researchers found that mall shopping motivations vary significantly according to age group. The teen consumer group, compared to the other age groups (ages 20 to 49 and 50 and older), had stronger diversion/browsing and social experience shopping motivations. Early research into teens concentrated on understanding the role of consumer socialization agents, such as family, peer, and media in consumer behavior (Moore & Schultz, 1983; Moschis & Churchill, 1979;

144


Moschis & Moore, 1979). Subsequent research combined these variables with shopping orientations (Shim & Gehrt, 1996), clothing or brand choice (Taylor & Cosenza, 2002; Wilson & MacGillivray, 1998), and shopping experience as entertainment (Baker & Haytko, 2000). Nevertheless, related literature reveals that except for Kang et al. (1996), a lack of empirical research is focused on teen consumer behavior as it relates to mall shopping motivation. Limited studies reported that, compared to adult consumers, teen consumers are more likely to be motivated to shop for the hedonic needs of diversion, enjoying the crowds, and entertainment, such as enjoying the food court or interior of malls, than for utilitarian needs (Cebrzynski, 1999; The Survey Says: Teen-agers Want to Shop til They Drop, 1994). Lack of research focus on this population group, combined with their number and purchasing power, underscores the need to understand how teens mall shopping motivation relates to their needs in retail environments.Loneliness and Mall Shopping Motivations

Loneliness has been documented as a condition that affects many large segments of U.S. society. In fact, it has been acknowledged that loneliness is a relatively common experience among teens. This may be a result of their trying to define their role in the family and search for greater independence (Kostelecky & Lempers, 1998; Marcoen & Goossens, 1993; Perlman, 1988). Although there has been some debate about the definition and measurement of loneliness, a commonly held definition of loneliness includes underlying dimensions, such as an unpleasant experience, deficiencies in a persons social relationships, and a subjective experience with social isolation (Forman & Sriram, 1991; Russell, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980). The Russell et al. (1980) Revised UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Loneliness Scale, one of the best known scales to measure loneliness, conveys these three dimensions. Contrasted with adults, teens loneliness might be induced from deficient social relationships with their peers or friends, such as having fewer friends or being isolated from peers (Lewis, Dyer, & Moran, 1995; Moschis, 1987). Other deficient social relationships may be derived from a lack of interpersonal communication among family members, parents divorce, a recent death or serious illness in the family or of a close friend, or a failed romance (Kostelecky & Lempers, 1998; Weiss, 1974). Loneliness also can be a subjective experience in the sense that


145

individuals who do not have friends may not feel lonely or that those individuals who have friends can be lonely. The subjective experience of loneliness is supported by McWhirters (1997) study that through factor analysis of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, two distinct types of loneliness were revealed: intimate loneliness and social loneliness. As a strategy to cope with and solve their feelings of loneliness, teens make an effort to find more satisfying friendships and social contacts. However, these efforts may result in sensually oriented solutions, such as drinking or taking drugs, or diversionary activities, such as keeping busy, working, or reading. Shopping malls can function as a positive venue for teens to alleviate their loneliness via multiple means such as socializing, browsing, entertaining, or simply buying what they want. Bloch et al. (1991) noted that shopping malls are also hospitable to people who are alone by providing social contacts (p. 446). Literature has provided much evidence to support the role of a retail setting as an outlet for social stimulation and support for certain individuals. Stone (1954) identified four types of women shoppers: economic shoppers, personalizing shoppers, ethical shoppers, and apathetic shoppers. Among these four groups, personalizing shoppers form strong personal attachments to store employees as a substitute for social contact. According to Tauber (1972), shopping can meet social motives (e.g., social experiences outside the home, communication with others having a similar interest, status and authority, and the pleasure of bargaining) as well as personal motives (e.g., diversion, browsing, self-gratification, learning about new trends). Tauber argued that an individual may visit a retailer in search of diversion or social contact when he or she feels bored, lonely, or depressed. Rubenstein and Shaver (1980) posed the research question, When you feel lonely, what do you usually do about it? Results yielded four factors including going shopping, social contact (e.g., calling or visiting a family and friend), sad passivity (e.g., doing nothing, sleeping, thinking), and active solitude (e.g., writing, exercising, working on a hobby). Finding two separate factors of going shopping and social contact suggests that going to a store or mall may represent a means to fill a social void apart from the more intimate social contacts that may or may not be available. Forman and Sriram (1991) suggested a negative attitude toward depersonalized retailing (e.g., selfservice stores) existed among lonely consumers. It is contended that

146


retailing establishments provide lonely individuals an outlet for social participation, which alleviates feelings of intimate isolation. On the other hand, individuals with fewer social interactions and casual friendships are less likely to cope with their negative feeling, such as social loneliness (McWhirter, 1997). This supports Eronen and Nurmis (2001) argument for the relationship between social avoidance and loneliness. In the context of shopping, Hirschmann (1984) found that social isolation was negatively related to experiential shopping, discussing that lonely consumers are less likely to engage in shopping for sensory or novelty needs. Based on reviewing the literature, we propose the following hypothesis:Hypothesis 1a: Teens intimate loneliness will increase their mall shopping motivations. Hypothesis 1b: Teens social loneliness will decrease their mall shopping motivations. Loneliness and Media Usage

Adolescence is a time when the presence and power of family diminishes and new adult roles, such as marriage and long-term employment, typically have not yet occurred. Accordingly, this complex transitional stage may produce teens more inclined to make use of media in their socialization than are younger or older consumers (Arnett, 1995). In addition, many teens go home to parentless houses and are alone after school, which induces them to spend more time on media. Media provides teens with norms, values, and behaviors about their age group and groups they aspire to join, as well as providing teens with a resource for fulfilling various needs (Ferle, Edwards, & Lee, 2000). Among these needs are relaxation, coping, killing time, youth-culture identification, and entertainment (Arnett, 1995; Roe, 1995). According to Moore and Schultz (1983), listening to music was the coping strategy most commonly used by teens when they are angry, anxious, or unhappy. Teens reported watching television was a deliberate coping strategy to dispel negative affect (Kurdek, 1987) or to divert themselves from personal concerns with passive, stressful emotions that had accumulated during the day (Arnett, Larson, & Offer, 1995). Similarly, reading printed media (e.g., magazine,


147

newspaper) can be another activity that teens may use to reduce their level of loneliness. Although no study examined teens loneliness in relation to media usage, it can be speculated that teens who feel lonely engage in heavier use of media. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:Hypothesis 2: Teens intimate loneliness and social loneliness will increase their media usage. Media Usage and Mall Shopping Motivations

The pervasive presence of the media in industrialized countries provides teens with vast exposure to a wide range of products, services, and processes that would not be available through the family and friends. In addition, as teens seek to distance themselves from the constraints of family and go beyond the influence of friends, the media can act as agents to expand their horizons of consumptionrelated knowledge or preferences (Wilson & MacGillivray, 1998). McGrath (1998) reported that approximately 76% of teenagers watch television at home, and one half of them watch television with family while eating dinner; 24% of teens listen to the radio. Ferle et al. (2000) discovered that, among media types, the greatest number of media usage hours among teens was allocated to listening to the radio. Although teens magazine and newspaper readership constitutes a smaller amount of the average teens time compared to television and radio, it should not be ignored because of the medias reach. For example, 82% of Seventeen magazines female readers are in the age bracket of 12 to 17 years (Ebenkamp, 2000). Nearly 70% of teens read a daily newspaper at least once a week (Freeman, 1999). Several consumer studies examined the influence of the media on the development of consumer decisions and socialization (Shim, 1996), shopping orientation (Moschis, 1976), product evaluations (Churchill & Moschis, 1979; Moschis & Moore, 1979), and socially desirable consumer behaviors (Moschis & Moore, 1982). More specifically, Moschis (1976) associated media usage with different shopping orientations (i.e., special shopper, brand-loyal shopper, store-loyal shopper, problem-solving shopper, psychosocializing shopper, and name-conscious shopper). For example, problem-solving shoppers and psychosocializing shoppers spent more hours viewing television than other types of shoppers. Special shoppers read more home

148


magazines, whereas the name-conscious shoppers were more likely to read fashion, news, and business magazines. Media type also was associated with the creation of positive or negative consumer orientations. Television watching was related to undesirable consumer orientations, such as the increased desire for compulsive consumption (Lee, Lennon, & Rudd, 2000), conspicuous consumption (Moschis & Moore, 1982), and a decreased ability to process information regarding consumption (Ward, Wackman, & Wartella, 1977). On the other hand, newspaper reading was linked to desirable consumer orientations because it was correlated positively with the development of rational consumer orientations, such as consumer knowledge or financial management (Moore & Moschis, 1981). Information about teens media usage in relation to shopping orientations or motivations is limited. Among the few studies, Shim (1996) investigated adolescents consumer decision-making styles from the consumer socialization perspective. Teens receptiveness to television commercials was positively related to the social/conspicuous orientations, such as buying expensive, well-known brands, seeking excitement from novelties and fashion, and shopping for recreation and entertainment. On the other hand, increased reading of printed media (i.e., newspaper) appeared to point adolescents toward more utilitarian orientations including high quality, price consciousness, and value for money (Shim & Gehrt, 1996). Additional studies focused on teens media usage and how it influenced their consumption decisions. According to Moschis and Moore (1979), the amount of newspaper reading was highly related to brand preferences among teens. This suggested that teens may use brand name as an efficient shopping tool in evaluating various products that have different levels of price, performance, and warranty. Wilson and MacGillivray (1998) also discovered that television and magazines provided a substantial influence on adolescent clothing choice. In the Ferle et al. (2000) study, television and radio were found to fulfill entertainment and leisure needs most often, whereas magazines commonly were used for shopping and health-related information. Conclusively, the literature supports the argument that teens media usage can influence why teens visit or shop at the mall. Thus, the following hypothesis is developed:Hypothesis 3: Teens media usage will increase their mall shopping motivations.


149

METHOD Measures

Measures consisted of three main constructs: shopping motivations, media usage, and loneliness. Revision of the initially developed questionnaire was based on a pretest of a small convenience sample (n = 20). Inputs from the respondents led to several minor revisions in the final questionnaires wording, instructions, or formats. Shopping motivations. Initially, a list of 16 items of shopping motivations was drawn from the literature encompassing utilitarian aspects as well as hedonic aspects of mall shopping (Bellenger et al., 1977; Bloch et al., 1994; Kang et al., 1996; Roy, 1994; Tauber, 1972). Examples of shopping motivation items included to hunt for a real bargain and to simply enjoy the crowds. These shopping motivation items were measured on a 7-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Media usage. Four media usages (e.g., watching television, listening to radio, reading newspaper, and reading magazine) were measured. Respondents were asked how often they engage in these activities on a 7-point rating scale (1 = never, 7 = always). Loneliness. The measure of loneliness was derived from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al., 1980), a scale shown to have high internal consistency. The scale consisted of 11 items, which assessed an individuals self-perceived loneliness. The items were composed of intimate loneliness such as I feel isolated from others and No one really knows me well and social loneliness such as There are people who really understand me and There are people I can talk to. The items of social loneliness were reverse coded before scoring to reflect the concept of loneliness.Sampling and Data Collection

The sample in this study focused on teen consumers aged 12 to 19. After obtaining human participant approval from the Internal Review Board, data were collected via mall intercept survey in four large shopping malls located in New York, Houston, Dallas, and Los Angeles. To ensure adequate sample diversity, data collection was

150


implemented at a variety of times and days of the week. Interviewers intercepted shoppers as they were exiting the malls to ask for their participation in the survey. Prospective respondents were offered a $2 cash payment to secure participation. They took an average of 20 minutes to complete a four-page, self-administered questionnaire. A total of 531 teens completed the survey. The group of respondents in this study consisted of slightly more young women (52.3%) than young men (47.7%). Most respondents lived with family (82.3%). The largest number of respondents was unemployed (56.4%), followed by those employed part-time (28.3%). Three ethnic groups were included in the sample: White (31.4%), Black (34.7%), and Hispanic (31.3%).Data Analysis

For identifying underlying dimensions of shopping motivation, we preliminarily conducted an exploratory factor analysis. Then a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993) verified shopping motivation factors derived from the exploratory factor analysis. Loneliness also was factor analyzed using principal components analysis with varimax rotation to determine underlying constructs in the structural model. Finally, the measurement model and structural model using correlation matrix with maximum likelihood (ML) were estimated simultaneously via LISREL 8 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1993). Overall fit of the model was assessed by various statistic indexes: chi-square (2), goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Shopping Motivation Factors

An exploratory factor analysis using principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was employed to identify underlying dimensions of 16 shopping motivation items. Three items were eliminated due to loadings less than 0.50. The remaining 13 items resulted in five factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 or higher, accounting for 64.4% of the total variance in shopping motivations.


151

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to verify the factor structure of shopping motivation derived from the exploratory factor analysis. The result revealed that 2 value was 89.47 with 54 degrees of freedom, which was significant (p = .0017). This result was most likely caused by the sensitivity of the 2 ratio test overly affected by the large sample size (N = 531) even though the model may explain the data well (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Therefore, alternative fit indexes such as GFI, AGFI, and RMSEA were used to evaluate the goodness of the model fit. The GFI, or AGFI, which is independent of the sample size and relatively robust against departure from normality, was 0.97 and 0.96, respectively. The RMSEA is 0.036, indicating a relatively small residual. Thus, the overall model fit indexes are within the acceptable range. As illustrated in Table 1, the factor loadings of those indicators ranged from 0.63 to 0.80, and Cronbachs alphas of the factors ranged from .62 to .76. Therefore, it was deemed that the factor structure of each shopping motivation was valid and could be used to test the structural model. The first factor, service motivation, consisted of three items: to visit medical/dental/vision care office, to use banking service, and to look at the interior design of malls. It is notable that the interior design of malls was loaded in the same factor with service providers. According to Kim and Kang (1997), utilitarian motivation is extended to combine assorted tasks in achieving the greatest efficiency and time saving. In this view, although teens visit service providers, enjoyment of the interiors of the mall may contribute to their perception of time efficiency. The mean of this factor was lowest (M = 2.57) of the five shopping motivations, which supports the Kang et al. (1996) finding that younger consumers are less likely to visit service providers (e.g., bank and clinics) in malls than are adult consumers. The second factor, economic motivation, included three purchaserelated items: to find a good price, to hunt for a real bargain, and to comparison shop to find the best for one's money. The mean of economic motivation was highest (M = 5.09) of all shopping motivations, suggesting that teen consumers in this study were sensitive to price. This finding may have resulted from respondents employment status (56.4% unemployed, 28.3% employed part-time). Contrary to Barbin, Darden, and Griffins (1994) contention that consumers bargain (e.g., price discount) perceptions are related to hedonic value and utilitarian value, a bargain was perceived as an economic aspect to stimulate teen consumers to go shopping.

152


TABLE 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Shopping Motivation

Factor Items

Factor Loading ( ij)

t Value

Reliability0.73

M (SD) 2.57 2.51 (1.99) 2.61 (1.88) 2.70 (1.87) 5.09 5.14 (1.77) 5.20 (1.88) 4.93 (1.77) 4.79 4.90 (1.96) 4.64 (1.97) 4.82 (1.84) 3.44 3.18 (1.96) 3.70 (1.86) 3.65 3.60 (2.17) 3.70 (2.07)

Service motivation to visit medical/dental/vision care offices to use banking services to look at the interior design of malls Economic motivation to find good prices to hunt for a real bargain to comparison shop to find the best for my money Diversion motivation just so that I can get out of the house when Im bored just to browse Eating-out motivation when I want to get a snack to have a meal at the food court Social motivation to watch people to simply enjoy the crowds Goodness of Fit Statistics 2 = 89.47 (df = 54, p = .0017) GFI = 0.97 AGFI = 0.96 RMSEA = 0.036

0.75 0.72 0.71 0.80 0.67 0.68

14.51 15.06 13.56 0.76 17.26 14.47 14.63 0.71

0.69 0.69 0.63 0.76 0.65 0.71 0.63

14.15 14.10 12.94 0.66 14.51 12.96 0.62 12.08 11.27

NOTE: GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.

The third factor, diversion motivation, contained three items characterized by nonpurchase shopping activities: just so that I can get out of the house, when I am bored, and just to browse. This factor received the second highest shopping motivation mean score (M = 4.79). The importance of diversion as a shopping motivation is consistent with previous findings concerning why people shop in general (Bloch et al., 1994; Kang et al., 1996; Tauber, 1972). The fourth factor, eating-out motivation, included such motivations as to get a snack and to have a meal at the food court and resulted


153

in a moderate mean score (M = 3.44). It is possible that, to many teens, eating is not their primary purpose for visiting the mall, but it is an integral part of their visits, whether they are alone or with friends. The fifth factor, social motivation, contained two items: to watch people and to enjoy the crowd. This factor represents that teens go to malls for social experiences, such as meeting friends and watching people. A moderate mean score also resulted for social motivation (M = 3.65), indicating that teens may enjoy social stimulation or a sense of belongingness as a secondary purpose of the mall visit.Measurement and Structural Models

For testing hypotheses, an analysis with simultaneous estimation of structural and measurement models was performed by using LISREL 8. The structural model tested causative relationships among latent variables (i.e., loneliness, media usage, and shopping motivations). In the structural model, there are two exogenous variables intimate loneliness (1) and social loneliness (2)and seven endogenous variablesmedia usage (1 = audiovisual media, 2 = printed media) and shopping motivations (3 = service motivation, 4 = economic motivation, 5 = diversion motivation, 6 = eating-out motivation, 7 = social motivation). The measurement model assessed how those latent variables are measured in terms of observed indicators and described the validity and reliability of the measurement. It consisted of observed exogenous indicators (x variables) for loneliness and observed endogenous indicators (y variables) for media usage and shopping motivations (see Table 2). Measurement model. To assess the measurement model, all observed indicators were set free by standardizing all exogenous and endogenous latent variables because the magnitude of coefficient matrix (s or s) for latent variables depends on one observed indicator arbitrarily selected as a referent for latent variables (Jreskog & Srbom, 1989). The estimated measurement model presented in Table 2 consisted of 6 observed x variables for two loneliness factors, 4 observed y variables for media usage, and 13 observed y variables for five shopping motivation factors. Overall, the coefficients of factor loading (ij) on latent constructs ranged from 0.54 to 0.88 (p < .001). Reliabilities of latent variables ranged from 0.62 to 0.87. Therefore, the measurement model was confirmed to be valid and reliable.

154

TABLE 2: The Measurement Model Result

Latent Variables and Observed IndicatorsLoneliness Intimate loneliness (1) X1: I feel isolated from others X2: I am unhappy being so withdrawn X3: I feel left out Social loneliness (2) a X4: there are people I can turn to a X5: there are people I can talk to a X6: there are people who really understand me Media usage Audiovisual media (1) Y1: television Y2: radio Printed media (2) Y3: magazine Y4: newspaper Mall shopping motivation Service motivation (3) Y5: to visit medical/dental/vision care office(s) Y6: to use banking services Y7: to look at the interior design of malls Economic motivation (4) Y8: to find good prices Y9: to hunt for a real bargain Y10: to comparison-shop to find the best for my money

Standardized Coefficients ( ij)

t Value

Reliability0.80

M (SD)

0.82 0.77 0.68 0.88 0.82 0.77

19.88 18.34 15.95 0.87 23.65 21.67 19.94 0.85

3.13 (1.62) 2.81 (1.84) 3.24 (1.95) 3.31 (1.99) 2.87 (1.62) 2.87 (1.82) 2.88 (1.77) 2.86 (1.87) 5.41(1.54) 5.35(1.68) 5.47(1.63) 4.98(1.63) 4.84(1.84) 5.11(1.71) 2.57 (1.70) 2.51 (1.99) 2.61 (1.88) 2.70 (1.87) 5.09 (1.48) 5.13 (1.77) 5.20 (1.88) 4.93 (1.77)

0.85 0.86 0.83 0.82

20.88 21.00 0.81 19.42 14.70 0.73

0.68 0.77 0.63 0.83 0.65 0.67

14.70 16.44 13.65 0.76 17.78 14.33 14.70

Diversion motivation (5) Y11: just so that I can get out of the house Y12: when I am bored Y13: just to browse Eating-out motivation (6) Y14: when I want to get a snack Y15: to have a meal at the food court Social motivation (7) Y16: to simply enjoy the crowds Y17: to watch people a. Items reverse coded before scoring.

0.71 0.69 0.70 0.63 0.75 0.67 0.54 0.83 14.15 14.34 13.14 0.66 10.81 11.18 0.62 8.27 7.85

4.79 (1.53) 4.90 (1.96) 4.64 (1.96) 4.82 (1.84) 3.44 (1.65) 3.18 (1.96) 3.70 (1.86) 3.65 (1.81) 3.70 (2.07) 3.60 (2.17)

155

156


Loneliness, through an exploratory factor analysis, generated two factors whose eigenvalue was above 1.0, and three items were eliminated due to lower factor loadings below 0.60. The first factor, intimate loneliness, included five items: I feel isolated from others, I am unhappy being so withdrawn, I feel left out, I am no longer close to anyone, and There is no one I can turn to. The second factor, social loneliness, included three items: There are people I can talk to, There are people I can turn to, and There are people who really understand me. Two factors accounted for 67.3% of the total variance for loneliness. By confirming the Loneliness factor structure derived from the exploratory factor analysis, two indicators for the latent Intimate Loneliness factor were removed due to the factor loading lower than 0.60. Conclusively, the latent variable of loneliness consisted of two latent factors: intimate loneliness (1) measured by three indicators and social loneliness (2) measured by three indicators (see Table 2). A descriptive analysis of loneliness indicates that the mean score of intimate loneliness (M = 3.13) is slightly higher than that of social loneliness (M = 2.87). However, the mean of loneliness is below the midpoint, which supports a stronger relationship between friends or peers among teens (Berndt & Das, 1987; Rokach, 2001) and positive nomination in a peer group (Eronen & Nurmi, 2001). Media usage was classified into two constructs: audiovisual media and printed media. The construct of audiovisual media usage (1) consisted of two observed indicators of television and radio; printed media usage (2) consisted of two observed indicators of magazine and newspaper (see Table 2). A descriptive analysis provided the mean scores for two media groups: audiovisual media (M = 5.41) and printed media (M = 4.98). Shopping motivation was confirmed to have five constructs: service motivation (3), economic motivation (4), diversion motivation (5), eating-out motivation (6), and social motivation (7). One item loaded on social motivation resulted in a low coefficient but was retained because one indicator for a latent construct is not considered adequate to verify a measurement model (Jreskog & Srbom, 1989). Structural equation model. To examine causal relationships among latent variables (i.e., loneliness, media usage, and shopping motivation), we first estimated a proposed structural model, followed by the modified model. The 2 value was first evaluated, but it is very sensitive to a large sample size, which may cause the risk of rejecting a valid model. Therefore, we used the bic statistic adopted by R. M.


157

Hauser and Wong (1989) for posteriori tests: bic = L2 df log N, where L2 is the likelihood ratio test statistic or 2 when the sample size is large under the assumption of multivariate normality, df is the degree of freedom, and N is the sample size. Models with lower (more negative) bic statistics are considered as better fit. In addition, the difference between likelihood ratio test statistics for comparing two nested models is expressed as the difference between the two models in 2 and degrees of freedom (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989; R. M. Hauser & Wong, 1989). As presented in Table 3, overall fit statistics of the proposed model suggested that the 2 value of 706.85 was significant (df = 205, p < .001), and the bic of 149.25 was positive. Moreover, other indexes were not within the ranges to accept the proposed model (GFI = 0.90, AGFI = 0.86, RMSEA = 0.066). Thus, to improve the proposed model, we first introduced a partial covariance (21) between two endogenous variables of audiovisual media (1) and printed media (2) based on maximum modification index. As a result, the 2 value decreased to 537.77 (df = 204, p < .001), and the bic statistic became negative (17.11) (Model B in Table 3). The difference between the likelihood ratio test statistics of these two models was significant (2A-B = 169.08, df = 1, p < .001), which implies that the freed parameter (21 = 0.62, p < .001) between two media usages imposed in our model is accepted (see Figure 1). However, because other fit statistics were not highly acceptable (GFI = 0.92; AGFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.056), we considered other modification indexes to improve the model fit. The second modification index indicates the existence of a causal structural relationship (63) between service motivation (3) and eating-out motivation (6). Model C in Table 3 reveals a decreased 2 value of 446.70 (df = 203, p < .001) and an improved negative bic statistic (105.46), which suggests that the overall fit of the model was improved. Comparing Model C to Model B shows that a large change in 2 compared to the difference in degrees of freedom was significant (2B-C = 91.08, df = 1, p < .001). Other fit indexes were also improved (GFI = 0.93; AGFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.048). Although the overall fit of the model was improved, it was discovered that a maximum modification index for causal relationship between diversion motivation and social motivation was high, which reflects that diversion shopping motivation is linked to social aspects of shopping from the hedonic perspective (Barbin et al., 1994; Bloch

158


Loneliness

Media Usage

Mall Shopping Motivation

31= .42***Intimate Loneliness (1)

Service Motivation (3)

63 = .67***Eating-out Motivation (6)

31 = -.26*** 61 = .18* 41 = .15* 51 = .18* 32 = .21**Economic Motivation (4)

Audiovisual Media (1) 21= .62***

62 = -.24**

12 = -.17**

Printed Media (2)

Diversion Motivation (5)

22 = -.16**

42 = -.19*** 75 = .35*** 52 = -.17** 71= .17**Social Motivation (7)

Social Loneliness (2)

Goodness of Fit Statistics 2 = 414.55 (df = 202, p = .00) GFI = 0.94 AGFI = 0.91 RMSEA = 0.045 Figure 1: Structural Model of Teens Mall Shopping Motivations NOTE: GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

et al., 1994; Roy, 1994). Thus, finally, the path (75) from diversion motivation (5) to social motivation (7) was added in the model. The fit of Model D in Table 3 provided a decreased 2 value of 414.55 (df = 202, p < .001) and a decreased bic statistic of 134.89. The difference between Model C and D was significant (2C-D = 32.15, df = 1, p < .001), which implies that the final modified Model D was acceptable. In addition, other indexes were within ranges for accepting the model (GFI = 0.94; AGFI = 0.91), which exceeded the 0.90 standard for model fit (Kelley, Longfellow, & Malehorn, 1996). The RMSEA was also


159

TABLE 3: Summary of Goodness of Fit Statistics for Structural Models

ModelA. Proposed model B. Model A + 21 C. Model B + 63 D. Model C + 75

2

df 205 204 203 202

Bic149.25 17.11 105.46 134.89

GFI0.90 0.92 0.93 0.94

AGFI0.86 0.89 0.91 0.91

RMSEA0.068 0.056 0.048 0.045

706.85* 537.77* 446.70* 414.55*

NOTE: Bic = statistics based on Bayesian theory for posteriori tests; GFI = goodness of fit index; AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. *p < .001

reduced from 0.066 to 0.045, which indicates a better fit. Accordingly, the final revised model illustrated in Figure 1 was deemed to be a very good fit. The final structural model illustrated in Figure 1 includes significant standardized path coefficients.Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis 1. Loneliness was significantly related to shopping motivations, but the effects on shopping motivation differed by the Loneliness factor, whether it was intimate loneliness or social loneliness. More specifically, the Intimate Loneliness factor had positive direct effects on service motivation (31 = .42, p < .001) and social motivation (71 = 0.17, p < .01). Teens who feel emotionally isolated tend to enjoy being surrounded by the crowds and to use service centers (e.g., medical/dental/vision care offices, banks) or enjoy interior design. It is notable that the indirect effect of intimate loneliness on eating-out motivation via the Service Motivational factor (31 63 = 0.28, t = 5.09, p < .001) was slightly greater than its direct effects on social motivation (0.17). Therefore, this finding supports Hypothesis 1a, suggesting that lonely teens who feel isolated from others or feel left out are likely to be motivated to shop for enjoying a crowded mall atmosphere and retail environments, such as interiors and service centers, which, in turn, leads to eating in food courts or snack corners. As compared to intimate loneliness, social loneliness resulted in significant negative effects on economic motivation (42 = .19, p < .001) and diversion motivation (52 = .17, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1b mentioning that social loneliness will decrease mall shopping motivations is supported. Teens who are socially isolated

160


were less likely to visit the mall for searching for good prices, hunting for bargains, and comparison shopping. This finding somewhat supports the literature that teen consumers who had many friends tended to be well informed and sophisticated because their friends or peers were primary sources of shopping information or knowledge (Lewis et al., 1995; Moschis & Moore, 1979). The finding that socially lonely teens who feel a lack of social networks were less likely to shop for diversion reflects Hirschmans (1984) argument that a person who feels socially isolated participates in forbidden forms of consumption to meet his or her sensory desires (e.g., uninhibited parties, drug and alcohol experimentation). Conclusively, for teens, the two dimensions of loneliness intimate loneliness and social lonelinessplay important roles as antecedents of different mall shopping motivations. The effects of intimate loneliness and social loneliness on mall shopping motivations were opposite in direction, that is, positive and negative, respectively. Hypothesis 2. With respect to the relationship between loneliness and media usage, intimate loneliness was not significantly related to media usage, whereas social loneliness was significantly related to media usage. Teens who feel isolated from others may not benefit from media usage as an effective venue to alleviate their loneliness. To the contrary, social loneliness negatively influenced both types of media usage: audiovisual media (12 = .17, p < .01) and printed media (22 = .16, p < .01). As teens feel more socially isolated, media uses (i.e., television, radio, magazine, and newspaper) decrease. It may be that socially isolated teens use the Internet for social stimulation via interactive Web sites, such as chat rooms or e-mail (Ferle et al., 2000; Fetto, 2002). Therefore, Hypothesis 2, stating that teens selfperceived loneliness will increase media usage, is not supported. Hypothesis 3. Media usage is significantly related to four shopping motivations: service motivation, economic motivation, diversion motivation, and eating-out motivation. More specifically, audiovisual media usage resulted in a negative effect on service motivation (31 = .26, p < .001); however, it had positive effects on economic motivation (41 = 0.15, p < .05), diversion motivation (51 = 0.18, p < .05), and eating-out motivation (61 = 0.18, p < .05). The positive effects of audiovisual media on economic motivation and eating-out motivation suggest that as teen exposure to television and radio commercials


161

increases, their knowledge of products and prices increases and results in visiting the mall for specific reasons. Considering Shims (1996) contention that the visual commercial media (e.g., television) motivated teen consumers to shop for novelty or sensational and diversion needs, the shopping mall can act as a venue to support their psychological needs. Printed-media usage resulted in a positive effect on service motivation (32 = 0.21, p = 0.01) and a negative effect on eating-out motivation (62 = .24, p < .01). Teens who used more printed media were likely to use more service providers, whereas they were less likely to go to malls for having a meal or snack. Indirect effects were also found between two media usages and eating-out motivation via the mediating service motivation. Audiovisual media resulted in a negative indirect effect on eating-out motivation [(31) (63) = .17, t = 2.98, p < .01], whereas the printed media had a positive indirect effect on eating-out motivation [(32) (63) = 0.14, t = 2.48, p < .01]. Heavy users of printed media may be those shoppers who visit the mall for multiple purposes: using services and having meals or snacks on a single trip. This result is consistent with Shims (1996) finding that printed material was related to teens utilitarian consumer orientation. On the other hand, service motivation did not encourage heavy users of audiovisual media to eat out in the mall. Consequently, the result supports that media usage is related to various shopping motivations (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Moschis, 1976; Moschis & Moore, 1979; Shim, 1996). Effects on teens mall shopping motivations differed by type of media used. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is partially supported.Conclusions, Implications, and Limitations

This study tested the relationships between teens loneliness, media usage, and mall shopping motivations. Findings indicated that teens mall shopping motivations consisted of five dimensions: service motivation, economic motivation, diversion motivation, eatingout motivation, and social motivation. Results support the related research (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Bloch et al., 1994; Kang et al., 1996; Roy, 1994) suggesting that consumers go to the mall for experiences offered by malls, as well as the utility of consuming and buying process. Loneliness exhibited as having two distinct dimensions: intimate isolation and social isolation. These two factors were linked to teens

162


media usage and particular shopping needs in the mall environment and thus encourage development of programs to meet these needs. For emotionally isolated teens, the mall can provide them with opportunities to visit service providers, enjoy interior design, eat, and watch the crowds in the mall. For these teens, the formats of food courts, snack corners, or restaurants need to be explored to ensure that they serve to fulfill socializing needs, such as meeting friends and solving loneliness. Special mall events and exhibits might enhance this effect. For socially isolated teens, expressive mall attributes (e.g., prestige, attractive ambience) may be more important than economic mall attributes (e.g., reduced prices or comparison shopping). In addition, the mall should provide goal-oriented tenants or activities (e.g., cinema, video arcade), because socially isolated teens are not motivated by passive activities (e.g., browsing) to alleviate boredom. Usage of media seems to be related to different types of shopping motivations. Audiovisual media usage (i.e., television, radio) increased mall shopping for fulfilling diversion or economic motivations, whereas printed media usage (i.e., magazine, newspaper) increased teens mall visits of service providers. This information can be used as a basis for developing media plans targeting teens. Targeted television and radio messages could advertise malls special promotions, sweepstakes, and complementary lines of products offered for comparison shopping. These messages can be conveyed in an attractive and exciting shopping environment appealing to teens who need diversion from their routine daily life. Magazines and newspapers could include information on the availability of services, such as hair styling, vision care, and shoe repair. Results increase the theoretical understanding of teen consumers shopping motivations and suggest directions for retailers and educators as they establish programs directed at teens. In particular, the critical role of shopping to alleviate teens loneliness provides a potential avenue for reshaping or recharacterizing the shopping mall. Malls can be established as multipurpose retail/community centers that provide appropriate intervention and treatment programs for lonely teens and supplement programs created by social agencies. Retail business can boost teen socialization by providing entry-level jobs that are fun and exciting to teens. The role of the mall becomes more important to meet this goal, given the fact that loneliness has been linked to a variety of other serious individual and social problems, including alcoholism (Nerviano & Gross, 1976), adolescent


163

delinquent behavior (Brennan & Auslander, 1979), and suicide (Wenz, 1977). Mall owners and retailers should ensure that shopping malls are hospitable to teen consumers who are lonely by providing more socially supportive functions that can be performed by service agents and salespeople. They could provide teen-oriented social interactions, such as special mall events (e.g., music, fashion shows) and exhibits. In addition, their experience can be enhanced by attractive dcor and music directed at teen consumers. However, it is argued that teens bring problems into malls via shoplifting, overspending, or using parents credit cards, and thus some malls enforce age restrictions for teens under age 16 unless they are accompanied by their parents or someone older than 19 years (Chatzky, 2002; Saelens, 1998; Terlep, 1997). Professionals working in the area of family and consumer sciences should consider programs to educate teens and parents to develop social ethics in shopping malls. Likewise, mall retailers need to emphasize family-oriented products or services and special community events during weekends. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations. The sampling was limited to major cities in limited geographic locations. Unquestionably, geographical locations other than the major cities selected for this study should be considered to replicate the findings of the study. In addition, the hypotheses set forth in this study specifically dealt with the shopping motivations of teen consumers with regard to mall shopping. With increasing debate on the vitality of mall shopping as challenged by growth in nonstore retailing (i.e., Internet shopping), theoretical considerations should be given to the shopping motivations of teen consumers for nontraditional channels of retailing. Research could focus on the need for a revised theoretical structure based on shopping motivation. For instance, teens shopping associated with a specific product (e.g., clothing) or brand preference (Taylor & Cosenza, 2002) should be examined for better understanding teens shopping motivations. In addition, the antecedents of mall shopping motivation could include demographic (e.g., gender and ethnicity) and psychographic variables, such as self-esteem, family communication pattern, and materialism (Carlson, Walsh, Laczniak, & Grossbart, 1994; Darley, 1999).

164


REFERENCESAnderson, C. (2000). Survey: The young: Youth, Inc. The Economist, 357(8202), S9-S10. Arnett, J. J. (1995). Adolescents uses of media for self-socialization. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24(5), 519-533. Arnett, J. J., Larson, R., & Offer, D. (1995). Beyond effects: Adolescents as active media users. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24(5), 511-518. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94. Baker, J., & Haytko, D. (2000). The mall as entertainment: Exploring teen girls total shopping experiences. Journal of Shopping Center Research, 7(1), 29-58. Barbin, B., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656. Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56(3), 77-92. Bellenger, D. N., Robertson, D. H., & Greenberg, B. A. (1977). Shopping center patronage motives. Journal of Retailing, 53(2), 29-38. Berndt, T. J., & Das, R. (1987). Effects of popularity and friendship on perceptions of the personality and social behavior of peers. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 429-439. Bloch, P., Ridgway, N. M., & Dawson, S. A. (1994). The shopping mall as consumer habitat. Journal of Retailing, 70(1), 23-42. Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., & Nelson, J. (1991). Leisure and the shopping mall. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 445-452. Brennan, T., & Auslander, N. (1979). Adolescent loneliness: An exploratory study of social and psychological pre-dispositions and theory. Unpublished manuscript. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute. Carlson, L., Walsh, A., Laczniak, R. L., & Grossbart, S. (1994). Family communication patterns and marketplace motivations, attitudes, and behaviors of children and mothers. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28(1), 25-53. Cebrzynski, G. (1999, March 8). Restaurants may want to get wired to reach Generation Y youths. Nations Restaurant News, 33(10), 14. Chatzky, J. (2002, June 17). A guide for silver spoon parents. Time, 159(24), 82. Churchill, G. A. Jr., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(1), 23-35. Cuneo, A. Z. (2000). Malls move to capture sales lost to the Net. Advertising Age, 71(32), 38-46. Darley, W. K. (1999). The relationship of antecedents of search and self-esteem to adolescent search effort and perceived product knowledge. Psychology & Marketing, 16(5), 409-427. Ebenkamp, B. (2000, February 28). Teen-Y shoppers. Bandweek, 41(9), 28. Eronen, S., & Nurmi, J. E. (2001). Sociometric status of young adults: Behavioral correlates, and cognitive-motivational antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25(3), 203-213. Ferle, C. L., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, W. (2000). Teens use of traditional media and the Internet. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(3), 55-65. Fetto, J. (2002). Teen chatter. American Demographics, 24(4), 14. Forman, A. M., & Sriram, V. (1991). The depersonalization of retailing: Its impact on the lonely consumer. Journal of Retailing, 67(2), 226-243.


165

Freeman, L. (1999, April 28). Teen-agers turn heartthrobs for eager publishers. Advertising Age, 70(18), S8. Goff, L. (1999). Dont miss the bus! American Demographics, 21(8), 48-54. Graham, E. (1988, May 13). The call of the mall. The Wall Street Journal, p. 7R. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hauser, R. M., & Wong, S. (1989). Sibling resemblance and intersibling effects in educational attainment. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 149-171. Hauser, S. T., & Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping, and adaptation. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 388-413). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hirschman, E. C. (1984). Experience seeking: A subjectivist perspective of consumption. Journal of Business Research, 12(1), 115-136. Huston, A. C., & Alvarez, M. M. (1990). The socialization context of gender role development in early adolescence. In R. Montemayor, G. Adams, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 156-182). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: JRESKOG and SRBOM/SPSS Inc. Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1993). Windows LISREL 8.12a. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kang, J., Kim, Y., & Tuan, W. (1996). Motivational factors of mall shoppers: Effects of ethnicity and age. Journal of Shopping Center Research, 3(1), 7-31. Kelly, S. W., Longfellow, T., & Malehorn, J. (1996). Organizational determinants of service employees exercise of routine, creative, and deviant discretion. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 135-157. Kim, Y., & Kang, J. (1997). Consumer perception of shopping costs and its relationship with retail trends. Journal of Shopping Center Research, 4(2), 27-62. Kostelecky, K. L., & Lempers, J. D. (1998). Stress, family social support, distress, and well-being in high school seniors. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 27(2), 125-145. Kurdek, L. (1987). Gender differences in the psychological symptomatology and coping strategies of young adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 395-410. Lee, S., Lennon, S., & Rudd, N. (2000). Compulsive consumption tendencies among television shoppers. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(4), 463-488. Lewis, M., Dyer, C. L., & Moran, J. D. (1995). Parental and peer influences on the clothing purchases of female adolescent consumers as a function of discretionary income. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 87, 15-20. Marcoen, A., & Goossens, L. (1993). Loneliness, attitudes aloneness, and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. In S. Jackson & H. Rodriguez-Tome (Eds.), Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. 197-228). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCord, J. (1990). Problem behaviors. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 414-430). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McGrath, C. (1998). Busy teenagers. American Demographics, 20(7), 37-38. McWhirter, B. T. (1997). Loneliness, learned resourcefulness, and self-esteem in college students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75(6), 460-469.

166


Moore, D., & Schultz, N. R. (1983). Loneliness at adolescence: Correlates, attributes and coping. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 12, 1-8. Moore, R. L., & Moschis, G. P. (1981). The impact of newspaper reading on adolescent consumers. Newspaper Research Journal, 2(4), 1-8. Moschis, G. P. (1976). Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information. Journal of Retailing, 52(2), 61-70. Moschis, G. P. (1987). Consumer socialization. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Moschis, G. P., & Churchill, G. A. (1979). An analysis of the adolescent consumer. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 40-48. Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1979). Decision making among the young: A socialization perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 101-112. Moschis, G. P., & Moore, R. L. (1982). A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 279-286. Mowen, J. C. (1995). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nerviano, V. J., & Gross, W. F. (1976). Loneliness and locus of control for alcoholic males: Validity against Murray need and Cattell trait dimensions. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 479-484. Omelia, J. (1998). Understanding generation Y: A look at the next wave of U.S. consumers. Drug & Cosmetic Industry, 163(6), 90-92. Perlman, D. (1988). Loneliness: A life-span, family perspective. In R. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks (pp. 190-220). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Richardson, L. (1993, August). Consumers in the 1990s: No time or money to burn. Chain Store Age Executive, pp. 15A-17A. Roe, K. (1995). Adolescents use of socially disvalued media: Toward a theory of media delinquency. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 24(5), 617-631. Rokach, A. (2001). Strategies of coping with loneliness throughout the lifespan. Current Psychology: Development, Learning, Personality, Social, 20(1), 3-18. Roy, A. (1994). Correlates of mall visit frequency. Journal of Retailing, 70(2), 139-161. Rubenstein, C., & Shaver, P. (1980). Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: John Wiley. Russell, D., Peplau, L. A., & Cutrona, C. E. (1980). The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39(3), 472-480. Saelens, E. (1998, March 27). Bill may limit mall-goers. The State News. Retrieved from www.statenews.com/editionsspring98/032798/ci_mall.html Shim, S. (1996). Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 13(6), 547-569. Shim, S., & Gehrt, K. C. (1996). Hispanic and Native American adolescents: An exploratory study of their approach to shopping. Journal of Retailing, 72(3), 307-324. Stone, G. P. (1954). City shoppers and urban identification: Observations on the social psychology of city life. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 36-45. The survey says: Teen-agers want to shop til they drop. (1994, November). Chain Store Age Executive, pp. 91-96. Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 46-49. Taylor, S. L., & Cosenza, R. M. (2002). Profiling later aged female teens: Mall shopping behavior and clothing choice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(5), 393-408. Terlep, S. (1997, June 12). Senate mulls letting malls limit teen-agers. The State News. Retrieved from www.statenews.com/editionssummer97/061297/nw_mall.html


167

Ward, S., Wackman, D. B., & Wartella, E. (1977). How children learn to buy: The development of consumer information-processing skills. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Weiss, R. (1974). The provisions of social relationships. In Z. Rubin (Ed.), Doing unto others (pp. 17-26). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wenz, F. Z. (1977). Seasonal suicide attempts and forms of loneliness. Psychological Report, 40, 807-810. Wilson, J., & MacGillivray, M. (1998). Self-perceived influences of family, friends, and media on adolescent clothing choice. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 26(4), 425-443. Zollo, P. (1995). Talking to teens. American Demographics, 17(11), 22-28.

teensâ€™ mall shopping motivations

Documents