Journal of Retailing and Consum

pu

ll A

lege, 4

outhea

nna U

umer

ir sto

purch

ests t

ir rep

licati

Keywords: Reputation; Store patronage; Retailing

Balmer, 1997). Moreover, with the growing mediaattention and increasing critique of private business

reputation. Corporate image stands for the current and

consistent store of goodwill, is more stable and durablethan corporate image as a consequence of the chronic

may have different images. For a good analysis of thedifferences see the study by Nguyen and Leblanc (2001).The primary objective of this study was to conduct an

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Corresponding author. Tel.: +954 262 5123.

analysis that illustrates the effects of retailer reputationon consumers store patronage patterns in shops with

0969-6989/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2005.08.014

E-mail addresses: weiming@cc.fec.edu.tw (W.-M. Ou),

abratt@huizenga.nova.edu (R. Abratt), dion@susqu.edu (P. Dion).corporations by various interest groups, marketingresearchers and practitioners have begun to understandthe value of corporate reputation (Christensen andAskegaard, 2001). Retailers with good reputations are,among other things, ethical, offer customers good value,communicate honestly, and are well managed.There has been some confusion as to the terminology

of corporate image, corporate reputation, and retailer

process of development (Markwick and Fill, 1997).Retailer reputation excludes the tangible attributes ofthe store, such as location and layout, which areincluded in store image measures. Since physicalfacilities, locations, and atmospheres of every store aredifferent, images of each store in a retail chain orfranchise may vary. However the reputation of the retailchain remains constant, even though individual outlets1. Introduction

Both scholars and practitioners suggest that favorablecorporate reputation results in business survival andprotability (Balmer, 2001; Gray and Balmer, 1998;Roberts and Dowling, 2002; Van Riel and Balmer,1997). It is an effective mechanism to maintain oraccomplish competitive advantage (Fombrun et al.,2000; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Van Riel and

immediate reection that the publics have toward acorporation (Bick et al., 2003; Gray and Balmer, 1998;Harris and De Chernatony, 2001), while corporatereputation represents constituents cumulative judg-ments of rms over time (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). Therefore, the comprehensibledistinction between corporate image and corporatereputation is its overall development over a long timeperiod. Corporate reputation, representing a relativelyThe inuence of retailer re

Wei-Ming Oua, RusseaDepartment of Industrial and Business Management, Far East Col

bH. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and, Entrepreneurship, Nova ScSusqueha

Abstract

Retailer reputation is an important factor that inuences cons

store shoppers to study the effects of retailer reputation on the

was used. Results show that retailer reputation has an effect on

inuence was moderated by demographic variables. This sugg

complex than the literature suggests. Retailers must think of the

shopping expenditure differs per target group. We discuss imp

r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.er Services 13 (2006) 221230

tation on store patronage

brattb,, Paul Dionc

9 Chung-Hua Road, Hsin-Shih, Tainan County744, Taiwan, ROC

stern University, 3301 College Road, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314, USA

niversity

s store patronage. A survey was conducted among 356 grocery

re choice patterns. A Structural Equation Modeling approach

ase frequency, travel time and expenditure levels only when its

hat the mode of inuence on the dependent variables is more

utation within specic target markets, as the payoff in terms of

ons for retailing research and practice.

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

associated with the store is one of the important

ARTICLE IN PRESSand Cantecedents of consumers purchase intentions (Doddset al., 1991; Grewal et al., 1998).A comparable concept of retailer reputation is store

image. Burt and Carralero-Encinas (2000) characterizedstore image as the mixture of tangible and intangibledimensions, and the complex of meanings and relation-ships attributed to retailers by customers. Previoussimilar products. The consumer store choice behaviorsstudied are shopping expenditure, travel time to thestore, and patronage frequency. The secondary objectiveis to determine whether demographic segments, such asage, gender, income, and education, mediate the effectof retailer reputation on consumer behavior.

2. Literature review

2.1. Corporate reputation and retailer reputation

Corporate reputation is a relatively stable, long-term,collective judgment by outsiders of an organizationsactions, and achievements. It implies a long lasting,cumulative assessment rendered over a long time period(Gioia et al., 2000). Saxton (1998) denes corporatereputation as the reection of an organization over timeas seen through the eyes of its stakeholders andexpressed through their thoughts and words. Alessandri(2001) afrms that the corporate reputation is formedover time by repeated impressions of the corporateimage. Other researchers agree with this view (Fombrunand Shanley, 1990; Gray and Balmer, 1998; Yoon et al.,1993). Reputation can be diffused through two routes:by communication between marketers and customers,and by word-of-mouth between customers (Caruana,1997; Yoon et al., 1993). Numerous researchers haverecognized the important role of corporate reputation asa valuable asset that allows a rm to achieve persistentprotability, or sustained superior nancial perfor-mance (Balmer, 1995; Balmer, 2001; Nguyen andLeblanc, 2001; Roberts and Dowling, 2002; Yoonet al., 1993).Retailers put great emphasis upon developing and

sustaining their reputation (Burt and Carralero-Encinas,2000). Retail customers were inclined to use theproducts and services of organizations with favorablereputations (Balmer and Wilson, 1998), and are moreloyal to those retailers who they perceived havingfavorable reputations (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001).Retailer reputation is not dened in the literature, asthe term corporate reputation is used when describingretailers as well as other organizations. We thus deneretailer reputation as a consumers and other stake-holders perceptions of a retail chain organization overtime. Studies have reported that the positive reputation

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing222studies have examined the effects of store image onshoppers store choice behavior, and discovered thatfavorable store image has a positive impact on storechoice, frequency of patronage at a particular store,store satisfaction, store loyalty, and is a criticaldeterminant of successful retailing strategy (e.g. Bloemerand De Ruyter, 1998; Chowdhury et al., 1998; Darleyand Lim, 1999; Grewal et al., 1998; Jones, 1978; Joyceand Lambert, 1996; Nevin and Houston, 1980; Reardonet al., 1995). Different dimensions of store image havebeen suggested by scholars. Jones (1978) concluded thatthere are six dimensions. Mazursky and Jacoby (1986)identied seven, and Lindquist (1974) identied nineattributes. Among these attributes, merchandise, serviceand location appear to be the key image functions.

2.2. Determinants of store choice behavior

One of the critical decisions confronting the consumerin interacting with retail stores concerns where to shop(Nevin and Houston, 1980). A number of approacheshave been used to determine consumer store choicebehavior. Belk (1975) suggests that there are veenvironmental factors that may inuence shoppingbehavior; physical surroundings, social surroundings,temporal perspectives, task denition, and antecedentstates such as temporary moods. Koppelman andHauser (1978) described ve constructs of shoppingdestination attractiveness; variety, quality, satisfaction,value and parking. According to Hackett et al. (1993),the principal determinants of shopping behavior are;general evaluation, including safety and quality ofmerchandise, physical environment, efciency, includingtravel distance from home, accessibility, and the socialenvironment, including store atmosphere.Bell et al. (1998) developed a store choice behavior

model whose fundamental principle was that eachconsumer is more likely to patronize the store with thelowest total shopping cost. Baker et al. (2002) suggesteda store choice model that includes three types of storeenvironment cues as exogenous constructs, and variousstore choice criteria and store patronage intentions asthe endogenous construct. From observing actualconsumer shopping behavior, the determinants ofshopping destination choice behavior could be classiedinto ve main categories: characteristics of price,characteristics of accessibility, characteristics of atmo-sphere, demographic characteristics of the consumers,and the retailers reputation (e.g. Dawar and Parker1994; Tang et al., 2001; Turley and Milliman, 2000).

2.3. Conceptual development of research model

The logical assumption about shopping behavior isthat consumers will buy in larger quantities from a storethat has a good reputation, but the effect of this is

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230shopping in that particular store less frequently.

Previous studies suggest that there is a positive relation-ship between a favorable store name and a customerswillingness to buy (Dodds et al., 1991; Grewal et al.,1998). Therefore, it may be hypothesized that as theconsumers perceived reputation of the retailer becomesmore favorable, the larger amount of shopping expen-diture is made, and the consumer will then patronizethat store less frequently. The customer may derive someadded value from store reputation (Grewal et al., 1998).If there is indeed an added value from store reputationon shopping frequency, travel time and expenditure,then the amount of variance accounted for in theexpenditure per trip should exceed that accounted for byshopping frequency and travel time. Otherwise traveltime, and shopping frequency could be thought to varyindependently of store reputation. Customer satisfactionappears higher in purchases from retailers with superiorreputations compared to items purchased from retailerswith lower reputations. The added satisfaction maycause shoppers to be willing to increase their travel timeto the store (Darley and Lim, 1999; Kahn and

ARTICLE IN PRESSW.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing and CSchmittlein, 1992). Hence, one expects the positive linkbetween retailer reputation and travel time.In addition, consumers demographic characteristics,

such as age, gender, income, and education, mayinuence the effect that retailer reputation has onconsumer behavior (Kim and Park, 1997; PopkowskiLeszczyc et al., 2000). Our conceptual model is shownin Fig. 1.The nal model depicted in Fig. 1 shows interaction

effects between reputation and age, education andincome as predictors of the dependent variables. Theuse of SEM allows the authors to estimate these effects

Shopping Expenditure

Total Travel Time

Patronage Frequency

Retailer Reputation

Consumer Characteristics

H1 (+)

H2 (+)

H3 (+)

H4

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework of retailer reputation and consumerbehavior.simultaneously and is thus more true to the simulta-neous nature of the impact of these variables in theresearch model. It also allows for convenient estimationof the effects of individual predictors.This model is constructed on the assumptions that: (1)

as the consumers perceived reputation of the retailerbecomes more favorable, the greater the amount spentper shopping trip will be; (2) as the consumers perceivedreputation of the retailer becomes more favorable, themore time the consumer will be willing to spendtraveling to that store; (3) as the consumers perceivedreputation of the retailer changes, the frequency of storepatronage to a particular store will change; and (4) theeffect of consumers perceived reputation of the retaileron patronage behavior is moderated by age, gender,income and education of the consumer.

2.4. Retailer reputation effects on shopping expenditure

Positive reputation associated with the store is theantecedent of consumers purchase intentions (Dodds etal., 1991; Grewal et al., 1998). Baker et al. (2002)indicate that store patronage intentions are a function ofmerchandise quality and value. In addition, consumerstend to use retailers reputation as one of the mostimportant signals of product quality, especially in thebrand absent circumstance (Bell, 1999; Dawar andParker, 1994). This is often the case in grocery shoppingconditions, because many types of merchandise such asvegetables, meat, fruit and deli, are brand absent ingrocery stores. As the consumers perceived reputationof the retailer becomes more favorable, the higherproduct quality and value will be perceived and henceconsumers will exhibit higher purchase intentions atstores with a positive reputation. Since the shopperspurchase intentions increases, their shopping expendi-ture consequently rises. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H1. As the consumers perceived reputation of theretailer becomes more favorable, the larger amount ofshopping expenditure per shopping trip will be.

2.5. Retailer reputation effects on travel time

Shopping destination choice is conventionally viewedas the outcome of a trade-off between total costs oftravel and trip end benets derived from the attractive-ness of the destination (Jones, 1978; Koppelman andHauser, 1978; Koppelman, 1980; Ou, 1999). The traveltime to a store is assumed to measure the effort, bothphysical and psychological, to reach a retail outlet(Darley and Lim, 1999). When a potential consumer isselecting shopping destination alternatives, if all theother inuential factors are equal, the purchases willbe made by spending the minimum travel time to the

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230 223nearest shop that stocks the desired product (Hackett

ARTICLE IN PRESSand Cet al., 1993). Travel time has negative effects on theutility and choice of ones shopping destination.However, the negative impact of travel time can becompensated for by enhanced store attractiveness(Darley and Lim, 1999). Therefore, as store attractive-ness enhances, buyers may be more willing to spendmore time traveling to the destination with a favorablereputation. Thus, one can predict that there is a positiverelationship between retailer reputation and a consu-mers travel time. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H2. As the consumers perceived reputation of theretailer becomes more favorable, the travel time to thestore will increase.

2.6. Retailer reputation effects on frequencies of store

patronage

Previous research shows that the probability thatconsumers will shop at a given store increases as theperception of the store becomes more positive (Darleyand Lim, 1999). Since retailer reputation serves as thesignal of attractiveness, as the consumers perceivedreputation of the retailer becomes more favorable, thefrequencies of store patronage may decline. This isbecause if the purchase amount per shopping trip risesand total expenditure remains constant, shoppingfrequency must decline. Therefore, we hypothesize:

H3. There is a signicant positive relationship betweenconsumers perceived reputation of the retailer and storepatronage frequency.

2.7. Consumers demographic characteristics effects on

retailer reputation

Age is hardly ever employed as an independentvariable in corporate reputation studies. However, agemay serve as a proxy for many factors including lifeexperience and the socialization process, and it is usuallystrongly related to consumption patterns and prefer-ences in store choice (Gonzalez-Benito et al., 2000;Hoyer and MacInnis, 2001; Joyce and Lambert, 1996).Age may have effects on the perceived reputation of theretailer. Given that older consumers are expected toexhibit patterns of shopping behavior that differ fromthose of younger consumers, the consumers perceivedreputation of the retailer may be examined as a functionof age-related perceptions (Bhat et al., 1998; Burt andGabbott, 1995; Gonzalez-Benito et al., 2000; Joyce andLambert, 1996; Shiu and Dawson, 2001). Hence, wehypothesize:

H4a. The effect of consumers perceived reputation ofthe retailer on consumers shopping expenditure, traveltime, and patronage frequency, is moderated with the

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing224age of the consumer.Previous research has identied gender differences inshopping behavior, travel time sensitivity, retail formatchoice, and household shopping responsibility (Bhat etal., 1998; Burt and Gabbott, 1995; Dholakia, 1999;Otnes and McGrath, 2001; Shiu and Dawson, 2001;Zeithaml, 1985). Since men and woman have differentshopping behavior and different reactions to the retailmarketing mix, it is likely that they have differentperceptions of retailer reputation, and shop differentlyin terms of amount spent, travel time and patronagefrequency (Bailey, 2005). Therefore, it is assumed thatthe effect of consumers perceived reputation of aretailer on shopping expenditure, travel time, andpatronage frequency is moderated by the gender of theconsumer.We thus hypothesize:

H4b. The effect of consumers perceived reputation of aretailer on consumers shopping expenditure, traveltime, and patronage frequency varies with the genderof the consumer.

Income is a variable strongly associated with somepsychological variables. Previous studies report that thetravel time sensitivity and store choice behavior of high-income shoppers differs from that of low-incomeshoppers (Alwitt and Donley, 1996; Bhat et al., 1998;Gonzalez-Benito et al., 2000; Hoch et al., 1995;Zeithaml, 1985). Given that high-income consumerstend to demonstrate patterns of store choice behaviorthat differ from those of low-income consumers, theeffect of consumers perceived reputation of the retaileron consumer behavior may be investigated as a functionof an income-related variable. Hence, we hypothesize:

H4c. The effect of consumers perceived reputation ofthe retailer on consumers shopping expenditure, traveltime, and patronage frequency, is moderated by theincome of the consumer.

Studies have shown that more educated consumershave a higher opportunity cost; therefore they are lessprice sensitive in supermarket store choice (Hoch et al.,1995). However, the relationship between consumersperceived reputation of the retailer and their level ofeducation remains largely untested. To test this, wehypothesize:

H4d. The effect of consumers perceived reputation ofthe retailer on consumers shopping expenditure, traveltime, and patronage frequency is moderated with theeducation of the consumer.

To summarize, it is hypothesized that:

H4e. The effect of consumers perceived reputation ofthe retailer on consumer behavior varies with the age,

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230gender, income and education of the consumer.

3. Methodology

To test the conceptual model, a survey to collect datafrom consumers as they were leaving grocery stores wasconducted. The study population consists of shoppersof major grocery chain stores in Florida, namelyAlbertsons, Publix and Winn-Dixie. Ten stores werechosen as sites for data collection, two Albertson stores,and four stores each from Publix and Winn-Dixie,respectively. At Publix, 160 consumers were sampled,80 at Albertsons, and at Winn-Dixie 160. Potentialrespondents were approached and asked to participatein a short interview. They were told that the research

3.1. Pilot study

In order to assure the integrity of the questionnaire,pre-testing of the instrument was conducted by admin-istering the questionnaire to a group of academic expertsand 50 shoppers who reviewed the physical appearanceand content. The results of the pre-testing weresatisfactory. A conrmatory factor analysis was under-taken, and all of the multi-item scales yielded one-factorsolutions. For each scale, the individual scale itemsexceeded the recommended minimum standards in termsof construct reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

The demographics of the sample are shown in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

ices.

es.

or.

spects

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 221230 225was being conducted by a local university and theindividual results were to be kept strictly condential.The large sample size was used partly to mitigate theeffect of different patterns of stores for differentresponses. For example, some respondents mighthave a high reputation store close by, while othersdid not. In a large enough sample these variationscould be thought to average out. Mapping eachcustomers geographical prole of stores was notattempted.The instrument utilized for this study was the 20-item

reputation questionnaire that was developed byFombrun et al. (2000). The 20 items were groupedinto six categories: emotional appeal, products andservices, vision and leadership, workplace environment,social and environmental responsibility, and nancialperformance. According to Fombrun et al. (2000),Cronbachs alpha for the instrument exceeded 0.84,which indicates that it is reliable. They concludedthat the reputation instrument is valid, reliable and arobust measure of corporate reputation (Fombrunet al., 2000). Several academics have applied theinstrument to organizations in different industriesand report it to be valid and reliable (e.g. Groenland,2002; Walsh and Wiedmann,2004). The patronagefrequency, shopping expenditure, travel time, andconsumer demographic characteristics were added tothe questionnaire.

Table 1

Factor analysis and reliability results for research sample

Factor Statement

Company reputation I admire and respect the company.

I trust the company.

Develops innovative products and serv

Offers high quality products and servic

Has a clear vision for its future.

Is well managed.

Looks like a good company to work f

Performance perceptions Tends to outperform its competitors.

Looks like a company with strong proTable 2.The respondents average shopping expenditure per

trip was $64.28 (in 2004 US dollars). Of the sample,77.8% of shopping trips were shorter than 10min, whileabout 90% of shopping trips were no longer than15min. Thirty-one percent of shoppers visit theirpreferred grocery store once a week. The averagefrequency of store patronage per person per monthwas 5.45.

Rotated factor loading Cronbachs a

0.83 0.86

0.67

0.69

0.70

0.75

0.72

0.76

0.87 0.79

for future growth. 0.783.2. Data analysis methods

To test the research model, structural equationmodeling (SEM) was applied to the data using theAMOS graphics program (AMOS, 1999). To test theinteraction effects, the independent variables weremultiplied together and the product treated as anindependent variable. In cases of missing data, themissing entry was excluded from the data analysis.

4. Results

Data were collected by means of exit interviews atgrocery stores in Florida. A total of 356 qualiedobservations were employed in this study. The factoranalysis and reliability results for the research sampleare shown in Table 1.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Shopping Frequency

and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 221230Table 2

The demographics of the sample

Number Percent Cumulative percent

Distribution of average shopping expenditure (USD)

$0$20 35 9.8 9.8

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing226The majority of the respondents in this study werebetween 20 and 50 years old (80%). Gender plays animportant role in the shopping trips since they weredominated by females (Prevedouros and Schofer, 1991;Kim et al., 1994). Females performed about 70% of theshopping trips in this research, which is consistent with

$21$40 96 26.7 36.8

$41$60 85 23.9 60.7

$61$80 53 14.9 75.6

$81$100 39 11.0 86.5

$101$150 42 11.8 98.3

Over 150 6 1.7 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0

Distribution of travel time (min)

Under 5 157 44.1 44.1

610 120 33.7 77.8

1115 45 12.6 90.4

16 and over 34 9.6 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0

Distribution of patronage frequency (every 4 weeks)

1 8 2.2 2.2

2 23 6.5 8.7

3 18 5.1 13.8

4 111 31.2 44.9

5 44 12.4 57.3

6 59 16.6 73.9

7 7 2.0 75.8

8 61 17.1 93.0

9 3 0.8 93.8

10 8 2.2 96.1

12 and over 14 3.9 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0

Distribution of age

Under 20 6 1.7 1.7

2130 102 28.7 30.3

3140 101 28.4 58.7

4150 82 23.0 81.7

5160 40 11.2 93.0

Over 60 25 7.0 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0

Distribution of household income (USD)

Less than $20,000 22 6.2 6.2

$20,000$40,000 105 29.5 35.7

$40,000$60,000 121 34.0 69.7

$60,000$80,000 56 15.7 85.4

$80,000$100,000 33 9.3 94.7

$100,000 and over 19 5.3 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0

Distribution of education

High school 98 27.5 27.5

Vocational school 39 11.0 38.5

University 180 50.6 89.0

Graduate school 39 11.0 100.0

Total 356 100.0 100.0previous studies. The average household income of thesample is $51,882 per year (in 2004 US dollars). Themajority of the respondents have earned at least abachelor degree, which implies a fairly educated sample.Moreover, the most common household type in the datais a two-person family (30.3%), but the mean householdsize is 3.03 people per household.

Store Reputation

0.17 Income

x Reputation

0.29 Age

x Reputation

0.36 Education

x Reputation

0.30 Expenditure

per Trip

0.08 Travel Time

0.33

0.13

-0.41

0.34

0.12

0.29

-0.130.400.150.54

0.27

Moderating variables in dotted line box, Standardized coefficients

Fig. 2. Research Model with signicant paths and coefcients shown.4.1. Retailer reputation effects on shopping expenditure

SEM was used to test all hypotheses. The nal modelis shown in Fig. 2.The w2 value obtained was 6.28 with ve degrees of

freedom and the p-value was. 0.28. The goodness of tindex, the adjusted goodness of t index and the normedt index were 0.996, 0.968 and 0.998, respectively. Thisindicates a good t of the model to the data given thatthe usual standard for these indices is 0.90 or above(Hair et al., 1998). The p-value is quite good given thatthe large sample of 356 tends to depress the p-value.

4.2. Retailer reputation effects on frequency of purchase,

travel time and expenditure per shopping trip

The standardized model coefcients that achievedsignicance and the critical ratios (CR) dened ascoefcient size/CR1 are presented in Table 3.

1The AMOS SEM program computes the ratio of the coefcient to

its standard error for all coefcients. It has an approximately standard

normal distribution and thus can be used to test hypotheses concerning

the coefcients (AMOS 1999, p. 74).

time available. The model variables accounted for only8% of the variance in travel time as shown in Fig. 2.

4.4. Frequency of shopping

ARTICLE IN PRESSand CTables 3 and 4 depict that retailer reputation wasshown to have an effect on purchase frequency, traveltime and expenditure levels only when its inuence wasmoderated by demographic variables. This suggests thatthe mode of inuence on the dependent variables is morecomplex than the literature review suggests. What theresults mean is that reputation only has more of aneffect when it inuences certain demographic groups.Reputation impacted expenditure in the higher incomegroups (CR 3.60, po0:01). Lower income buyers mightstick to a budget in their shopping trips whereaswealthier patrons would have the discretion to add totheir purchases, which might explain this. It was alsoshown that older shoppers were more inuenced byretailer reputation in their expenditure levels (CR 2.25,po0:01) This might be explained by older consumershaving formed shopping habits from positive andnegative experiences with retailers. They have had theopportunity to form denite preferences for retailersthey have come to know. Retailer reputation wasnegatively moderated by shopper education. More

Table 3

Standardized coefcients and critical ratios

Coefcient Standardized coefcient Critical ratio

Rep.-AgeRep. 0.54 12.11*Rep-IncomeRep. 0.33 5.44*Rep.-Educ.Rep. 0.27 5.80*AgeRep.-IncomeRep. 0.15 2.54*IncomeRep.-Educ.Rep. 0.40 8.55*AgeRep.-Travel 0.29 2.54*AgeRep.-Expend 0.12 2.25*IncomeRep.-Expend 0.34 3.60*Educ.Rep.-Expend 0.13 2.31**Freq.-Expend 0.41 8.86*Travel-Expend 0.13 2.80*

Note: Interaction variables shown as product of two variables.

*Signicance at the 0.05 level.**Signicance at the 0.01 level.

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailingeducated buyers are less inuenced in the purchaseamount by retailer reputation CR 2.31, po0:01).More educated buyers may have the ability to use othercues than reputation to assess product value. Thecoefcient may be negative because higher retailerreputation may lead to higher prices that are resistedby shoppers buying on utilitarian criteria. A total of30% of the variance in expenditure was accounted forby the model variables as shown in Fig. 2. Because theamount of variance in expenditure per trip (R2 0.30),was more than was explained by travel time andshopping frequency alone, it was concluded that thereputation variables had an independent effect.

4.3. Travel time

Retailer reputation was only an inuence on the traveltime when moderated by age (CR 2.54, po0:01). As inthe case of expenditure, retailer reputation appears tohave more inuence on travel time with older shoppers.A possible explanation is that older shoppers, who areperhaps retired, would have the time to travel to a highreputation store whereas younger ones would not havethe time. Neither income nor education served as amoderating variable for retailer reputation on traveltime. Thus, there is no tendency for reputation toenhance travel time whether moderated by education orincome or not. It could be argued that the time factordominates, and that only the older age group has this

Table 4

Summary of hypothesis tests

Hypothesis Conclusion

For reputation un-moderated effect

H1: Rep.-Expend Not supportedH2: Rep.-Travel Not supportedH3: Rep.-Freq. Not supported

For reputation moderated effect

H4a: Rep.-Travel, moderated by age SupportedH4a: Rep.-Expend, moderated by age SupportedH4a: Rep.-Freq., moderated by age Not supportedH4b: Rep.-Expend, moderated by gender Not supportedH4b: Rep.-Travel, moderated by gender Not supportedH4b: Rep.-Freq., moderated by gender Not supportedH4c: Rep.-Travel, moderated by income SupportedH4c: Rep.-Expend, moderated by income Not supportedH4c: Rep.-Freq., moderated by income Not supportedH4d: Rep.-Travel, moderated by age SupportedH4d: Rep.-Expend, moderated by age Not supportedH4d: Rep.-Freq., moderated by age Not supported

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230 227Fig. 2 shows that the frequency variable is notimpacted by retailer reputation or any other variable.However, it has a large negative effect on expenditure(CR 8.86, po0:01) and the coefcient was the largestin the model (0.41). Thus, frequency on shopping has astrong depressing effect on the expenditure per trip. Thisis understandable if expenditure per unit time isconsidered to be relatively xed and is divided overmore trips in the case of higher frequency. The modelshows shopping frequency to be an exogenous variable.The frequency decision appears to be immune fromretailer reputation either moderated by demographics ornot. It may be that shoppers have a regular routine, ornumber of shopping trips performed per week, or monthand that this is the starting point for shopping decisions.The expenditure per trip would be dependent on thefrequency decision unless the shopper decided toincrease the total purchase amount.

Travel time was inuenced by retailer reputation only

were not in conict with the possible inuence of retailer

variable for most groups. This group appears to be

trip chains were not included in this research. The model

ARTICLE IN PRESSand Cwhen older shoppers were involved. Older shoppers maybe the only segment capable of being inuenced byreputation because extra travel time would not imposeon their living schedule the way it might upon a youngeremployed shopper. It was also found that travel time didhave some inuence on shopping expenditure. Aninterpretation of this might be that older shopperswould be inclined to rationalize the xed cost of traveltime by purchasing a larger amount. One question thatremains unanswered in this research is whether theassortment of goods purchased is inuenced by retailerreputation.Gender had no inuence on any of the dependent

variables. Nor did one gender or the other show moreA summary of the results of the hypothesis tests ispresented in Table 4.As noted before the hypothesized un-moderated

relationships between retailer reputation and shoppingfrequency, expenditure and travel time were notsignicant. The use of moderating variables, as oper-ationalized by the products of buyer behavior anddemographic variables produced a lot of product-variables to be tested. This meant that only a portionof the research hypotheses were supported. This occurswhen many variables in a SEM model compete forvariance to explain, because each path coefcient iscomputed holding other relationships constant.

5. Discussion

Contrary to the expected ndings retailer reputationdid not inuence shopping frequency, expenditure pertrip or travel time in an un-moderated fashion.Frequency of shopping was found to be an exogenousvariable with no predictors. This nding is intuitivelyappealing if one supposes that shoppers have a regularshopping trip planned perhaps on a weekly basis. If thisis the case, it would be hard to imagine that storereputation would have an effect on what may well be theinitial decision in the shopping decision sequence.The next most inuential factors in determining

expenditure were reputation moderated by income,reputation moderated by education and reputationmoderated by age in that order. The most signicantimplication of this is that retailer reputation mayhave a signicant inuence only on certain demo-graphic groups rather than in a uniform manner. Thisis a more complicated method of inuence than thepresent models of reputation inuence propose. Ifexpenditure per trip is the criterion variable for retailmanagement, this nding would suggest changes inpresent broad-brush approaches to retail brand equitydevelopment.

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing228responsiveness to retailer reputation.also did not incorporate individual customer storegeography.

8. Recommendations for future research

Future research may investigate whether the relation-ships between corporate reputation and consumerwilling to travel farther and spend more money inresponse to retailer reputation but their frequency ofshopping appears xed. A possible position might be,Worth the trouble to those who want to shop right.An important caveat the reader should keep in mind isthat the process of shopping for groceries, often denedas a convenience good, may be very different from thesituation with a shopping or specialty good whereretailer reputation would be expected to be much moreinuential. An example would be jewelry or clothing.

7. Research limitations

Given the limitations imposed by the method of datacollection, consumer behavior for single-stop shoppingtrips is investigated in this paper. However, in reality,shoppers may reduce their travel cost by shopping tripchains. In other words, shoppers may make chain-shopping trips together or combine store visits withother trip purposes. Consumer behavior of multiple-stop shopping trips, namely, shopping trip chains, mayhave different behaviors of patronage frequencies andtravel time from single-stop shopping trips. Shoppingreputation. Retailer reputation can be thought to besubordinated to everyday shopper domestic routines.

6. Managerial implications

The ndings of this research suggest that retailersthink more in terms of their reputation with specictarget groups where the inuence of reputation wouldhave the best payoff in terms of shopping expenditure.They should also realize that frequency of shopping isprobably given that cannot be treated as a manageableconsumer response behavior. Gains are to be madethough in targeting groups susceptible to retailerinuence namely; older, high income, lower educatedconsumers. Travel time is also not a manageableOverall reputation does not appear to have a largebroad based inuence on shopping behavior at least inthe grocery sample used here. It appears to be inuentialonly when the demographic characteristics of shoppers

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230behavior vary across different retailers (for example,

price-level expectations are available. The question asto whether demographic variables moderate these effects

ARTICLE IN PRESSand Ccould also be investigated.Although this research focuses on the relationship

between retailer reputation and consumer behavior fortraditional stores, one can extend the implications of thisresearch to online retailers as well. The reputation ofInternet brands is difcult to build, because the lack ofphysical presence and human interaction makes onlineretailers less certain to customers than traditionalbusinesses (Porter, 2001). Retailer reputation seems tobe even more essential for electronic commerce than fortraditional business since positive reputation can easebuyers uncertainty toward virtual businesses. More-over, reputation can be extended to mitigate uncertain-ties about the product, to cut the cost of introduction,and to facilitate faster market penetration (Carua-na,1997; Robertson and Gatignon, 1986), for bothtraditional businesses and electronic commerce. Thepossible links between retailer reputation and onlineshopping expenditure, patronage frequency, and num-ber of site visitors could be examined in future researchfor better understanding of the connection betweenretailer reputation and the electronic commerce.

References

Alessandri, S.W., 2001. Modeling corporate identity: a concept

explication and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communica-

tions: An International Journal 6 (4), 173182.

Alwitt, L., Donley, T., 1996. The Low Income Consumer: Adjusting

the Balance of exchange. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

AMOS Users Guide 4.0, 1999. Smallwaters Corp, Chicago, IL.

Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation

models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (Spring),

7494.

Bailey, A.A., 2005. Non-fulllment of promotional deals: the impact of

gender and company reputation on consumers perceptions and

attitudes. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12, 285295.

Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The

inuence of multiple store environment cues on perceived

merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketingconvenient stores, discount outlets, and fast foodrestaurants) and different types of merchandise (forexample, clothes, food, and luxury products). Thenature of the inuence of corporate reputation indifferent purchasing contexts remains an essential issuefor future retailing reputation studies.The relationships between retailer reputation and

general price expectations may be another interestingtopic for further research. Previous research reports thatas customers perceptions of store design cues becomemore favorable, customers will perceive monetary pricesto be higher (Baker et al., 2002). However, few, if any,empirical studies pertaining to the possible linksbetween retailer reputation and consumers general

W.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing66 (2), 120141.Balmer, J.M.T., 1995. Corporate branding and connoisseurship.

Journal of General Management 21 (1), 2446.

Balmer, J.M.T., 2001. Corporate identity, corporate branding and

corporate marketing: seeing through the fog. European Journal of

Marketing 35 (3/4), 248291.

Balmer, J.M.T., Wilson, A., 1998. Corporate identity: there is more to

it than meets the eye. International Studies of Management and

Organization 28 (3), 1231.

Belk, R.W., 1975. Situation variables and consumer behavior. Journal

of Consumer Research 2 (3), 157164.

Bell, S.J., 1999. Image and consumer attraction to interurban retail

areas: an environmental psychology approach. Journal of retailing

and Consumer Services 6, 6778.

Bell, D.R., Ho, T.H., Tang, C.S., 1998. Determining where to shop:

xed and variable costs of shopping. Journal of Marketing

Research 35 (3), 352369.

Bhat, C., Govindarajan, A., Pulugurta, V., 1998. Disaggregate

attraction-end choice modeling: formulation and empirical analy-

sis. Transportation Research Record 1645, 6068.

Bick, G., Jacobson, M.C., Abratt, R., 2003. The corporate identity

management process revisited. Journal of Marketing Management

19 (7/8), 835855.

Bloemer, J., De Ruyter, K., 1998. On the relationship between store

image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of

Marketing 32 (5/6), 499513.

Burt, S., Carralero-Encinas, J., 2000. The role of store image in retail

internationalization. International Marketing Review 17 (4/5),

433453.

Burt, S., Gabbott, M., 1995. The elderly consumer and non-food

purchase behavior. European Journal of Marketing 29 (2),

4357.

Caruana, A., 1997. Corporate reputation: concept and measurement.

The Journal of Product and Brand Management 6 (2), 109118.

Chowdhury, J., Reardon, J., Srivastava, R., 1998. Alternative modes

of measuring store image: An empirical assessment of structured

versus unstructured measures. Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice 6 (2), 7286.

Christensen, L.T., Askegaard, S., 2001. Corporate identity and

corporate image revisited: a semiotic perspective. European

Journal of Marketing 35 (3/4), 292315.

Darley, W.K., Lim, J.S., 1999. Effects of store image and attitude

toward secondhand stores on shopping frequency and distance

traveled. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Manage-

ment 27 (8), 311318.

Dawar, N., Parker, P., 1994. Marketing universals: consumers use of

brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as

signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing 58 (2), 8195.

Dholakia, R.R., 1999. Going shopping: key determinants of shopping

behaviors and motivations. International Journal of Retail and

Distribution Management 27 (4), 154165.

Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B., Grewal, D., 1991. Effects of price, brand,

and store information on buyers product evaluations. Journal of

Marketing Research 28 (3), 307319.

Fombrun, C.J., Shanley, M., 1990. Whats in a name? Reputation

building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal

33 (2), 233258.

Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N., Sever, J.M., 2000. The reputation

quotient: a multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The

Journal of Brand Management 7 (4), 241255.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M., Corley, K.G., 2000. Organizational identity,

image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review

25 (1), 6381.

Gonzalez-Benito, O., Greatorex, M., Munoz-Gallego, P.A., 2000.

Assessment of potential retail segmentation variables: an approach

based on a subjective MCI resource allocation model. Journal of

onsumer Services 13 (2006) 221230 229Retailing and Consumer Services 7 (3), 171179.

Gotsi, M., Wilson, A.M., 2001. Corporate reputation: seeking a

denition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6

(1), 2430.

Gray, E.R., Balmer, J.M.T., 1998. Managing corporate image

and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning 31 (5),

695702.

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of

store name,brand name, and price discounts on consumers

Nguyen, N., Leblanc, G., 2001. Corporate image and corporate

reputation in customers retention decisions in services. Journal of

Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (3), 227236.

Otnes, C., McGrath, M.A., 2001. Perceptions and realities of male

shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (1), 111137.

Ou, W.-M., 1999. Shopping mode choice behavior. Unpublished

Masters Thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Popkowski Leszczyc, P.T.L., Sinha, A., Timmermans, H.J.P., 2000.

(4), 8593.

ARTICLE IN PRESSW.-M. Ou et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (2006) 221230230331352.

Groenland, E.A.G., 2002. Qualitative research to validate the RQ

dimensions. Corporate Reputation Review 4 (4), 308315.

Hackett, P., Foxall, G.R., Van Raaij, F., 1993. Consumers in retail

environment. In: Garling, T., Golledge, R.G. (Eds.), Behavior and

Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches.

North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 378399.

Hair, J.F., Tatham, R.L., Anderson, R.E., Black, W., 1998. Multi-

variate Data Analysis, fth ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

Harris, F., De Chernatony, L., 2001. Corporate branding and

corporate brand performance. European Journal of Marketing 35

(3/4), 441456.

Hoch, S.J., Kim, B.D., Montgomery, A.L., Rossi, P.E., 1995.

Determinants of store level price elasticity. Journal of Marketing

Research 32 (1), 1729.

Hoyer, W., MacInnis, D., 2001. Consumer Behavior. Houghton-

Mifin, Boston.

Jones, P.M., 1978. Destination choice and travel attributes. In:

Hensher, D.A., Alvi, Q. (Eds.), Determinants of Travel Choice.

Saxon House, Hampshire, England, pp. 266311.

Joyce, M., Lambert, D.R., 1996. Memories of the way stores were and

retail store image. International Journal of Retail and Distribution

Management 24 (1), 2433.

Kahn, B., Schmittlein, D.C., 1992. The relationship between purchases

made on promotion and shopping trip behavior. Journal of

Retailing 68 (3), 294315.

Kim, B.D., Park, K., 1997. Studying patterns of consumers grocery

shopping trip. Journal of Retailing 73 (4), 501517.

Kim, H., Sen, A., Soot, S., Christopher, E., 1994. Shopping trip chains:

current pattern and changes since 1970. Transportation Research

Record 1443, 3844.

Koppelman, F.S., 1980. Consumer analysis of travel choice behavior.

Journal of Advance Transportation 14 (2), 133159.

Koppelman, F.S., Hauser, J.R., 1978. Destination choice behavior for

non-grocery-shopping trips. Transportation Research Record 673,

157165.

Lindquist, J.D., 1974. Meaning of image: a survey of empirical and

hypothetical evidence. Journal of Retailing 50 (4), 2930.

Markwick, N., Fill, C., 1997. Towards a framework for managing

corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing 31 (5/6),

396409.

Mazursky, D., Jacoby, J., 1986. Exploring the development of store

images. Journal of Retailing 62 (2), 145165.

Nevin, J.R., Houston, M., 1980. Images as a component of

attractiveness to intra-urban shopping areas. Journal of Retailing

56 (1), 7793.Roberts, P.W., Dowling, G.R., 2002. Corporate reputation and

sustained superior nancial performance. Strategic Management

Journal 23 (12), 10771093.

Robertson, T.S., Gatignon, H., 1986. Competitive effects on technol-

ogy diffusion. Journal of Marketing 50 (3), 112.

Saxton, K., 1998. Where do reputations come from? Corporate

Reputation Review 1 (4), 393399.

Shiu, E.C., Dawson, J.A., 2001. Demographic segmentation of

shoppers at traditional markets and supermarkets in Taiwan.

Journal of Segmentation in Marketing 4 (2), 6985.

Tang, C.S., Bell, D.R., Ho, T.H., 2001. Store choice and shopping

behavior: how price format works. California Management Review

43 (2), 5674.

Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping

behavior: a review of the experimental evidence. Journal of

Business Research 49 (2), 193211.

Van Riel, C.B.M., Balmer, J.M.T., 1997. Corporate identity: the

concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of

Marketing 31 (5/6), 340355.

Walsh, ., Wiedmann, K.P., 2004. A conceptualization of corporate

reputation in Germany: an evaluation and extension of the RQ.

Corporate Reputation Review 6 (4), 304312.

Yoon, E., Guffey, H.J., Kijewski, V., 1993. The effects of information

and company reputation on intentions to buy a business service.

Journal of Business Research 27 (3), 215228.

Zeithaml, V.A., 1985. The new demographics and market fragmenta-

tion. Journal of Marketing 49 (3), 6475.

Further reading

Bell, D.R., Lattin, J.M., 1998. Grocery shopping behavior and

consumer response to retailer price format: Why large basket

shoppers prefer EDLP. Marketing Science 17 (1), 6688.

Mahon, J.F., 2002. Corporate reputation: a research agenda using

strategy and stakeholder literature. Business and Society 41 (4),

415444.market structure for grocery stores. Journal of Retailing 76 (3),

323345.

Porter, M.E., 2001. Strategy and the Internet. Harvard Business

Review 79 (3), 6378.

Prevedouros, P.D., Schofer, J.L., 1991. Trip characteristics and travel

patterns of suburban residents. Transportation Research Record

1328, 4957.

Reardon, J., Miller, C.E., Coe, B., 1995. Applied scale development:

measure of store image. Journal of Applied Business Research 11evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74 (3), Consumer store choice dynamics: an analysis of the competitive

The influence of retailer reputation on store patronageIntroductionLiterature reviewCorporate reputation and retailer reputationDeterminants of store choice behaviorConceptual development of research modelRetailer reputation effects on shopping expenditureRetailer reputation effects on travel timeRetailer reputation effects on frequencies of store patronageConsumeraposs demographic characteristics effects on retailer reputation

MethodologyPilot studyData analysis methods

ResultsRetailer reputation effects on shopping expenditureRetailer reputation effects on frequency of purchase, travel time and expenditure per shopping tripTravel timeFrequency of shopping

DiscussionManagerial implicationsResearch limitationsRecommendations for future researchReferences

bm_fur