Comparing online to in-store shopping behaviours.

With the emergence of online shopping what role

does the store environment now play?

Edward J Harrison
10202711
Business and Marketing BA

8th April 2014

10,883 Words

Comparing online to in-store shopping behaviours.

With the emergence of online shopping what role
does the store environment now play?

By Edward J Harrison

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professor Charles Dennis for his continued support and
professional guidance throughout the writing of this study. I would also like to
thank Peter and Claire Harrison for their love and support throughout my stay at
University. Finally, Id like to thank Alex, who has encouraged me throughout the
final year.

Abstract
Purpose
This paper explores the reasons why individuals shop online and in-store and the
implications of this for the future role of the store. This is an area which is underresearched and exploring this area will provide beneficial insights for managers tasked
with optimising either or both of online and in-store environments.
Methodology
Qualitative and quantitative research methods were used to proficiently answer the
research questions (stated in literature review) and understand the attitudes held by
individuals involved in shopping online and in-store.
Findings
The paper has found (Test 1) that the majority of people (57%) prefer to shop in-store.
Significantly, 97% of those who do prefer to shop in-store do so because they like to
see the physical product. In contrast, of those who prefer shopping online, the vast
majority (80%) do so because of its convenience. Impulse behaviours proved to occur
more in the store environment.
Research Implications
Time restraints, resource restraints and sample sizes have restricted the research
process for this study. Increasing the sample sizes for Test 1 and Test 2 would
provide a greater insight and reflect a larger proportion of societys views into why
individuals hold the opinions they do towards shopping.
Practical Implications
Using one theory in this study was impractical, as many theories would better answer
every component of this study in terms of looking at online attitudes, in-store attitudes
and assessing consumer behaviour.
Originality and Value
To the best of the authors knowledge, no paper has been published identifying the
reasons why individuals prefer to shop online or in-store. This paper holds value for
managers when assessing how to improve sales in-store or online.
4

Contents page
Acknowledgements

P3

Abstract

P4

1. Tables and Figures

P7

2. Introduction

P8

3. Literature Review

P10

3.1 Introduction

P10

3.2 Existing Literature

P10

3.3 Analytical Frameworks

P15

3.4 Research Questions

P18

3.5 Conclusion

P18

4. Methodology

P19

4.1 Introduction

P19

4.2 Triangulation

P19

4.3 Quantitative Research

P20

4.4 Online Surveys

P21

4.5 Qualitative Research

P22

4.6 Focus Groups

P23

4.7 Ethical Considerations

P24

4.8. Conclusion

P25

5. Findings

P26

5.1 Overview: Test 1

P26

5.2 Overview: Test 2

P26

5.3 Difference between shopping online and in-store

P27

5.4 What role does the cyber store play?

P29

5.5 What role does the store environment play?

P30

5.6 Exploring consumer behaviour towards shopping

P32

6. Discussion and Conclusion

P34

6.1 Differences between shopping online and in-store

P34

6.2 What role does the cyber store play?

P35

6.3 What role does the store environment play?

P36

6.4 Exploring consumer behaviour towards shopping

P37

6.5 Expectations and overview of findings

P38
5

6.6 Application to the Theory of Reasoned Action

P39

6.7 Limitations and recommendations for future research

P40

6.8 Implication for managers

P40

6.9 Concluding comments

P41

Reference list

P42

Appendices

P45

Ethical approval form

P51

1.

Tables and figures

Figure 1: Occupation data from Test 1

P26

Figure 2: Age data from Test 1

P26

Figure 3: Key online shopping correlations

P36

Figure 4: Key in-store shopping correlations

P37

2.

Introduction

Online shopping has become the norm for most individuals and organisations in
todays world. This report will look primarily at why customers prefer to shop online
or in-store. Secondly, this report will evaluate the role of the store environment and
establish how the store environment influences the customer and the implications
behaviour has when applied to theory.
The area of shopping in-store and online has been studied by many academics,
including Liu and Burns (2013). Liu and Burns investigated the attitudes of
shopping in-store and online for luxury goods. They concluded that customers are
motivated by different factors, and that these factors differed between shopping
online to in-store. The study of e-consumer behaviour is becoming increasingly
important as the amount of people shopping online is ever increasing, with over
50bn being spent online in 2012, according to Kelkoo (The Guardian. 2012).
Research by Zhou (2007) has studied the technical specifications of an online
store, whilst Zhang and Von Dran (2002) evaluated the role of interface, design
and navigation when shopping online. These factors, together with the consumer
confidence in payment security (Liao and Cheung. 2002) influence the behaviour
and salient beliefs of individuals towards shopping online. With customers
potentially seeing bad attributes of online shopping, some individuals may opt to
shop in-store.
Previous

researchers

have

examined

how

shopping

motivations

affect

consumers purchase behaviour (Tauber, 1972; Westbrook and Black, 1985) (Liu
and Burns. 2013. P886). Motivational factors play a role in the preference of
whether a customer shops online or in-store, e.g. convenience, rapport, increased
product knowledge. This study will further look at the role which the physical store
plays and to what extent the store environment influences an individuals buying
behaviour and preference.
Exploring the area of buying behaviours between in-store and online is a dynamic
subject due to the increase in digitalisation (Downes & Mui, 1998, Appendix 1).
With this there has been an increase in businesses using online services to reach
their customers. Therefore, researching into and understanding how the consumer
feels (cognition) (Appendix 2) towards online shopping, and bridging any possible
8

gap could potentially lead to an increase in sales. Consequently, this has the
potential to provide numerous benefits to businesses (especially those
predominantly located online) which for online businesses in a necessity.
This paper explores the reasons why individuals shop online and in-store and
therefore provides insights to managers for developing sales.

3. Literature review

3.1 Introduction
This chapter will explore the previous studies conducted in the fields of online and
in-store shopping and review the findings from existing literature. Further, existing
analytical frameworks will be analysed and critiqued, leading to a theory being
promoted to compare to the results from this paper. Key research questions are
considered which will form the basis for later discussions regarding online and instore shopping behaviours.

3.2 Existing research

Liu and Burns (2013) researched the differences between online and in-store
shopping behaviour towards luxury goods. Their research, which used both
qualitative and quantitative research methods, was based on the use of online
surveys. One was a qualitative open ended survey with 104 respondents (P887) in
which the authors considered consumers attitudes towards price, purchasing
behaviour, in-store and online trust and finally product availability. Another test
was a quantitative closed ended survey with 590 respondents (P893). This survey
proposed questions which were based on the propositions suggested by Test
One, such as how often they purchase goods online. Quantitative research was
used because it is more objective, reliable and generalizable (Liu and Burns,
2013, P893).
Their findings established that consumers were motivated by different factors.
Generally, the online shoppers were more price-conscious, encouraged by product
availability (convenience) and found looking at customer reviews beneficial. By
contrast, in-store shoppers were more risk averse and liked to see the physical
product and valued the shopping experience.
Liu and Burns (2013) concluded that retailers should look to improve their
websites in terms of both the ease of use and also the security used when making
payments, to increase the customers trust in shopping online (P895). It must be
10

indicated however, that the research undertook by Liu and Burns targeted
respondents over the age of 21 with a gross household income of over $100,000,
and therefore is not representative of the entire population.
Donthu and Garcias (1999) quantitative research into internet shopping used a
large scale telephone survey. 2000 households were contacted and they received
790 respondents (P57). All respondents were over the age of 16 and were active
on the internet (used it that month). As a criticism, the response rate was low
(39.5%) which questions whether this was the most efficient research method to
use. The survey started with questions about general internet usage,
demographics, in-store shopping behaviour and online shopping. There then was
a series of short questions to measure: attitudes towards online shopping, brand
and

price

consciousness,

risk

aversion,

variety

seeking

propensity,

innovativeness, the value of convenience and impulsiveness (P55).

Donthu and Garcia (1999) hypothesised that internet shoppers are: older and earn
more money than non-internet shoppers, seek greater convenience, innovation,
act on impulse, seek variety and are less risk averse than non-internet shoppers
(P56). Furthermore, they have a more positive attitude towards advertising and
direct marketing (P56-57). Donthu and Garcias research was conducted at a time
when internet shopping was nowhere near as popular and as accessible as it
currently is, and therefore does not provide a true reflection of the type of
customers who would now shop online. The range of products and prices available
during that particular time period are similarly not comparable to the items and
prices currently available online. Prices were cheaper for online purchases as
costs of staff, shops and other running costs are lower.
Comparatively, Liu and Burns (2013) stated that online shoppers were more price
orientated. Donthu and Garcia (1999) stated that online shoppers had a larger
income than in-store shoppers, so they could possibly be less price orientated.
This however is debatable, if an individual has a larger disposable income it does
not necessarily mean they are less price conscious.
Liu and Burns (2013) stated that customers who shop online found customer
reviews beneficial, however those customers who shop in-store were risk averse
and perhaps do not trust the anonymous reviews which are online (P890). With
11

customer reviews now being a common feature when internet shopping, this
should assist the more risk adverse in-store shopper to shop online. This could be
further motivated by those traditional in-store shoppers wishing to purchase at a
lower price. Both articles however agree on the principle that online shopping
offers a certain degree of convenience to the consumer, as some items available
online may not be available in local stores or may be only sold online. The articles
written by Liu and Burns (2013) and Donthu and Garcia are relevant to this study
in understanding why customers shop differently online or in-store.
Mohan et al. (2013) conducted a study into store atmospherics. It identified which
store environmental factors and consumer characteristics influenced impulse
buying behaviour through positive and negative affect, and the urge to buy
impulsively. Their research utilised quantitative research. 1478 people were given
questionnaires in a shopping mall in India, of which 720 people responded
(P1717).

The sample had almost similar proportions of males (52%) versus

females (48%), and married (51%) versus unmarried (49%) participants. The
average age was around 30 years and most participants (85%) had a high school
education or above, representing occupations such as students (26%),
housewives (19%), self-employed (13%), employed (39%), and retired (3%)
(P1718). Overall the sample fairly represents the target population of urban adult
Indian shoppers. The survey probed questions ranging from weighted views of the
importance of elements of the store environment to questions about impulse
buying behaviour and urges and influences to buy impulsively. The research
proposed that the store environment factors drove impulse buying through positive
affect and urge. Also, personality variables, impulse buying tendency and
shopping enjoyment tendency influenced impulse buying through positive affect
and urge. Mohan et al. (2013) further suggested that improving the store
environment would lead to an increase in the number of impulse transactions instore. Specific areas for attention included, improving staff friendliness, choice of
music, design of store layouts and lighting.
However, further recent research links impulse buying to hedonic purchase
behaviour, namely variety seeking behaviour (Sharma et al. 2010). Sharma et al.
(2010) stated that impulse buying and variety seeking attitudes are low effort and
feeling-based behaviours. The authors suggest that the relationship between the
12

two is under researched, which indicates a need for this topic area to be further
explored.
Sharma et al. (2010) administered a closed question survey with 321 respondents
(P279) during a four week period in an Indian shopping mall. The questions
focused on the evaluation of consumer impulsiveness, optimum stimulation level
and self-monitoring values of the respondent.
Sharma et al. (2010) found that a combination of consumer impulsiveness and
optimum in-store stimulation leads to an increase in impulsive and variety seeking
behaviours (P280). However, consumer impulsiveness is more strongly associated
with impulse buying and optimum stimulation level is more associated with variety
seeking. Further, Sharma et al. (2010) suggest that self-monitoring relates
negatively with impulse buying as there is an associated element of selfawareness. However, variety seeking is positively linked with self-monitoring.
Conclusively, when considering the work of Sharma et al. (2010) and Mohan et al.
(2013) it is evident that their studies consider that impulse buying can result from a
good store environment (lighting, layout, presentation etc.). This is made apparent
through the value that the authors put on optimum level stimulation (Sharma et al.
2010) and through the advice that store managers should optimise in-store
presentation (Mohan et al. 2013). This view is supported by Babin and Darden
(1995), citing that elaborate store designs and in-store promotions can be
effective tools to stimulate purchase intention.
Sharma et al. (2010) and Mohan et al. (2013) also stated than an individuals
attitudes towards shopping and their impulsiveness are imperative to whether or
not a customer will purchase goods on impulse. Furthermore, Sharma et al. (2010)
identified that self-awareness will impact negatively on impulse behaviour. This
might be due to opting to adhere to the subjective norm, for example, not buying
an extra-large chocolate bar at the till, as friends may pass judgement. The
element of self-regulation which consumers carry will have an influence on what
impulse transactions they make. Sharma et al. (2010) also suggested that a
variety seeking consumer may be more prone to impulse buying, as trying a new

13

product which is on offer could potentially satisfy the needs of a consumer better
than their current good (or service) and may also be at a better price.
One limitation of both Sharma et al. (2010) and Mohan et al. (2013) is that both
studies were undertaken in a shopping mall in India. As this particular research
paper has been conducted in England, the shopping culture and consumer
attitudes might differ significantly.

Hofstedes (1983) cultural dimension model

(Hollensen, 2004, P206) (Appendix 3), identified that the UK and India differ in the
sense that India has a large power distance (the extent to which the less powerful
members of organisations and institutions, like family, accept that power is
distributed unequally), whereas the UK has small power distance. This could mean
that consumers in the UK and India respond differently to, for example, vicarious
learning and adherence to the subjective norm.
Further, Sherman et al. (1997) investigated the effect the store environment had
on consumer emotions and the influence the emotional variable had on overall
shopping behaviour. In order to collect data, Sherman et al. (1997) approached
shoppers exiting fashion stores in a shopping mall and asked them to participate in
a self-administered questionnaire. There were 909 respondents out of 1480
people approached (61.4%) (P367). The questionnaire probed attitudes towards:
perception of the stores atmospherics, emotional state, outcome variables and
demographics. It could be argued that in order to truly assess the emotional state
of the customer, asking the question in-store would have proved more accurate as
their emotional state would have been more apparent.
Sherman et al. (1997) concluded that although cognitive processes largely
account for the store selection and for most of the planned purchases which occur
in-store (P373), the store environment and the emotional state of the consumer
are also important determinants of purchasing behaviour. This notion is in line with
the Wheel of Consumer Analysis (Appendix 2), as consumer cognition and
affection is influenced by and influences the consumer (store) environment and the
consumers behaviour through reciprocal determinism. Considering this study was
conducted around the retail store environment, the results are relevant for in-store
shopping. The articles written by Mohan (2013), Sharma et al (2007) and Sherman
et al (1997) have explored the role the store environment plays in consumer
14

behaviour and has stated that impulse behaviour can be influenced by store
atmospherics.

3.3 Analytical framework

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; 1980) found that attitudes towards an object may not be
strongly or systematically related to specific behaviours (Olson & Peters, 2005,
P141). Moreover, an immediate determinant as to whether an individual will
perform a certain behaviour is their intention to perform that behaviour. Fishbein
extended his Multi-attribute model to create the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)
(Appendix 4), which relates an individuals attitudes and beliefs to their behavioural
intentions. Behavioural intentions are the summation of an individuals attitude
towards the behaviour and the subjective norms surrounding the behaviour. Ajzen
and Fishbein found that a persons voluntary behaviour is a combination of their
attitude towards that behaviour and how they think other people would perceive
that behaviour if they were to actually performs it. The model further continues to
suggest that an intention to perform behaviour will sequentially lead to the
behaviour actually being performed. However, the TRA also has limitations: The
theory of reasoned action was developed explicitly to deal with purely volitional
behaviours (Ajzen, 1988, p. 127), P36). Further, assuming behavioural intention
will lead to an actual behaviour is limited as often there are obstructions between
behaviour intentions to actual behaviour, e.g. no stock of the product. The model
however has potential benefits for predicting the intention to perform a behaviour
based on an individuals attitudinal and normative beliefs (Southey, 2011, P44),
meaning that the TRA may only usefully predict a narrow range of behaviours
(Armitage & Connor, 1999).

Babin and Darden (1995) put forward a model which illustrates how the store
environment can lead to purchase intention (Appendix 5). Their study
hypothesised that the retail environment imposes pleasure, arousal and
domination on the customer. When the subject is exposed to such, the
individuals resource expenditure will determine whether they will make more
hedonic or utilitarian purchases. Babin and Dardens model (P56) proposes that
15

purchase intention is the sum of pleasure, arousal and domination; and what
they buy is determined by their resource expenditure. When comparing this model
with the TRA (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975; 1980), it could be suggested that the
values of hedonic shopping and utilitarian shopping would form part of the
overall attitude towards behavioural intention.

Ajzen (1988; 1991) extended the Theory of Reasoned Action to create the Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Appendix 6). The TPB can predict behaviours which
were not entirely under volitional control (unlike the TRA), by including measures
of perceived behaviour control. Perceived behavioural control relates to the
individuals perception of ease in which the behaviour can be performed and aids
prediction of both behaviour and intention to behave (Armitage & Conner, 1999,
P36). Both the TRA and TPB maintain that the subjective norm is an important
attribute when formulating behaviour. Subjective norms are perceptions of the
extent to which relevant others want you to engage in the behaviour weighted by
the extent to which you are motivated to comply with the injunctions of those
relevant referents (Manning, 2011, P352). Regarding the limitations for the TPB,
the model does not factor in variables which contribute towards behavioural
intention and motivation, such as fear, threat mood and past experience (Boston
University of Public Health. 2013) Also, the time frame between "intent" and
"behavioural action" is not addressed within the theory, meaning that the intention
to buy might become behavioural over a longer period.
Ajzen (1985) suggested that ones ability to execute a behaviour is dependent on
ones control over factors such as requisite information, skills and abilities,
willpower, time and opportunity (P36). This idea can be applied to an
individuals ability to shop online.
In underpinning what attributes or attitudes influence an individuals ability or
choice to shop online, the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis 1989) (Appendix
7) is widely regarded as one of the most central models to consider. The
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) evaluates how a systems ease and
usefulness will lead at actual system use. The TAM states that the perceived
usefulness of a system (U) and the perceived ease of use of a system (E) will form
16

attitudes (A) towards the system, leading to behavioural intention to use the
system (BI) and ultimately, actual system use (B). The TAM compliments the
above comments by Ajzen (1985), as having the information, skill, ability,
willpower, time and opportunity (P36) to determine whether a system is actually
used.
The TAM model is widely considered an extension from Ajzen and Fishbeins TRA
(1975; 1980). The TAM replaces many of TRAs attitude variables (Subjective
norm and attitude towards behaviour or action) with the two technology
acceptance measures: ease of use (E) and usefulness (U). Both models however
are credited with strong behavioural elements. Similarly to the TRA, there are
limitations with the TAM. The model does not consider a persons inability to
perform the behaviour, for example, poor internet speed might impede the
completion of an online order.
Dennis (2009) et al created a model (Appendix 8) which illustrated the econsumer behaviour of an individual when shopping online. Dennis et al. (2009)
considered consumer-orientated research when considering the behaviour of the
e-consumer. This examined the psychological characteristics: demographics,
perceptions of risk and benefit, shopping motivation and shopping orientation of an
individual (P4). Having considered the consumers attitudes and behaviour
towards shopping, Dennis et al. explored the technology approach, examining the
technical specifications of the online store, including: interface, design, navigation,
payment, information, intention to use and ease of use. Through looking at the
psychological characteristics and considering the technological approach, the two
study areas of the proposition provide a framework which integrates the TRA
(Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975; 1980) with considerations of the TAM (Davis, 1989).
The model also proposed, considers situational factors which may impede ones
ability to perform a specific behaviour. Situational factor consideration is a
limitation which is present in both the TRA and the TAM.
Both the TAM (Davis, 1980) and Dennis et al. (2009) have provided a framework
into understanding into why consumers shop online and the factors (situational
and attitudinal) that influence their actions.

17

This study will consider Fishbein and Ajzens TRA (1975; 1980) as a central model
when looking at the consumers preference to show in-store or online, why they
choose to do so and provide a good basis to comment upon evolving behaviour.
This model has been chosen as it has been proven to be a model which is very
applicable in analysing behaviours. Further, the model has been extended and
adapted to create numerous models (examined above) which can be applied to
the findings of this study.

3.4 Research Questions

Through reviewing existing literature and analytical frameworks, the following
research questions have been chosen, which in the authors opinion will best
answer the topics regarding online and in-store shopping behaviours.
1. Do people buy differently from online to in-store?
2. What role does the store environment play?
3. What role does the cyber store play?
4. Explore consumer behaviour towards shopping.

3.5 Conclusion
From this chapter, relevant studies have been examined and their findings
analysed. From the previous studies, gaps in the research have become apparent,
which have formed the basis for the research questions nominated. After selecting
the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975; 1980) as the central
model to this study, the techniques used to answer the research questions will be
examined in the next chapter.

18

4.

Methodology

4.1 Introduction
To answer the research questions in the most proficient way, a range of methods
in conducting the primary research were considered. This study is concerned with
the attitudes individuals hold when considering shopping both online and in-store,
and therefore validates the reason to use quantitative and qualitative research.
Through reviewing current literature on the topic area surrounding consumer/econsumer behaviour, it has become apparent that quantitative and qualitative
approaches to research are consistently used. When considering whether to use
qualitative and quantitative research, there are two stances which are commonly
considered: the epistemological view and the technical view. The epistemological
view cites that quantitative and qualitative research methods are separate
paradigms (Bryman and Bell, 2007, P644), meaning that both types of methods
are incompatible, voiding the principle of mixed research. In contrast, the technical
view gives greater importance to the strengths of data collection and analysis with
which quantitative and qualitative research are provide and sees these as capable
of being combined. This is a view held by many academics.
Through reading the methodology, it will become apparent that the use of
qualitative and quantitative research can provide a basis to collect a more detailed
sample of results. This will provide further tools for analysis and answer the
research questions in a more proficient way.

4.2 Triangulation
This study will use triangulation, which is when a study uses a combination of both
qualitative and quantitative research methods (Bekhet, 2012, P40). This is where
one research strategy is cross-checked against the results of using another
research method (Bryman & Bell, 2007, P646). Triangulation is often considered
as a continuation of the discussion Webb et al. (1966), where quantitative

19

research can be enhanced by using more sources of research to explore a

concept. Triangulation supports the technical view, mentioned earlier.
The concept of triangulation has been used in this study to ensure that the
research can be answered most effectively. There are also limitations. Gathering
both quantitative and qualitative data is a time consuming exercise. Further, if this
study was conducted on a larger scale research would become costly. Concerns
have been cited that using both forms of research can be incompatible (Bryman
and Bell, 2007, P644), therefore it is important to ensure that the qualitative
research is used to reaffirm or criticise the quantitative data, otherwise the
exercise could be isolated and incoherent. It has been suggested by Bekhet et al
(2012) that in order to successfully apply triangulation to a study, clear objectivity
is required (P42).

4.3 Quantitative research

With regards to the quantitative method selected, there are a wide range of survey
methods available. The five methods which were considered (Appendix 9) were:
personal surveys, intercept surveys, telephone surveys, postal surveys and online
surveys (Schmidt and Hollensen, 2006, P145). Personal surveys were eliminated
due to the high cost which would have been incurred whilst conducting the
research, including field staff and travel costs. Further, data collection would have
been significantly time consuming in comparison to any other method put forward
(P139). Telephone surveys were discarded as there is a low response rate
associated with this method, as highlighted by the research conducted by Donthu
and Garcia (1999), with a response rate of 39.5%, from 2000 households. Further,
there could be measurement constraints, including limits on response
alternatives, use of visual aids and interviewer observations (Schmidt &
Hollensen, 2006, P140). Postal surveys were deemed superfluous due to the low
response rate associated, as often mail surveys are considered junk mail and
disposed of. Further, there is very low quality control and postal costs are
expensive (P142). The selection between using online and intercept surveys was
difficult. Both are fast and relatively cheap forms of data collection. Roster et al.
(2004) found online surveys to be 53% cheaper to conduct than telephone surveys
20

(P372). (Bryman and Bell, 2007, P680. Schmidt & Hollensen, 2006, P140-144).
Online surveys can be created very quickly, have the ability to reach a large
number of people and can be designed to be visually appealing, however they are
not representative of the entire population (Schillewaert & Meulermeester, 2005,
P177). Further, as this study is investigating the buying behaviours of individuals
in-store and online, using an online method may be perceived as bias as the
survey is directed towards the online population. Individuals may have anonymity
concerns about their data too. In terms of the limitations of intercept surveys, there
are often distractions and pressures such as time, friends, emotional state and so
on which may impede ones ability to respond most proficiently (Schmidt &
Hollensen, 2006, P140). Online surveys were selected as the data is easy to
collect, cheap to perform and the quality of responses will be high as the
respondent will answer the survey at a time most convenient for them. In terms of
minimising the limitations, an ethical statement was attached to the form ensuring
the respondent that all data collected will be kept secure and not passed on to any
other party and data will be destroyed upon completion of the study.

4.4 Online survey

The survey was distributed online through email and promotion from social media
websites. Multiple channels were used to get more responses. The survey had 16
close-ended questions in total (Appendix 10).
The survey started with basic questions about the individuals demographics (age,
occupation and gender) and progressed to asking questions about impulse
behaviour in-store and the role of the store atmospherics. The survey also
enquired how the individual preferred to shop (online v in-store), and then led to
ask questions about their preference, and why they preferred to shop in that
manner. The survey further queried whether the respondent would be willing to go
against their usual preference of shopping to get the product they wanted at a
cheaper price. This was to determine whether certain demographics were
generally more price-sensitive.

21

The survey progressed to ask about an individuals attitudes towards gathering

product knowledge. This question was selected as it relates to the Theory of
Reasoned Action in the sense that product research and evaluation constitutes
elements which form overall attitudes, and in this context relates to whether an
individual will want to purchase a certain product.
One question used a five-point Likert scale. This format of question was used
because it offers an insight into the respondents attitude towards a certain
behaviour. Further, this type of questions was easy to create and implement
(Edmondson, D. et al. 2012. P73). In addition, the question was still a closed
question, therefore the responses were easy to analyse but the style of the Likert
scale offered more information in the attitudes individuals held as opposed to a
simpler closed question (Hartley J. 2014. P84). The scale queried the respondents
beliefs about whether they felt online shopping had peaked; better value can be
found online; Online shopping is so popular because its more convenient.
The questionnaire progressed to ask how the respondent reacts to online and instore advertising. The questionnaire concluded with asking whether the mood an
individual is in affects how they shop. This question was included to analyse which
demographic is potentially more inclined to perform impulse behaviours.

4.5 Qualitative Research

In terms of qualitative research, three methods were considered: observations, indepth interviews and focus groups. Direct observations were considered (Schmidt
& Hollensen, 2006, P48) as the researcher could collect actual observed
behaviours rather than reflective response data (P58). Further, this approach is
very cost efficient. However, the data collected would be difficult to generalise,
interpret and analyse, and would raise potential ethical issues (P58) (Punch, 1989,
P31). Also observations are very time consuming (Bryman & Bell, 2007, P423).
More crucially, as this study is to address the rationale behind why individuals
shop the way they do, this method is not efficient in answering the research
questions and was therefore rejected. More efficient methods to answer the
research questions are through the use of in-depth interviews and focus groups
22

(Schmidt & Hollensen, 2006, P63 & 89). With in-depth interviews, there is no peer
pressure placed upon respondents as the interview is conducted in a one-on-one,
non-competitive environment (P91). Further, lots of stimulus can be used
(photographs, videos) and an interview is easy to assemble. However, there could
be issues in terms of interviewer fatigue, as this method of data collection is very
time consuming and replicated (P91). When considering focus groups (P63), the
group can debate amongst themselves, offering a range of viewpoints (Saunders
et al, 2012, P403) and generate a range of ideas (Schmidt & Hollensen, 2006,
P74) and collectively make sense of a phenomenon (Bryman & Bell, 2007, P512).
However, data collected may not be representative of entire population (Schmidt &
Hollensen, 2006, P75), difficult to organise and hard to use stimulus with. Further,
digression could occur (Saunders et al, 2012, P402). Conclusively, focus groups
were selected as it is the most appropriate method when considering the research
questions and offers a depth of dialogue not often found in individual interviews
(Smithson, 2000, P116).

4.6 Focus Group

The planned format for the focus group to follow and the rationale behind including
certain topics is discussed below. The format would deviate in response to the
areas of discussion however, as focus groups are unstructured.
As a topic of debate, the group were asked where they preferred to shop. With this
open question, individuals were initiated to divulge what they liked about online
shopping and in-store shopping. The intention with this question for individuals to
specify benefits each method had, and this would be consistent with the data
collected from the online survey. This illustrated how the use of mixed methods of
research can be of benefit to another.
In order to assess why individuals make impulse purchases, the group was given
a scenario and were asked if and why they would buy a certain product. This
question targeted how the individual can be influenced by the retail atmospherics
and deviate from their intended behaviour.

23

In order to keep the research applicable to the TRA (1975; 1980), the group was
asked if they had an opinion of a product (the example Galaxy v Cadburys was
used) and would they go against their preference to secure the non-preferential
product at a cheaper price. This question considered the Theory of Reasoned
Action (1975; 1980) in terms of the component: attitude towards a behaviour.
The group was then asked whether the product they might buy would affect where
they shopped. In order to keep the focus group objective, images of various
products (Toothbrush, computer/technology, furniture, personal items, chocolate)
were passed around and individuals were to state where they would buy the
product and why they would buy the product through a certain medium.
Finally, the group was asked whether they would be more likely to purchase a
product if their friends bought a certain product. This question was posed in a
scenario setting. The group were to be asked whether they would buy a new
chocolate bar if two of their friends were buying one. This question addressed
whether the vicarious learning had an influence on impulse behaviour and the
desire to adhere to the subjective norm influenced an individuals behaviour. This
question was selected as it targeted a component (subjective norm) of the Theory
of Reasoned Action (1975; 1980). In addition, Sharma et al. (2010) found the
consumers were more likely to seek variety and shop impulsively if there was
correct stimulation, and the influence of vicarious learning and ones desire to
conform to the subjective norm may lead to in individual purchasing a product they
otherwise would not have considered.
In practise, a focus groups conversation can deviate from the intended structure
and this proved true in this study. This is expanded upon further in the Analysis.

4.7 Ethical considerations

Ethical concerns were considered when conducting Test 1 and Test 2. One of the
initial considerations when creating the survey was to ensure that the respondents
were kept anonymous at all times. This was ensured by not recording the
individuals name, ethnicity or date of birth. There was a statement at the end of
the survey stating the individual held the right to withdraw from the survey. When
24

considering the focus group, no recording was done, answers were written in note
form to keep opinions, names and views anonymous.

4.8 Conclusion
From reading the methodology, the rationale for each method of data collection
has been highlighted. Further, the reasons for using triangulation have been made
apparent. The limitations for using focus groups and online surveys have been
highlighted and the writer has conducted the methods in the most proficient way to
ensure the findings are applicable in answering the research questions. Ethical
issues have been deliberated (Oliver, 2010, P84) resulting in the research
processes being conducted in the most respectful, considerate and professional
manner.

25

5.

Findings

This chapter considers the findings from the research methods discussed in the
Methodology. The results are presented through answering the research
questions.

5.1 Test 1: Overview

From the online surveys, there were 60 respondents. Students were the most
dominant respondents, with 79.9% of respondents being full time students (23.3%
of whom were part-time employed). Further, 5% of respondents were part-time
employed; 13.3% were full-time employed and 1.6% or respondents were
unemployed. Regarding gender, 48% were male; 52% female. With age

[Figure 1: Occupation data from Test 1]

[Figure 2: Age data from Test 1]

responses, 1.66% were aged between 0-16; 65% were aged between 65%; 23.3%
were aged between 21-30; 6.6% were aged between 31-50 and 3.3% were aged
over 51.

5.2 Test 2: Overview

The focus group had a sample size of 11. Ages ranging from 20-22 years of age.
There were 8 male participants and 3 female participants. As the focus group was
26

semi-structured, the objective was to investigate: where respondents preferred to

shop; what they liked/disliked about each method; the reasons why they would buy
impulsively; did the product they buy affect where they shop; would they buy a
new product because their friends have.

5.3 Difference between shopping online and in-store

When assessing whether people behave differently between shopping online and
in-store, data from Test 1 and Test 2 suggests that respondents do. When the
sample were asked whether they preferred to shop online or in-store, findings from
Test 1 established that 58.3% (35) of the sample preferred to shop in-store, and
41.7% (25) preferred to shop online. When asked the same question in the focus
group, the overall consensus was that where they shop is dependent on what
product they want to buy.
Images were dispersed around the room of various products (chocolate,
toothbrush, furniture, personal items and computer/technology) with different
levels of involvement. From these images the group discussed where they would
buy each product and the reasons why.
Concerning the toothbrush, one respondent stated I would buy one in-store as it
is inexpensive and something I would use straight away. Another responded by
stating that If I was online and saw one for a good price then I would get one. It
was concluded that this product was one which would generally be bought instore.
When the group considered the image of the personal item, one respondent stated
I would purchase one online as it is less embarrassing this suggests that some
consumers shop online for anonymity. This view was the general opinion of the
room; however one participant stated I would go into store as I would want to see
what I was buying. This suggests that some individuals like to see the physical
product in front of them and weights that more important than the potential
embarrassment the individual may experience. Overall, this product was deemed
one which would be purchased online.

27

When assessing the groups opinion towards furniture, the response was generally
mixed. One individual stated that they like to see the build quality and see how it
physically looks. Similarly, another individual cited that seeing the product will
give them a feel as to whether it would suit the room it is going into. In contrast,
those who opted to get the product online mutually agreed that is it easier for
delivery and could often be cheaper and if not there are always alternatives
available online.
When considering the image of a new computer, the group was split between
those who would want to shop online, in-store and both. One individual stated that
I would shop online to compare the product to another. Another individual opted
to shop online as It is cheaper usually and there are a lot more products on
there. Further, one participant added I would prefer to go online and read the
reviews. Then I would look between online and in-store prices. In contrast, one
individual stated they would go in-store to get advice from a sales advisor.
Another added I would go with my Dad to have a look at it. Interestingly, one
individual would do both I would look online, read the reviews and see if it was the
best one to go for. Then I would go into store and try and barter with the store to
get the best price. From all the answers it is clear that when buying technology,
individuals are focused on both making sure that the product is a decent product,
validated through reviews and opinions. Also, price is a key component in the
decision making process and ensuring that the consumer gets the best price
possible is crucial. This is supported by data from Test 1. It was found that 83.3%
of the sample would go against their preference of shopping online or in-store to
buy the product for cheaper.
Finally, when the sample was shown an image of a chocolate bar the majority of
the participants stated that they would buy in-store. Only one individual stated they
would buy online, stating If the price was amazing I would. In contrast, the
majority agreed that the in-store method was the most popular, citing it is for
immediate consumption. One individual stated When I buy chocolate it is always
when am in-store. I just pick one up randomly. This response suggested that
buying chocolate is an impulse buy and is more appealing in-store as it is intended
for immediate consumption. When further exploring impulse behaviour, 68.3% (41)
of respondents from Test 1 sometimes buy products on impulse. Of the 41
28

respondents, 90% (54) of the sample justified their behaviour by stating it was
because they see something in front of them that is appealing. This product type
fits the category of being an impulse purchase.
Another determinate between individuals behaviour to shop online or in-store can
be through their attitude towards acquiring product knowledge. 40% (24) of the
sample liked to research the product online; 8.3% (5) of respondents liked to
research the product in-store; 46.7% (28) of individuals opted to research the
product online then see the physical product in-store. 5% (3) respondents cited
that they had other preferences towards product knowledge. One stated I dont
research the product; one individual cited I enjoy when people recommend
products because I like the advice of someone I trust. Finally, one individual said
I like to gather information by consulting friends, family, people who their opinion I
value. From these alternative answers it is clear that two of them like to get
product knowledge from someone they trust (3.3%), and one, interestingly, does
not do any prior research at all (1.6%).

5.4 What role does the cyber store play?

In order to assess what role the cyber store plays, from Test 1, those who
preferred to shop online were asked to select what they most liked about online
shopping. 80% of respondents (20) stated that they preferred to shop online for
easiness; 48% (12) did because it is cheaper; 64% (16) did so because there are
more products available online; 48% (12) found the ability to get delivery
appealing; 40% of the sample (10) liked shopping online in order to avoid busy
shops; 4% (1) of the sample found that the service was better online.
To assess how successful online advertising is on the sample (Test 1),
respondents were probed to state their opinion of online advertising. The research
found 38.3% of individuals were not influenced by online adverts (23). Further,
35% of the sample stated that they were Sometimes (impulse) influenced by
online marketing (21). Interestingly 18.3% of the sample claimed Yes if the offer
is good (11) and only 8.4% admitted that they were often influenced by online

29

advertising (5). From the findings, it could be suggested that online advertising is
not really effective in the cyber store
Another way to assess the role of the cyber store is through the use of the Likert
scale, investigating the individuals (from Test 1) attitudes when considering
whether: online shopping has peaked; better value can be found online and online
shopping is so popular because of the convenience. When considering whether
online shopping has peaked: 26.7% (16) strongly agreed with the statement;
28.8% (17) agreed with the statement; 16.7% (10) were neutral to the statement;
18.3% (11) disagreed with the statement and 10% (6) of the sample strongly
disagreed with the statement. When assessing the samples attitude towards better
value being found online: 26.7% (16) strongly agreed with the statement; 48.3%
(29) agreed with the statement; 13.3% (8) were neutral to the statement; 10%%
(6) disagreed with the statement and 1.6% (1) of the sample strongly disagreed
with the statement. When assessing whether the respondents thought online
shopping was popular because of the convenience: 50% (30) strongly agreed with
the statement; 40% (24) agreed with the statement; 1.6% (1) were neutral to the
statement; 8.3% (5) disagreed with the statement and none of the sample strongly
disagreed with the statement. In terms of analysing the data, applying the
weighted averages of the responses has provided an overall opinion towards the
queried statements. When assessing whether online shopping has peaked, the
sample generally agreed with the statement (3.43/5). When evaluating whether
better value can be found online, the respondents generally agreed with that
statement too (3.88/5). When assessing whether online shopping is popular
because it is convenient, the sample generally strongly agreed with that
statement (4.32/5). Overall, the weighted average of responses across the three
questions was 3.88/5, meaning that the sample generally agreed with the three
statements.

5.5 What role does the store environment play?

In order to assess the role of the store environment, those who preferred to shop
in-store were probed why they had their preference. 17% of the sample (6)
preferred the store environment; 97% of the sample (34) liked to see the physical
30

product in front of them; 23% (8) stated that they liked the personal contact with instore shopping (rapport); 23% (8) did so because they enjoy the social element of
shopping; 40% (14) found value in the fact that the customer can return to the
store if they have a problem; 37% of the sample (13) stated that they find that they
receive a better service in-store as opposed to online.
One way to assess the role of the store environment is to see how the
presentation of the store affects whether or not they will shop in-store. 40% of the
sample (24) stated Yes if a store is presented well I will be more likely to make
a purchase; 31.7% (19) of the sample responded Yes If a store is presented
badly I will be less likely to make a purchase; 28.3% of the sample (17) declared
No if a store supplied what I want I will buy it regardless of the environment.
From this question, 71.7% of the sample was influenced by the store environment,
highlighting how influential a well presented environment is.
When investigating how effective in-store marketing is on the sample, 16.7% of the
sample responded that they were Yes Often influenced by in-store advertising
(10); 43% of the sample stated that Yes If the offer is good (26); 30% of the
sample stated that Sometimes (Impulse) (18 respondents) and 10% of the
sample stated that in-store advertising had no impact on them whatsoever (6).
From this piece of research it is evident that in-store marketing is very effective
and therefore plays an important role in the retail environment.
In order to further assess the role of the store environment, the topic of vicarious
learning was investigated to further explore consumer behaviour. This topic was
put to the group through a scenario-based question. If your friends bought a new
chocolate bar on sale in the shop, would you do the same? The results were
generally No. Only one individual said they would If it was recommended by a
friend. These results suggest that the sample is not overly inclined to adhere to
the subjective norm. As a limitation, this question would possibly have had more
varied results if the question was asked individually as nobody really wants to
openly confess be perceived as copying their friends.
As this last response touched on impulse purchasing, this topic area was
prompted further. This was put to the group through a scenario. The following
question was proposed If you walked into the supermarket with no intention of
31

buying chocolate, why would you leave the shop having just purchased one?
There was a range of results and justifications for the proposed impulse purchase.
One individual stated When I see big red and yellow signs in the shop it draws me
in and most of the time Ill buy whats on offer. Another respondent stated that if
the price was good they would buy the bar on offer. The responses here suggest
that individuals do not buy the chocolate bar because they need to. They buy the
product because it is on offer and is eye catching in terms of price and display.
This is consistent with Mahon et al. (2013) in suggesting that with good
presentation in-store, consumers are more likely to impulse buy.

5.6 Exploring consumer behaviour towards shopping

When exploring the topic of consumer behaviour, Test 2 discussed brand loyalty.
They were asked if you always bought Persil (washing detergent), but Bold
(washing detergent) was on offer at half price, would you buy the Bold? There
were mixed reviews, with 4 stating they would, and 7 stating they would be loyal to
their brand. The group responded by stating however, that their loyalty is
determined by what product it is. With this in mind, additional products were
explored. When asked about a packet of chewing gum, 8 of the group stated that
they would go for Extra, over Airwaves if again it were 50% cheaper, leaving 3 of
the sample being loyal to their brand. On the other hand, when poised with a
higher involvement product, a TV, the group were asked if whether they would go
against buying an LG, if a Panasonic was on offer at half price. 4 of the 11 stated
they would do, but 7 of the 11 opted to go for their preferred brand. From these
questions surrounding brand loyalty, it has been made clear that individuals are
more loyal to a brand when the product is of high involvement, and less loyal when
the product is not.
As a way to further examine high/low involvement attitudes, Test 1 answered the
higher the price of a product, the more product research I will do. This question
had five answers. 50% (30) responded strongly agree; 20.3% (12) responded
agree; 12% (7) responded Neutral; 8.5% (5) responded disagree and 8.5% (5)
responded strongly disagree. With 70.3% (42) agreeing/strongly agreeing, it
could be suggested that the more valuable a product is, the more research they
32

will undertake. This indicates that in the decision making process, there is a higher
level of involvement when a product is more valuable, as supported by Lastovicka
(1978, P87).
When exploring how often an individual purchases a product on impulse, only
3.3% (2) of the sample claimed that then never buy impulsively. Further, 68.3%
(41) admitted to sometimes buying a product on impulse and 28% (17) of the
respondents confessed to frequently buying products impulsively.
To examine why the sample would shop impulsively, 90% (54) of the sample
justified their behaviour by stating it was because they see something in front of
them that is appealing. 7.2% (4) of the sample stated that they do buy impulsively
but it is not necessarily because the product they see is particularly appealing.
Finally, 3.3% (2) of the sample selected N/A as they do not buy impulsively.
When considering the effect of marketing in-store and online, it is clear that instore marketing has a greater impact on the sample. Further, 28.3% of Test 1
were less respondent to online advertising compared to in-store marketing. These
findings were consistent with Test 1 slightly preferring shopping in-store (58.3%).

33

6.

Discussion and Conclusion

After reviewing the findings, analysis will be presented, answering the research
questions through the use of SPSS data (where appropriate), focus group and
survey results. Through further analysis, the extent to which the TRA (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1975; 1980) supports the finding of this research is discussed.

6.1 Differences between shopping online and in-store

When considering this research question, both qualitative and quantitative

methods of research suggest people do shop differently from online to in-store.
The qualitative research has shown that an individual may shop online or in-store
depending on the product type. Data from Test 1 has shown that 58.3% of the
sample preferred to shop in-store as opposed to online and their rationale for
doing so was expressed strongly in that 97% of those who prefer to shop in-store
like to see the physical product in front of them being an example.

In terms of impulse behaviour in the store environment 96.7% of the sample

admitted to buying products they do not intend to buy whilst shopping. The
quantitative research has shown that 90% of those who do buy impulsively do so
as they see something which appeals to them. The remaining 10% could be
utilitarian purchases. It would seem that in-store marketing plays a major role in
leading consumers to buy products they did not intend to purchase. In terms of
evaluating the success of in-store advertising, 60% of the sample stated that they
would make a purchase if the offer was good, and therefore shop impulsively.
When considering whether online advertising has a similar effect on the sample,
only 25% of the sample would buy impulsively if there was a good offer. In-store
advertising was claimed to be more successful by Test 2, as the big signs and
colourful adverts attract the customers attention better than a cyber-advert. When
considering the price difference between shopping online and in-store, 77.6% of
the sample in Test 1 believed better value can be found online. However, 83.3%
also stated that they would go against their shopping preference to secure the
product at a cheaper price. This has shown that customers believe online
34

shopping offers more products and that they can be purchased at a cheaper price
too. But if the product is cheaper in-store they will shop there instead.

One major factor in determining whether a customer would shop online or in-store
is the product type they are buying. Utilitarian products such as toothbrushes were
universally termed an in-store purchase as the product is used instantaneously.
When considering different product types, for example a bar of chocolate,
generally speaking this product is one which again would be purchased in-store.
Despite it being a product which is not particularly needed, it fills an instant
urge/desire and therefore was deemed an in-store purchase. Products which
perhaps are more embarrassing, for example, personal items, split the group as to
whether they would be purchased online or in-store. This is determined by how
comfortable an individual is with certain hedonic behaviours. When a customer is
purchasing a product which is more expensive, the majority from Test 1 stated that
they would do more research into the product. With the consumer having higher
involvement with the product, more research would be undertaken. When gaining
product knowledge, 40% of respondents stated that they research the product
online first, citing that attributes such as customer reviews and viewing
comparable products can form their opinion. In comparison, only 8.3% of the
sample stated that they like to research a product in-store. As a breakdown of
results, 86% of the sample used the internet during the product research stage,
and this increased to 100% of over 31 year olds. This suggests that population
trust online reviews and feedback to gain an overall appreciation for the product.

6.2 What role does the cyber store play?

From Test 1, it has been shown that individuals like to shop online for various
reasons. Convenience, delivery, better service and so on. However, with the data
collected from the focus group, individuals highlighted that their rationale to shop
online was dependant on what product it was, the price of the product and how
easy it is to shop online. With these factors being considered, through the use of
SPSS, a positive correlation has been outputted (Figure 4), stating that from the
online survey, there is a correlation significant at 0.773 between those who shop
35

online because it is easy to do and because there is a wide range of products

available. This therefore states that there is a strong link between those who shop
online because it is easy and those that do because there are more products
available. With this correlation supported by the data collected from the focus
group, this validates the reason to use triangulation.
Pearson Correlation

More products available Prefer to shop online

(Online)

Easier (Online)

.773**

.794**

[Figure 3: Key online shopping correlations]

The data also showed that there is a strong correlation between those who prefer
to shop online and those that find online shopping more convenient. This
correlation is significant at the .794 level. This shows that a lot of people who do
shop online do so because of the apparent ease in which an individual can shop
online.
From the data collected, online shopping is seen to offer goods at cheaper prices
than in-store. From personal experience, customers who shop online have an idea
as to what they want to purchase beforehand and therefore are not as influenced
by advertising. AIDA (attention, interest, desire and action) is a marketing term
used to break down how advertising works, and by the data collected, only 8.3% of
the sample from Test 1 often purchase products as a result of online advertising.
The other 91.7% of participants block out the noise, which suggests it is an
inefficient method of advertising.

6.3 What role does the store environment play?

From data collects from Test 1, SPSS analysis has found that there is a .966
correlation between those that prefer to shop in-store and those that like to shop
in-store because they like to see the physical product (Figure 4). This data is
consistent with the data from the survey as 97% of the sample agreed with that
statement, and therefore suggests that this is a strong observation on societys
view towards in-store shopping.
36

Pearson Correlation

Prefer shipping in-store

I like seeing the physical product in front of .966**

me (In-store)
[Figure 4: Key in-store shopping correlations]

From the primary data collected it is evident that in-store advertising is much more
effective than online. According to qualitative Test 2, this is because the customer
is drawn to the big promotions in-store. With more successful advertising occurring
in-store it could be suggested that more impulse purchases occur as a result.
58/60 participants from Test 1 claim to buy things impulsively whilst shopping.
Moreover, 54/60 participants from Test 1 do buy products as a direct result of instore promotions. Meaning, 93.1% of those who do buy impulsively are also
affected by in-store marketing. In contrast, only 37/60 of respondents are
influenced by online advertising, meaning that only 63.7% of those who shop
impulsively are affected by online marketing. This suggests that in-store promotion
is much more effective than on-line advertising on those consumers who do shop
on impulse.

6.4 Exploring consumer behaviour towards shopping

When assessing consumer behaviour, this study has looked into vicarious
learning, price consciousness of customers, impulse behaviour and attitudes such
as brand loyalty and attitudes towards online and in-store shopping. Existing
literature has been considered a benchmark to compare the findings from this
study. Sharma (2010) found that self-awareness impedes impulse behaviour instore. This is consistent with the findings from Test 2, when considering more
embarrassing products. Liu and Burns (2013) found that online shoppers were
more price-conscious. This is consistent with the findings in this study, with 75% of
the respondents from Test 1 believing that better value can be found online. In
terms of brand loyalty, the group proved to be loyal to their brand of preference,
especially with higher involvement products. This data supports a conceptual
article written by Choong Lyong (1998), citing that brand loyalty is tested by
37

situational factors e.g. discounts (proved in Test 2) and that especially with higher
involvement products, a positive brand experience will mean an individual is more
likely to be loyal to the brand (as proved in Test 2).

6.5 Expectations and overview of findings

Of the findings within this paper, the key results from Test 1 and Test 2 have been
made apparent. The amount of people who do make impulse purchases in-store
(96.6% of Test 1) was a higher number than expected. This result has highlighted
how influential in-store advertising is in terms of attention, interest, desire and
action (Fill. 2013). Moreover, 93.1% of participants from Test 1 do buy products as
a direct result of in-store promotions. This statistic was also significantly higher
than expected and has provided a strong link between impulse behaviour and
effective in-store advertising (Sharma et al. 2010. and Mohan et al. 2013). Before
the research was undertaken, it was expected that individuals have a preference
as to where they would want to buy a certain product. This was proved true by
Test 2, with the sample deliberating between shopping online and in-store for
various products. When considering the samples attitudes towards whether online
shopping had peaked, 69% of the sample agreed with that statement. This finding
was surprising, considering the advances in App technology and with more
devices enabled to shop online. From Test 1, 74.9% of the sample found that
better value can be found online. Data from Test 2 suggested that this is because
more products are available online. The view that customers shop online because
better value can be found online is consistent with Liu and Burns findings (2013).
There were strong correlations between the reasons as to why individuals shop
online and in-store. Of those who shopped in-store, 97% did so because they liked
to see the physical product in front of them, which is significant at the .966 level
(Pearson correlation). When assessing why people shop online, 80% of those who
preferred to shop online did so because it is easier. This is significant at the .794
level (Pearson correlation). These findings were consistent with the expectations
of this study.

38

6.6 Application to the Theory of Reasoned Action

The TRA (1975; 1980) can be applied to this study in the sense that it breaks
down the process of behaving, or purchasing. From the data collected, value has
been shown towards the attitudes individuals hold when considering a certain way
of shopping. In terms of brand loyalty, the respondents have shown to be loyal to
their preferred brand - especially with higher involvement products - and therefore
are more likely to purchase a product because they have a positive attitude
towards the behaviour. Further, the TRA assumes individuals want to conform to
the subjective norm, however the sample from Test 1 and Test 2 have expressed
that adhering to the subjective norm and behaving as a result of vicarious learning
is a minimal consideration for themselves whilst shopping. As an overview of the
TRA to this paper, this study is more concerned with the attitudes towards a
certain behaviour i.e. shopping online or in-store and the rationale behind doing
so. In terms of analysing the behavioural intention and actual behaviour, price has
proved to be a major influence as to whether shopping online or shopping in-store
will be used. 83.3% of Test 1 stated that they would go against their shopping
preference to buy the product at a cheaper price. This implies that when assessing
whether an individual intends to purchase a product, if the price is cheaper through
another channel e.g. online or in-store they will do so, as the sample is price
conscious. This disproves the Theory of Reasoned Action, as the model assumes
that behavioural intention leads to behaviour. Situational factors, such as price,
play a role in determining whether behaviour will actually be performed.
This paper has investigated both the rationale between shopping online and instore and also how influential the store environment is in terms of leading to
impulse behaviour. The concept of impulse behaviour goes against the TRA in the
sense that the behaviour of impulse is not planned and there is no prior intention
to perform the behaviour. A more appropriate model to look at when assessing
impulse behaviour would be Babin and Dardens (1995) model which suggests
hedonic shopping derives from pleasure, arousal and domination (P56). Impulse
behaviour has proved to be very successful in-store as a result of good
promotions. Test 1 has shown that 93.1% of those who do buy impulsively are
successfully affected by in-store marketing.

39

6.7 Limitations and recommendations for future research

This study assumes that an individual only shops online or in-store. It would be
useful in the future to integrate an individuals attitudes towards their second mode
of shopping into the study, to gain a greater appreciation of the attitudes the
sample hold in regards to in-store or online shopping. This paper has considered
impulse behaviour occurring in-store but it has not investigated impulse
behaviours online. Researching this concept will provide greater appreciation into
impulse behaviour. The respondents only represent a small sample of the UK
population, and also is predominantly student answered, restricting the results.
The focus group number was also very small, but very difficult to conduct on a
larger scale, considering the time and resource constraints.
In order to answer the research questions most effectively, multiple tools would be
required. When assessing the rationale for shopping online, using the TAM (Davis,
1989) would have been more applicable when assessing an individuals ability to
actually perform an online shopping behaviour. When considering impulse and
general in-store behaviours, The TPB considers situational factors which would
me more applicable in determining why a behaviour is or is not performed when
considering factors such as the price and availability of the product.
For future research, the author believes that integrating Babin and Dargens model
(1995) with the TPB could provide a more informed approach to shopping in the
retail environment and provide further scope to purchase intention. This paper has
measured the attitudes individuals hold towards shopping both online and in-store
and therefore has a good foundation to be compared to with future research to
comment fully as to whether behaviour is evolving.

6.8 Implications for managers

Thoughts for managers from reading this paper is to ensure that the store
environment is well presented (Sharma, 2010) and in-store promotions are placed
as this is proven to be successful from this paper, especially when considering
impulse marketing. When considering online shopping, consumers like to get a low
price (Liu and Burns, 2013) and ensuring that prices are competitive is essential.
40

Test 2 has shown that individuals are prepared to negotiate in-store for the best
price and are aware that the best price may in fact be online. Having free delivery
and a wide range of products available have been found attractive for customers
and could increase online sales, along with having a website which is easy to use.

6.9 Concluding comments

This paper has explored the reasons why people prefer to shop in-store or online.
Further, this paper has examined the role of the retail environment in term of how
the store atmospherics influence buyer behaviour. The primary research collected
has shown that impulse behaviour does occur as a result of the retail environment,
especially because of in-store advertisements, creating AIDA. Results show that
impulse behaviour occurs because of shopping enjoyment (supported by Mohan,
2013), so ensuring the environment is attractive holds value. In terms of the
application of the TRA to this study, the model supports the reasons why
individuals intent to perform a behaviour but the model assumes that once an
individual decides they want a product or behaviour, they will perform the
behaviour. In reality, situational factors such as price and product availability may
affect whether one actually performs a certain behaviour. This paper has provided
a foundation for future research to be undertaken when considering the attitudes
of individuals to shopping online and in-store and evaluating evolving behaviour.
Moreover, the paper has highlighted the role of the store environment as being
one where impulse behaviours are common as a result of successful advertising
and promotions.

41

Reference list
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl,
J. \& Beckman, J. (ed.). Action-control: From cognition to behavior. Heidelberg:
Springer. Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, P179-211.
Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of Planned behaviour. Organizational behaviour and
human decision processes. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, (50), P179211.
Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (1999) The theory of planned behaviour:
Assessment of predictive validity and perceived control. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 1(38), P35-54.
Babin, B, & Darden, W. (1995) 'Consumer self-regulation in a retail
environment', Journal Of Retailing, 71(1), P47-70.
Bekhet, A, & Zauszniewski, J. (2012) 'Methodological triangulation: an approach to
understanding data', Nurse Researcher, 20(2), P40-43.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007) Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford Univ.
Press.
Choong Lyong, H. (1998) 'The theory of reasoned action applied to brand
loyalty', Journal Of Product & Brand Management, 7(1), P51-61.
Davis, F. D. (1989) "Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology", MIS Quarterly, 13(3), P319340.
Dennis, C, Merrilees, B, Jayawardhena, C, & Wright, L. (2009) 'E-consumer
behaviour', European Journal Of Marketing, 43(9), P1121-1139.
Donthu, N, & Garcia, A. (1999) 'The Internet Shopper', Journal Of Advertising
Research, 39(3), P52-58.
Downes, L & Mui, C. (1998) The end of strategy, Strategy Leadership. 26(5) P49.
Edmondson, D, Edwards, Y, & Boyer, S. (2012), 'LIKERT SCALES: A
MARKETING PERSPECTIVE', International Journal Of Business, Marketing, &
Decision Science, 5(2), P73-85.
Fill, C. (2013) Marketing Communications : Brands, Experiences And Participation.
6th edition. Harlow Pearson.

42

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Hartley, J. (2014) 'Some thoughts on Likert-type scales', International Journal Of
Clinical Health & Psychology, 14(1), P83-86.
Hollensen, S. (2004) Global marketing. Harlow, England: Financial Times
Lastovicka, J, & Gardner, D (1978), 'LOW INVOLVEMENT VERSUS HIGH
INVOLVEMENT COGNITIVE STRUCTURES', Advances In Consumer Research,
5(1), P87-92.
Liao, Z. & Cheung, M.T. (2002), Internet-based e-banking and consumer
attitudes: an empirical study, Information and Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp.
287-301.
Liu, X, & Burns, A. (2013) 'Comparing online and in-store shopping behavior
towards luxury goods', International Journal Of Retail And Distribution
Management, 41(11), P885-900.
Mohan, G, Sivakumaran, B, & Sharma, P. (2013) 'Impact of store environment on
impulse buying behavior', European Journal Of Marketing, 47(10), P1711-1732.
Oliver, P. (2010) The student's guide to research ethics. Maidenhead, Berkshire,
England: McGraw-Hill/Open University Press.
Peter, J. P. & Olson, J. C. (2005) Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. 7th
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Punch, M. (1986). The politics and ethics of fieldwork. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.
Roster, C, Rogers, R, Albaum, G, & Klein, D. (2004) 'A comparison of response
characteristics from web and telephone surveys', International Journal Of Market
Research, 46(3), P359-373.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012) Research methods for business
students. Harlow: Pearson.
Schillewaert, N, & Meulemeester, P. (2005), 'Comparing response distributions of
offline and online data collection methods', International Journal Of Market
Research, 47(2), P163-178.
Schmidt, M, & Hollensen, S. (2006), Marketing Research: An International
Approach, Harlow Prentice Hall/Financial Times.
Sharma, P, Sivakumaran, B, & Marshall, R. (2010) 'Impulse buying and variety
seeking: A trait-correlates perspective', Journal Of Business Research, 63(3),
P276-283.
43

Sherman, E, Mathur, A, & Smith, R. (1997) 'Store Environment and Consumer

Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of Consumer Emotions', Psychology &
Marketing, 14(4), P361-378,
Smithson, J. (2000) 'Using and analysing focus groups: limitations and
possibilities', International Journal Of Social Research Methodology, 3(2), P103119.
Southey, G. (2011) 'The Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behaviour
Applied to Business Decisions: A Selective Annotated Bibliography', Journal Of
New Business Ideas & Trends, 9(1), P43-50.
Tauber, EM. (1972) 'Why Do People Shop?', Journal Of Marketing, 36(4), P46-49.
Webb, E. J. (1966) Unobtrusive measures; nonreactive research in the social
sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Westbrook, R.A. & Black, W.C. (1985) A motivation-based shopper typology,
Journal of Retailing, 61, P78-103.
Zhang, P. & Von Dran, G.M. (2002) User expectations and rankings of quality
factors in different web site domains, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 6(2), P9-33.
Zhou, L., Dai, L. & Zhang, D. (2007) Online shopping acceptance model a
critical survey of consumer factors in online shopping, Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 8(1), P41-62.

44

Appendices
Appendix 1: The New Forces. Downes & Mui. 1998. P7

Appendix 2. Wheel of consumer analysis

45

Appendix 3: Hofstedes Cultural Dimension Model. Hollensen, S. 2004. P204

Appendix 4: Theory of Reasoned Action. Peter, J. & J, Olson. 2005. P142.

46

Appendix 5: Self-regulation in the retail environment. Babin & Darden. 1995. P59.

Appendix 6: The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Ajzen, I. 1991. P182.

Appendix 7: The Technology Acceptance Model. Davis, F. 1989. P985.

47

Appendix 8: E-consumer model. Dennis, C. et al. 2009. P1126

Appendix 9: Advantages and disadvantages of surveys. Schmidt, M. & Hollensen, S. 2006. P145.

48

Appendix 10: Online survey

Consumer buyer behaviour: Online v In-store

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this short questionnaire. Your participation is
greatly appreciated! You hold the right to withdraw from the questionnaire by contacting:
edharrison@ymail.com. All data collected will be used for academic purposes only.

49

50

51

52

53