Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137

Search dimensions, patterns and segment pro"les of grocery shoppers

Sanjay Putrevu , Kenneth R. Lord
*
Marketing Department, ESSEC, Avenue Bernard Hirsch * B. P. 105, 95021 Cergy-Pontoise Cedex, France

Stetson School of Business and Economics, Mercer University, 3001 Mercer University Drive, Atlanta, GA 30341-4155, USA

Abstract

This research investigates the dimensions of consumer grocery search and identi"es and pro"les shopper segments based on
distinctive patterns of search behavior. Results from a large random sample of US grocery shoppers reveal the existence of seven
distinct search dimensions (coupons, prices, brand comparisons, advertised specials, multiple stores, published product evaluations,
and word of mouth) and three segments (high, selective, and low search). Experiential, attitudinal, and demographic di!erences
between segments are identi"ed and areas of strategic relevance of the "ndings are highlighted.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.

Keywords: Information search; Grocery shopping; Segmentation; Sales promotion

1. Introduction bi-directional and inseparable: decision objectives moti-

With the near demise of the self-su$cient agrarian
lifestyle in industrialized nations and its persistent decline
in developing countries, consumers of most cultures,
classes and lifestyles have at least one marketplace ex-
perience in common * the grocery-shopping ritual. An
understanding of this essential form of consumer behav-
ior is vital to retailers who often depend on high volume
with thin margins, to producers who live or die in the
marketplace on the basis of their products' ability to grab
the attention and arouse the preference of the time-
pressured buyer in a cluttered competitive environment,
to policy makers who bear the responsibility of ensuring
the protection and well being of their constituents, and to
consumers who seek to optimize their own shopping
outcomes.
Informational inputs derived from the search process
frequently in#uence judgment and choice in consumer
grocery purchases. No model or description of the
grocery-shopping decision process would be complete
without a consideration of the search that precedes and
accompanies it. Search and choice appear to be both
 On leave from Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
* Corresponding author. Tel.: #1-770-986-3147; fax: #1-770-986-
3337.
E-mail addresses: putrevu@edu.essec.fr (S. Putrevu), lord}kr@
mercer.edu (K.R. Lord).
vate search and give it direction, and search outcomes
provide the basis for applying decision rules. Under-
standing the importance of this element of the decision
process, a number of researchers have developed models
to explain the antecedents and consequences of consumer
search activities in the grocery market and to predict its
extent (e.g., Carlson and Gieseke, 1983; Dickson and
Sawyer, 1990; Murthi and Srinivasan, 1999; Putrevu and
Ratchford, 1997; Urbany et al., 1996).
Most prior research models search as a single general
construct that can be explained as a function of variables
such as bene"ts, costs, price dispersion, budget and time
constraints, knowledge, and shopping enjoyment. While
the studies cited above have achieved impressive results
in their ability to predict search levels on the basis of such
factors, published research to date has not fully explored
the dimensions of consumer grocery search or examined
whether distinctive patterns of search behaviors can be
identi"ed as a basis for segmenting shoppers. Consumer
search, in the context of grocery shopping, can take
a number of forms, such as clipping coupons, checking
list and/or unit prices, comparing brands or stores, read-
ing articles or advertised specials, or soliciting advice
from friends. Understanding which search practices (or
combinations thereof ) characterize distinct shopper seg-
ments would be the "rst step in designing e!ective com-
munication strategies. In an attempt to "ll this gap in the
grocery-search literature, this study seeks to: (1) explore

0969-6989/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 9 - 6 9 8 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 3 - 8
128 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137
the dimensions of consumer search; (2) identify search
patterns of grocery shoppers; and (3) provide a pro"le of
the shopper segments based on some individual di!er-
ence variables.
2. Prior research and hypotheses
2.1. Amount/extent of search
Most prior research on information search has focused
on the e!ort expended by consumers gathering informa-
tion relating to the purchase of durable goods (more than
20 published articles). The general approach of these
studies has been to report the extent of consumer search
when purchasing durable goods and test how the amount
of search varies in relation to several exogenous variables
(cf. Beatty and Smith, 1987; Punj and Staelin, 1983;
Srinivasan and Ratchford, 1991).
Over the last two decades, however, some scholars
have expanded this line of research to include consumer
search for frequently purchased non-durable goods such
as grocery products. Jacoby et al. (1978) and Moore and
Lehmann (1980) conducted experimental studies that
documented the extent and type of consumer search for
a single grocery product based on direct observation.
Carlson and Gieseke (1983) studied consumer search for
groceries using panel data from 1956, and denoted search
as the number of store visits reported by the respondent.
Hoyer (1984) and Dickson and Sawyer (1990) conducted
direct observation of in-store search behaviors relevant
to the full basket of goods purchased. Park et al. (1989)
studied the impact of two situational factors (store know-
ledge and time available for shopping) on in-store
grocery shopping behaviors such as extent of unplanned
buying and brand switching. Urbany et al. (1996) exam-
ined search from the perspective of price comparisons
between stores. Putrevu and Ratchford (1997) developed
a normative model of search that captures the tradeo!
between costs of search and loss due to inadequate in-
formation. Murthi and Srinivasan (1999) modeled search
for one grocery product (ketchup) as a function of
whether the product was on feature or display, when in
the week the shopping trip occurred, the consumer's
store loyalty, purchase frequency, time availability, in-
come, and education. These studies have established an
impressive knowledge base that explains the role that
a variety of consumer characteristics, market conditions,
and marketing/retail strategies play in determining the
extent of consumer grocery search.
2.2. Search dimensions and patterns
As valuable as an understanding of the amount/extent
of search is, however, it tells only part of the story.
Equally important is an understanding of the dimensions
of consumer grocery search and the identi"cation of
distinct groups of consumers who follow identi"able
search patterns. To obtain that understanding requires
more comprehensive identi"cation and measurement of
types of search than were undertaken by most of the
above studies, and a di!erent analytical approach than
the modeling of search as a single general construct.
A few scholars have o!ered conceptualizations of types of
consumer search that, while not o!ered speci"cally in the
context of grocery shopping, provide some guidance for
this study.
Early work relating to new car purchases (Kiel and
Layton, 1981; Westbrook and Fornell, 1979) has identi-
"ed numerous sources of information that a consumer
could consult such as retail sources (store visits), neutral
sources (newspaper or magazine articles), and personal
sources (word of mouth). Building on such early litera-
ture, Beatty and Smith (1987) measured four types of
search: media, retail, interpersonal, and neutral in the
context of appliance purchases. In a similar way, Schmidt
and Spreng (1996) conceptually posited (but did not em-
pirically test) "ve categories of search: marketer controlled
(advertisements, salespersons, packages, brochures, etc.),
reseller information (information from consultants, retail
catalogs, etc.), third-party independent organizations
(newspaper/magazine articles, Consumers Union, etc.), in-
terpersonal sources (friends, acquaintances, etc.), and di-
rect inspection (observation, inferences, etc.).
Though published research has yet to demonstrate
empirically the existence of varying search dimensions in
the grocery market, producers and retailers clearly seek
to induce or capitalize on consumer search through such
tactics as distributing coupons and advertising sales.
Based on the observation of multiple search categories in
the purchase of durable goods and the apparently suc-
cessful implementation of strategies targeting di!erent
types of search, it is hypothesized that multiple dimen-
sions of search are identi"able in the grocery market:
H1 Consumers engage in multiple distinctive, identi"-
able dimensions of search while shopping for
groceries.
If consumers can gather information from numerous
sources, it follows that some segments might favor a par-
ticular source while others might be predisposed to alter-
native sources. Such a possibility led researchers to study
consumer search patterns. Claxton et al. (1974) studied
consumer search behavior for furniture and appliances
and reported the existence of three search segments
* non-thorough (those who do not search much), thor-
ough balanced (those who seek information from mul-
tiple sources), and store intense (those who depend
primarily on store visits). In a similar way, studies relat-
ing to new car purchases have consistently found the
following search segments * low-search, moderate
search, selective-search, and high-search (Furse et al.,
 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137
1984; Kiel and Layton, 1981; Westbrook and Fornell,
1979). While consumers in the low-search segment con-
sult few sources and spend minimal time deliberating
their purchases, those in the high-search segment consult
most of the sources and undertake a thorough evaluation
of the various alternatives. The members of the selective-
search segment follow a more discriminating strategy in
that they prefer a subset of the information sources and
rely on these to guide their decision * some choose the
retailer while others choose personal or neutral sources.
It is clear from the above literature that distinct con-
sumer search segments exist in the context of durable
goods. It is, however, unclear if consumers follow similar
strategies when faced with task of repeated purchase of
non-durable goods. Murthi and Srinivasan (1999) o!er
preliminary evidence that distinct segments might exist in
the grocery market, based on their "nding of three seg-
ments characterized by varying levels of `evaluation pro-
pensitya in the ketchup product category (p. 246).
Due to the existence of multiple information sources
and consistent with the "ndings of Murthi and
Srinivasan (1999), it is likely that distinct search segments
exist, varying in the amount and type of search they
apply to their grocery-purchase decisions:
H2 Distinct segments of grocery shoppers exist,
characterized by high-, selective- and low-search
propensities.
2.3. Segment proxles
Once distinct search segments have been identi"ed, this
research will attempt to develop pro"les that reveal sys-
tematic di!erences between the search groups on the basis
of some experiential, attitudinal and demographic vari-
ables. The speci"c expectations about how the high-, selec-
tive- and low-search segments would di!er in relation to
each of the variables are detailed in the following discussion.
2.3.1. Experiential factors
Prior planning. Consumers presumably engage in
search activities out of a belief that such behavior will
enhance the e!ectiveness of their shopping e!orts. That
motivation could also cause them to attach value to
pre-shopping activities that would allow them to obtain
that bene"t as e$ciently as possible during the shopping
expedition (e.g., planning purchases, preparing a list,
sorting coupons).
H3a The amount of prior planning undertaken would
vary across the three search groups in the following
way: High-Search ' Selective-Search ' Low-
Search.
Savings. A common search motivation is the expecta-
tion of saving money by using the information and incen-
tives found through the search process. Consumers who
129
anticipate signi"cant savings from their e!orts are thus
more likely to engage in search than those who lack such
an expectation.
H3b The expectation of monetary savings would vary
across the three search groups as follows: High-
Search ' Selective-Search ' Low-Search.
Psychological benexts. Beyond its functional and "nan-
cial bene"ts, search can yield psychological satisfactions
such as an enhanced sense of personal value (due to
prudence, thrift, accomplishment) and pride in respon-
sibly caring for one's family. Such motivations are ex-
pected to contribute to the level of search.
H3c The expectation of psychological bene"ts would
vary across the three search groups in the following
manner: High-Search ' Selective-Search ' Low-
Search.
2.3.2. Attitudinal factors
Importance. Buying the right product at the right price
* a motivation for much pre-purchase search behavior
* is a valued outcome only if it has some degree of
importance to the buyer. Thus, as quality home food
preparation becomes more important to the consumer,
she/he may be expected to anticipate a higher level of
bene"t from and be more motivated to engage in search.
H4a The perceived importance of grocery shopping
would vary across the three search groups in the
following manner: High-Search 'Selective-Search
' Low-Search.
Ability. Search yields systematic bene"ts only to the
extent that consumers have the ability to draw the de-
sired bene"ts from the information and incentives they
discover. Those who question their ability to discern
good products from bad ones, to recognize `good deals,a
or to judge di!erences in retailers, may perceive little
value in acquiring such information. Search is thus
viewed as a function of consumer ability to process and
use relevant information.
H4b The perceived ability to judge di!erences between
brands, o!ers, and retailers would vary across the
three search groups as follows: High-Search ' Se-
lective-Search ' Low-Search.
Time value. Search requires time. A unit of time can
vary substantially from one person to another in terms of
its perceived value. The higher the perceived value of
a unit of time, the greater the expected return that would
be needed in order for the consumer to commit that time
to search activities. Therefore, search is viewed as an
inverse function of the perceived value of time.
H4c The perceived value of time would vary across the
three search groups in the following way: High-
Search ( Selective-Search ( Low-Search.
130 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137
2.3.3. Demographic factors
Education and income. The level of education and in-
come attained by a consumer is potentially related to
some of the variables addressed earlier. Because the
socioeconomic pro"le of educated, high-income con-
sumers is attractive to retailers, they are relatively more
likely than less educated, lower-income buyers to be
actively targeted and therefore are likely to have more
convenient access to search-relevant information and
incentives, leading to a positive relationship of education
and income with search. Similarly, well-educated con-
sumers should be able to judge di!erences between
brands, o!ers, and retailers comfortably. However, other
factors potentially associated with high education and
income may mitigate search activity. The perceived im-
portance of grocery shopping may decline as education
and income increase. For more prosperous consumers,
the level of savings attainable through a careful search
may seem more trivial than for lower-income buyers. If
potential savings appear trivial, so may the psychological
bene"ts accruing to wealthier, better-educated con-
sumers. Finally, the perceived value of time and the range
of alternative activities that constitute opportunity costs
of searching may be greater for more educated and weal-
thier buyers than for those who are less educated and
lower in income. Whether the assumed education and
income correlates favoring search or those hindering it
exert a greater in#uence is perhaps an empirical question,
but given the appearance of a greater in#uence in
the negative direction, the following relationships are
predicted:
H5a The level of education of consumers belonging to
the three search groups would be: High-Search
( Selective-Search ( Low-Search.
H5b The level of income of consumers belonging to the
three search groups would be: High-Search ( Se-
lective-Search ( Low-Search.
Household size. Consumers buying for multiple-person
households face a more daunting task in terms of cater-
ing to diverse tastes and managing budget and inventory
than those buying for fewer people. Accordingly, they
may feel a greater need for prior planning, attach greater
importance to e!ective shopping, bene"t more from sav-
ings derived from search, and experience greater psycho-
logical bene"t from successfully dealing with their greater
challenge * all factors expected to in#uence search pos-
itively.
H5c The household size would vary across the three
search groups as follows: High-Search ' Selective-
Search ' Low-Search.
Marital status. The "nancial strains besetting single
heads of households who are providing for dependents or
battling the challenges of "xed incomes may cause them
to value the savings acquired through e!ective search. In
contrast, working singles with only themselves to support
and married households with the capacity to draw upon
the resources of two adults may have less need for, and
thus attach less value to, savings resulting from search
activities.
H5d The degree of search in which consumers engage is
a function of marital status, with greater search
occurring among divorced and widowed buyers
than among single and married consumers.
Age. The bene"ts of search may become more apparent
as consumers progress through life-cycle stages. Parents
may attach greater importance to grocery shopping than
young singles or couples providing only for themselves.
The nutritional needs and sometimes the budget con-
straints of senior consumers may motivate search in that
age cohort as well. There are, however, two o!setting
factors: income increases with age and consumers also
face increased demands on their time when they enter
parenthood. Both of these increase the consumer's time
value and tend to decrease search. Therefore, the rela-
tionship between search and age is an empirical question
and while we explore this relationship we do not o!er
a speci"c hypothesis.
3. Method
The general approach adopted in this study was to
develop self-report measures of search through a survey
of grocery shoppers. The use of self-reports is justi"ed
and appropriate in this instance for several reasons. For
non-durable repeat-purchase goods like groceries, search
is an ongoing process rather than a one-time activity. In
this market, search and purchase activities are commonly
undertaken each week and information regarding these
activities should be reasonably fresh and accessible in the
minds of consumers. In addition, certain aspects of
search behavior seem to require self-reporting due to the
di$culty of observing them directly in the marketplace
(e.g., scanning newspaper/magazine ads and articles, sol-
iciting advice from friends).
As suggested by Churchill (1979), a multi-step process
was undertaken to develop valid and reliable measures of
search in a supermarket setting. First, depth interviews,
lasting between 1 and 2 h, were conducted with 15 shop-
pers and two managers. The purposes of these interviews
were to develop a de"nition of search from a consumer
perspective and to identify the domain of search behav-
iors needed for a test of that construct's dimensionality.
Based on these interviews, grocery search was de"ned as
`the e!ort expended gathering information related to the
selection and purchase of items in the family grocery
basket.a
 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137
This exercise yielded nine recurring types of search
behavior: the extent to which consumers (1) compare unit
prices of grocery products, (2) check price tags on con-
sidered and selected items before purchase, (3) compare
competing brands of grocery products on the various
ingredients, (4) look for in-store promotions while shop-
ping for groceries, (5) clip and use coupons for grocery
products, (6) look for advertised specials in newspapers
and store #yers/inserts, (7) make multiple store visits in
the completion of the shopping task, (8) exchange store
and/or product information with friends through word of
mouth, and (9) read published product evaluations in news-
papers/magazines. These search behaviors appear to de-
rive from a number of search motivations: price savings
(unit-price comparisons, price checks, in-store promo-
tions, coupons, advertised specials); gauging product
availability (store visits, advertised specials); seeking opti-
mal features, attributes or bene"ts or updating informa-
tion in an area of interest (brand comparisons, published
product evaluations, word of mouth); and even social
rewards (word of mouth). They are not constrained ex-
clusively to the pre-purchase stage, but also re#ect behav-
iors that may occur after or between purchase occasions
(e.g., published product evaluations, word of mouth).
Several items were developed for each of the nine
search behaviors based on literature search and inter-
views with shoppers and managers. The generated items
were assessed for face and content validity by several
faculty members and graduate students. Following this,
a second and independent convenience sample of 15
grocery shoppers was shown this list of items. They were
provided with the de"nition of each construct and its
measures and were asked, for each item, (1) if it con-
stituted an appropriate measure of the construct, and (2)
how easily they could respond to it. Based on this exer-
cise, 10 items were changed to enhance clarity and face
validity.
A pilot study was then undertaken to assess the relia-
bility of the scales developed as measures of the nine
search behaviors. The response scale ranged from
`Nevera (1) to `Alwaysa (7). Questionnaires were distrib-
uted to a convenience sample of 180 grocery shoppers
that included members from a local women's club, a local
church group, acquaintances of the researchers, and uni-
versity associates (faculty, sta!, and students). Items de-
tracting from overall scale reliability were deleted.
Thirty-three items remained with at least three items for
each of the nine types of search behavior identi"ed earlier
(each possessing adequate reliability * Cronbach
a'0.80 for eight and approximating Nunnally's (1978)
criterion of 0.70 for the ninth).
At this stage of the research, consumer grocery search
has been de"ned, nine types of search behavior have been
identi"ed, and reliable scales for each have been de-
veloped. This evidence does not, however, provide con-
clusive evidence that the nine search behaviors represent
131
empirically distinct dimensions of search. That task, and
the identi"cation of shopper segments varying in their
motivations for and patterns of search, fell to a follow-up
study.
Data were collected on the search measures and other
consumer- and decision-relevant variables. The 33 search
items, scaled as described above, are depicted in Table 1.
Table 2 contains measures of the other non-demographic
hypothesis-relevant variables and their scale reliability.
A mail survey addressed to a random sample (strati"ed
on the basis of income) of 2000 households in a two-
county metropolitan area in northeastern United States
yielded 612 returned questionnaires, for a response rate
of 30.6%. Of these, 588 were complete in most categories
and thus used in the "nal analysis. To ensure that respon-
dents were the primary grocery shoppers in their house-
holds, the "rst item on the instrument asked, `Are you
the main grocery shopper in your household?a and in-
structed the respondent to `ask the person who does
most of the grocery shopping in your household to "ll
out this questionnaire.a As with any mail survey, non-
response bias was a concern. The sample was assessed for
such a bias in two ways. First, the demographic pro"le of
the respondents was compared to that of the population
of interest. The demographic characteristics of the
sample were quite representative of the population of
interest in terms of marital status, age, income, and
household size. The demographic similarity between the
sample and population provides some assurance that
non-response bias is not a problem. Second, a compari-
son of questionnaires received in the "rst two weeks after
mailing with those received in the last two weeks of the
acceptance period showed no signi"cant di!erences, sug-
gesting that there was no evidence of systematic non-
response bias.
4. Results
4.1. Search dimensions
As a test of H1, factor analysis was conducted to assess
whether the constructs identi"ed earlier comprised
empirically distinguishable dimensions of search. A
maximum-likelihood factor analysis of the search items
yielded seven factors with eigenvalues greater than one,
accounting for 62.3% of the variance among the 33 items.
Given the expectation of correlation among the various
dimensions of search, an oblique rotation was used
(promax with Kaiser normalization). The 33 items and
the rotated factor loadings associated with them are
shown in Table 3.
The factor loadings reveal that six of the nine search
behaviors identi"ed in the earlier stages of the research
represent empirically distinct, though correlated, dimen-
sions of consumer grocery search, the two price-related
132 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137

Table 1
Search measures

Scale: Never 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Always

Variable Measure

Unit price 1 I compare unit prices across di!erent package sizes.

Unit price 2 I compare unit prices across brands.
Unit price 3 I check unit prices of products I buy.
Unit price 4 Before buying a product, I check the unit price.
List price 1 I read price tags of grocery products that I buy.
List price 2 I check the prices of the grocery products that I purchase.
List price 3 Before buying a product, I check the price.

Brand comparison 1 I check the calories, fat and other nutritional information on packages before deciding to buy a speci"c brand.
Brand comparison 2 I compare brands on factors like calories, fat, nutritional value, etc.
Brand comparison 3 I compare brands on factors other than price.
Brand comparison 4 I compare the ingredients of di!erent brands.

In-store promotion 1 I look for special deals inside the store before buying grocery products.
In-store promotion 2 I look for unadvertised specials o!ered by supermarkets.
In-store promotion 3 I look for special displays in supermarkets.

Coupon 1 I cut out coupons for grocery products.

Coupon 2 I use cents-o! coupons for grocery products.
Coupon 3 I look for products for which I have a coupon.
Coupon 4 Before buying a product, I check to see if I have a coupon for it.
Coupon 5 I collect coupons for grocery products.
Coupon 6 When I receive or clip a coupon, I save it for future use.

Advertised specials 1 I look for weekly store inserts in newspapers for grocery items.
Advertised specials 2 Before going grocery shopping I check the newspaper for advertisements by the various supermarkets.
Advertised specials 3 I check the newspaper for advertised specials for grocery products.
Advertised specials 4 I shop for advertised specials in supermarkets.

Multiple stores 1 I shop at more than one supermarket.

Multiple stores 2 I visit only one supermarket to complete my weekly grocery shopping purchases.
Multiple stores 3 To get the best buys I shop at two or three di!erent supermarkets.

Word of mouth 1 I discuss grocery shopping with my friends.

Word of mouth 2 My friends tell me if there is a sale/special at a supermarket.
Word of mouth 3 I seek out the advice of my friends regarding which supermarkets to buy grocery products.

Published evaluations 1 I read articles in magazines/newspapers about grocery products.

Published evaluations 2 I read magazines that evaluate grocery products.
Published evaluations 3 I read news features/articles which inform me about the best brands of grocery products.

behaviors load on a single common factor, and one
(in-store promotions) fails to emerge empirically as a dis-
tinct search dimension. Factor 1 primarily captures shop-
pers' use of coupons. The six measures of coupon usage
account for the highest loadings on that factor (0.72}0.92)
and yield a Cronbach a reliability coe$cient of 0.92.
Other measures with high loadings (greater than 0.50)
re#ect searching for advertised specials. Unit-price and
list-price checking constitute the dominant e!ects ob-
served in factor 2. The seven indicators of those con-
structs have loadings (0.53}0.89) that exceed those of any
other variables (a"0.89). Factor 3 relates to brand com-
parisons. The four indicators of that construct have load-
ings between 0.60 and 0.91 (a"0.87), while those of all
other variables are below 0.50. The four indicators of the
advertised specials have high loadings on factor
4 (0.71}0.88, a"0.88); coupon usage has a subordinate
in#uence on that factor. Shopping at multiple stores
clearly explains factor 5, with the only high loadings on
that dimension coming from the three indicators of that
construct (0.82}0.90, a"0.89). Factor 6 captures shop-
pers' tendency to check published evaluations, with the
three measures of that construct receiving the highest
loadings (0.72}0.85, a"0.84). The three items measuring
word of mouth are the only ones with high loadings on
factor 7 (0.72}0.79, a"0.79). The in-store promotion
items failed to form their own empirically observable
factor or to load heavily on any of the seven factors
associated with the other search behaviors. Modest fac-
tor loadings on the advertised special factor (0.43}0.50)
 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137 133

Table 2
Segment descriptor measures

Prior planning (a"0.72) Anchors: Never (1) * Always (7)

I prepare a shopping list before going grocery shopping.
I pre-sort my coupons before going grocery shopping.
I know what products I am going to buy before going to the supermarket.
I am a well-organized grocery shopper.
Before going to the supermarket, I plan my purchases based on the specials available that week.

Savings (a"0.90) Anchors: Doesn't describe me at all (1) * describes me very well (7)
I pay lower prices because I use coupons.
Coupons and other specials enable me to keep my grocery expenditure down.
Grocery shopping would cost me more if I did not take advantage of coupons and other specials.
I pay a lower price for my groceries by checking prices.
By comparing di!erent brands, I can get a better value for my money.
I get good buys by comparing di!erent brands.
By searching I pay a lower price for my favorite brands.

Psychological bene"ts
(a"0.96) Anchors: Doesn't describe me at all (1) * describes me very well (7)
Shopping for the best value in grocery products gives me a good feeling from that extra e!ort.
Shopping for the best buys in grocery products makes me feel that I have earned the extra savings.
Shopping for the best value in grocery products gives me a feeling of accomplishment.
By shopping for the best value in grocery products, I am being a good homemaker for my family.
Shopping for the best values in grocery products gives me a feeling of pride.
In my judgment, a person who searches for the best value for money in grocery products is a smart shopper.
I am a smart shopper because I look for the best buys in grocery products.
Because I shop for the best values in grocery products I have good shopping judgment.
I feel good when I shop for the best buys.
I get personal satisfaction from shopping for the best buys in grocery products.

Importance (a"0.79) Anchors: Doesn't describe me at all (1) * describes me very well (7)
Grocery purchases are very important to me.
I prefer to eat out rather than cook at home.
Eating the evening meal at home is very important to me.
For me, it is important to have the right products to prepare the family meal.
I prefer eating out to home-cooked meals.

Ability (a"0.76) Anchors: Doesn't describe me at all (1) * describes me very well (7)
I can easily compare a new brand with existing brands to determine whether it is good or bad.
I have a hard time comparing di!erent brands of grocery products.
I can easily tell whether a sale/special price is a good deal.
It's hard for me to tell if a sale/special price is a good buy.
I am quite capable of distinguishing good brands from bad ones.
I can tell which supermarket gives me the best value.
I have a hard time judging supermarkets on factors like price, quality and selection of products.

Time value (a"0.73) $ Value

Amount respondent would charge another person to conduct a 1 h shopping trip for him/her.
Wage at which respondent would be willing to perform an extra hour of work.
Opportunity cost of hour lost while grocery shopping.
Hourly wage rate.

indicate that it shares some variance with the measures of
that construct. To determine whether the number of
factors decision arti"cially kept this behavior from
emerging as a distinct dimension, the factor analysis was
run again, allowing for eight factors. In-store promotions
still did not emerge as a distinct factor. Rather, it extrac-
ted separate factors for the list-price and unit-price
measures that loaded on a single factor in the seven-
factor solution. The empirical observation of distinct
factors consistent with search behaviors identi"ed in the
earlier stages of research provides support for H1.
The factors representing the various dimensions of
search are signi"cantly correlated with each other. This is
not surprising given that they denote various aspects of
the search process. The common factor analysis and
oblique rotation were chosen to account for this possibil-
ity. Table 4 shows the inter-factor correlations. The
strongest correlation is between the coupon usage and
134 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137

Table 3
Rotated factor loadings

Brand Advertised Multiple Published Word of

Item Coupons Prices Comparisons Specials Stores Evaluations Mouth

Coupon 5 0.92 0.20 0.05 0.59 0.20 0.22 0.25

Coupon 1 0.91 0.15 0.08 0.55 0.16 0.22 0.21
Coupon 2 0.89 0.21 0.07 0.59 0.19 0.23 0.22
Coupon 6 0.79 0.18 0.07 0.52 0.15 0.20 0.22
Coupon 3 0.74 0.30 0.07 0.58 0.19 0.24 0.30
Coupon 4 0.72 0.29 0.16 0.55 0.24 0.27 0.33

Unit price 4 0.15 0.89 0.35 0.24 0.06 0.17 0.26

Unit price 3 0.12 0.88 0.40 0.21 0.04 0.19 0.23
Unit price 2 0.19 0.83 0.39 0.26 0.05 0.21 0.29
Unit price 1 0.15 0.75 0.37 0.24 0.04 0.23 0.24

List price 2 0.36 0.60 0.18 0.52 0.16 0.16 0.34

List price 1 0.36 0.55 0.15 0.48 0.16 0.14 0.28
List price 3 0.30 0.53 0.09 0.50 0.24 0.16 0.33

Brand comparision 2 0.07 0.31 0.91 0.04 !0.02 0.40 0.25

Brand comparision 1 0.07 0.36 0.90 0.01 0.04 0.40 0.24
Brand comparision 4 0.07 0.41 0.73 0.10 0.05 0.44 0.21
Brand comparision 3 0.16 0.47 0.60 0.15 0.05 0.37 0.28

Advertised specials 3 0.67 0.27 0.02 0.88 0.33 0.31 0.33

Advertised specials 1 0.63 0.23 !0.03 0.85 0.26 0.24 0.28
Advertised specials 4 0.62 0.28 0.03 0.80 0.32 0.28 0.35
Advertised specials 2 0.45 0.22 0.09 0.71 0.52 0.31 0.36

Multiple stores 3 0.29 0.20 0.08 0.47 0.90 0.31 0.41

Multiple stores 1 0.20 0.11 0.05 0.39 !0.87 0.25 0.33
Multiple stores 2 !0.10 0.01 0.04 !0.22 !0.82 !0.20 !0.19

Published evaluations 1 0.26 0.21 0.35 0.37 0.28 0.85 0.45

Published evaluations 3 0.28 0.22 0.45 0.38 0.25 0.81 0.38
Published evaluations 2 0.16 0.17 0.34 0.20 0.20 0.72 0.32

Word of mouth 2 0.25 0.28 0.23 0.39 0.36 0.43 0.79

Word of mouth 3 0.14 0.20 0.23 0.21 0.15 0.33 0.73
Word of mouth 1 0.20 0.23 0.14 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.72

In-store promos 1 0.33 0.37 0.15 0.47 0.16 0.31 0.40

In-store promos 2 0.34 0.37 0.24 0.50 0.13 0.32 0.42
In-store promos 3 0.28 0.26 0.08 0.43 0.17 0.29 0.34

advertised specials (0.67). The advertised special factor is
also moderately correlated with word of mouth (0.47)
and multiple store visits (0.41). The published evaluation
factor is modestly correlated with brand comparisons
(0.48) and word of mouth (0.47). All other correlation
values are less than 0.40.
4.2. Search segments
To test for the existence of the hypothesized search
segments, respondents' factor scores were submitted to
K-means cluster analysis. Three distinct clusters
emerged, each of which di!ered signi"cantly from the
other two on all factors (F-values '70, all p(0.001, all
contrasts signi"cant at p(0.05). Their sample sizes and
centers (mean factor scores) are depicted in Table 5.
The highest cluster centers for all seven search factors
(0.40}0.74) are associated with the 231 consumers in the
"rst cluster (41.8% of classi"able respondents). Con-
sumers in this segment clearly engage in a high degree
and multiple types of search for grocery products. This
cluster is labeled the high-search segment. The largest
cluster (46.7% of classi"able respondents) appears to use
coupons and search advertised specials to a moderate
degree. However, consumers in this cluster are below
average in their use of other search behaviors and the
lowest of the three clusters in brand comparisons.
Though not completely averse to search, they are limited
 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137 135

in the type and amount of search they utilize. They Results observed for perceived importance of grocery
represent a selective-search segment. shopping are fully consistent with H4a (F"16.00,
The "nal cluster is the smallest in the sample (11.4%). p(0.001; means of 4.82, 4.60, 4.23 for high-, selective-,
Though respondents in this cluster report engaging in an and low-search segments, respectively * all contrasts
average level of brand comparisons, they are the lowest signi"cant). Consumers' ability to derive bene"ts from
in all other dimensions of search. Consumers in this search varies across segments as predicted by H4b
cluster are a low-search segment. The emergence of high-, (F"24.37, p(0.001; means 4.42, 4.11, 3.93 for high-,
selective- and low-search segments provides support for selective-, and low-search segments, respectively * all
H2. contrasts signi"cant. The time-value hypothesis (H4c)
has partial support (F"14.74, p(0.001), with the low-
4.3. Segment proxles search group attaching higher value to time (mean
$21.97) than the high- and selective-search segments
As a test of the remaining hypotheses, clusters were ($14.00 and $15.15, respectively).
examined to determine whether they di!ered signi"cantly With respect to education, results are partially sup-
from one another in the predicted directions with respect portive of H5a (F"7.54, p(0.005), with the low-search
to the relevant experiential, attitudinal and demographic segment signi"cantly higher in education (mean 14.94 yr)
variables. Results are depicted in Table 6. than the selective- (13.72) and high-search (13.51) groups.
Consistent with H3a, extent of prior planning varied Similarly, there is partial support for income's dampen-
signi"cantly in the predicted direction across search seg- ing e!ect on search as predicted by H5b (F"9.08,
ments (means 5.86, 5.38, and 4.06 for high-, selective-, and p(0.001), with the high-search segment exhibiting sig-
low-search segments, respectively; F"84.27, p(0.001, ni"cantly lower income (mean $37,986) than the selec-
all contrasts signi"cant). H3b, dealing with expected tive- and low-search clusters ($44,879 and $50,794,
monetary savings, is also fully supported (F"230.21, respectively).
p(0.001; means of 6.25, 5.60, and 3.55 for high-, selec- H5c, which posited a direct relationship between
tive- and low-search segments, respectively * all con- household size and degree of search, is partially sup-
trasts signi"cant). Results are comparably supportive for ported (F"6.30, p(0.005): the number of people in
psychological bene"ts (F"173.65, p(0.001), with low-search households (mean 2.60) was signi"cantly
high-, selective-, and low-search means of 6.23, 5.51, and lower than in high- and selective-search homes (3.16 and
3.36, respectively (all contrasts signi"cant), as predicted 3.26, respectively). The three segments also di!ered with
by H3c. respect to marital status (s"15.17, p(0.05), with the
plurality of single (46.3%) and married (50.0%) respon-
Table 4
dents in the selective-search segment and those who are
Factor correlation matrix separated/divorced or widowed falling disproportionate-
ly in the high-search segment (48.3 and 57.6%, respective-
CO PR BC AS MS PE WM ly), as predicted by H5d.
It may be recalled that no age or gender e!ects were
Coupons (CO) 1.00
Prices (PR) 0.25 1.00
hypothesized. However, the results are included to pro-
Brand comparisons (BC) 0.09 0.42 1.00 vide a more complete demographic pro"le of the search
Advertised specials (AS) 0.67 0.38 0.06 1.00 segments. With respect to age cohorts, the plurality of
Multiple stores (MS) 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.41 1.00 respondents under 25 (50%) and the majority of those 55
Published evaluations 0.27 0.26 0.48 0.36 0.28 1.00 and over (about 52%) fell in the high-search segment,
(PE)
Word of mouth (WM) 0.29 0.37 0.28 0.47 0.35 0.47 1.00
while the plurality of those between 25 and 54 were
engaged in selective search (s"7.87, p(0.01).

Table 5
Cluster sizes and centers

Factors

Cluster n CO PR BC AS MS PE WM

High-search 231 0.40 0.46 0.57 0.54 0.52 0.74 0.70

Selective-search 258 0.12
!0.20
!0.49 !0.01
!0.28
!0.49
!0.41

Low-search 63 !1.96 !0.87 !0.06
!2.00 !0.75 !0.69 !0.90
F-value 321.36 71.79 101.42 452.67 83.97 232.77 230.76

All F-values: p(0.001; within a column, di!erent superscripts denote signi"cant di!erences (p(0.005).
136 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137

Table 6
Segment di!erences

Means

Variable Test statistic High-search Selective-search Low-search

Prior planning F"84.27 5.86 5.38
4.06

Savings F"230.21 6.25 5.60
3.55
Psych. bene"ts F"173.65 6.23 5.51
3.36
Importance F"16.00 4.82 4.60
4.23
Ability F"24.37 4.42 4.11
3.93
Time value F"14.74 14.00 15.15 21.97

Education F"7.54 13.51 13.72 14.94

Income ($ 000) F"9.08 37.99 44.88
50.79

Household size F"6.30 3.16 3.26 2.60

Marital status s"15.17
Single: 34.1% 46.3% 19.5%
Married: 40.5% 50.0% 9.5%
Separated/Divorced: 48.3% 32.8% 19.0%
Widowed: 57.6% 30.3% 12.1%
Age s"7.87
Under 25: 50.0% 37.5% 16.5%
25}34: 28.5% 56.9% 14.6%
35}44: 42.9% 45.9% 11.2%
45}54: 42.0% 48.2% 9.8%
55}64: 51.9% 40.5% 7.6%
Over 64: 51.7% 35.0% 13.3%

p(0.05
p(0.01
p(0.005
p(0.001; within a row, segment values di!er signi"cantly from one another (p(0.05) if they do not share a common superscript.

Therefore, there seems to be a high propensity to search
among the under-25 group as well as the over-55 group.
No signi"cant gender di!erences were observed
(s"0.97, p'0.10).
In summary, the results are largely supportive of the
hypotheses presented in this research. Speci"cally, search
dimensions were initially identi"ed and later con"rmed
(H1); the sample was successfully segmented based on the
search patterns of shoppers (H2); and systematic di!er-
ences were observed between the segments in terms of
various experiential (H3), attitudinal (H4), and demog-
raphic (H5) variables. The only instance where the hy-
potheses were not fully supported occurred with respect
to the demographic variables. In hindsight, this result is
perhaps not unusual given the multiple and o!setting
e!ects that were discussed when developing the hypothe-
ses relating to the demographic variables.
5. Discussion
This study set out to establish the dimensionality of the
consumer}grocery search construct and to de"ne cus-
tomer segments characterized by varying patterns across
search dimensions. Research conducted among a large
and representative sample from a major metropolitan
area accomplished those objectives. Coupons, prices,
brand comparisons, advertised specials, multiple stores,
published evaluations, and word of mouth emerged as
distinct search dimensions. This "nding o!ers under-
standing of the way in which the search types or categories
revealed in earlier research for other product categories
(e.g., Beatty and Smith, 1987; Schmidt and Spreng, 1996)
apply to consumer grocery-shopping behavior. The dis-
tribution of the search dimensions in the population was
shown to coalesce around three patterns that represent
viable market segments, consistent with those identi"ed
recently by Murthi and Srinivasan (1999) in the ketchup
category: high-, selective-, and low-search. Adding to the
value of search-behavior di!erences as a basis for seg-
mentation is the "nding of systematic experiential, attitu-
dinal, and demographic di!erences between segments.
Past research has suggested that consumers do not
search much when dealing with grocery purchases (e.g.,
Dickson and Sawyer, 1990). By allowing for a multi-
dimensional approach to search measurement across the
full basket of grocery products and gauging segment
sizes, this research o!ers contrasting evidence. Only
about 11% of the sample could be categorized as truly
search averse (low-search segment). This segment is high-
est in time value, education, and income, and lowest in
prior planning, perceived importance of shopping, ability
to derive bene"ts from search, expectation of perceived
monetary savings, and psychological bene"ts. The
 S. Putrevu, K.R. Lord / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8 (2001) 127}137
remainder of the sample (about 89%) engaged in a mod-
erate to extensive amount of search. The larger of the two
remaining segments (selective-search) conducted limited
search activity, primarily utilizing coupons and adver-
tised specials to secure monetary savings. These con-
sumers fall predictably between the low- and high-search
segments in prior planning, perceived importance of
grocery shopping, ability to derive bene"ts, monetary
savings, psychological bene"ts, and income. The plurality
of respondents age 25}54 and those single (never mar-
ried) and married fall in this segment. The high-search
segment, comprised of about 42% of the sample, appear
to commit extensive and varied e!orts to the search
process, making disproportionate use of each of the be-
havioral dimensions. High-search consumers are highest
of the three segments in prior planning, perceived im-
portance of grocery shopping, ability, expected monetary
savings, and psychological bene"ts. This segment is dis-
proportionately comprised of those who are in the
youngest and oldest age groups (under 25 and over 55),
low in income, and divorced/separated/widowed. The
pattern of results observed in this research also seems to
suggest that experiential and attitudinal variables are
better than standard demographic variables at discrimi-
nating between the search segments.
Examining the pro"les and search characteristics of
the di!erent segments may yield bene"ts for marketers,
policy analysts, and consumers of grocery products.
Marketers can potentially gain a better understanding of
which of their targeted consumers are likely to search
and in what ways, allowing for more e$cient educational
and promotional e!orts. Those interested in helping con-
sumers to optimize their expenditures can study the re-
sults for a clearer understanding of the search dimensions
that are and are not bene"ting those in greatest need (e.g.,
lower income, elderly, divorced or separated, less
educated * population groups who fortunately do not
fall disproportionately in the search-averse segment) and
use that insight to formulate more e!ective educational
campaigns. And by becoming overtly aware of their own
segment membership, consumers can consciously evalu-
ate whether their search practices (or lack thereof ) are
yielding the desired results in their own consumption
behavior.
Additional research is needed to con"rm or repudiate
the validity of these results in other markets. While they
stem from a representative sample of a major US metro-
politan area, there is a possibility that their generalizabil-
ity may be dampened when viewed in the context of
markets with di!erent cultural values, household pro"les,
economic conditions, and marketing practices. Further-
more, though a strength of this study is its expansion of
the search behaviors commonly investigated in the mar-
keting literature, future research could yield more in-
sights by exploring a still more comprehensive array of
137
potential dimensions of consumer grocery search (e.g.,
the Internet). It would also be informative to explore
product-speci"c di!erences in the relationships found in
this study. E!orts at constructing a psychographic pro"le
of search segments would also be useful. Finally, a closer
look is needed at the search segments reported here, to
investigate the motivations behind their preferred search
patterns and to reveal the extent to which their chosen
search behaviors lead to outcomes consistent with those
motivations.
References
Beatty, S.E., Smith, S.M., 1987. External search e!ort: an investigation
across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14,
83}95.
Carlson, J.A., Gieseke, R.J., 1983. Price search in a product market.
Journal of Consumer Research 9, 357}365.
Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 64}73.
Claxton, J.D., Fry, J.N., Portis, B., 1974. A taxonomy of prepurchase
information gathering patterns. Journal of Consumer Research 1,
35}47.
Dickson, P.R., Sawyer, A.G., 1990. The price knowledge and search of
supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing 54, 42}53.
Furse, D.H., Punj, G.N., Stewart, D.W., 1984. A typology of individual
strategies among purchasers of new automobiles. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 10, 417}431.
Hoyer, W.D., 1984. An examination of consumer decision making for
a common repeat purchase product. Journal of Consumer Research
11, 822}829.
Jacoby, J., Chestnut, R.W., Fisher, W.A., 1978. A behavioral process
approach to information acquisition in nondurable purchasing.
Journal of Marketing Research 15, 532}544.
Kiel, G.C., Layton, R.A., 1981. Dimensions of consumer information
seeking. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 233}239.
Moore, W.L., Lehmann, D.R., 1980. Individual di!erences in search
behavior for a nondurable. Journal of Consumer Research 7,
296}307.
Murthi, B.P.S., Srinivasan, K., 1999. &Consumers' extent of evaluation
in brand choice. Journal of Business 72, 229}256.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychographic Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Park, W.C., Iyer, E.S., Smith, D.C., 1989. The e!ects of situational
factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: the role of store
environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer
Research 15, 422}433.
Punj, G.N., Staelin, R., 1983. A model of consumer information search
for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research 9, 366}380.
Putrevu, S., Ratchford, B.T., 1997. A model of search behavior with
an application to grocery shopping. Journal of Retailing 73,
463}486.
Schmidt, J.B., Spreng, R.A., 1996. A proposed model of external con-
sumer information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 24, 246}256.
Srinivasan, N., Ratchford, B.T., 1991. An empirical test of a model of
external search for automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research 18,
233}242.
Urbany, J.E., Dickson, P.R., Kalapurakal, R., 1996. Price search in the
retail grocery market. Journal of Marketing 60, 91}104.
Westbrook, R.A., Fornell, C., 1979. Patterns of information sources
usage among durable goods buyers'. Journal of Marketing Research
16, 303}312.