Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Linking usage and shopping: How value experiences can distinguish

consumers
Gicquel Inès a, Castéran Herbert b,n
a
IUT de Colmar (University of « Haute-Alsace »), Research fellow at the Beta UMR 7522, Professional contact: 34 rue du Grillenbreit BP 50568, 68008 Colmar
cedex, France
b
EM Strasbourg Business School (Strasbourg University), Professional contact: 61, avenue de la Forêt-Noire, 67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study uses the context of a ready-to-wear market to analyze the value of two consumer experiences,
Received 31 March 2015 usage and in-person shopping. A logit model applied to 374 questionnaires highlights the relationships
Received in revised form between the value dimensions of each experiment. This research demonstrates the link made by con-
30 November 2015
sumers between these two moments of consumption. Consistent with shopper typologies established by
Accepted 9 January 2016
literature, the study reveals three classes of consumers. One class is shown to highly value sign and self-
expression of usage and the utility dimension of the shopping experience, which questions the overall
Keywords: purchase experience. The study proposes some measurement instruments and suggests further research
Shopping to address this specificity.
Usage
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Typology
Value
Experience

1. Introduction considered the effects of previous usage experiences.

The maximization of customer value is often seen as the ulti-
mate goal for firms, along with shareholder value (Bolton et al.,
2007; Woodruff, 1997). To analyze value, focus recently moved
from the producer and the production of goods to the usage of
resources by the customer during usage processes (Gummerus,
2013). This can be illustrated, for example, by the development of
many fashion-related social media applications (e.g Gilt, Gap Style
Mixer1) which allow consumers to interact with retail brands,
stores, and related elements. Consumers are showing a willingness
to connect their various interactions to increase their global value.
However, although retailers are recognizing that little things—ease
of interaction with the firm, consistency of the message across all
communication channels, provision of multiple buying channels
(Grewal et al., 2009)—make big differences, they are failing to ac-
count for the link that exists in consumers’ minds between shop-
ping and usage experiences. During usage, consumers select, drop,
reject, and choose to wear items. While shopping, they mentally
manipulate their associations with those items. Are the two ex-
periences independent? Does a consumer consider each experi-
ence without any representation or any memory about items al-
ready owned? Studies of shopper experiences have not yet
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ines.gicquel@uha.fr (G. Inès),
herbert.casteran@em-strasbourg.eu (C. Herbert ).
1
http://www.gilt.com, https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/gap-stylemixer/id326347260
Shopper-oriented marketing refers to “the planning and ex-
ecution of all marketing activities that influence a shopper along,
and beyond, the entire path-to-purchase, from the point at which
the motivation to shop first emerges through to purchase, con-
sumption, repurchase, and recommendation” (Shankar et al., 2011,
p. 29). In this sense, because shoppers become consumers after
they make purchases, shopping and usage must be considered si-
multaneously to acknowledge and achieve advantages along the
entire purchase path.
This research seeks to establish a link between usage and
shopping throughout the cycle.
Researchers (Baron and Harris, 2008; Lusch and Vargo, 2012;
Vargo and Lusch, 2004) have identified consumers as integrators of
operant resources (physical, social, cultural) as they immerse
themselves in experiences in the course of defining experiences
and creating value and highlighted the importance of interaction. A
consumer experience exists primarily to provide consumer value,
which can be conceptualized in various ways (Boztepe, 2007).
Value is widely used as a key indicator of behavior, and is the
subject of intense research interest (Gallarza et al., 2011). The role
of usage in the value generation process is still under examination
(Iyengar et al., 2011; Datta et al., 2015). As a hidden source of value,
it is drawing interest as a key factor in updating existing typologies
of shoppers (Babin et al., 1994; Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980;
Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954; Tauber, 1972; Westbrook
and Black, 1985), and is regarded as the starting point of the
shopping trip (Buttle, 1992). However, most research focuses on

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.014
0969-6989/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
166 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174
the cognitive approach of the consumer (Puccinelli et al., 2009) and
does not investigate the value attained through the connection
between shopping and usage experience.
This study investigates the value that consumers attain in the
shopping and usage stages of their consumption. To bridge the gap
between the values of usage and shopping, we assess and measure
shopping and usage experiences values separately. By defining
consumer values in this way, we seek to understand and track
various types of consumer-shoppers. Our research focuses on the
nature and mechanisms of the interaction between the shopping
and usage experiences, from a consumer perspective. We use
market data from the French ready-to-wear retail market. This
market offers a suitable research context because the product types
enforce the links between shopping and usage. Furthermore, the
market relies strongly on interactions (Murray, 2002; Thompson
and Haytko, 1997).
Using dimensional measures of shopping and usage experience
values, our study constructs two consumer typologies (shopping
and usage) and establishes a link between dimension values of
each experience by using a logit model to explain consumer clas-
sification. We adopt an inductive approach to reexamine issues
related to perceived value typology (Ormerod, 2010; Tellis and
Gaeth, 1990).
We identify three classes of consumers. In addition to the an-
ticipated opposite classes of “enthusiasts” and “apathetics,” we find
a third class, the “pragmatics”, that highly values the usage ex-
perience and the utility dimension of the shopping experience. For
this class, the shopping experience is associated with staying
connected to fashion, rather than an interest in shopping itself.
This is a new vision of usage value that questions the overall
purchase experience.
2. Theoretical background
According to Kwortnik and Ross (2007), experience is composed
by “fusing tangible (sensory) and intangible (symbolic) attributes
co-produced by consumer and marketer to create an event that is
pleasurable, meaningful and memorable.” Experience is char-
acterized by a set of interactions between a customer and a pro-
duct, a company, or part of its organization (Gentile et al., 2007).
The entire experience includes search, purchase, consumption, and
after-sale phases (Verhoef et al., 2009).
Holt (1995) and Holbrook (1999) conceptualize perceived con-
sumer value as a result of an interaction with a product during the
course of such an experience. Literature highlights both the theo-
retical and managerial potential of perceived value (Arnould, 2014;
Karababa and Kjeldgaard, 2014; Rivière and Mencarelli, 2012) but
also recognizes the difficulty of developing an integrated theory of
value. Research shows retailers who use a “store as the brand”
strategy should continue to invest in creating a specific, unique
shopping experience for their target customers. From a consumer's
viewpoint, obtaining value is a fundamental goal of all successful
exchange transaction (Holbrook, 1999).
Consumer value can help predict the future behavior of con-
sumers (Prentice, 1987). Consumer perceived value is better suited
than satisfaction or loyalty for measuring customer preference for
the point-of-sale over time because it mitigates the impact of oc-
casional shortcomings in quality of service (Antéblian et al., 2013;
Berry and Carbone, 2007; Carpenter, 2008; Chaudhuri and Ligas,
2009).
In order to measure value, Evrard and Aurier (1996) recommend
combining a functional theory of attitudes (Herek, 1986, 1987) with
the theory of value (Holbrook, 1999; Holt, 1995; Lai, 1995; Richins,
1994; Sheth et al., 1991). They complete the initial works of Herek
(1986, 1987) and Katz (1960) on attitude (Lutz, 1991).This larger
framework adds the consumer–object relation (Evrard and Aurier,
1996) to overall experience evaluation (Aurier et al., 2004) in a
factorial design in which components of value are defined from the
intersection of the fundamental dimensions of experience. Six
components describe the consumer–object relation (Aurier et al.,
2004): (1) utilitarian value (benefits the consumer receives from
using the products together), (2) value of knowledge (expertize
gained through the interaction with the object and other con-
sumers), (3) stimulation value (when the experience offers interest
during the shopping process), (4) self-expression value (opportu-
nity for the consumer to express something personal), (5) social
value (obtained through interactions with other people), and
(6) spirituality value (self-reflection in a changing world). The
nature of the value dimensions is important because the structure
of the experience and links between experiences across the
shopping cycle can have emergent effects. Consumers who differ in
certain traits may develop different relationships during their
consumer–object experiences.
Our research goal is to assess the link between shopping and
usage experiences. To test for the existence and nature of this link,
it is necessary to identify shopper and user typologies. Stone (1954)
identified four main types: economic shopper, personalization
seeker, ethical shopper, and apathetic shopper. Darden and Rey-
nolds (1971) provide external validation for Stone's (1954) typol-
ogy and suggest a shopping orientation perspective, featuring
utilitarian and recreational modes. Babin et al. (1994), in their
discrete evaluation scale for shopping experiences, include hedonic
(Arnold and Reynolds, 2003) and utilitarian motivations and
identify six groups of shoppers: entertainers, optimizers, apathetic
shoppers, smart shoppers, smart shoppers interested in hedonic
aspects, and shoppers with unknown motivations. Three categories
of shoppers remain constant across the various classifications:
apathetic, social, and economic. Usage and shopping are closely
related processes in the consumption cycle. As noted by Buttle
(1992), people try to account for shopping behavior logically:
shopping trips result from external causes and for practical rea-
sons, linked to usage. Therefore, we explore the mechanisms of
experience interactions throughout the shopper typologies. Re-
examination of the typologies is necessary to determine which
remain stable and which need readjustment, to account for usage
values and the evolution of the market.
3. Data and methodology
By using a snowballing technique from a random initial group
of 250 French respondents, we collected 374 online questionnaires
during May 2010. This approach supported communication with
each member of a large population. The study sample is pre-
dominantly female (77%), from urban or suburban locations (90%).
Single-person households represent one-third of the sample;
higher socio-professional categories represent more than the half
(56%). Although this sample is not perfectly representative of the
population, it allows focus on our main target (cf. Appendix A).
Although Davis and Hodges (2012) suggest a holistic perspec-
tive, built on previous works (Babin et al., 1994; Diep and Sweeney,
2008; Kim, 2002; Mathwick et al., 2001), findings on shopping
value are inconsistent and unreliable. Therefore, we have adapted
an integrated approach to determining a measurement scale for
consumption value, by applying two scales that have been vali-
dated for shopping and usage experience in the French retail
ready-to-wear market (cf. Appendix B). Fornell and Larcker's
(1981) criteria are used and met for the validation, the factor
loadings are greater than 0.5 and R² is greater than 0.1 (cf.
Appendices C and D). We adopt the readily available indicators of
Aurier et al., 2004 and Evrard and Aurier (1996) that reflect Herek's
 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174 167

5 4.7 4.7 4.7

4 3.5 3.7
3.4
3.1 3.2 3.3
3 2.6

2 Shopping
Use
1

0
Spirituality Knowledge Sign Value Utilitarian &
& Social Systemic
Link
Fig. 1. Means of use and shopping dimension.

(1986, 1987) theory of functional attitudes. 7

Confirmatory analysis results in identification of dimensions for 6
each experience. We compare the means for each value dimension 5
obtained from consumers regarding their shopping and usage ex- 4
periences, as shown in Fig. 1.
3 Apathetic people
Our results show usage tends to exhibit higher values than
2 Pragmatists
shopping. Consumers appear to emphasize personal reflection and
1 Enthusiasts
coherence in the clothing retail environment.
Each dimension is characterized by multiple items (AENG scale). 0
USpirit3

UValue3
UValue1

UCumSat3
UCumSat1

USign5
USign3
USpirit4
USign4
USpirit2
UKnowl4
UKnowl6
UKnowl1
USocLnk4
USocLnk2
USocLnk3

USystem7
USystem20

Utility, sign, social link and knowledge, self-expression, experi-
ential arousal, and spirituality (thoughts about life that a consumer
may evoke during a consumption situation) are identified as the
components of global perceived value. These components differ
slightly from one situation to another. For example, experiential
arousal does not exist during usage, and social link is adapted to
the context of consumption (Figs. 2 and 3).
We conduct two separate hierarchical classifications for shop-
ping and usage experiences. Underlying consumer attitudes can be
analyzed with classifications that provide a synthesized view of the
information. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) supports the accu-
racy of this classification by showing significant differences be-
tween classes. The comparison between class belonging allows
measurement of the consistency of usage and shopping
experiences.
We explain the consumer classification for each experience
according to the dimension values of the other experience. The
dependent variable is consumer classification (a categorical
7 teractions between experiences.
6
5 to explain usage classification, just as the value dimensions of
4 usage are tested to explain usage classification. The probability of
Apathetic people
3
Pragmatists
2
Enthusiasts
1
USystem4
USystem21
USystem11
Fig. 3. Item means by class for the Usage Experience.
variable) and the independent variables are scales. Three main
approaches are possible in this case: discriminant analysis, multi-
nomial probit model, and multinomial logit model. Discriminant
analysis assumes independent variables are normally distributed,
whereas the logit model makes no assumption about the dis-
tribution of independent variables (Baltas and Doyle, 2001). In
contrast to the probit formulation, logit coefficients have direct
interpretations in terms of odds ratio (Baltas and Doyle, 2001); we
prefer the logit model, which identifies the probabilities of the
outcomes of a categorical dependent variable, given a set of in-
dependent variables. We use two logit models to explain each
consumer classification (for usage and shopping) according to the
values of the other experience and to support analyses of the in-
The explanatory variables X are the value dimensions from the
other experience. All the value dimensions of shopping are tested
belonging to class c among C classes is given by:
e X ′ βc
P (C ) = C
∑k = 1 e X ′ βk

0 The βc represents the coefficient vector of the explanatory

variables X for the class c while βκ represents the coefficient vector
for each class k among the c classes.

Fig. 2. Item means by class for the shopping experience.

168 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174

4. Data analysis and results Table 2

Significant differences across classes (p-value o .05).
4.1. Typologies according to experience values
Apathetics Pragmatists Enthusiasts

Using hierarchical clustering on the basis of consumers’ per- Gender (Classes and gender: χ² value ¼34.95, df ¼ 2, p-value o .01)
ceived value for each dimension, we determine that, for each di- Women 51% (55) 81% (115) 91% (113)
mension, the optimal number of classes is three: apathetics, Familial status (Classes and familial status: χ²¼ 18.9, df ¼ 6, p-value o .01)
Couple without 30% (32) 19% (27) 39% (48)
pragmatists, and enthusiasts. Both typologies are consistent (see children
Table 1). Single without 38% (41) 35% (50) 38% (47)
The strong links across classifications indicate 79% of consumers children
belong to the same groups for both their shopping and usage ex- Couple with child 24% (26) 40% (57) 17% (21)
(ren)
periences. Usage experience thus seems to prompt shopping be-
Single with child(ren) 8% (9) 7% (10) 5% (6)
haviors, and vice versa. Apathetics and pragmatists seem more Shopping frequency (Classes and snowball frequency: χ² value ¼ 83.85, df ¼6,
similar than pragmatists and enthusiasts. As we would expect, we p-value o .01)
find no overlap between enthusiasts and apathetics. Less than once per 82% (88) 39% (55) 18% (22)
In terms of AENG scales, we observe the following differences: month
1–2 times per month 14% (15) 30% (43) 28% (35)
The χ2 tests were significant (p ¼.015). The ANOVA were sig- 2–3 times per month 4% (4) 18% (26) 27% (33)
nificant at 1% (with the exception of two satisfaction items). Ac- More than 3 times 0% (0) 13% (18) 28% (35)
cording to classes, item differences are very significant. per month
Apathetics and enthusiasts are opposite in valuing both ex- Clothes buying frequency (Classes and frequency: χ² value ¼129.41, df ¼ 6,
p-value o .01)
periences, while pragmatists try to take some advantage and
Less than once per 82% (88) 59% (84) 51% (63)
pleasure from consumption situations. (we chose to eliminate the month
“social” denomination presented by literature, because it appears 1–2 times per month 18% (19) 33% (47) 29% (36)
the most valued dimensions of experiences are not only social). 2–3 times per month 0% (0) 5% (7) 11% (14)
Enthusiasts express high values for each dimension and live More than 3 times 0% (0) 3% (4) 9% (11)
per month
experiences more intensely. Pragmatists match apathetics with
regard to social links and knowledge dimensions across usage and
shopping experiences; they also match on the spirituality dimen-
sion for shopping and the sign dimension for usage. However, they with respect to enthusiast class.
are closer to enthusiasts on the utilitarian dimension for both The logit model (Appendix E, Table E.1) explains the consumer
consumption experiences. Shopping is a way for pragmatists to classification of usage value by items from shopping value scale.
discover or try new products. In terms of usage, pragmatists con- The likelihood-ratio test statistic equals 502.8, with 42 degrees of
sider clothing part of the overall environment. Apathetics express freedom; the associated p-value is 0%, which implies the overall
low consumption values overall. significance of the model. The results show good model fit:
Table 2 summarizes the significant differences across the classes McFadden's R² equals.67. Empirically, 85% of the respondents are
(χ2, p o.05) in terms of behavior and socio-demographic assigned in the same way, according to the logit model.
characteristics. The usage classification relies on the “social link and knowl-
As expected, apathetics exhibit low shopping and buying fre- edge” and “spirituality” dimensions. Social link and knowledge
quency. In socio-demographic terms, the apathetics include more seem more efficient in terms of moving apathetics to the en-
men on average. Apathetics belong to a high socioeconomic cate- thusiast group, compared with the effect of shifting pragmatics to
gory and place little value on the experience. In contrast, en- the enthusiast group. The underlying affiliation logics are com-
thusiasts are mostly women without children. parable for the two classes: the signs of the coefficients are the
same, and the loading rankings are quite similar. However if we
4.2. The link between experiences carefully observe the coefficients for the “spirituality” dimension
(items “going shopping gives the opportunity to put myself in
We start with a multinomial logit model analysis of the usage question” and “after shopping, I often take time for thinking about
experience by shopping items (Appendix E), before we conduct the myself”) they are smaller for pragmatists or even non-significant.
analysis of the shopping experience by usage items. Each item of Then, a low role of the “spirituality dimension” in shopping in-
the explanatory dimension is introduced as an independent vari- duces an apathetic usage. More precisely, introspection during
able. We retain only significant variables. By construction, a mul- shopping represents a source of differentiation in terms of usage
tinomial logit model uses coefficient normalization for identifica- between apathetics and enthusiasts.
tion. It means that the coefficients of one class are fixed to 0; in our Shopping utility and arousal are not useful for distinguishing
case, all the coefficients of enthusiasts equal 0. The coefficients of consumers during their usage experience; it is likely that the two
the logit regressions have to be interpreted as relative coefficients experiences are temporally and geographically disconnected. In
contrast, social links, knowledge, and the search for meaning are
Table 1 interdependent and predictive of usage.
Cross-table of both classifications from experiences. The logit model (Appendix E, Table E.2) explains the consumer
classification of shopping value by items from usage value scale.
Shopping experience Usage experience Total
The likelihood-ratio test statistic equals 490.4, with 30 degrees of
Apathetics Pragmatists Enthusiasts freedom; the associated p-value is again 0%. McFadden's R2 equals
.71, with 87% of observations assigned the same way. This good fit
Apathetics 19.8% (74) 3.5% (13) 0% (0) 23.3% suggests consumer typologies are stable and effectively obtained
Pragmatists 8.8% (33) 31.9% (119) 2.4% (9) 43.1% from consumers’ value assessments. Furthermore, assigning con-
Enthusiasts 0% (0) 6.2% (23) 27.3% (102) 33.5%
sumers to usage classes according to their shopping evaluations
Total 28.6% 41.6% 29.7%
reveals some pertinent differences across classes. The typology
X-squared ¼355.51, df¼ 4, p-value o .01. validates the existence of consumers’ experiential profiles,
 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174
extracted from the perceived values of shopping and using. Here
again, apathetics and pragmatists can be distinguished through
specific dimension activations. But the results are different to the
results of usage classification. The utilitarian and systemic dimen-
sion has a non-trivial role. A low result of two usage items, “I like
finding new ways of coordinating clothes”, and “I would be ready
to buy new things to optimize the clothes I already own” implies a
higher probability of an “apathetic” behavior. On the opposite side,
a higher concern to “What I expect from my clothes is that many
other things can be associated with” characterizes the apathetics
whereas enthusiasts (by construction) and pragmatists show a
non-significantly different from 0 coefficient for this item. The
practical aspect, a passe-partout expectation for clothes usage in-
duces an apathetic attitude during shopping.
4.3. Discussion of results
This new typology of consumer-shoppers updates existing
contributions. We confirm the permanence of enthusiast and
apathetic groups and identify a new pragmatic group. By taking
usage value into account, we reach a new understanding of the
group formally known as “social” (e.g. Babin et al. (1994)). For
members of this group, the activity of shopping is not in itself at-
tractive, but is a way of staying connected to fashion. Pragmatists
have a high utility value and a low social value for shopping, and a
strong sign value for usage. This result shows the importance of
simultaneously considering usage and shopping.
The dimensions of perceived value retain their differences be-
tween classes and can be regarded as managerial value levels for
each type of consumer, taking into account the details of the score
reflecting the global estimation of value. The overall results suggest
consumers grant ideological meaning to fashion and retail in
general. There is a clear contrast between enthusiasts and apa-
thetics with regard to the global value they obtain from shopping
and usage. This difference is particularly acute for the spirituality
dimension: enthusiasts treat commercial settings as a sort of re-
source for thinking about their position in the world and the image
they want to communicate, whereas apathetics do not find the
context relevant to any spiritual reflection. Overall, the spiritual
dimension of consumption, associated with transforming the self
to find meaning and stability in a commercial context, has a major
influence on enthusiasts. Depending on the value dimension,
pragmatists express a much subtler message. The findings related
to utility and spirituality appear relevant, particularly for identi-
fying the group of pragmatic consumers. Utility and its max-
imization are a greater concern for pragmatists than for en-
thusiasts. If we consider the details of the logit model coefficients,
apathetics represent a group separated from the other two not by
an intensity of dimension activation but by a question of nature of
expectations, representations and, finally, behaviors.
Our results show mobile, web, and in-store applications should
enhance usage value to better address the pragmatic group
through at least two ways: (1) a usage of future product consistent
with already-purchased products and (2) a usage of future product
linked with typical usage contexts. The more contexts provided,
the more valuable the product.
Because we find links that differ, moving from usage to shop-
ping versus shopping to usage, we can frame the interactions be-
tween these two experiences. Fig. 4 presents the links identified by
our analysis.
The one-sided arrow indicates an impact of one dimension of
the experience on an other one from the other experience, while a
two-sided arrow indicates a reciprocal influence. The dimensions
involved are not surprising, given their meanings for the consumer.
Social link and knowledge, and spirituality (the way consumers
evaluate life positioning) are hardly considered during both
169
Systemic value
Social link and knowledege Shopping
Usage experience
experience
Sign value
Fig. 4. Shopping and usage experience interaction. A one-sided arrow indicates a
significant influence of the dimension of one experience on the other one while a
two-sided arrow indicates a significant reciprocal influence.
experiences because they are strongly connected to the prepara-
tion of social life and conformity to roles (Goffman, 1959). For the
same reasons, the way the consumer evaluates sign value during
shopping is more or less important during further usage; sign value
predicts experience type of value. Conversely, consumers try to get
the most from what they have, taking advantage of the system of
utility provided by the products as a whole. Consumers try to
improve their benefit/loss ratio, that is, their return on investment.
This is an important dimension for distinguishing shoppers from
their usage value.
5. Conclusion
Our conclusions remain consistent with those of typology lit-
erature. We add to the literature, however, by showing how
typologies are established and providing more details about how
usage influences shopping.
Our research offers both academic and managerial insights.
From an academic perspective, usage experience value paid little
interest for the moment from academics even if usage con-
ceptualization regains important attention recently (Pfisterer and
Roth, 2015); and this study offers to bridge the gap between the
two experiences. Indeed, usage can be taken into account to better
understand the path-to-purchase. We see that apathetic and en-
thusiast groups have an equivalent evaluation of usage and shop-
ping experiences (negative for the former, very positive for the
latter), but in the pragmatic group, the shopping experience is
dedicated to usage. The underlying idea (still to be confirmed) is
that shopping experience is subordinated to usage experience. The
usage value measure of the pragmatic group questions the overall
purchase experience.
We also establish the link between shopping and usage experi-
ences. We find they are distinct, yet consumers gain some specific and
linked values from both of them. Value from usage builds relationship
to the point-of-sale. Understanding value from usage and its interac-
tion with shopping value helps integrate consumers who are increas-
ingly committed to their relationship with retailers. In our research
context, the interactions between experiences reveal the shopping
cycle is oriented by the search for meaning.
On this strategic level, perceived value helps define and reex-
amine the segmentation process (Slater, 1997), as well as provide
effective measurement tools for managers (Woodruff, 1997). Our
proposed typology of consumer-shoppers is also coherent with
existing typologies (Babin et al., 1994; Bellenger and Korgaonkar,
1980; Darden and Reynolds, 1971; Stone, 1954; Tauber, 1972;
Westbrook and Black, 1985). By offering a corresponding typology
of users, we specify the logic in terms of value dimensions that are
distinct for each class of consumer but consistent through the two
experiences. The profiles of apathetic, enthusiastic, and pragmatic
consumers remain consistent across both experiences. These re-
sults have potentially significant implications for retailing, because
retailers can adapt their commercial propositions to appeal to
170 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174
these three profiles. However, within the same classes, experiences
are interconnected, such that specific dimension values of each
experience can predict the values for the other related experience.
If retailers are interested in building and co-creating value with
consumers, they should seek to enhance the dimensions that have
greater impacts on consumer usage. This could be an interesting
way of enriching experiences and delivering more consistent va-
luable aspects of each experience in relation to the other (as de-
monstrated by recent mobile applications). Sales training should
incorporate aspects such as the ability to describe products in
environments adapted to customers. The physical context allows
salespeople to go beyond simple product descriptions (“it suits you
well,” “it is a high textile quality”) to initiate real exchanges about
product usages. Such information could also be integrated into
written product descriptions, in addition to objective product
characteristics (materials, washing instructions). This approach is a
way of adding value to physical retail settings, by allowing close
interactions between a seller and a customer. It represents a major
asset for physical channels.
The virtual network serves the physical network (especially for the
garment category of products) and promotes the concept of ‘web to
store,’ in which fans make an appointment to share shopping time
among friends, attend an event, or discuss and display product usage.
The development of new applications that integrate historical purchase
data, existing products, and typical usage contexts needs to be en-
couraged. It represents a new way of understanding customer beha-
viors and offering a quasi-personalized approach. Value creation de-
pends on the ability to rely on consumers, products, and usage context,
especially for the pragmatic group. On the specific interest of ex-
amining usage and shopping together, we can say that these two ex-
periences are fairly linked and that value profiles can be stressed. These
profiles are new for at least one category and enriched in every case of
usage experience insertion.
Appendix A. Sample Characteristics
Gender
Female
Residence
Suburban
Rural
Urban
Family situation
Couple without child
Single without child
Couple with child(ren)
Single with child(ren)
Socioeconomic status
Farmers
Self-employed
High socioeconomic status
Middle status
Low status
Retired
Jobless
Age
Average
Standard deviation
1st quartile
Median
3rd quartile
Maximum
Minimum
Since the interrelationship between value creation and value
perceptions remained understudied, this research brings to light
that some dimensions are connected in different experiences of
consumption and the retail firm can analyze which activities are
vital for the creation of a competitive edge (Gummerus, 2013).
Perceived value takes into account the consumer's long-term re-
lationship with the product and with stores in general. It exerts a
positive and direct effect on positive word of mouth and loyalty
behavior (Gallarza et al., 2011; Johnson et al., 2006).
5.1. Limitations and further research
To gain greater external validity, this study should be replicated
in other activity sectors with larger samples and in virtual net-
works to take advantage of all touchpoints with the consumer,
including mobile devices and social networks (Blázquez, 2014),
even if physical retail is dominant ( it still concentrates around 92%
of transactions in developed countries). More specifically, com-
parison between from real and virtual samples could add to our
approach to enrich the omni-channel and cross-channel issues as
well. Additional research could consider the potential influence of
involvement on social links and knowledge. We find the search for
meaning in the commercial world is a key distinction of con-
sumers; this spiritual dimension may also depend on the way
people represent themselves in interactions with others. For peo-
ple with fragile self-representations (e.g., younger versus older
people), retail markets offer the appealing ability to deliver useful
meanings in the course of social interactions.
Further, sizes of consumer classifications should be precisely
measured to anticipate the efficiency of new actions (e.g. applica-
tions). This efficiency could be also assessed by taking into account
timing of last purchase, loyalty, and purchase frequency, to esti-
mate customer lifetime value.
77%
12%
14%
74%
29%
38%
27%
6%
1%
3%
47%
5%
21%
2%
21%
33
12
23
30
40
70
15
 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174 171

When did you go for the last time to XX?

Not more than one week later 41%
More than one week later 14%
More than two weeks later 18%
More than one month later 17%
More than three months later 7%
More than six months later 3%
Latest shopping trip
Not more than one week later 41%
More than one week later 17%
More than two weeks later 14%
More than one month later 18%
More than three months later 3%
More than six months later 7%
How many times a month do you go shopping?
Once to twice a month 28%
Two to three times per month 16%
More than three times per month 13%
Less than once a month 43%
How many times a month do you buy something to XX on average?
Once to twice a month 28%
Two to three times per month 16%
More than three times per month 13%
Less than once a month 43%
How many times a month do you buy clothes on average?
Once to twice a month 27%
Two to three times per month 6%
More than three times per month 4%
Less than once a month 63%
Amount spent during one shopping trip
Average 119 €
Standard deviation 126 €
Last expenditure
Average 135 €
Standard deviation 229 €

Appendix B. Usage and Shopping Scales

AENG usage scale

1. Choosing a look gives me the opportunity to talk about it with my friends later. ULiensoc2
2. When people talk about looks, I love it. ULiensoc3
3. I like seeing many looks and then talking about it with my friends. ULiensoc4
4. I often listen to or look at shows talking about looks. UConnai4
5. I often read articles talking about looks on the Web or in magazines. UConnai6
6. I try to catch up with fashion trends. UConnai1
7. Overall, I am satisfied with my look. USatcum3
8. Looking at my expectations in terms of look, I am often disappointed. USatcum1
9. What I expect from my clothes is that many other things can be associated with them. USystem4
10. I like seeing, after having bought new things, that they coordinate easily each other. USystem21
11. I like finding new ways of coordinating clothes. USystem11
12. I would be ready to buy new things to optimize the clothes I already own. USystem7
13. My personality is very important for my clothes’ choices. USigne4
14. Choosing a look offers me the opportunity to express my personality. USigne5
15. I judge people looking at the way they are dressed. USigne3
16. Wearing some clothes gives me the impression to be a little bit more than what I am. USpirit4
17. After having decided on a look, I often take time for thinking about myself. USpirit2
18. Choosing a look gives me the opportunity to put myself in questions. USpirit3
19. I like thinking that clothes I own represent a certain amount of global value. USystem20
172 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174

20. Overall deciding for a look is worth the sacrifices I make. UValeur3
21. Overall, I think that choosing a look deserves spending energy on it. UValeur1
AENG shopping scale

1. I like shopping and then talking about it with my friends. MLiensoc4

2. Shopping gives me the opportunity to talk about it with my friends later. MLiensoc2
3. When people talk about shopping, I love it. MLiensoc3
4. I often read articles talking about fashion brands on the Web or in magazines. MConnai6
5. I try to catch up with shopping trends. MConnai1
6. I often listen to or look at shows talking about looks. MConnai4
7. After shopping, I often take time for thinking about myself. MSpirit2
8. Going shopping gives me the opportunity to put myself in questions. MSpirit3
9. After having elaborated on different styles seen during shopping, I often take time for thinking about myself. MSpirit5
10. Shopping gives me the opportunity to have some thoughts about my life. MSpirit1
11. Looking at my expectations, I am often disappointed by stores where I shop. MSatcum1
12. I am more often disappointed than happy with the stores where I shop. MSatcum2
13. Overall, I am satisfied with the stores where I shop. MSarcum3
14. I can get an idea about somebody from the stores where he/she shops. MSigne1
15. I judge people from the stores where they shop. MSigne3
16. Going shopping gives me the opportunity to try on clothes. MUtil3
17. Going shopping helps me elaborate about looks I could wear. MUtil1
18. Going shopping is the way to keep in touch with new products. MUtil2
19. Going shopping helps me imagine all the different styles I could wear. MSystem15
20. Overall, going shopping is worth the sacrifices I make MValeur3
21. Overall, going shopping is worth the time and money I spend on it. MValeur4
22. Overall, going shopping is worth the energy I spend on it. MValeur1
23. When I look at clothes in stores, I feel good about myself. MStimul3
24. When I look at clothes in stores, I am totally absorbed. MStimul4
25. Going shopping is a way to escape from everyday life. MStimul2
26. Going shopping makes me euphoric. MStimul8

Appendix C. Confirmatory analysis for Usage AENG scale

See Table C.1 and Table C.2

Table C.1
Fornell-Larcker Discriminating Validity Check for Usage Value Experience.

Self Expression Social Link Global Per- Spirituality Utility

and ceived
Knowledge Value

Self Expression 0.73

Social Link and 0,43 0.8
Knowledge
Global Per- 0.56 0.67 0.83
ceived Value
Spirituality 0.50 0.46 0.46 0.82
Utility 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.37 0.81
 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174 173

Table C.2
Reliability and Convergent Validity Issues of Value Experience.

AVE Reliability Cronbach Alpha Rhô of Convergent Validity Jöreskog Rhô

Standard 40.5 4 0.7 4 0.7 40.5 4 0.7

Self Expression 0.53 0.77 0.55 0.53 0.77
Social Link and Knowledge 0.64 0.91 0.89 0.64 0.91
Global Perceived Value 0.69 0.87 0.78 0.69 0.87
Spirituality 0.67 0.86 0.75 0.78 0.88
Utility 0.65 0.85 0.73 0.65 0.85

Appendix D. Confirmatory analysis for Shopping AENG scale

See Table D.1 and Table D.2

Table D.1
Fornell-Larcker Discriminating Validity Check for Shopping Value.

Self Expression Social Link and Knowledge Environment Stimulation Global Perceived Value Spirituality Utility

Self Expression 0.93

Social Link and Knowledge 0.39 0.85
Environment stimulation 0.38 0.73 0.84
Global Perceived Value 0.40 0.69 0.73 0.92
Spirituality 0.46 0.56 0.59 0.55 0.87
Utility 0.32 0.61 0.65 0.61 0.44 0.81

Table D.2
Reliability and Convergent Validity Issues of Value Experience.

AVE Reliability Cronbach Alpha Rhô of Convergent Validity Jöreskog Rhô

Standard 4 0.5 4 0.7 4 0.7 4 0.5 4 0.7

Self Expression 0.86 0.92 0.83 0.86 0.92
Social Link and Knowledge 0.72 0.94 0.92 0.72 0.94
Environment Stimulation 0.70 0.91 0.86 0.705 0.905
Global Perceived Value 0.84 0.94 0.91 0.84 0.94
Spirituality 0.75 0.92 0.89 0.75 0.92
Utility 0.65 0.88 0.82 0.61 0.82

Appendix E. Logit models

See Table E.1 and Table E.2

Table E.1
Logit model: usage by shopping items.

Apathetics Pragmatists

b SE Sig. b SE Sig.

Constant 24.08 4.09 .00 18.03 3.87 .00

I try to keep in touch with shopping  2.62 .50 .00  1.94 .45 .00
trends
I like shopping and then talking about  1.41 .41 .00  .52 .26 .05
it with my friends
I can make an idea about somebody  .86 .32 .01  .68 .27 .01
from the stores where he/she shops.
Going shopping gives me the oppor-  1.38 .49 .00  .18 .28 .52
tunity to put myself in questions
After shopping, I often take time for  1.45 .52 .01  1.19 .38 .00
thinking about myself
174 G. Inès, C. Herbert / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 30 (2016) 165–174

Table E.2
Logit model: shopping by usage items

Apathetics Pragmatists

b SE Sig. b SE Sig.

Constant 41.98 8.31 .00 32.03 8.09 .00

I often listen to or look at shows talking about looks  1.44 .45 .00  1.02 .33 .00
I often read articles talking about looks on the Web or in magazines  1.60 .45 .00  .98 .32 .00
Choosing a look gives me the opportunity to talk about it with my friends later  2.05 .47 .00  1.28 .39 .00
After having decided on a look, I often take time for thinking about myself  2.13 .57 .00  1.60 .50 .00
I like finding new ways of coordinating clothes  2.16 .65 .00  1.32 .61 .03
What I expect from my clothes is that many other things can be associated with them 1.02 .43 .02 .57 .39 .14
I would be ready to buy new things to optimize the clothes I already own  1.27 .39 .00  .77 .34 .02
Overall deciding on a look is worth the sacrifices I make  2.25 .55 .00  1.59 .49 .00

References

Antéblian, B., Filser, M., Roederer, C., 2013. Consumption experience in retail en-
vironments: a literature review. Rech. Et. Appl. En. Mark. (Engl. Ed.) 28 (3),
82–109.
Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. J. Retail. 79,
77–95.
Arnould, E., 2014. Rudiments of value praxeology. Mark. Theory 14 (1), 129–133.
Aurier, P., Evrard, Y., N’Goala, G., 2004. Comprendre et mesurer la valeur du point de
vue du consommateur. Rech. Et. Appl. En. Mark. 19 (32), 1–20.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
Baltas, G., Doyle, P., 2001. Random utility models in marketing research: a survey. J.
Bus. Res. 51, 115–125.
Baron, S., Harris, K., 2008. Consumers as resource integrators. J. Mark. Manag. 24 (1–
2), 113–130.
Bellenger, D.N., Korgaonkar, P.K., 1980. Profiling the recreational shopper. J. Retail.
56 (3), 77–92.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., 2007. Build loyalty through experience management. Qual.
Prog. 40 (9), 26–32.
Blázquez, M., 2014. Fashion shopping in multichannel retail: the role of technology
in enhancing the customer experience. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 18 (4), 97–116.
Bolton, R.N., Grewal, D., Levy, M., 2007. Six strategies for competing through service:
an agenda for future research. J. Retail. 83 (1), 1–4.
Boztepe, S., 2007. User value: competing theories and models. Int. J. Des. 1 (2),
55–63.
Buttle, F., 1992. Shopping motives constructionist perspective. Serv. Ind. J. 12 (3),
349–367.
Carpenter, J.M., 2008. Consumer shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty in discount
retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15 (5), 358–363.
Chaudhuri, A., Ligas, M., 2009. Consequences of value in retail markets. J. Retail. 85
(3), 406–419.
Datta, H., Foubert, B., Van Heerde, H.J., 2015. The challenge of retaining customers
acquired with free trials. J. Mark. Res. 52 (2), p217–p234.
Darden, W.R., Reynolds, F.D., 1971. Shopping orientations and product usage rate. J.
Mark. Res. 8 (4), 505–508.
Davis, L., Hodges, N., 2012. Consumer shopping value: an investigation of shopping
trip value, in-store shopping value and retail format. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19
(2), 229–239.
Diep, V.C.S., Sweeney, J.C., 2008. Shopping trip value: do stores and products mat-
ter? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15, 399–409.
Evrard, Y., Aurier, P., 1996. Identification and validation of the components of the
person-object relationship. J. Bus. Res. 37, 127–134.
Fornell, C.L., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18 (3),
382–388.
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., Holbrook, M.B., 2011. The value of value: further excur-
sions on the meaning and role of customer value. J. Consum. Behav. 10 (4),
179–191.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., Noci, G., 2007. How to sustain the customer experience: an
overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer.
Eur. Manag. J. 25 (5), 395–410.
Goffman, E., 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books, New
York.
Grewal, D., Levy, M., Kumar, V., 2009. Customer experience management in retail-
ing: an organizing framework. J. Retail. 85 (1), 1–14.
Gummerus, J., 2013. Value creation processes and value outcomes in marketing
theory: strangers or siblings? Mark. Theory 13 (1), 19–46.
Herek, G.M., 1986. The instrumentality of attitudes: toward a neofunctional theory.
J. Soc. Issues 42 (2), 99–114.
Herek, G.M., 1987. Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional
approach to attitudes. Soc. Psychol. Q. 50 (4), 285.
Holbrook, M.B., 1999. Consumer Value: A Framework for Analysis and Research.
Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 21–71.
Holt, D., 1995. How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices. J.
Consum. Res. 22 (1), 1–16.
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., Valente, T.W., 2011. Opinion leadership and social
contagion in new product diffusion. Mark. Sci. 30 (2), 195–212.
Johnson, M.D., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., 2006. The evolution of loyalty intentions. J.
Mark. 70 (2), 122–132.
Karababa, E., Kjeldgaard, D., 2014. Value in marketing: toward sociocultural per-
spectives. Mark. Theory 14 (1), 119–127.
Katz, D., 1960. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opin.
Quaterly 24 (2), 163–204.
Kim, Y.K., 2002. Consumer value: an application to mall and Internet shopping. Int. J.
Retail. Distrib. Manag. 30 (12), 595–602.
Kwortnik, R.J.J.R., Ross Jr, W.T., 2007. The role of positive emotions in experiential
decisions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24, 324–335.
Lai, A.W., 1995. Consumer values, product benefits and customer value: a con-
sumption behavior approach. Adv. Consum. Res. 22 (1), 381–388.
Lusch, R.F., Vargo, S.L., 2012. Marketing value. Mark. News 46 (6), 324–335.
Lutz, R.J., 1991. The role of attitude theory on marketing. In: Harold, H., Kassarjan, H.
H., Robertson, J.J. (Eds.), Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, fourth ed Prentice-
Hall, pp. 317–339.
Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N.K., Rigdon, E., 2001. Experiential value: conceptualization,
measurement and application in the catalog and Internet shopping environ-
ment. J. Retail. 77 (1), 39–56.
Murray, J.B., 2002. The politics of consumption: a re-inquiry on Thompson and
Haytko's (1997) ‘Speaking of fashion. J. Consum. Res. 29 (3), 427–440.
Ormerod, R.J., 2010. Rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic
thinking. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 61, 1207–1223.
Pfisterer, L., Roth, S., 2015. Customer usage processes A conceptualization and dif-
ferentiation. Mark. Theory 15 (3), 401–422.
Prentice, D., 1987. Psychological correspondence of possessions, attitudes and va-
lues. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 (6), 993–1003.
Puccinelli, N.M., Goodstein, R.C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, R., Stewart, D., 2009.
Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying
process. J. Retail. 85 (1), 15–30.
Richins, M.L., 1994. Valuing things: the public and private meanings of possessions.
J. Consum. Res. 21 (3), 504–521.
Rivière, A., Mencarelli, R., 2012. Towards a theoretical clarification of perceived value
in marketing. Rech. Et. Appl. En. Mark. (Engl. Ed.) 27 (3), 97–122.
Shankar, V., Inman, J.J., Mantrala, M., Keilay, E., Rizley, R., 2011. Innovations in
shopper marketing: current insights and future research issues. J. Retail. 87 (1),
29–42.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I., Gross, Barbara L., 1991. Consumption Values and Market
Choices: Theory and Applications. South-Western Publishing, Cincinatti, OH..
Slater, S.F., 1997. Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 25 (2), 162–167.
Stone, G.P., 1954. City shoppers and urban identification. Observation on the social
psychology of city life. Am. J. Sociol. 60, 36–45.
Tauber, E.M., 1972. Why do people shop? J. Mark. 72 (36), 46–59.
Tellis, G.J., Gaeth, G.J., 1990. Best value, price-seeking and price aversion: the impact
of information and learning on consumer choices. J. Mark. 54, 34–45.
Thompson, C.J., Haytko, D.L., 1997. Speaking of fashion: consumers’ uses of fashion
discourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings. J. Con-
sum. Res. 24 (1), 15–42.
Vargo, S., Lusch, R., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing? J. Mark.
68 (1), 1–17.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.
A., 2009. Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics and manage-
ment strategies. J. Retail. 85 (1), 31–41.
Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. J. Retail.
61 (1), 79–103.
Woodruff, R.B., 1997. Customer value: the next source for competitive advantage. J.
Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (2), 139–153.