24

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 97,4

Involvement in a routine food shopping context

Brian Beharrell and Tim J. Denison Challenges whether shopping for groceries is a low-involvement activity Is routine food shopping always a low involvement activity?
Consumer involvement refers to feelings of interest, concern and enthusiasm held towards product categories and brands. It is an important concept in consumer marketing in that it provides a basis for a motivational force, which can explain various behavioural outcomes of consumers, such as number and type of choice criteria, extensiveness of information search, length of decisionmaking process, variety-seeking behaviour and brand switching. What is of interest here is the apparent dichotomy assumed in the literature between high and low involvement, each associated with distinctive differences in behavioural outcomes. In particular, the routine buying situation, such as the weekly shop for groceries, has invariably been regarded as a low involvement activity[1-4], characterized by negligible information search, little deliberation in brand choice and ease of brand switching to a substitute within a category. This article attempts to establish a framework for understanding why certain routine buying situations such as the weekly routine grocery shop can give rise to behaviours more typically associated with high involvement. More precisely, the broad aim is to establish whether and under what circumstances the routine grocery shopping activity may become highly involving. For example, purchase of a preferred brand may be observed to be associated with minimal search and deliberation, but in the event of a stock-out what action do customers take? They may search the whole store or even undertake a second shopping trip to obtain it. Alternatively, we may observe selection of a substitute product with apparent little annoyance or hesitation. To characterize routine shopping as invariably being at a low level of involvement does not allow us to explain fully possible differences in purchase behaviour such as brand switching. Thus, in this article we critically examine this low involvement assumption by analysing a large-scale in-store survey of shopping behaviour with specific respect to involvement levels, brand commitment and switching behaviour.

The conceptual development of involvement

The concept of involvement originated in the field of social psychology[5] which viewed involvement as the relation between ego and an object and, later[6], as the centrality of beliefs involved with an individual. A number of writers who recognized and contributed to the development of the concept of involvement as a motivational force acting on consumer behaviour explicitly defined the concept in terms of a particular observable level. For example, Krugman[7,8] viewed involvement as the intensity of information processing, operationalized as the number of connections made by an individual. Similarly, Cohen[9] and Beatty and Smith[10] clearly defined involvement as a persons activation level observable and measurable at a point in time, rather than an arousal capacity triggered by situational factors. Houston and Rothschilds[1] path-breaking paper developed the concept of differing types of involvement enduring, situational and response by identifying linked antecedents, or sources for involvement. This important paper laid the basis for a more generalized theory. Cohens further significant contribution[9] was to develop the concept by defining and separating antecedents from consequent outcomes from involvement as a clear, internal state variable. With this conceptualization, the response involvement of Houston and Rothschild can be more clearly categorized as a process leading to a final outcome in terms of purchase decision. The question of antecedents has been discussed by a number of writers, but McGuire[11] clearly proposed two types of motive utilitarian and value expressive, both having multiple effects on behaviour. Cohen[9],

British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, 1995, pp. 24-29 MCB University Press Limited, 0007-070X

INVOLVEMENT IN A ROUTINE FOOD SHOPPING CONTEXT

25

Greenwald and Leavitt[12], and Petty et al.[13], also included the interesting contribution that effect is a critical component of consumer decision making. Thus, evaluation may not just be a cognitive process as Houston and Rothschild[1] argued, with an attribute or featurebased comparative process, but also a process of exemplar, or prototype, comparison with a built-in evaluative content. Bloch and Richins[14], following previous writers Antil[15], Houston and Rothschild[1], saw involvement as an internal state variable and distinguished sources and responses from the involvement concept; they, however, developed the core concept in terms of importance as perceived risk. This, however, created difficulties in developing an integrated measure which taps into all possible sources of involvement. Lynch et al.[16] furthered our understanding of the complexity of the cognitive processes involved by suggesting that overall evaluations gradually become independent of the related memory-based judgements. Thus, in routine buying situations, the use of overall evaluations would tend to increase as original memory fades and would be brand rather than attribute based. This supported the earlier comments made by Park and Mittal[17] who noted, in their authoritative literature review, that consumers will vary considerably in the extensiveness of their decision making-process, and information search, in terms of their number of choice criteria, use of recognition and effect processes. They argued that their variation is dependent on the level of involvement. They concluded that the concept of involvement, as variously defined and operationalized, has given rise to a dichotomy between low and high involvement levels each associated with distinctive differences in behavioural outcomes. Thus, routine buying situations such as weekly grocery shopping have invariably been regarded as lowinvolvement behaviour, especially in view of the low levels of information search associated with it[1-4]. In Mittals view[18] such results need to be treated with caution as they may come partially from a specification of the concept as a particular observed level of arousal rather than an arousal capacity. For example, differing levels of involvement, operationalized as an activation level at a point in time, may be misleading because of varying situational factors. One of Mittals most important contributions was to synthesize much of the previous literature which has undoubtedly encouraged researchers to reach agreement on a suitable definition of consumer involvement[18,19]. The involvement concept in Mittals work measures a mind-set about anticipated consequences not an observed behavioural response. In this context the motivational force derived from arousal capacity is dependent on situational factors. This more fully specified approach opens up the possibility that readiness to switch brands may not only be due to low involvement, but many other factors, such as previous purchase experience, expert advice or substitute of

product trial for prepurchase information search and use of prototypes or examplars. Mittals work, explicitly includes both effect and cognition in the antecedents e.g. sign, hedonistic and utilitarian rather than modelling them as a hierarchy of effects. This may affect behavioural outcomes in that the use of examplars, or prototypes, in making decisions is considered a quicker process than attribute- or feature-based comparison which may be more cognitively exhausting. Thus, an apparent lack of care and deliberation could be confounded with the use of exemplars in decision making. Moving on to the problem of how actually to measure involvement levels, Goldsmith and Emmert[20] recently evaluated the different methods that have been used to measure involvement. They suggested that whereas Zaichkowskys[21] scale possessed excellent internal consistency, and that the Laurent and Kapferer scale[22] possessed validity but lower internal consistency. They concluded that the Mittal scale had advantages of short length, convenience and validity. In addition, it concentrated on purchase-level involvement defined in terms of an arousal capacity triggered by situational factors. In our minds, this made the Mittal approach particularly suitable for measuring in-store variations in involvement and brand commitment, the object of this study.

The role of situational factors

Mittal acknowledged his debt to Houston and Rothschild[1] in considering situational factors and differentiating types of involvement. He developed his concepts of product class and purchase level involvement analogous to their enduring and situational involvement concepts. Mittal also followed Zaichkowsky[21], arguing that situational factors should be regarded as qualifiers to involvement both at the product class or purchase level. The former was defined as interest in a product class, the latter as interest in the decision on which brand to buy within the product class. Generally, situational factors affecting variations do not appear to be well researched. Belk[23] distinguished between a situation bounded in space and time and a behavioural context or setting within which a sequence of complete actions or action patterns occur. He argued that this would exist irrespective of the persons present, but one within which situation variations can occur. The relevant factors that Belk considered were physical, social, temporal, task and antecedent. The distinction between what is situation specific and general may be difficult to make. Nevertheless, a special promotional price, a special merchandising display, unusual states of anxiety and a trigger such as a lost shopping list would all clearly be situation specific, while time available and store knowledge would be globally relevant situational

26

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 97,4

factors. The importance of in-store stimuli in influencing decisions in a shopping situation with varying degrees of involvement has been emphasized by writers such as Park et al.[24] and Chattopadhyay and Alba[25]. Thus, following Belk, we can define the routine shopping purchase as a behavioural activity, or context, with a clear sequence of actions, within which situational variations can occur. Mittal[18], as previously mentioned, viewed situational factors as qualifiers to purchase-level involvement and empirically analysed the effect of variations in usage situations on involvement levels. However, he specifically excluded the specification of instore situation variations given above. Thus, in the behavioural context of the routine shopping trip, withinstore situational factors were not specified either theoretically or practically. As Mittals model is centred around a mind-set, not a response behaviour, strictly speaking it is not necessary to specify the situational variation within the measurement technique to assess behavioural outcomes. In fact, this becomes analogous to considering behavioural intentions. In response to a hypothetical situation, it is not necessary therefore to establish empirically, and describe, all the situation variations, unless the objective is to explain actual behaviour in a more experimentally-controlled situation. In summary, in our view, the key intellectual developments in the involvement concept have been as follows: q as a motivating force; q an internal state variable with goal objective; q clear separation of involvement from behavioural effects; q clear specification of antecedents, including sign; product- and purchase-level involvement distinguished; q product importance subsumed in a general involvement scale; q involvement as an arousal capacity not an activation level at particular point in time; q involvement as a mind-set about an anticipated purchase decision; q situational factors as qualifiers to purchase-level involvement. Thus, we contend that a current theoretical and practical approach must include all these elements to avoid unnecessary confounding of empirical results.

research project based on a sample of customers of a major European retailer. The first stage of the study was to hold a series of focus groups to categorize product lines into meaningful groups, or product categories, and then identify the product attributes most influential in brand selection within those product categories. No attempts were made to standardize the attributes arising across the categories, but replies were elucidated at the appropriate level of abstraction. Based on the focus group discussions, seven product categories of grocery goods were differentiated without undue difficulty and were, consequently, adopted for the remaining stages of the research programme. A questionnaire was constructed, which was designed to measure consumers levels of purchase involvement across the seven product categories. For reasons already covered, we chose to use Mittals means of measuring purchase involvement. This involves four separate components (V1-V4 ) measured on simple 1-7 scales to indicate the level of interest/involvement taken in the shopping decision: V1 = amount customer cares about choice. V2 = perception of variation in type of brand. V3 = importance of right choice. V4 = concern over outcome of choice. Besides measuring purchase level involvement, we wanted to assess a particular behavioural outcome brand commitment arising from a situational variant. This we did by asking respondents what action they would take if they could not buy the specific brand of product they had intended to purchase. The scale of possible responses ranged from perfectly happy to accept a substitute to shop elsewhere to buy my brand. After extensive pretesting and piloting of the questionnaire, a consumer survey was conducted based at ten stores, which reflected the national operations of the retailer in terms of store sales turnover, location and product range. Within each store, quota sampling was applied, based on the known customer characteristics of age and gender. Interviews were carried out throughout all days of the week to ensure a representative crosssection of shopper types. A total of 463 (usable) interviews were carried out within the stores beyond the checkout desks. In the event, the overall sample statistics were consistent with the store profiles, apart from an under-representation of pensioners. In other respects, the sample was broadly representative of the retailers customer base in terms of age, gender and shopping behaviour type (time of day, day of the week).

A study of consumer involvement levels in grocery shopping

In response to the call for more empirical studies of involvement in buying behaviour, we undertook a

Survey results
Using simple factor analysis, we can confirm that Mittals four components load successfully as a single coherent

INVOLVEMENT IN A ROUTINE FOOD SHOPPING CONTEXT

27

Table I. Factor analysis of Mittals four components of purchase-level involvement

Product category Preserves Factor loadings Care (V1) Variety (V2) Importance (V3) Concern (V4) Eigenvalue Percentage variance explained 0.81 0.63 0.87 0.72 2.3 58.6 0.78 0.66 0.84 0.75 2.3 58.2 0.64 0.83 0.75 0.77 2.3 57.0 0.72 0.72 0.84 0.69 2.2 55.9 0.72 0.90 0.79 0.79 2.6 64.8 0.78 0.74 0.86 0.77 2.5 63.1 0.75 0.72 0.85 0.77 2.4 60.4 Bakery Cereals Dairy Soup Toiletries Fresh meat

measure of purchase involvement, with eigenvalues reflecting approximately 60 per cent of the variance explained across all seven of the product categories we studied (see Table I). In general terms, the importance of the right choice is the most powerful single component. Adopting Mittals composite measure of purchase-level involvement, we found that the levels of involvement were significantly higher for the grocery categories selected than might be expected based on a knowledge of the literature (see Table II). Indeed, to the extent they are comparable with Mittals 1989 study[18], we find that consumers seem to be as highly involved in purchase decisions related to fresh meats and dairy products as they are about buying car insurance and restaurant visits. Our results seem to throw in doubt the notion that purchasing grocery products, given the low level of risk attached, necessarily concerns low involvement decisions. The second objective of our study was to determine whether there is an association between levels of involvement and brand commitment. We measured brand commitment on a 1-7 scale, where 1 = perfectly happy to accept a substitute and 7 = will go elsewhere to buy my

brand. Our hypothesis is that the higher the level of purchase involvement, the more likely the shopper will decide to shop elsewhere for a brand that is not available in the store at the time of shopping, rather than accept a substitute readily or under duress. Across six of the seven product categories, the hypothesis was confirmed (see Table III); though the correlations were low, they were significant. We had not, however, anticipated that the behavioural response outcome would be so polarized. We felt this might help explain the low correlation values. To explore the nature of the association in more depth, we conducted cross-tabular analysis, dividing involvement levels into above average and below average purchase-level involvement within each product category; and behavioural responses into accept a substitute and shop elsewhere. In this way, we constructed a 2 2 grid related to purchasing behaviour associated with each of the seven product categories (see Figure 1). Using the chisquared test, the pattern that emerges establishes that the

Table III. Association between purchase-level involvement

and behavioural response by product category R Preserves Bakery Cereals Dairy Soup Toiletries and cosmetics Fresh meat * Level of significance = 0.0001 0.2598* 0.1677* 0.2625* 0.1598* 0.2211* 0.2924* 0.0416

Table II. Involvement levels across product categories

Preserves Bakery Cereals Dairy Soup Toiletries and cosmetics Fresh meat (1 = minimum, 7 = maximum) 4.95 5.33 5.52 5.68 4.68 5.08 5.96

28

BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 97,4

Figure 1. Product involvement and brand commitment

matrices across seven product categories
Preserves Brand commitment High Level of involvement High Low 125 70 Low 73 93

routine shopping is inevitably low involvement is decisively rejected and the powerful influence of involvement on purchase intentions by brands within different product class is confirmed.

2 = 13.4
Significance = 0.00025

Conclusions
The conclusion in much of the literature (for example, see McWilliam [26]), that most fast-moving consumer products are uninvolving, seems to us to be based on a lack of appreciation of the need to specify fully the involvement concept, specifically in terms of capacity arousal, not an activation level at a point in time. The role of situational factors has also been inadequately applied from a detailed taxonomy. The very generality of Mittals mind-set approach to involvement, that makes detailed situational analysis difficult, has reduced our approach to one of analysis of purchase intentions rather than actual behaviour. We accept this as a limitation of our study. Our empirical approach had the additional limitation that it concentrated on purchase-level involvement not product-level involvement and analysed only one behavioural outcome, brand commitment. Not withstanding these limitations, the conclusion of our research, that routine food shopping for many consumers can be highly involving, is not, we believe, without interest.
References

Cereals

Brand commitment High Low 71 97

Level of involvement

High Low

113 53

2 = 22.48
Significance = 0.0000

Soup

Brand commitment High Low 67 89

Level of involvement

High Low

86 59

2 = 8.049
Significance = 0.00455

Bakery

Brand commitment High Low 92 94

Level of involvement

High Low

111 60

2 = 8.7
Significance = 0.00323

Dairy

Brand commitment High Low 85 89

Level of involvement

High Low

119 70

2 = 7.329
Significance = 0.00678

Toiletries

Brand commitment High Low 68 102

Level of involvement

High Low

113 67

2 = 26.007
Significance = 0.0000

association between levels of purchase involvement and brand commitment are significant in six out of seven product categories. In support of McWilliams[26] conjecture and practitioners intuition, it seems that strong brands are highly involving. In summary, variations in purchaselevel involvement across a wide range of grocery products in routine weekly shopping help to explain purchase intentions to accept a substitute or provide the motivating force to shop elsewhere. The notion that

1. Houston, M.J. and Rothschild, M.L., A Paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement, working paper 1177-46, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1977. 2. Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D., Low involvement versus high involvement cognitive structures, in Hunt, K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, 1978, pp. 87-92. 3. Winter, F.L. and Rossiter, J.R., Pattern-matching purchase behaviour and stochastic brand choice: a low involvement model, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 559-85. 4. Foxall, G., Cognitive style and healthy eating, British Food Journal, Vol. 94 No. 8, 1993. 5. Sherrif, M. and Cantril, H., The Psychology of EgoInvolvement, Wiley, New York, NY, 1947. 6. Sherrif, C.W., Sherrif, M. and Nebergall, R.W., Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgement Involvement Approach, Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1965. 7. Krugman, H.E., The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Autumn 1965, pp. 349-56. 8. Krugman, H.E., The measurement of advertising involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Summer 1966, pp. 583-96. 9. Cohen, J.B., Involvement separating the state from its causes and effects, paper presented at the Involvement Colloquium, New York University, New York, NY, 3-4 June 1982.

INVOLVEMENT IN A ROUTINE FOOD SHOPPING CONTEXT

29

10. Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S., External search effort: an investigation across several product categories, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, 1987, pp. 83-95. 11. McGuire, W.J., Psychology motives and communication gratification, in Blumler, G. and Katz, E. (Eds), The Uses of Mass Communication: Current Perspectives on Gratifications Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, 1974, pp. 167-96. 12. Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C., Audience involvment in advertising: four levels, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1984, pp. 581-92. 13. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D., Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1983, pp. 135-46. 14. Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M., A theoretical model for the study of product importance perceptions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Summer 1983, pp. 69-81. 15. Antil, J.H., Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement, in Kinnear, T. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, 1984, pp. 203-9. 16. Lynch, J.G. Jr, Marmostein, H. and Weigold, M.F., Choices from sets including remembered brands: use of recalled attributes and prior overall evaluations, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1988, pp. 169-96. 17. Park, W.C. and Mittal, B., A theory of involvement in consumer behaviour: problems and issues, in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1985, pp. 201-32. 18. Mittal, B., Measuring purchase decision involvement, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6, 1989, pp. 147-62. 19. Mittal, B. and Lee, M.-S., Separating brand choice involvement from product involvement via consumer involvement profiles, in Houston, M. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, 1988, pp. 36-40.

20. Goldsmith, R. and Emmert, J., Measuring product category involvement: a multitrait-multimethod study, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, 1991, pp. 36371. 21. Zaichkowsky, J.L., Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, 1985, pp. 341-52. 22. Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.-N., Measuring consumer involvement profiles, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22, February 1985, pp. 41-53. 23. Belk, R.W., Situational variables and consumer behaviour, Journal of Consumer Research, December 1975, pp. 157-64. 24. Park, W.C., Iyer, E.S. and Smith, C., The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behaviour: the role of store environment and time available for shopping, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 4, 1989, pp. 422-33. 25. Chattopadhyay, A. and Alba, J.W., The situational importance of recall and inference in consumer decision making, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, 1988, pp. 1-12. 26. McWilliam, G., Consumers involvement in brands and product categories, in Baker, M. (Ed.), Perspectives on Marketing Management, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, 1992, pp. 325-50.

Further reading Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D., The components of involvement, in Maloney, J. and Silverman, B. (Eds), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, American Marketing Association, New York, NY, 1979, pp. 53-7.

Brian Beharrell is Senior Lecturer and Tim J. Denison is Senior Research Fellow, both at Cranfield University, Silsoe College, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.