European

Journal of Image of suburban shopping

Marketing
33,5/6
malls and two-stage versus
uni-equational modelling of the
512
Received May 1996
retail trade attraction
Revised August 1996
Revised March 1998
An empirical application
Francisco Jose MaÂs RuõÂz
Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Alicante,
Alicante, Spain
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Image, Location, Malls, Retailing, Spain
Abstract The main objective of this research is to examine the nature of the image of shopping
malls and to contrast the reliability of two models that analyse the attraction of retail trade; in the
first model, image, distance and preference are considered; whereas in the second, preference is
omitted. The initial hypothesis is that the apparently lower power of attraction of the image,
compared to that of the distance, may be justified, in some way, by the modelling of a relationship
that omits preference. The methodology applied uses a variety of multidimensional techniques to
identify image dimensions, together with two focuses, the two-stage versus the uni-equational, to
define retail trade attraction. As a result of the application in the suburban commercial setting of
Alicante, three image dimensions are detected in the malls, as well as the superiority of the uni-
stage modelling in which the influence of preference on retail attraction is omitted.

European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 33 No. 5/6, 1999, pp. 512-530.
# MCB University Press, 0309-0566
Introduction
The existence of intra-urban shopping areas, understood as intermediate level
retail entities that lie somewhere between the individual establishment and the
city (Bucklin, 1967), implies another level of decisions about retail attraction for
the consumer. In this sense, consumer choice of the place to shop implies a
double choice, that of a shopping mall and that of a specific establishment.
Concentrating first on the former, and from an investor's perspective, the
proximity of other trade establishments is a determining factor in deciding on
the location of a new sales point (Bromley and Thomas, 1989). In fact, few retail
establishments exist as isolated entities. The synergies produced by the
proximity of numerous shops, the legal restrictions on possible locations for
retailers, and the limited availability of attractive areas, tend to encourage the
grouping of retail outlets in relatively compact shopping centres. These facts
may reduce the possibilities of location to a small number of potential places,
consisting of heterogeneous groups of individual establishments, which, in the
opinion of Nelson (1958), are explained by means of the principles of
``accumulative attraction'' and of ``compatibility''.
The term ``shopping mall'' may mean either a coherent, planned and
controlled group of establishments, with its own management and control of
competition, or rather, the concentration of retail establishments, each one
individually owned but without any overall coordination. The latter is also Image of
known as a ``commercial district'' (Dawson and Lord, 1985) which, in turn, may suburban
be formalised ex-post facto by the local authorities, forming revitalised areas. shopping malls
Traditionally, research on retail attraction has been developed around the
so-called probabilistic models (Huff, 1964), defined according to the size of the
shopping centre and its distance from the consumer. Otherwise, it is assumed
that such establishments are similar. The main criticism of these models lies in 513
the fact that the modelling approach is unsuitable when consumers perceive
differences among centres by considering other aspects.
A complementary tendency considers the existence of other discrepancies,
apart from size and distance. It proposes that the preference for the mall, as a
function of its image (taken to mean the consumers' perceptions of the
functional and emotional attributes of a sales point), is significantly related to
the choice adopted (Howell and Rogers, 1980; Hauser and Koppelman, 1979). In
this sense, the original probabilistic components size/distance, image and
preference for shopping malls, distinguishing a variety of urban areas,
constitute three important elements to be considered in any analysis of
shopping mall attraction.
The main purpose of this work is to examine the nature of the image of
shopping malls, and to contrast the reliability of two models that analyse retail
trade attraction: one which considers image, distance and preference jointly;
and another which omits preference. An example of such a model is the
empirical application that was carried out in the suburban shopping context of
Alicante in 1994.
Based on these reflections, the rest of the article has been organized in the
following way: in the second part, we examine the models most used in the
retail attraction setting. In the following section, there is a review of empirical
research carried out, to this effect, in shopping malls. In the fourth section, the
proposed methodology, as well as its justification, is presented. In the fifth
section, the sample, data collection and the variables used in the contrast are
defined. Subsequently, the results obtained are described, and the final part
consists of a summary of the conclusions drawn.

Retail attraction modelling

The modern approaches to retail attraction define this concept in the context of
individual discrete choice (see Table I). In particular, Huff's ``theory of buyers'
spatial behaviour'' (1964) generated the ``probabilistic'' or ``revealed preference''
line of research, whose rationale lies in the axiom of Luce's discrete choice
(1959); that is, it implies that individuals probabilistically select choice
alternatives depending on their utility, bearing in mind location and non-
location factors for each shopping mall, in relation to the other alternatives
available.
Originally, modelling was applied to the choice of alternative shops, and
subsequently, to shopping centres or several establishments grouped in one
place, in such a way that the utility (Uij) which centre j gives consumer i,
 514
33,5/6

Table I.
European
Journal of
Marketing

of retail attraction
Probabilistic modelling
Line of research Variables Methodology Strengths/weaknesses Outstanding authors

Original Size of establishment and Regression Strength: utility functions Huff (1963; 1964; 1966)
distance from consumer are defined with two
variables of attraction and
dissuasion
Weakness: reality is
simplified
Extension of Huff's Size, distance and other Regression (MCI) Strength: simple procedure Nakanishi and Cooper (1974)
model characteristics of the of estimation with OLS Hansen and Weinberg (1979)
sales point Jain and Mahajan (1979)
Ghosh and McLafferty (1982)
Multidimension. A. Strength: retail image is Stanly and Sewall (1976)
Regression (MCI) defined as a Doyle and Fenwich (1974-1975)
multidimensional
phenomenon
Logit models Strength: functional Arnold et al. (1980)
exponential form with Miller and Lerman (1981)
smaller number of Recker and Schuler (1981)
hypotheses and better Louviere and Woodworth (1983)
estimations with OLS
Notes: OLS = Ordinary least squares; MCI = Multiplicative competitive interaction model
depends on size, measured in terms of the sales surface area of centre j, Sj, and Image of
the distance between the place of residence of individual i and the centre j, Tij suburban
(Huff, 1963; 1964; 1966; Huff and Batsell, 1977; Huff and Rust, 1984). A greater shopping malls
sales surface would increase the probability of a centre being chosen, whereas
longer travelling time would reduce it.
Uij Sj =Tij 515
Pij ˆ n ˆ n
P P
Uij …Sj =Tij †
jˆ1 jˆ1

where,
Pij = the probability of consumer i choosing shopping mall j from n
possibilities;
 = sensitivity parameter which reflects the effect of travelling time for
different types of shopping trips.
Despite the fact that this model provides interesting information on the
estimation of probabilities in retail attraction, it was criticized for simplifying
reality by not considering other attributes that exert attraction or rejection on
buyers. Some authors proposed that the retail image perceived by the consumer
is a multidimensional phenomenon in determining their choice (Doyle and
Fenwich, 1974-1975; Stanley and Sewall, 1976) and that the factors of distance
and size are not always the best indicators for predicting retail attraction.
Likewise, other authors attempt to explain retail trade attraction by prior
examination of the relationship among the preference for a particular centre, its
image and the distance from it (Howell and Rogers, 1980; Hauser and
Koppelman, 1979). Along these lines, Reibstein (1978) suggests, in the
particular case of brand choice, that the apparently lower power of attraction of
the image as opposed to the distance may be justified, in some way, by
modelling a relationship which omits preference.
This problem led to the development of extensions of Huff's model,
including new variables. In this line of generalisation, Nakanishi and Cooper
(1974) propose an alternative formulation of the above, called the multiplicative
competitive interaction model (MCI), extensively used for its simple estimation
procedure (Ghosh and McLafferty, 1982; Hansen and Weinberg, 1979; Jain and
Mahajan, 1979).
Likewise, in recent years, other alternative methods have been developed,
among which the multinomial logit models applied by Arnold et al. (1980),
Miller and Lerman (1981), Recker and Schuler (1981), Meyer and Eagle (1982),
and Louviere and Woodworth (1983) stand out. These require a smaller number
of hypotheses than the ordinary least-squares and other classification
techniques (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989). These are multiple discrete choice
models, with a non-ordered dependent qualitative variable, which model the
choice behaviour of individuals between a finite number of non-ordered
alternatives, where the qualitative dependent variable is associated with two or
European more alternatives, and the explanations include a variety of characteristics of
Journal of the centres as expressed by the individuals (Gracia, 1988). McFadden (1974)
Marketing demonstrates that the probability Pij of individual i choosing alternative j is
33,5/6 given by the following expression:
ezij 
Pij ˆ
516 P
n
ezij 
jˆ1

where zij is the vector of evaluations of consumer i regarding alternative j.

Consequently, the modelling of distance, size, image and preference is
proposed, with different focuses, as an alternative way of analysing the
attraction of shopping malls, which might allow us to avoid the simplification
of the original probabilistic models and to contrast the reliability of the
different approaches taken.

Prior empirical evidence of retail attraction in shopping malls

In the particular case of shopping malls, relatively little research has been
carried out on choice and attraction. Furthermore, different approaches have
been used (see Table II).
A first approach proposes the modification of Huff's model, taking into
account only the utility function of the malls ``evoked'' in different consumers.
Wee and Pearce (1985) evaluate such a model by regression analysis, and show
that it fits better than Huff's model.
Another approach examines the attraction of shopping malls with different
extensions of Huff's model, to see if their predictive power improves
significantly. Along these lines, Gautschi (1981) analyses (using regression
analysis) the attraction of malls, both globally and individually, in relation to
one of them, taken as a base, and considering the characteristics of the
shopping mall and the means of transport to and from them. He also studies the
bias caused by the set of alternatives selected by the researcher.
An alternative tendency analyses the attraction of shopping malls,
incorporating their image as an extension of Huff's model. The aim is to
determine the image dimensions of the malls, the consistency among them, and
their predictive power. Above all, they emphasize the fact that the determining
elements of image imply a complex relationship between their elements. This
conditions the methodology employed, previously applying statistical
techniques of grouping, such as the factor analysis. In particular, they specify
the image dimensions of each shopping mall by means of factor analysis, and
examine the influence of the components obtained, as well as that of the size/
distance variable in an extended Huff model. The works of Nevin and Houston
(1980) and McGoldrick (1992) are included in this framework. However, this
study does not take the size of the shopping mall into account, although it
Line of research Variables Methodology Strengths/weaknesses Outstanding authors

Original Size of centre and Regression (OLS) Strengths: variables of attraction and Wee and Pearce (1985)
probabilistic distance from consumer dissuasion are proposed. The evoked
set of centres is considered
Weaknesses: Reality is simplified
Extension of Huff's Distance, characteristics Regression (OLS) Strengths: modelling in relation to an Gautschi (1981)
model of centre and means of alternative as a base. The biases
transport derived from the centres selected are
examined
Size, distance and retail Factor A and Strengths: it considers that image Nevin and Houston (1980)
image Regression (OLS) implies a complex relation between its McGoldrick (1992)
elements Wee (1986)
Weaknesses: poor estimations by
means of OLS
Distance, image and Factor A and SURE Weaknesses: SURE approach is Howell and Rogers (1980)
preferences unsuitable as hypothesis is not
satisfied
Two-stage logit Strengths: exponential model which Hauser and Koppelman (1979)
models provides better estimations with OLS
Distance and Factor A and Weaknesses: poor estimations with Stoltman et al. (1991)
motivational aspects of Regression (OLS) OLS
the individual
Conceptual Strength: retail attraction and Meoli et al. (1991)
reinforcement-affect models are
combined
Non probabilis Motivational aspects of Discriminant Weaknesses: probabilities are not Gentry and Burns (1977)
the individual Factor ANOVA predicted. Some authors use Westbrook and Black (1985)
Factor-cluster descriptive methodologies and do not Ghosh (1986)
Central place model define utility functions Block et al. (1991)
Factor-regression Jarboe and McDaniel (1987)

Modelling of retail

centres
attraction in shopping
Table II.
suburban

517
shopping malls
Image of
European includes certain personal features of the individuals involved. Another related
Journal of study is that of Wee (1986). He, however, ignores the original variables of Huff's
Marketing model, those of size and distance.
A fourth group of studies proposes a modelling for retail attraction based on
33,5/6 the consumer's preference for centres, together with distance and cognitive
image dimensions. The works of Howell and Rogers (1980) and of Hauser and
518 Koppelman (1979) fit into this category. This proposal implies a two-stage
approach, where a first equation estimates preference as a function of
perceptual dimensions, while the second one analyses attraction based on the
previously estimated preferences as well as on distance. However, the works
differ in considering or not, the influence of distance on preference in the
methodology applied (SURE versus logit), as well as in their individual or
global treatment of the centres.
Finally, a further line of research analyses the motivational aspects of
consumers which explain the attraction of malls. The starting point is that
some shoppers will be attracted for purely economic reasons, others will be
attracted for emotional reasons, while multi-purpose shoppers (Stoltman et al.,
1991; Ghosh, 1986) will have a combination of these motives. Among their
emotional reasons, recreational activities (Bloch et al., 1989), search for ideas
(Jarboe and McDaniel, 1987), the consumer's feelings about particular stores
(Meoli et al., 1991), impulse, etc., stand out. Some studies also analyse the
importance of the area's attributes (Gentry and Burns, 1977-1978; Westbrook
and Black, 1985; Stoltman et al., 1991), even as a function of the above
motivations. However, the methodology used differs substantially in these
works, ranging from the generalisations of Huff's model, by means of
regression, to the use of discriminant analysis.
In short, the analyses carried out on the attraction of shopping malls differ
from one another in the group of retail entities studied, the variables selected
and the meaning given to each of them, and in the methodologies applied. As a
result of all this, the conclusions obtained also differ. It is therefore difficult to
decide on the consequences of the determinating factors of the attraction of the
centres. However, the initial hypothesis of the fourth group of studies is that the
lesser capacity of image as opposed to distance to explain attraction may be
justified, in some way, by the modelling of a relationship which omits
preference. In this article we propose a contrast of two focuses of the attraction
analysis. The first includes distance, image of shopping malls and preference,
and in the second preference is omitted.

Methodology
The research methodology developed in order to achieve the objectives
established covers the following stages: a determination of the group of image
dimensions of the malls with a range of multi-dimensional techniques, and the
contrasting of two focuses, the two-stage versus the uni-equational, in order to
model retail attraction.
 First, the group of image dimensions perceived by the consumers of Image of
shopping malls is determined by means of the application of different suburban
multivariate statistical techniques, such as factor and discriminant analyses. shopping malls
Factor analysis is based on the ratings of the attributes of shopping malls
provided by the consumers. Their basic hypothesis is that there exists a limited
number of perceptual dimensions that are related to the majority of original
attributes. In particular, the technique examines the correlations between 519
attributes in order to identify these basic dimensions.
The calculation of the correlations between the ratings given to each
attribute is based on products and consumers (aggregating i and j for all),
standardising them previously to minimise scale bias. The criteria which
determine the number of factors to be selected includes those factors with a
total explained variance percentage greater than 1 (that is, that their eigenvalue
is greater than 1). These dimensions are named by examining the ``factor
loading'' obtained by varimax rotation, and are the estimations of the
correlations between the ratings of the attributes and the perception
measurements. Individual perceptions of the malls may then be discovered
from the ``factor scores'' (xijd) taken from the attributes' ratings.
Discriminant analysis also takes the attributes' ratings as a starting point.
However, it selects the linear combinations of those attributes that best
discriminate between the malls. The dependent variable is the shopping mall,
whereas the explicative variables are the ratings given to the attributes by the
consumers, and which have been previously standardized. The perceptions are
measured by discriminating ratings (x0ijd) or estimations of the perceptual
dimensions that best discriminate between the malls, based on the attributes'
ratings. In the study, orthogonal or uncorrelated dimensions are used by
applying a varimax rotation.
Likewise, a comparison is made between these perceptual techniques in
terms of the interpretation of the dimensions, and their visualisation on a map
of the positionings of the market centres.
Second, we contrast the goodness of fit of two alternative models of
shopping mall attraction. Distance, image and preference are included in the
first model, whereas preference is omitted in the other.
In order to achieve this goal, we first examine a two-stage approach to
attraction. Its general simplified form is presented in Figure 1. The fact that it
allows us to research certain strategies, such as the improvement of the

Image/Perception Preference Attraction/Choice

Distance
Figure 1.
General model
Source: Adapted from Hauser and Koppelman (1979)
European shopping environment, is one of its outstanding advantages. These will be
Journal of especially useful when relocation is not possible, as in the case of traditional
Marketing trading areas (Hauser and Koppelman, 1979).
Howell and Rogers (1980) present a resolution procedure of this focus by
33,5/6 developing a model of multiplicative competitive interaction (MCI). It is
estimated by means of the seemingly unrelated regression technique (SURE).
520 However, the application of the SURE technique is extensively criticized for not
quite satisfying the general specification given by Zellner (1962). The
information contained in its disturbances leads to inconsistent estimations
insofar as the preferences constitute the endogenous variable in the first
equation and the exogenous variable in the second equation. Zellner and Lee
(1965) propose an estimation procedure by generalised least squares, which
takes into account the correlation between the disturbances of each equation in
the context of simultaneous estimation. However, this procedure does not solve
the problems of prediction outside the unitary interval included in the model of
specified linear probability (Gracia, 1988).
On the contrary, Hauser and Koppelman (1979) offer a procedure which is
better than the previous one in terms of the resolution of the two-stage
approach, taking as a starting point two uni-equational models. The first model
they establish is that of preferences, which is mathematically defined by the
following expression:
X
K
pij  wk dijk
kˆ1

where,
pij = order of preference of individual i for mall j;
 = indicates monotonicity;
wk = weighting of the importance of the k dimension;
dijk = perception of individual i in relation to variable k of mall j (in the
factor analysis dijk  xijd ; in the discriminant analysis  dijk x0 ijd
The estimation of wk in the previous preference model is based on maximum
likelihood, in accordance with the conditional logit model proposed by
McFadden (1974). In this particular case, this monotonic technique estimates
the probability of a consumer classifying a shopping mall as his or her first
preference. It is therefore called the first preference logit model.
Second, they use the conditional logit model with the aim of predicting the
consumer's choice, where the dependent variable is the frequency of visits and
the explanatory
P variables are the previously estimated preference
…^pij ˆ k w^ k dijk † and distance.
Once this two-stage focus is estimated, it is contrasted, on the one hand, with
its goodness of fit in terms of the accuracy of its predictions, using criteria
based on the theory of information (Hauser, 1978): the preference test is the
percentage of consumers who classify as first the shopping mall which the Image of
model predicted as the first; the prediction test of the choice is contrasted by suburban
means of the increase in the percentage of uncertainty (entropy) explained by a shopping malls
model resulting from adding the perceptual dimensions to another model based
exclusively on distance. On the other hand, this test allows us to contrast the
hypothesis of the two-stage nature of retail trade attraction by estimating a sole
logit model of revealed preferences. Its dependent variable is the frequency of 521
visits and the explanatory variables are the distance and the perceptual image
dimensions.

Sample, data collection and variables

The methodological process presented in the previous section is developed
below for the specific case of consumers of four shopping malls of the city of
Alicante with retail establishments of occasional consumption products. This is
an interesting example for analysing retail attraction.
The four centres considered separately the central areas of the cities from
those located on the outskirts. In particular, the ``Heart of Alicante'' is a
revitalised central district, made up of a large number of specialised shops
which have formed an association in order to defend their own interests. On the
other hand, ``Maisonnave-Oscar EsplaÂ'' is located in another central urban area,
though it consists of two department stores, and a large number of specialised
shops. Finally, the areas of ``Carreteras de San Vicente'' and ``San Juan''
represent two centres of attraction which are easily accessible by road, both of
which include a supermarket and several large shops of occasional-
consumption products.
The basic information was obtained from a door-to-door survey, with a
structured questionnaire, aimed at a sample of 177 individuals who participate
actively in family decisions regarding shopping, in Alicante and San Vicente
del Raspeig during the month of November 1994. The sample population
consisted of members of both sexes, 18 years or older, 10,0067 in Alicante and
21,080 in San Vicente (IVE, 1994). The sampling was random poly-stage, and
the interviewees were selected by means of a procedure of random routes. The
size of the sample guarantees a sample error of ‹7.5 percent with a level of
confidence of 95.45 per cent (in the worst case p = q = 0.50). Likewise, the
sample chosen is homogeneous in relation to socio-economic status, which
would primarily solve problems of heteroscedasticity due to income, and would
restrict the scope of the study to the preferences towards certain shopping
malls and to the income group included.
A detailed inspection of the information obtained allows various errors in
certain interviews to be detected, and they are therefore eliminated from the
analysis. The number of interviews in the analysis was consequently reduced
considerably. However, examining the characteristics of the remaining sample
led to the conclusion that it was reasonably representative of the objective
European population. In this sense, and with an identical level of confidence, the sample
Journal of error was of ‹11.4 per cent for the 76 valid interviews in each equation, once the
Marketing statistic transformations of the regressions for each centre were carried out.
The variables used in the model were the following.
33,5/6 The dependent variable in any choice model is a measurement of past
shopping behaviour in each centre. Specifically, it reflects the number of times
522 that the respondent has shopped, for occasional-consumption products,
(clothing, home furnishings and electrical appliances) in each of the centres,
over the past 12 months. These absolute frequencies become relative from the
total number of shopping trips of each individual during the above year
(Gautschi, 1981). A ``shopping trip'' is considered to be any trip made to look for
occasional products, regardless of whether they are purchased or not.
The preference for a given mall is measured on a four-point scale, from the
most preferred (1) to the least preferred (4), considering proximity/accessibility
as a constant.
The distance is measured by the average time spent travelling, as perceived
by the interviewee, from his or her place of residence to the shopping mall,
using different means of transport.
A typical problem that arises in the research into preference and choice of
shopping malls is the evaluation of their image components. That is, we cannot
ensure that the factors used in the image studies of individual establishments
are appropriate for shopping malls. This is because some attributes of shops
can only be applied to malls if they have achieved success by creating a
generally consistent and cohesive image. Likewise, the mall has certain
attributes of its own which are quite different from those of sales points, yet
common to the whole area.
Taking these considerations into account, the following variables proposed
by Gautschi (1981) are used to define the image of shopping malls: the variety
of products (size or center importance proxy), the professionalism of their sales
assistants, the formality or informality of dress required of the shopper, the
tranquillity of the buying process, cleanliness, ease of communication between
establishments, parking facilities, value for money, and opening hours (in the
evenings and at weekends). These variables are specified by means of a series
of affirmations with which the individual identifies him or herself, based on
five-point scale, in which a score of 5 points reflects total agreement and a score
of 1 point the opposite.

Results obtained
Identification of the image dimensions of shopping centres
First, a principal components analysis with varimax rotation is applied to the
image attributes of shopping malls, with the aim of determining a reduced
number of uncorrelated factors, which may represent the original
intercorrelated variables. That is, they account for most of their total
variability. The first three factors were extracted with a percentage of variance
greater than 1, the accumulated percentage being 61.4 per cent.
 Likewise, the application of the discriminant analysis with varimax rotation Image of
to the image attributes of the malls allows us to know the dimensions which suburban
best discriminate between them. In particular, this technique suggests three shopping malls
dimensions, the 2 test being significant at 1 per 1,000.
In order to interpret the underlying dimensions in the image structure, the
composition of the factor loadings and the significant discriminating
coefficients in shopping malls are studied (see Table III). The corresponding 523
variables are grouped and a name is chosen in accordance with the contents of
each group.
In the factor analysis, factor 1, ``shopping environment and variety'', groups
the variables of informality of dress, shopping hours, variety of products and
cleanliness. Factor 2, ``parking'', is defined by parking facilities and low prices.
Finally, factor 3, ``shopping environment and professionalism'', includes, above
all, the variable of tranquillity in the buying process, and, to a lesser extent, the
professionalism of the sales assistants and the ease of access between
establishments.
On the contrary, in the discriminant analysis, dimension 1, ``variety and
professionalism'', includes product variety as the most important variable, with
less emphasis on sales assistant professionalism and shopping hours.
Dimension 2, ``parking'', emphasizes the parking facility variable with less
importance being given to accessibility among the different establishments.
Finally, dimension 3, ``shopping environment'', is defined mainly by the
variable of the tranquillity of the shopping process and to, a lesser extent, by
the informality of dress and opening hours.
Despite the apparent similarities between the two models, important
differences arise in their interpretation. In particular, the factor analysis uses all
the attribute scales, while the discriminant analysis only does so with seven of
the nine attributes, with only three being greater than 0.5. Consequently, and
given the importance of market follow-up for managements, the discriminant
analysis relegates this to the study of a smaller number of strategies.
Another way of comparing the two techniques is by examining the visual
maps produced for each method (see Figure 2). These allow us to identify the
positioning of the different shopping malls in the market, their strengths and
weaknesses, as well as their market opportunities.
A first glance at Figure 2 shows a certain consistency between the models
when the dimensions involved are very similar. For example, low scores are
observed for dimension 2, parking facilities, both in the Heart of Alicante as
well as in Maisonnave-Oscar EsplaÂ, while they are high in Carreteras de San
Vicente and San Juan. The Heart of Alicante also shows a higher score in
dimension 3, shopping environment (professionalism). Regarding dimension 1,
variety-environment (variety-professionalism), Maisonnave-Oscar Espla shows
higher levels, whereas for the Heart of Alicante they are lower. In general, these
positions are consistent with the prior beliefs about the image of the four
shopping malls.
 524
33,5/6

Table III.
European
Journal of
Marketing

Comparison of
perceptual models
Factor analysis (factor loadings) Discriminant analysis (discriminant coefficient)
Environment Environment and Variety and
Fundamental attributes and variety Parking professionalism professionalism Parking Environment

Product variety 0.717 0.058 0.238 1.010 ±0.126 0.228

Sales assistant professionalism 0.440 ±0.240 0.569 ±0.449 ±0.219 ±0.239
Informality of dress 0.725 0.095 0.067 ±0.239 0.234 0.374
Tranquility ±0.061 0.190 0.880 0.034 ±0.079 0.942
Cleanliness 0.664 0.021 0.009 0.078 ±0.008 ±0.197
Establishment communication 0.362 ±0.355 0.489 ±0.092 ±0.314 ±0.240
Parking 0.150 0.826 ±0.178 ±0.026 0.790 ±0.130
Prices 0.150 0.810 0.165 ±0.239 0.273 0.212
Opening hours 0.765 0.217 0.072 0.335 0.011 ±0.331
 1.2
Discriminant analysis
Image of
1 suburban
0.8
shopping malls
0.6

0.4
525
0.2

entroides of groups 0
Key
–0.2
Heart of Alicante
–0.4 Maisonnave-O Espla
Ctra San Vicente
–0.6 Ctra San Juan

–0.8

–1

–1.2
Discriminating dimension 1 Discriminating dimension 2 Discriminating dimension 3
Shopping Malls

Factor analysis
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4 Key
0.3 Heart of Alicante
Maisonnave-O Espla
0.2
Ctra San Vicente
0.1 Ctra San Juan
Factor scores 0
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
–0.4
–0.5
–0.6
–0.7 Figure 2.
–0.8 Comparison of
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 perceptual maps
Shopping Malls

Evaluation of the different choice models and of the preferences for

shopping malls
First, the two-stage model proposed by Hauser and Koppelman (1980) is
examined: The first model they establish is the ``first preference logit'', which is
estimated for maximum likelihood, in accordance with the conditional logit
model. Likewise, they use the conditional logit model again to predict the
European consumer's choice where the dependent variable is the frequency of visits and
Journal of the explanatory variables are the previously estimated preference and distance.
Marketing Second, a revealed preferences model, which relates frequency of visit to
distance and perceptual dimensions, is estimated.
33,5/6 Finally, in the following section, with the objective of contrasting the
goodness of fit of the different focuses used, a logit model which regresses the
526 frequency of visits with distance is proposed. Table IV shows the results
obtained in each of these alternative approaches.
In general, for multiple choice models, the maximum likelihood estimators of
the parameters follow a normal asymptotic distribution. Therefore the t
statistic employed, of individual significance of the parameters, is distributed
as a t of student. The estimated coefficients reflect the effect of a unitary change
in an explanatory variable on the logistic transformations of the probabilities
considered. The analysis of the joint significance of all the regressors, or in
other words, the evaluation of the explanatory capacity of these models, is
conducted by means of the 2 test of likelihood ratio, where the null hypothesis
is that all the coefficients are equal to zero. That is, the hypothesis that all the
alternatives are equally probable is shown.

First preference logit Revealed preference logit Distance logit

Explicit variance Preference Visit frequency Visit frequency Visit frequency

Factor analysis
Factor 1 0.327*** 0.500*
(0.880) (0.287)
Factor 2 0.2533*** ±0.058
(0.082) (0.135)
Factor 3 0.201** 0.241
(0.082) (0.178)
Preference 1.515
(1.844)
Distance ±0.041*** ±0.037** ±0.040***
(0.015) (0.016) (0.015)
2 10.02** 7.74** 11.45** 7.06***
Discriminant analysis
Discr. dimen. 1 0.048 0.308*
(0.078) (0.184)
Discr. dimen. 2 0.099* ±0.105
(0.056) (0.087)
Discr. dimen. 3 0.130 0.020
(0.084) (0.151)
Preference ±1.343
(2.723)
Distance ±0.038** ±0.037**
Table IV. (0.015) (0.016)
Models of preference 2 5.46 7.31** 11.14**
and choice (standard
*** **
errors in brackets) Note: p < 0.01; p < 0.05; *p < 0.10
The application of these tests to the evaluation of the discrete choice models Image of
and the interpretation of the coefficients allow us to conclude, based on the suburban
results obtained, that distance is a good predictor of the choice of a mall in any shopping malls
of the models analysed. It is significant in all of them at a level below 0.05 or
0.01. Practically all of the models are statistically significant at a level below
0.05. This appears to reflect that the consumers' choice mechanism is covered
in the functional specification of the logit model. 527
If one considers the focus denominated ``first preference logit'', it is detected
that the model which is based on the factorial dimensions has a high
explanatory capacity (the 2 test is significant at a level below 0.05), with the
first and second image factors standing out as good predictors of preference.
On the other hand, the model with discriminating dimensions has little
explanatory capacity. This seems to favour factor analysis as opposed to
discriminant analysis.
Finally, the detailed examination of the logit model of revealed preferences
shows that distance is significantly different to zero at a level below 5 per cent,
while the first factorial or discriminating dimension is only so at a level below
10 per cent.

Goodness of fit of the models

In addition to the contrasts carried out in the previous section of the goodness
of fit of the different models, the prediction tests of preference and choice (see
Table V) are examined. The preference test is the percentage of consumers
whose first choice was the shopping mall which the model predicted would be
first; the prediction of choice is contrasted by means of the increase in the
percentage of uncertainty (entropy) explained by a model resulting from
adding the perceptual dimensions to another model based exclusively on
distance (see Table IV).
Taking the choice prediction test as a starting point, the hypothesis of the
two-stage nature of the model of commercial attraction may also be contrasted.
This requires the estimation of a revealed preference logit model (see Table IV),
whose dependent variable is frequency of visits and whose explanatory
variables are distance and perceptual image dimensions.
In relation to the predictive preference test, Table IV shows that 40.8 per cent
(31/76) and 35.5 per cent (27/76) of the consumers classified as first the

Preference Choice

Factor analysis
1st preference logit 40.8 1.2
Revealed preference logit ± 7.7
Discriminant analysis
1st preference logit 35.5 0.4 Table V.
Revealed preference logit ± 7.1k Predictive tests
European shopping mall which the model predicted would come first, for the factorial and
Journal of discriminating dimension models respectively. Its maximum value is 100 per
cent, although the majority of empirical studies do not come close to such a
Marketing percentage of success. Instead, the measurements obtained should be compared
33,5/6 to those resulting from a purely random assignation where all the locations
have an identical probability of being chosen (Hauser, 1978). In this particular
528 case it would be 25 per cent.
In relation to the choice prediction test, Table V presents the percentage of
uncertainty explained, related to a model based exclusively on distance. In this
sense, it is clear that the first preference logit models only predict poorly with
regard to distance, by adding a very small amount of uncertainty in the
prediction of choice. On the contrary, it may be concluded that the revealed
preference models are more adequate than first preference logit models given the
statistical improvement produced regarding distance. Total uncertainty would
result in aggregating 12.4 per cent to the measurements offered in Table V.
Likewise, the relationship of the proportionality which exists between
explained uncertainty and the statistic 2 (Hauser, 1978) allows us to contrast
the significance of the choice models. Specifically, after adjusting the frequency
of visits, 2N*percentage of relative uncertainty follows an 2 if the null
hypothesis (model based on distance) is a special case of the contrasted model
(it aggregates the perceptions to distance). The degrees of freedom are given by
the difference in the number of variables. The results obtained allow us to
conclude that all measurements of uncertainty are significant at a level of 0.01.

Conclusions
The implication that the original probabilistic components, size/distance,
image and preference for shopping malls that distinguish different urban areas
are three important elements to be considered in any analysis of retail
attraction, has allowed us to analyse the phenomena of retail trade attraction in
the urban setting of Alicante.
The methodology applied uses a variety of multidimensional techniques for
identifying the dimensions of the image, as well as different logit focuses, the
two-stage versus the uni-equational, to define retail trade attraction.
As a result of the empirical application employed, the existence of three
image dimensions is detected in the shopping malls examined in the city of
Alicante. Likewise, the evaluation of discrete choice models and the
interpretation of their estimated coefficients allow us to conclude that distance
is a good predictor of the choice of a centre in any of the models analysed. The
analysis of goodness of fit of the different approaches to the modelling of
attraction shows the superiority of revealed preference models (uni-equational)
over first preference logit (two-stage), given the statistical improvement it
affords regarding distance.
References
Arnold, S.J., Roth, V. and Tigert, D.J. (1980), ``Conditional logit versus MDA in the prediction of
store shoice'', Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, pp. 665-70.
Bloch, P.H., Ridgeway, N.M. and Sherrel, D.L. (1989), ``Extending the concept of shopping: an Image of
investigation of browsing activity'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17,
pp. 13-21. suburban
Bromley, R. and Thomas, C. (1989), ``Clustering advantages for out-of-town stores", International shopping malls
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 41-59.
Bucklin, L.P. (1967), ``The concept of mass in intra-urban shopping'', Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 34, pp. 32-6.
Dawson, J.A. and Lord, J.D. (1985), Shopping Centre Development: Policies and Prospects, Croom
529
Helm, Beckenham.
Doyle, P. and Fenwich, I. (1974-1975), ``How store image affects shopping habits in grocery
chains'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50, pp. 39-52.
Gautschi, D.A. (1981), ``Specification of patronage models for retail center choice'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 162-74.
Gentry, J.W. and Burns, A.C. (1977-1978), ``How `important' are evaluative criteria in shopping
center patronage?'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 73-86.
Ghosh, A. (1986), ``The value of a mall and other insights from a revised central place model'',
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 62, pp. 79-97.
Ghosh, A. and McLafferty, S.L. (1982), ``Locating retail stores in uncertain environments: a
scenario planning approach'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58, pp. 5-22.
Gracia, M. (1988), ``Modelos con variable dependiente cualitativa y de variacioÂn limitada'',
Cuadernos EconoÂmicos ICE, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 7-49.
Hansen, M.H. and Weinberg, C.B. (1979), ``Retail market share in a competitive environment'',
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 55, pp. 37-46.
Hauser, J.R. (1978), ``Testing the accuracy, usefulness, and significance of probabilistic choice
models: an information-theoretic approach'', Operations Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 406-21.
Hauser, J.R. and Koppelman, F.S. (1979), ``Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: relative
accuracy and usefulness'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 495-506.
Hosmer, D. and Lemeshow, S. (1989), Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley and Sons, New
York, NY.
Howell, R.D. and Rogers, J.D. (1980), ``Research into shopping mall choice behavior'', in Monroe,
K.B. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8, Association for Consumer Research,
Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 671-6.
Huff, D.L. (1963), ``A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas'', Land Economics,
Vol. 39, pp. 81-90.
Huff, D.L. (1964), ``Defining and estimating a trading area'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28, pp. 34-8.
Huff, D.L. (1966), ``A programmed solution for approximating an optimal retail location'', Land
Economics, Vol. 42, pp. 293-303.
Huff, D.L. and Batsell, R. (1977), ``Delimiting the areal extent of a market area'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 581-5.
Huff, D.L. and Rust, R. (1984), ``Measuring the congurence of market areas'', Journal of
Marketing, Winter, pp. 68-74.
IVE (1994), Anuario EstadõÂstico Municipal y Comarcal 1992, Instituto Valenciano de EstadõÂstica,
Valencia.
Jain, A.K. and Mahajan, V. (1979), ``Evaluating the competitive environment in retailing using
multiplicative competitive interactive model'', in Sheth, J. (Ed.), Research in Marketing,
Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 217-35.
Jarboe, G.R. and McDaniel, C.D. (1987), ``A profile of browsers in regional shopping malls'',
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 46-53.
European Louviere, J. and Woodworth, G. (1983), ``Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or
allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data'', Journal of Marketing
Journal of Research, Vol. 20, pp. 350-67.
Marketing Luce, R.D. (1959), Individual Choice Behavior, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
33,5/6 McFadden, D. (1974), ``Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior'', in Zarembka, P.
(Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press, New York, NY.
McGoldrick, P. (1992), ``El Desarrollo en Europa de Centros de Compra a Gran Escala Fuera de
530 las Ciudades'', in La DistribucioÂn Comercial en el 2000, Generalitat Valenciana, Valencia,
pp. 67-96.
Meoli, J., Feinberg, R.A. and Westgate, L. (1991), ``A reinforcement-affect model of mall
patronage'', in Holman, H.R. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 18, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp. 444-50.
Meyer, R.J. and Eagle, T.C. (1982), ``Context-induced parameter instability in a disaggregate
stochastic model of store choice'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 62-71.
Miller, E. and Lerman, S. (1981), ``Disaggregate modeling and decision of retail firms: a case
study of clothing retailers'', Environment and Planning A., Vol. 13, pp. 1-14.
Nakanishi, M. and Cooper, L.G. (1974), ``Parameter estimation for a multiplicative competitive
interaction model ± least squares approach'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 11,
pp. 303-11.
Nelson, R.L. (1958), The Selection of Retail Locations, Dodge, New York, NY.
Nevin, J.R. and Houston, M.J. (1980), ``Image as a component of attraction to intraurban shopping
areas'', Journal of Retailing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Recker, W. and Schuler, H. (1981), ``Destination choice and processing spatial information: some
empirical tests with alternative constructs'', Economic Geography, Vol. 57, pp. 373-83.
Reibstein, D.J. (1978), ``The prediction of individual probabilities of brand choice'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 5, pp. 163-8.
Stanley, T.J. and Sewall, M.A. (1976), ``Image inputs to a probabilistic model: predicting retail
potential'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40, pp. 48-53.
Stoltman, J.J., Gentry, J.W. and Anglin, K.A. (1991), ``Shopping choices: the case of mall choice'', in
Holman, R.H. and Solomon, M.R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18,
Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp. 434-40.
Wee, C.H. (1986), ``Shopping area image: its factor analytic structure and relationships with
shopping trips and expenditure behavior'', in Lutz, R.J. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer
Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, pp. 49-52.
Wee, C.H. and Pearce, M.R. (1985), ``Patronage behaviour toward shopping areas: a proposed
model based on Huff's model of retail gravitation'', in Hirschman, E.C. and Holbrook, M.B.
(Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, pp. 592-7.
Westbroock, R.A. and Black, W.C. (1985), ``A motivation-based shopper typology'', Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 61, pp. 78-103.
Zellner, A. (1962), ``An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests
for aggregation bias'', Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 57, pp. 348-68.
Zellner, A. and Lee, T.H. (1965), ``Joint estimation of relationships involving discrete random
variables'', Econometrica, Vol. 33, pp. 382-94.