Antecedents to Shopping Online: A Shopping Preference Perspective

Rajasree K. Rajamma Concha Ramsey Neeley

ABSTRACT. The growth in online retailing has been phenomenal over the past few years. This study examines the influence of social orientation of the customer, outshopping orientation and enjoyment derived from shopping on the customers preference to shop online using shopping preference theory as the theoretical framework.The research was conducted using Gen Y university students. The study finds that online shoppers are more likely to be outshoppers and are likely to derive more enjoyment from shopping. The social orientation of the shopper did not influence online shopping preference. In addition, it was found that, as posited by earlier studies, men prefer to shop online more than women. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress. com> 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Shopping, online, retailing, e-commerce, consumer

The growth in Internet retailing has been phenomenal over the past few years. According to International Data Corp (IDC), the total worldwide online spending grew 68% between 2000 and 2001 and is expected to exceed $1 trillion by the year 2002 (cyberatlas.com). Even
Rajasree K. Rajamma (E-mail: rajammar@cobaf.coba.unt.du) and Concha Ramsey Neeley (E-mail: neeleyc@unt.edu) are doctoral candidates, Department of Marketing & Logistics, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203-1396. Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 4(1) 2005 http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JICOM 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J179v04n01_03

63

64

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

though this is only a small percentage of total retail sales, many researchers and practitioners believe in the enormous potential of this channel (Shim et al., 2000; Balabanis et al., 1999; Wolfbarger and Gilly, 2001; Koufaris et al., 2001-2002). Moreover, although the bricks- and-mortar store continues to be the major channel of retailing, more and more manufacturers are resorting to online retailing also. Due to its relatively nascent character, there is a dearth of consumer behavior literature dealing with antecedents of consumer behavior related to online shopping. This lack of attention is surprising since online retailing is growing at an overwhelming rate. US retail e-commerce increased 200% from $15 billion in 1999 to $45 billion in 2001 (Jupiter Research 2000). More specifically, few studies exist which have undertaken the task of profiling the online shopper. Considering the potential of this channel and the multiplying number of Internet users, one could speculate that a lot of advertising and promotion dollars would be wasted if marketers do not have a clear understanding of the characteristics of online shoppers. This research explores the antecedents of consumer behavior leading to the choice of online shopping using shopping preference theory (Sheth, 1983) as a theoretical foundation. In addition, outshopping behavior and gender of the shopper are examined in this study. In order to theoretically anchor our discussion, this study will rely on the shopping literature that has largely examined consumer behavior and attitudes in the context of brick-and-mortar shops. Reasons people choose a particular retail outlet over another, in-shopping versus outshopping and in-home shopping versus catalogue shopping, were studied in detail during 1970s and 1980s (Darian, 1987, Gillett, 1976, Samli and Uhr, 1974, Thompson, 1971, Papadopoulos, 1980, Darden et al., 1978, Westbrook and Black, 1985 and Hawes and Lumpkin, 1984). This study focuses largely on Generation Y adults (persons born between 1978 and 1985) because they are considered to be the next big consumer market in the US with huge purchasing power (American Demographics, 2001). According to American Demographics (2001), the number of potential customers in Generation Y (Gen Y) is about 71 million, out of whom college students alone have a purchasing power of approximately $105 billion. The Teenage Research Foundation found that teens spent about $155 billion dollars in the year 2000 (American Demographics, 2001), illustrating teen purchasing power. With more opportunities to access the Internet as well as (supposedly) being more technophile than earlier generations, it is speculated that Gen Y will have a more positive attitude towards online shopping. In summary, the

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

65

current research is particularly important due to three major reasons: (1) its contributions to this relatively unexplored area of shopping preference; (2) the apparent similarity or differences between online shoppers and people who do not shop online would help practitioners/marketers to better segment and target the shoppers; and (3) its significance in terms of understanding the markets future behavior. The organization of the paper is as follows: we begin with a brief discussion of the shopping preference theory, which forms the overarching premise for this research. This is followed by a literature review, methodology for the study and research findings. We conclude with a discussion on the findings and offer managerial implications and limitations of the study. SHOPPING PREFERENCE THEORY The shopping preference theory (Sheth, 1983) posits that customers preference for a shopping outlet will be determined by their shopping motives as well as shopping options available, along with other variables such as shopping predisposition and shopping calculus. Shopping, or choice, calculus refers to the choice rules or heuristics utilized by customers in establishing their shopping predisposition (Sheth, 1983, p. 14). This paper focuses on the first two factors onlyshopping motives and shopping options. Shopping motives refer to a customers needs and wants related to the choice of outlet at which to shop for a specific product or service class (Sheth, 1983, pp. 15). Shopping motives have been conceptualized by Sheth (1983) to be of two types, (1) functional needs such as accessibility, convenience and availability of the product at the chosen outlet and (2) nonfunctional needs such as satisfaction of hedonic and experiential needs associated with the visit to the retail outlet. They argue that functional needs are related to outlet attributes whereas nonfunctional needs are anchored to outlet association (Sheth, 1983). The second focal factor considered is the shopping options available to the consumer, which refers to the evoked set of outlets available to customers to satisfy their shopping motives for a specific class of product or service (Sheth 1983, pp. 18). In this paper, we examine the customers choice of online shopping outlets based on their nonfunctional motives such as socialization and shopping enjoyment needs. We also strive to find out whether an outshopper (a person who makes shopping trips outside his local area) or in-shopper would prefer to shop more online.

66

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

Social Orientation in Shopping As posited by shopping preference theory, reasons for shopping at a retail outlet go beyond purchase. There are functional and nonfunctional motives driving the retail outlet choice as well as the process of shopping. Several researchers (Tauber, 1972; Bloch et al., 1994; Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Lunt and Livingstone, 1992; Jarratt and Polonsky, 1993) have pointed out the role of social motives in the process of shopping. Tauber (1972) identified five different types of motives of social nature: (1) social experiences outside home, (2) communication with others having similar interests, (3) peer group attraction (the desire to be with ones reference group), (4) obtaining increase in status and authority and (5) pleasure of bargaining. In the seminal paper on in-home shoppers, Berkowitz et al. (1979) found that in-home shoppers, compared to traditional shoppers, tend to be less concerned about the social approval of their friends and neighbors (pp. 32). A similar conclusion was reached by Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001) in their study on shopping online. They posit lack of sociality (pp. 35) as one of the attributes that attracts an online shopper. In this paper, we follow Wolfinbarger and Gilly (2001), positing that people who prefer online shopping will have lesser levels of social orientation. In other words, consumers with higher socialization needs would prefer to go out to a shop where they can mix with the crowd, meet friends, and so on. Online shopping may not be driven by this need as an online shopper can do all their shopping without ever stepping out or having interaction with others. Hence, we hypothesize: H1: Online shoppers have lower social orientation than people who do not prefer to shop online (termed as non-shoppers in this study). Shopping Enjoyment Another important motive for shopping is the enjoyment derived from it by the shopper. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) found that recreational shoppers form a significant section of the retail market. Others have identified shopping enjoyment as a key shopping goal (Hilbert and Tagg, 2001; Gillett, 1970; Koufaris et al., 2001-2002; Childers et al., 2001; Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001), even in the case of in-home shopping and online shopping. Recreational shoppers are considered to be active information seekers (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980). Shopping online provides these shoppers with the opportunity to

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

67

compare merchandise and price and obtain detailed information about products, thus fulfilling their information needs. Researchers have profiled online shoppers as convenience oriented (Childers et al., 2001). In the current context, we are comparing among the recreational shoppers in the two groups, namely shoppers and non-shoppers (i.e., brick and mortar shoppers). Studies indicate that people who find online shopping to be fun form about 8 percent and those who use the Web for entertainment form about 12 percent of all Internet surfers (Cimino, 2001). As the avenues for gathering information are much more in the case of online shopping, we argue that recreational shoppers among online shoppers would enjoy shopping more than non-shoppers. H2: Online shoppers will enjoy shopping more than the non-shoppers. OUTSHOPPING ORIENTATION Outshopping as a determinant of inter-market patronage behavior of consumers has been the subject of much interest in the 1970s and 1980s. Seminal research papers in this area include that of Reynolds and Darden (1972), Papadopoulos (1980), Sheth (1983), Thompson (1971), Samli and Uhr (1974) and Hawes and Lumpkin (1984). An outshopper may be defined as a person who makes shopping trips outside his local area. However, there is little agreement as to the frequency of these trips. For example, according to Thompson (1971), the consumer who makes at least one outshopping trip in the last 6 months is classified an outshopper, Herrman and Beik (1968) puts the limit at a minimum of one trip in the last one year and Reynolds and Darden (1972) at 12 or more trips during the year. Most of the researchers profile an outshopper as an urban consumer with higher income, more education, young and with a strong dislike for local shops (Herrman and Beik, 1968; Thompson, 1971; Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Papadopoulos, 1980). In addition, outshoppers have been posited as more socially active (Reynolds and Darden, 1971; Jarratt and Polonsky), innovative (Darden and Perreault, 1976) and as consumers who spend a great deal of time and effort in shopping unlike an in-shopper who is driven by convenience. Most of the outshoppers were found to shop for items such as clothing, shoes ((Reynolds and Darden, 1972; Thompson, 1971) and jewelry (Darden, Lennon and Darden, 1978), where fashion (style) is

68

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

considered to be important (Reynolds and Darden, 1972) even though the items bought are not limited to these. Moreover, men have been posited to engage more in outshopping than women (Samli and Uhr, 1974). Online shopping can be considered as a form of outshopping. Consumers buy from online retailers all over the world instead of from local stores, even though they have the choice of buying the same products from the local bricks-and-mortar store. The reason may be that, when shopping online, consumers do not have to face the inconvenience associated with factors such as time, effort and accessibility. Even though online shoppers do face inconveniences in the form of inability to examine the product, lack of immediate gratification and absence of immediate support given by the sales staff at a bricks-and-mortar store, we argue that online shoppers would be more of outshoppers. This is based on the argument that online shoppers behave more or less in the same manner as outshoppers in that they forgo the many advantages and conveniences associated with shopping in the local area such as immediate gratification, ability to examine the product and decides to shop online. Hence, our third hypothesis: H3: Online shoppers are more likely to be outshoppers than in-shoppers. Gender Recent trade data suggest that even though men and women do not differ significantly (Discount Store News, 2000) in browsing commercial websites, men are more likely to purchase online (Marketing News, 1998). This contradicts the traditional shopping literature, which considers women as responsible for household shopping. Many authors also describe shopping as a gendered activity (Dholakia, 1999; South and Spitze, 1994; Fram and Axelrod, 1990). However, the involvement of more women in the work force and social changes that have taken place over the years can be expected to have changed this stereotype. Darian (1987) reported that male shoppers are more likely to shop at home than women. Otnes and McGrath (2001) argue that men who have achieved the gender role transcendence shop as well as women do. In addition, they also indicate that more men shop online than women. Similar conclusions have been reached by Shim et al. (2000) and Briones (1998). According to Alreck and Settle (2002), the shopping strategy adopted by the person would depend on whether they like or dislike shopping. Hence, a person who finds shopping to be frustrating and irritating would try to adopt a shopping strategy that would minimize the shop-

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

69

ping time and effort. Since it is generally believed with respect to traditional shopping (e.g., shopping at malls, shopping for groceries at brick and mortar shops) that men find it an irritating or frustrating activity, we believe that they would prefer to shop online more than women who are posited to like shopping and spend more time and effort shopping. Studies examining the reasons behind preference for online shopping pertaining to one gender or another are very few and focused on particular issues. One such study (Garbarino and Strahilevitz, 2002) indicates that perceived risk of buying online is higher among females. This could be another reason why women tend to prefer shopping online less than men. Based on the above arguments, we posit that men are more likely to prefer online shopping compared to women. H4: Men prefer online shopping more than women. METHODOLOGY Considering the focal market of this study, namely Gen Y, the sample for this study was chosen from undergraduate students at a major southwestern university. A convenience sample of 314 undergraduate students in the business school constituted the respondents. Out of this, 100 were in exclusively Web-based classes and 214 in regular contact classes. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the data. We used existing scales for measuring in-shopping/outshopping behavior (Hawes and Lumpkin, 1984; Hozier and Stem Jr., 1985) and shopping enjoyment (OGuinn and Faber, 1989). We modified and used the scale items for in-home shopping (Hawes and Lumpkin, 1980) to suit the context of online shopping. A proprietary scale was developed to measure social orientation. Responses for all the items were measured using a five point likert scale anchored between Strongly Disagree (1) and Strongly Agree (5). In addition, several demographic variables such as gender, age and Internet usage rate were also measured. It may be noted that the scale items used in the instrument were for measuring in-shopping orientation. However, since we are dealing with outshopping orientation (which is the opposite of in-shopping orientation) in this paper, a lower score would imply more outshopping orientation. The purified scale items for all the constructs used in this paper can be found in Table 1.

70 TABLE 1. Rotated Component MatrixShopping Orientation and Motivation

Component 1 0.893 0.890 0.869 0.869 0.705 0.848 0.844 0.838 0.786 0.769 0.546 0.841 0.828 0.746 0.744 0.624 0.604 0.792 0.765 0.709 0.655 0.451 16.993 0.9039 3.3602 1.0730 16.968 0.8693 2.6762 0.7773 15.427 0.8361 3.1955 0.8894 11.10 0.725 2.3803 0.7226 Online Shopping 2 3 4 Label

S19 I get a real high from shopping

S18 Shopping is fun

Shopping Enjoyment

S20 I do not mind spending a lot of time shopping

S17 I shop because buying things make me happy

S23 I like to keep up with changes in styles and fashion

S13 I shop at local stores because it is important to help my community

S10 I would rather shop at local store to keep the money at home

S15 I shop locally to support the local merchants and business districts

S9 Shopping at local stores help build my community

S8 I owe it to my community to shop at local stores

Outshopping

S11 I will pay slightly more for products if I can buy them locally

S3 By shopping through the internet, I save a lot of time

S2 Im ordering more things via the internet

S6 Internet ordering is more convenient than going to the store

RS4 I dont like shopping via the internet

S1 I love to surf the internet

S5 I use the internet to order because I cant find what I want in the local store

I12 Im happiest when I am alone

I15 I consider myself a loner

I13 My ideal evening is watching television by myself

Social Orientation

RI14 Given a choice I would rather go out with a group of people

I9 I prefer working alone

% of Variance explained

Cronbachs Alpha

Factor Mean

Factor Standard Deviation

Scale anchor: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

71

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS The data was factor analyzed to evaluate the relevant factors influencing shopping behavior as well as the social orientation of the consumer. The analysis resulted in four factors such as online shopping, outshopping, shopping enjoyment and social orientation (Table 1). The factor scale items were then tested for internal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) (Table 1), as well as convergent and discriminant validity using inter-item correlations (Table 2). The results indicate that all the factors have acceptable alpha scores (above 0.72). The inter-item correlations show that the within factor correlations were generally higher than across-factor correlations, establishing that the factors have acceptable convergent and discriminant validity (Table 2). Based on K-means cluster analysis procedure, the sample was separated into two clusters using the scale items for online shopping orientation. Cluster 1 was labeled as non-shoppers (people who do not prefer to shop online) and cluster 2 as online shoppers. In order to test our hypotheses, the summated score for in-shopping, shopping enjoyment and social orientation factors were used as independent variables in regression and discriminant analyses and online shopping preference was used as the dependent variable. The results of ANOVA and discriminant analyses are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, outshopping orientation (the lower the score, the more outshopping orientation) of the online shoppers was found to be different from those of non-shoppers. Similarly, shopping enjoyment was also found to be more among online shoppers than non-shoppers (p value < 0.05). These findings support hypotheses 2 and 3. There was no significant difference between the social orientations of the two groups (online shoppers and non-shoppers), which leads US to reject hypothesis 1. The ANOVA table (Table 4) illustrates the relationship between gender and preference for online shopping among the two genders. As can be noted from the table, at 90% confidence level, there is significant difference between men and women with respect to their preference for online shopping. From the mean values, it can be seen that men prefer online shopping more than women, thus supporting hypothesis 4. Additional findings suggest (1) there is no difference between men and women in their in/outshopping orientation (2) women tend to enjoy shopping more than men (3) there is significant difference between men and women in their social orientation at 90% confidence level, with women being more socially oriented than men. Interesting findings were obtained when regression analysis was done with the summated

72 TABLE 2. Inter-Item CorrelationsShopping Orientation and Motivation

Shopping Enjoyment S19 1 0.745 0.739 0.733 0.545 0.056 0.003 0.043 0.043 0.050 0.016 0.105 0.100 0.042 0.058 0.156 0.002 0.087 0.120 0.026 0.222 0.022 0.016 0.037 0.232 0.154 0.033 0.030 0.062 0.153 0.010 0.181 0.057 0.077 0.122 0.070 0.001 0.091 0.018 0.062 0.083 0.122 0.177 0.070 0.268 0.010 0.222 0.150 0.211 0.128 0.118 0.070 0.060 0.063 0.104 0.049 0.117 0.110 0.143 0.068 0.146 0.159 0.085 0.086 0.163 0.008 0.128 0.098 0.049 0.163 0.007 0.056 0.137 0.085 0.152 0.167 0.081 0.045 0.018 0.045 0.081 0.375 0.028 0.050 0.014 0.011 0.574 0.655 0.453 0.155 0.201 0.101 0.263 0.106 0.169 0.139 0.039 0.110 0.001 0.031 0.005 0.107 0.026 0.067 0.500 0.610 0.102 0.034 0.101 0.068 0.759 0.625 0.013 0.013 0.045 0.003 0.068 1 1 0.540 0.502 0.360 0.048 0.002 0.008 0.111 0.012 0.084 0.103 0.008 0.123 0.081 0.124 1 0.607 0.366 0.008 0.033 0.023 0.145 0.070 0.029 0.134 0.019 0.096 0.003 0.185 1 0.335 0.105 0.124 0.106 0.187 0.131 0.148 0.176 0.099 0.092 0.062 0.050 0.084 0.006 0.098 0.029 1 0.580 0.541 0.495 1 0.747 0.658 1 0.697 1 1 S18 S20 S17 S23 S13 S10 S15 S9 S8 Outshopping Behavior

S11

S19

S18

S20

S17

S23

S13

S10

S15

S9

S8

S11

1 0.111 0.136 0.066 0.148 0.013 0.091 0.053 0.146 0.118 0.104 0.026

S3

S2

S6

RS4

S1

S5

I12

I15

I13

RI14

I9

Online shopping S3 S2 S6 RS4 S1 S5 I12 I15 I13 RI14

Social Orientation I9

S19

S18

S20

S17

S23

S13

S10

S15

S9

S8

S11 1 0.681 0.578 0.604 0.434 0.434 0.008 0.053 0.049 0.056 0.012 0.091 0.031 0.160 0.069 0.006 0.078 0.002 0.051 0.006 0.022 0.080 0.037 0.039 0.222 0.036 0.440 0.461 0.262 0.251 0.036 0.162 0.081 0.094 0.146 0.478 0.417 0.346 1 1 0.024 0.024 0.048 0.033 0.020 1 0.524 0.459 0.444 0.288 1 0.418 0.435 0.226 1 0.271 0.173 1 0.155 1 0.572 0.412 1 0.487 1 1

S3

S2

S6

RS4

S1

S5

I12

I15

I13

RI14

I9

73

74

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

TABLE 3. ANOVA and Discriminant Analyses: Online Shopping Orientation and Determinants
Online Shoppers Mean OUTSHOP ENJOY SOCIAL 2.5644 3.4785 2.3636 SD 0.7336 1.1188 0.7082 NonShoppers Mean 2.8499 3.2165 2.3871 SD 0.8185 0.9935 0.7259 ANOVA F Stat 10.434 4.579 0.081 Significance 0.001 0.033 0.776 Canonical Discriminant Function Coeffs. 0.857 0.582 0.106

Discriminant Analysis Results

Boxs M = 14.459 Wilks Lambda = 0.946 Hit Ratio = 58.3 %

F = 2.384 p-value = 0.001

p-value = 0.026

Scale anchor: 1 = Strongly Disagree

5 = Strongly Agree

Higher the score the less Outshopping orientation Higher the score the more Shopping enjoyment Higher the score the less Social orientation

TABLE 4. ANOVA: Online Shopping Orientation and Gender

Construct Mean SONLINE SOUTSHOP SENJOY SSOCIAL 3.3083 2.776 2.8436 2.4007 Male Std. Dev 0.881 0.7552 0.9787 0.6842 Mean 3.1094 2.6269 3.8229 2.3566 Female Std. Dev. 0.895 0.7903 0.9274 0.7631 F Stat 3.817 2.819 80.503 0.277 Sig. 0.052 0.094 0.000 0.599

Higher the score the more online shopping orientation Higher the score the less Outshopping orientation Higher the score the more Shopping enjoyment Higher the score the less Social orientation

TABLE 5. Regression Analyses: Gender and Online Shopping Orientation

TOTAL Std Beta Coeff. SOUTSHOP SENJOY SSOCIAL R Adjusted R Square 0.218 0.183 0.071 0.257 0.066 t stat p-value Std Beta Coeff. .234 0.218 0.134 0.314 0.099 MALE t stat p-value Std Beta Coeff. 0.305 0.061 0.355 0.216 FEMALE t stat p-value

3.419 3.279 1.266

0.001 0.001 0.206

2.185 2.633 1.637

0.006 0.009 0.104

0.912 2.554 4.032 0.789

0.012 0.000 0.431

Dependent variable : Online Shopping orientation

scores of the three factors (in-shopping, shopping enjoyment and social orientation) as independent variables and online shopping orientation as the dependent variable. Regression analysis was performed for each gender separately and then for both genders together. The individual re-

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

75

gression analysis shows that outshopping orientation and shopping enjoyment influence the preference for shopping online in the case of both genders. However, social orientation does not influence significantly the preference for shopping online in the case of both the genders. DISCUSSION The findings of this study presents a hitherto unthought of distinction between people who prefer online shopping and those who do not. We find that outshoppers propensity to shop online is higher compared to that of in-shoppers, which is not surprising considering outshoppers dislike for local shops, and love for innovation. An interesting finding was with respect to shopping enjoyment. We found that online shoppers enjoy shopping more than non-shoppers. This is noteworthy considering the fact that avenues of enjoyment associated with traditional shopping(such as meeting people, socialization, examining products and bargaining) are limited with respect to online shopping. However, the facilities for browsing, gathering information and comparing offerings which are immense in the case of online shopping could be driving shopping enjoyment in the case of online shopping We speculate that the online shoppers are more pure shoppers who are focused on the process of shopping, the merchandise and hassle free purchasing rather than the fringe enjoyments such as meeting people and so on. Our finding about the social orientation of online shoppers refutes earlier findings (Wolfinbarger and Gilly, 2001), as well as the commonly held notion that online shoppers are likely to be less socially oriented. Moreover, we found that the social orientation of the shoppers did not have any influence on the choice of online shopping mode. Hence, we conclude that outshopping orientation and shopping enjoyment are the likely antecedents to online shopping preference. The hypothesis that preference for online shopping lies more with men was supported by our study. However, enjoyment derived from shopping was greater among women. Even though outshopping orientation was found to have significant influence on the preference to shop online, there was no significant difference between the genders on this aspect.

76

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS The most interesting implication of this study is that it challenges the commonly held notions about online shoppers such as their social orientation and the enjoyment derived from shopping. The finding that online shoppers enjoy shopping more than their counter-parts gives an opportunity to marketers to attract more traffic to their sites by making the customers stay in their online store more enjoyable. Providing more information about products and services so as to satisfy the information needs of the recreational shopper is an important feature that the online retailer should incorporate in their website. Ability to compare prices and features with competing products without having to leave the retailers site would also go a long way to attract recreational shoppers to the shop. Further, increasing the product options available to the customer, enabling easy browsing and offering the opportunity to feel the product (like showing three dimensional pictures of cars where they can click open the doors and examine the interior) could be used as strategies for enhancing shopping enjoyment. We believe that since online shoppers are more pure shoppers, their shopping experience and enjoyment can be enhanced by providing real time assistance by way of applications such as live chat. The fact that men are the predominant online shoppers gives marketers an option for segmenting the online market based on gender. However, the finding that women are more outshopping oriented and that they derive more shopping enjoyment have an important implication for marketers of frequently outshopped articles such as clothing, jewelry and shoes (Darden et al., 1978). This indicates that there exists an available market for such products among female online shoppers. The finding that outshoppers are more likely to be online shoppers also indicates that there is a market online for products that are not easily available in the local store. Providing large variety of products to choose from, which is U.S.ually not possible in a local store, would make online shops appealing to the outshopping instincts of the customer. Innovative products could prove to be another key to success of online retail outlets. It may also be possible to successfully employ strategies used to segment, target and attract outshoppers in attracting online shoppers. Although we have pointed out several advantages and benefits associated with this study, it is not without limitations. One of the key limitations of this study is that the sample is constituted only of students, even though as mentioned before, they were consciously chosen because of

Rajasree K. Rajamma and Concha Ramsey Neeley

77

their importance in future markets. There could be marked difference in many variables with increase in income and age. Hence, the results may not be truly representational of the entire population. Future research should explore the variations in online shopping behavior with changes in demographic and psychographic variables. Another limitation is that, this study has relied heavily on the traditional shopping literature which reflects the social conditions and attitudes of the 1970s and 80s. Even though the findings of majority of the traditional studies may still be relevant, some of the findings may have changed over time due to changes in the society. REFERENCES
Alreck, Pamela and Robert B. Settle (2002). Gender Effects on Internet, Catalogue and Store Shopping, Journal of Database Marketing, 9(2), (2002):150-162. Babin, Barry J., William R.Darden and Mitch Griffin. Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Values, Journal of Consumer Research, 20(March), (1994): 644-656. Balabanis, George and Stefano Vassileiou. Some Attitudinal Predictors of Homeshopping through the Internet, Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (1999): 361-385. Bellenger, Danny N. and Pradeep K.Korgaonkar. Profiling the Recreational Shopper, Journal of Retailing, 56(3), (1980): 77-92. Berkowitz, Eric N., John R. Walton and Orville C. Walker, Jr. In-Home Shoppers: The Market for Innovative Distribution Systems, Journal of Retailing, 55(2), (1979): 15-33. Briones, Maricris G. On-line Retailers Seek Ways to Close Shopping Gender Gap, Marketing News, 32(19), (1998). Childers, Terry L.; Christopher L. Carr, Joann Peck and Stephen Carson. Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online shopping behavior, Journal of Retailing, 77 (2001), 511-535. Cimino, Ken , Reports Paint Profile of an Internet Shopper, www.ecommercetimes. com, (July 13, 2001). Darden, William R .and John J. Lennon and Donna K. Darden. Communicating with Interurban Shoppers, Journal of Retailing, 54(1), (1978): 51- 64. Darden, William R. and Perreault, W.D. Identifying Interurban Shoppers: Multipurpose Purchase Patterns and Segmentation Profiles, Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (1976): 51-60. Darian, Jean C. In-Home Shopping: Are there Consumer Segments? Journal of Retailing, 63(2), (1987): 163-186. Fram, E.H and Axelrod, J. The distressed Shopper, American Demographics, 12(October), (1990): 44-45. Gillett, Peter L. A Profile of Urban Shoppers, Journal of Marketing, 34(July), (1970), 40-45.

78

JOURNAL OF INTERNET COMMERCE

Growing Internet usage is Generating Revenue and Changing Consumer Behavior (2000) Jupiter Research as published in the industry Standard (12/25/2000), www. Smartpages.com. Herrman, Robert O. and Leland L. Beik. Shoppers Movements Outside their Local Retail Area, Journal of Marketing, 32 (October), (1963): 45-51. Hosier, George C., Jr. and Donald E. Stem, Jr. General Retail Patronage Loyalty as a Determinant of Consumer Outshopping Behavior, JAMS, 3 (Winter), (1985): 32-46. Internet Commerce Study Reveals Demographics, Shopping Trends, Discount Store News, 39(14). Jarratt, Denise G. and Michael J.Polonsky. Causal Linkages between Psychographic and Demographic Determinants of Outshopping Behaviour, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 3(3), (1993): 303-319. Koufaris, Marios, Ajit Kambil, Priscilla Ann LaBarbera. Consumer Behavior in WebBased Commerce: An Empirical Study, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6(2), (2001-2002): 115-138. Lunt, P.K. and Livingtone, S.M , Mass Consumption and Personal Identity, Open University Press, Buckingham. 1992. OGuinn, Thomas C. and Ronald J. Faber. Compulsive Buying: A Phenomenological Exploration, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(September), (1989):147-157. Otnes, Cele and Mary Anna McGrath (2001). Perceptions and realities of male shopping behavior, Journal of Retailing, 77 (2001): 111-137. Papadopoulos, N.G. Consumer Outshopping Research: Review and Extension, Journal of Retailing, 56(4), (1980): 41-58. Pastore, Michael. U S E-Commerce Spikes in Q4 2001, www.cyberatlas.com (2001). Paul, Pamela. Getting Inside Gen Y, American Demographics, (September 2001): 43-49. Reynolds, Fred D. and William R. Darden . Intermarket Patronage: A Psychographic Study of Consumer Outshoppers, Journal of Marketing, (October, 1972): 50-54. Reynolds, Fred D. and William R. Darden. Mutually Adaptive Effects of Interpersonal Communication, Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (November), (1971): 449-454. Samli, A. Coskun and Ernest B. Uhr. The Outshopping Spectrum: Key for Analyzing Intermarket Leakages, Journal of Retailing, 50 (Summer), (1974): 72-105. Sheth, Jagdish N. An Integrative Theory of Patronage Preference and Behavior, In Darden, William R. and Robert F. Lusch (Ed.), Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc, NY, Amsterdam, Oxford. (1983). Shim, Soyeon; Mary Ann Eastlick and Sherry Lotz . Assessing the impact of Internet Shopping on Store Shopping among Mall Shoppers and Internet users, Journal of Shopping CenterResearch,(2000): 7-43. South, Scott J. and Glenna Spitze. Housework in marital and non-marital households, American Sociological Review, 59(June), (1994): 327-347. Thompson, John R. Characteristics and Behavior of Out-Shopping Consumers, Journal of Retailing, 47(1), (1971): 70-80. Wolfingbarger, Mary and Mary C.Gilly. Shopping Online for Freedom, Control and Fun, California Management Review, 43(2), (2001): 34-55.