Experimental analysis of consumer

stimulation and motivational states in

shopping experiences

Gianluigi GuidoUniversity of Salento, and LUISS University of Rome, ItalyMauro CapestroUniversity of Salento, ItalyAlessandro M. PelusoUniversity of Salento, Italy

The present research investigates the roles of both the individual reaction toenvironmental stimuli and personality characteristics in consumers’ pursuit ofhedonic and/or utilitarian shopping values. The individual reaction toenvironmental stimuli is operationalised by two closely related measures: theoptimal stimulation level (OSL), concerning the level of external stimulation withwhich an individual feels comfortable, and the arousability, concerning the ratewith which the internal stimulation (i.e. the arousal) level of an individual changesin response to a sudden increase (or decrease) in the environmental stimulation.Results from an experimental study showed, first, that these two constructs (OSLand arousability) are positively correlated with those personality traits (i.e.Agreeableness and Openness to Experience, according to the Big Five-Factormode (see Digman 1990)) mostly associated with the hedonic shopping value.Second, drawing on Reversal Theory (see Apter 1989), results showed that paratelicindividuals (i.e. those who are interested in the shopping activity itself) havehigher OSL and arousability than telic individuals (those who are interested inshopping outcomes, such as the purchase of specific products). These motivationalstates, in turn, are differently related to the two shopping values (i.e. hedonic vsutilitarian). Theoretical and practical implications for marketing are discussed.

Introduction

In past decades, much research attention has been devoted to the so-calledhedonic consumption, typically focused on emotional and/or multi-sensorial

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

© 2007 The Market Research Society 365

Received (in revised form): 28 September 2006

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 365

aspects of shopping activities (e.g. shopping for fun), as opposed to theutilitarian consumption, typically focused on functional aspects ofshopping activities (e.g. shopping for specific needs). According to pastresearch (see Addis 2005, for a review), consumers’ tendency to engage ina hedonic (or utilitarian) shopping behaviour relies not only on products’characteristics (Addis & Holbrook 2001) and/or shopping contexts(Grappi 2004), but also on their own individual characteristics (Guido2006a,b). The present research tried to shed additional light on the rolesof individual characteristics – namely, the individual tendency to react toenvironmental stimuli, personality traits and motivational states – inconsumers’ pursuit of hedonic and/or utilitarian values in their shoppingexperiences.

In the present research, the individual reaction to environmental stimuliwas operationalised by two constructs extensively investigated in the fieldof environmental psychology: the optimal stimulation level (OSL),concerning the level of external stimulation that an individual desires; andthe arousability construct, concerning the rate with which the internalstimulation of an individual changes in response to a sudden increase (ordecrease) in the external stimulation. Moreover, personality traits wereidentified according to the Big Five-Factor model (see Digman 1990),according to which human personality may be appropriately describedby five main dimensions: Agreeableness, Openness to Experience,Conscientiousness, Extroversion/Introversion, and Emotional Stability/Neuroticism. Finally, motivational states were identified following theReversal Theory (Apter 1989), according to which individuals may be ineither a telic state, whenever they perform goal-orientated behaviours, ora paratelic one, whenever they get pleasure from their behaviour in itself.

In the next section, the constructs of OSL and arousability, hedonic andutilitarian shopping values, shopping motives, and their association withpersonality traits will be reviewed and five different hypotheses will bedeveloped; in the section that follows that, the Reversal Theory (Apter1989) and the related motivational states will be described and a furtherhypothesis will be formulated. Next, the research methodology will bedescribed; and, after that, results obtained from statistical analyses will bereported. Finally, theoretical and managerial implications will be discussed.

Levels of individual stimulation and shopping values

Human beings continuously interact with the environment wherein theylive, and the study of this interaction is of interest for those marketing

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

366

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 366

experts involved in designing shopping environments (e.g. storeatmospherics). Traditionally, the relationship between individuals andtheir external context has been explained by two constructs: their optimalstimulation level (OSL) (Mehrabian & Russell 1974; Raju 1980; Wahlers& Etzel 1990; Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1992) and their arousability(Mehrabian 1977a,b, 1978 1995a,b). Even though apparently similar,because both deal with individuals’ reactions to environmental stimuli,OSL and arousability are different constructs. More precisely, OSL refersto the level of external stimulation with which an individual feelscomfortable in his/her own environment. According to Raju (1980), whenthe environmental stimulation is below the optimal level for an individual,he/she will attempt to increase his/her stimulation through the search forcomplex and novel stimuli; conversely, when the environmentalstimulation is above his/her optimal level, he/she will engage in behavioursthat will reduce it. Thus, every individual is characterised by his/her ownOSL: the higher this OSL, the greater the environmental stimulationsought to get that optimal level will be. Arousability, on the other hand,concerns individual arousal fluctuations in response to a sudden increasein the environmental stimulation, given that the individual arousal variesgreatly in the normal course of daily events (Mehrabian 1995b). In otherwords, this construct refers to the rate with which the internal stimulationlevel (i.e. the arousal) of an individual changes in response to a suddenincrease (or decrease) in environmental stimulation. An individual with ahigh level of arousability tends to respond to a sudden increase inenvironmental stimulation with a marked increase in his/her level ofarousal, followed by a gradual decline to his/her baseline level; conversely,an individual with a low level of arousability tends to respond to the samesudden increase in the environmental stimulation with a less pronouncedincrease in his/her level of arousal, followed by a more rapid decline tohis/her baseline (Mehrabian 1977b).

In the field of consumer behaviour, several authors (Raju 1980;McAlister & Pessemier 1982; Steenkamp & Baumgartner 1992;Zuckerman 1994; Steenkamp & Burgess 2002) found that consumers witha higher OSL are more interested in products, services and activitiesinvolving risks, adventures, new experiences, physical activity and multi-sensory stimulation, which are all aspects peculiar to hedonic consumption(see Addis & Holbrook 2001). Wahlers et al. (1986) found a positivecorrelation between arousability and the explorative shopping behaviour,and explained this finding maintaining that shopping is generally apleasant activity in itself, independently of its outcome (e.g. actual

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

367

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 367

purchase). Thus, consumers with higher levels of arousability showstronger preferences for such pleasant activities (e.g. shopping), whichprovide them with intense internal stimulations.

In the light of these findings, the first objective of this research was toconfirm the existence of a positive correlation between OSL and con-sumers’ arousability (Mehrabian 1996a). Thus, the following hypothesiswas formulated:

H1: OSL is positively correlated with arousability.

In order to shed additional light on the possible relationship betweenconsumers’ tendency to react to environmental stimulations according totheir OSL and arousability, on the one hand, and their shopping goals, onthe other, it seems of theoretical interest to seek to relate both OSL andarousability to the (hedonic vs utilitarian) values consumers pursue whenthey go shopping. In the consumer behaviour literature, a stream ofresearch identifies in hedonic and/or utilitarian values the final aims ofshopping activities. Hedonic shopping behaviour is characterised by themulti-sensory and emotional experiences that consumers have during theirshopping activities, independently of the actual purchase of products (e.g.shopping for fun; see, for example, Hirschman & Holbrook 1982).Utilitarian shopping behaviour is characterised by rational purchases,based on their instrumental and functional properties. In this case,products are bought in order to solve a specific problem (e.g. shopping forneeds; see, for example, Lussier & Olshavsky 1979). In other words,whereas hedonic shopping behaviour is ludic, aesthetic, epicurean andrelated to the pleasure of shopping itself, utilitarian shopping behaviour isfunctional, task-related and rational (Babin et al. 1994). As such,consumers in search of hedonic values, getting pleasure from the shoppingactivity in itself, are likely to be characterised by higher OSL andarousability; conversely, consumers in search of utilitarian values, merelyengaged in planned purchases, without interest in complex and novelstimuli, are likely to show levels of optimal stimulation and arousabilitythat could be either high or low. Thus, the second objective of this researchwas to verify whether both OSL and arousability are positively correlatedwith the hedonic shopping value. As a corollary, it was hypothesised thatboth OSL and arousability are not correlated with the utilitarian shoppingvalue, which is based purely on cognition. Therefore, the followinghypotheses were formulated:

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

368

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 368

H2a: OSL is positively correlated with the hedonic shoppingvalue.

H2b: Arousability is positively correlated with the hedonicshopping value.

H3a: OSL is not correlated with the utilitarian shopping value.H3b: Arousability is not correlated with the utilitarian shopping

value.

Although shopping experiences may be conceptually described in termsof two meta-dimensions, hedonic vs utilitarian values, shopping behaviouris characterised by motivational determinants (so-called ‘shoppingmotives’), defined as those internal factors that induce people to goshopping. In a seminal study, Tauber (1972) theoretically indicated thatshopping activities could be related to 11 main personal shopping motives,both psychological and social, which induce people to buy. Those 11enduring differences in shoppers (namely Diversion, Sensory stimulation,Self-gratification, Learning about new trends, Physical activity, Socialexperiences outside the home, Communication with others having similarinterests, Peer group attraction, Status and authority, Pleasure inbargaining, and Pleasure in bargains) were distinguished by the lesscontingent (i.e. less dependent on situations or tasks) motivationalpatterns. By using the Big Five-Factor model (see Digman 1990 for areview) – according to which human personality can be categorised by thefive main latent dimensions (the so-called ‘Big Five Factors’) ofAgreeableness (the orientation towards compassion and caring aboutothers), Openness to Experience (the tolerance of new ideas and new waysof doing things), Conscientiousness (the preference for goal-orientatedactivities), Extroversion/Introversion (the preference/or not for socialinteraction), and Emotional Stability/Neuroticism (the ability/or not tocope effectively with negative emotions) – Mooradian and Olver (1996)found a positive correlation between Tauber’s (1972) 11 shopping motivesand the Big Five Factors. Finally, Guido (2006a,b) empirically testedTauber’s (1972) model and found the dispersion of one shopping motive(i.e. Diversion); the collapse of two motives (i.e. Communication withothers having similar interest and Social experiences outside the home) inone dimension, which represents Communication in general; and theexistence of two new shopping motives, which were called Freedom tochoose and Enjoying being on one’s own. Moreover, the author showedthe existence of a hierarchical three-level structure, according to which the

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

369

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 369

11 shopping motives may be aggregated in five main components,associable with the Big Five Factors of human personality, and, throughthese latter, in two meta-dimensions (see Digman 1997), associable withthe many values pursued by people during shopping: a hedonic meta-dimension, linked to the Openness to Experience, the Agreeableness, andthe Extroversion factors; and a utilitarian meta-dimension, linked to theEmotional Stability and Conscientiousness factors.

Therefore, given also the direct correlation, hypothesised in H2ab,between OSL and arousability, on the one hand, and the hedonic shoppingvalue, on the other, another objective of the present research was to verifya positive relationship between OSL and arousability, on the one hand,and the Big Five Factors related to this shopping value, on the other. As acorollary, in the light of the statistical independence, hypothesised inH3ab, between OSL and arousability, on the one hand, and the utilitarianshopping value, on the other, it was hypothesised that both OSL andarousability were not related to the Big Five Factors linked to thisshopping value. Thus, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H4a: OSL is positively correlated with the Big Five Factorslinked to the hedonic shopping value.

H4b: Arousability is positively correlated with the Big FiveFactors linked to the hedonic shopping value.

H5a: OSL is not correlated with the Big Five Factors linked tothe utilitarian shopping value.

H5b: Arousability is not correlated with the Big Five Factorslinked to the utilitarian shopping value.

Dominant motivational state, stimulation levels and shoppingvalues

The importance of the environmental stimulation and of the hedonic tone,both influencing individuals’ emotional states and behaviours, wasstressed in Apter’s (1982, 1989, 1999) Reversal Theory. According to thismodel, the individual experience is ‘bi-stable’, rather than homeostatic –that is, it implies the existence of two points of equilibrium, rather thanone (like a switch that can be turned on or off). Therefore, in relation to astimulus, individuals (e.g. consumers) can be in one of two motivationalstates: either a telic state, when individuals perform behaviours in order toachieve specific goals (e.g. shopping to buy specific products), or a

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

370

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 370

paratelic state, when they get benefits from their behaviour in itself,without pursuing any specific objective. In other words, individuals in atelic state tend to perform goal-orientated activities, while individuals in aparatelic state are mostly interested in getting pleasure from the behaviourin itself. The key notion here is that each subject during his/her everydaylife – and even for very short periods – can frequently shift from onemotivational state to the other, without being in both states at the sametime. Thus, when people are in a telic state, achieving a goal becomes aprimary objective; on the contrary, when they are in a paratelic state, thiswill be only a secondary objective and the activity in itself will be theprimary goal. Indeed, the telic state is associated with a disposition toprefer accomplishment/relaxation, which is perceived positively (pleasant),to high levels of arousal, which, being a source of anxiety, are perceivednegatively (unpleasant). On the other hand, the paratelic state is associatedwith a disposition to prefer high levels of arousal – which, being a sourceof excitement, are perceived positively (pleasant) – to boredom, which isperceived negatively (unpleasant) (see Figure 1).

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

371

Figure 1 The relationship between hedonic tone and environmental stimulation level inReversal Theory

Source: Adapted from Apter (1989, p. 8)

RelaxedPleasant

Unpleasant

Excited

Paratelic state

Telic state

Stimulation level

Hed

onic

tone

HighLow

Bored Anxious

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 371

Therefore, due to their respective characteristics, the paratelic state leadsto playfulness and the telic state to seriousness (see Guido 2001;O’Shaughnessy & Guido 1996, for a review). According to Apter (1989),although they are alternative, mutually exclusive and instable over time,each state may be ‘dominant’ over the other one within an individualpersonality. The concept of dominance here refers to the relative amountof time that people spend in either one or the other motivational state.Thus, those individuals spending most of their waking time in a telic statemay be considered as telic dominant, while those spending most of theirwaking time in a paratelic state may be considered paratelic dominant. Inother words, individuals may be defined as telic or paratelic according tothe kind of dominance they are subject to (Apter 1989; Puntoni 1999).

Considering this theory in the light of the previously describedconstructs (OSL and arousability), it is possible to relate, at least con-ceptually, these contingent characteristics of human personality to those,more stable, ones characterising either hedonic or utilitarian shoppingbehaviour. Thus, the fourth and final objective of the present study was toverify whether the dominance of a specific (telic or paratelic) motivationalstate is associated with the individual’s OSL and arousability, as aconsequence of his/her sought (hedonic and/or utilitarian) shopping value.In particular, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H6a: Subjects dominated by a paratelic motivational state havea higher OSL than subjects dominated by a telicmotivational state.

H6b: Subjects dominated by a paratelic motivational state havea higher level of arousability than subjects dominated by atelic motivational state.

Methodology

In order to test the six research hypotheses, according to the ‘not-falsification’ principle, a main questionnaire was administered to a sampleof 240 subjects, undergraduate students of an Italian state university,31.7% male and 68.3% female, ranging in age from 19 to 28 years, allsingle and without children. A total of 35 subjects were excluded from thestudy for lack of collaboration. Of the remaining 205 subjects, 36.1%were male and 63.9% female. Extensively used scales in the fields of con-sumer behaviour and environmental psychology were adopted to assessquantitatively the constructs being investigated. Specifically, Mehrabian

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

372

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 372

and Russell’s (1974) Arousal Seeking Tendency Scale (AST-I version),consisting of 40 items measured on a seven-point Likert scale, was adoptedto assess OSL; Mehrabian’s (1994) Trait Arousability Scale (TAS-IIversion), consisting of 34 items measured on a seven-point Likert scale,was used to assess the level of arousability; Guido and Pellegrino’s (2003)Shopping Motives Scale, consisting of 62 items measured on a seven-pointLikert scale, was adopted to assess the 12 shopping motives (thetraditional 11 motives plus one, relative to external reasons) and the two(hedonic and utilitarian) shopping values; a modified version of the TelicState Measure (TSM) developed by Puntoni (1999), consisting of only twoitems based on a seven-point semantic differential scale, was used to assessthe individual dominance of a motivational state (telic or paratelic). Thesescales were extensively validated and tested in some recent field studies(Guido & Pellegrino 2003; Guido 2006a,b; Guido et al. 2007) carried outon large samples of shoppers at different Italian shopping malls. Finally,participants were asked socio-economic questions (i.e. age and disposableincome), but no significant effect of these variables on environmentalstimulation and shopping values was found.

Results

Correlation measures were used to test Hypothesis H1, predicting apositive relationship between OSL and arousability. Results supported thisprediction, showing a positive linear correlation between the twoconstructs (r = 0.784, p < 0.001), thus confirming Mehrabian’s (1996b)findings. OSL and arousability showed up as two similar constructs, atleast at statistical level, and no significant difference could be found amongitems of the two scales (AST and TAS).

Following Mooradian and Olver’s (1996) procedure, three differentfactor analyses, using the principal component method and Varimaxrotation, were carried out to test the eleven-factor, five-factor, and two-factor solutions, verifying the existence, respectively, of Tauber’s (1972) 11shopping motives, the Big Five Factors of human personality, and the twometa-dimensions (hedonic vs utilitarian), as hypothesised in H2ab–H5ab.

Tables 1–3 illustrate items that, showing the highest factor loadings oneach dimension, were taken into consideration to decline componentsextracted from each of the three analyses (i.e. the white backgroundindicates the hedonic meta-dimension and the grey background theutilitarian meta-dimension). Components were named after Tauber’s(1972) taxonomy. As hypothesised by Guido (2006a,b), results confirmed

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

373

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 373

the existence of two new shopping motives (X: Freedom to choose, and Y:Enjoying being on one’s own) and the collapse of Factors G and F(Communication with others having similar interest and Social experiencesoutside the home, respectively) into one dimension representingCommunication in general (G/F) (see Table 1).

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

374

Table 1 Main factor loadings in the eleven-factor solution

Factor 1: H/A. Peer group attraction and diversion Coeff.

H2. I enjoy ‘hanging out’ with friends at the mall 0.730

A1. Shopping is a good excuse to get out of the house 0.703

H3. Shopping is a good way to spend time with friends 0.685

H1. I like to shop with my friends 0.682

A4. Sometimes I go shopping just to kill time 0.642

A2. Shopping is a hassle –0.621

Factor 2: D. Learning about new trends Coeff.

B1. I enjoy looking at store displays 0.865

D2. I often browse just to keep up with new products on the market 0.862

B2. I enjoy the hustle and bustle of stores and shopping malls 0.849

D4. I like to visit new stores to see what they have to offer 0.830

D5. I enjoy window shopping and browsing through stores 0.784

Factor 3: B. Sensory stimulation Coeff.

B4. At the shopping mall you can find anything 0.885

M6. You can save money by shopping in malls 0.863

D1. Shopping is how I find out what’s new 0.801

B3. Stores and shopping malls are exciting places to visit 0.788

Factor 3: M. Pleasure in bargains Coeff.

M2. I’m always looking for sales 0.806

M3. I love to hunt for bargains 0.794

M4. I constantly have my eyes open for good deals 0.778

Factor 4: E. Physical activity Coeff.

E2. Sometimes I go to the mall just to stretch out and walk 0.836

E1. Sometimes I shop just to get some exercise 0.802

E3. Shopping gets me up and doing something physically active 0.796

Factor 5: G/F. Communications and social experiences Coeff.

F4. I like meeting people while shopping 0.537

G2. I enjoy talking with other customers and salespeople 0.445

F3. Shopping is an opportunity for social interaction 0.438

F2. Sometimes I shop just to be around other people 0.425

G4. I can talk with salespeople who advise me 0.382

G1. I enjoy talking to other shoppers 0.306

(continued)

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 374

The five-factor solution showed that items regarding Peer group attrac-tion (H), Social experiences outside the home (F), and Physical activity (E)were mainly saturated on the Agreeableness component. Items regardingFreedom to choose (X), Pleasure in bargains (M), and Pleasure in bargain-ing (L) were mainly saturated on the Conscientiousness and EmotionalStability components. Items regarding Status and authority (I), and Enjoy-ing being on one’s own (Y) were mainly saturated on the Introversioncomponent, which can be considered as the opposite of the Extroversionone (e.g. Digman 1990). Finally, items regarding Self-gratification (C) andCommunication with others having similar interest (G) were mainlysaturated on the Openness to Experience component (see Table 2).

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

375

Table 1 Main factor loadings in the eleven-factor solution (continued)

Factor 7: L. Pleasure in bargaining Coeff.

L3. When I think I can bargain, I offer a lower price 0.693

L1. I like to talk with salespeople 0.673

A5. You don’t have to buy anything to have fun shopping –0.375

A6. I only shop when I have to buy something 0.295

L2. I hate to negotiate over prices –0.286

Factor 8: X. Freedom to choose Coeff.

X1. It’s important to me to be a smart shopper 0.757

X4. I am able to take a look around 0.726

X2. I wish salespeople would just leave me alone 0.684

Factor 9: Y. Enjoying being on one’s own Coeff.

Y1. There is no pressure to buy 0.771

Y3. I enjoy anonymity 0.713

Y2. I can mind my business 0.699

C1. I rarely buy things just as a special treat 0.360

F1. Store crowds get on my nerves 0.216

Factor 10: I. Status and authority Coeff.

I1. It’s fun to be waited on in stores 0.521

I2. I enjoy the personal attention I get at better stores 0.478

I3. I like being ‘pampered’ by attentive salespeople 0.360

Factor 11: C. Self-gratification Coeff.

F5. I do not suffer from loneliness 0.774

C3. I often buy something I don’t really need to lift my spirits 0.475

C2. Sometimes I go shopping just to pamper myself 0.426

C4. It’s especially fun to buy ‘impulse’ items 0.425

Note: Principal component method and Varimax rotation. A white background indicates the hedonic

meta-dimension, a grey background the utilitarian meta-dimension.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 375

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

376

Table 2 Main factor loadings in the five-factor solution

Factor 1: Agreeableness Coeff.

D4. I like to visit new stores to see what they have to offer 0.874

H1. I like to shop with my friends 0.866

H2. I enjoy ‘hanging out’ with friends at the mall 0.862

F2. Sometimes I shop just to be around other people 0.858

E3. Shopping gets me up and doing something physically active 0.848

E1. Sometimes I shop just to get some exercise 0.839

H3. Shopping is a good way to spend time with friends 0.832

F3. Shopping is an opportunity for social interaction 0.828

E2. Sometimes I go to the mall just to stretch out and walk 0.825

Factor 2: Conscientiousness Coeff.

X2. I wish salespeople would just leave me alone 0.891

L3. When I think I can bargain, I offer a lower price 0.861

X3. I wish salespeople were more attentive and respectful 0.854

M4. I constantly have my eyes open for good deals 0.803

M3. I love to hunt for bargains 0.759

Factor 3: Emotional stability Coeff.

X1. It’s important to me to be a smart shopper 0.819

M2. I’m always looking for sales 0.703

L1. I like to talk with salespeople 0.678

X4. I am able to take a look around 0.657

M6. You can save money by shopping in malls 0.604

Factor 4: Introversion Coeff.

I2. I enjoy the personal attention I get at better stores 0.618

Y1. There is no pressure to buy 0.594

I3. I like being ‘pampered’ by attentive salespeople 0.583

Y3. I enjoy anonymity 0.566

I1. It’s fun to be waited on in stores 0.453

Y2. I can mind my business 0.395

Factor 5: Openness to experience Coeff.

F5. I do not suffer from loneliness 0.618

C3. I often buy something I don’t really need to lift my spirits 0.583

C2. Sometimes I go shopping just to pamper myself 0.453

C4. It’s especially fun to buy ‘impulse’ items 0.405

G2. I enjoy talking with other customers and salespeople 0.383

G4. I can talk with salespeople who advise me 0.351

G1. I enjoy talking to other shoppers 0.320

Note: Principal component method and Varimax rotation. A white background indicates the hedonic

meta-dimension, a grey background the utilitarian meta-dimension.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 376

The two-factor solution showed that items regarding Learning aboutnew trends (D), Peer group attraction (H), Social experiences outside thehome (F), Physical activity (E), Sensory stimulation (B) and Self-gratification (C) were mainly saturated on the hedonic meta-dimension;while items regarding Freedom to choose (X), Pleasure in bargaining (L),Pleasure in bargains (M), Enjoying being on one’s own (Y) and Status andauthority (I) were mainly saturated on the utilitarian meta-dimension (seeTable 3).

Following Mooradian and Olver’s (1996) methodology, two correlationanalyses were carried out, respectively, between the eleven-factor and thefive-factor solutions (see Table 4), and between the five-factor and the two-factor solutions (see Table 5). Results confirmed that individual differencesin shopping motives – as indicated by Guido (2006a,b) – are related to the

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

377

Table 3 Main factor loadings in the two-factor solution

Factor 1: Hedonic Coeff.

D4. I like to visit new stores to see what they have to offer 0.875

H1. I like to shop with my friends 0.863

H2. I enjoy ‘hanging out’ with friends at the mall 0.859

F2. Sometimes I shop just to be around other people 0.848

E3. Shopping gets me up and doing something physically active 0.840

E1. Sometimes I shop just to get some exercise 0.840

H3. Shopping is a good way to spend time with friends 0.832

E2. Sometimes I go to the mall just to stretch out and walk 0.830

F3. Shopping is an opportunity for social interaction 0.825

B1. I enjoy looking at store displays 0.818

D2. I often browse just to keep up with new products on the market 0.812

C4. It’s especially fun to buy ‘impulse’ items 0.804

Factor 2: Utilitarian Coeff.

X2. I wish salespeople would just leave me alone 0.890

X3. I wish salespeople were more attentive and respectful 0.825

L3. When I think I can bargain, I offer a lower price 0.799

M4. I constantly have my eyes open for good deals 0.740

M3. I love to hunt for bargains 0.704

X1. It’s important to me to be a smart shopper 0.507

X4. I am able to take a look around 0.495

M6. You can save money by shopping in malls 0.467

Y1. There is no pressure to buy 0.439

Y3. I enjoy anonymity 0.426

Y2. I can mind my business 0.401

I2. I enjoy the personal attention I get at better stores 0.398

Note: Principal component method and Varimax rotation. A white background indicates the hedonic

meta-dimension, a grey background the utilitarian meta-dimension.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 377

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

378

Ta

ble

4P

ea

rso

n’s

co

rre

lati

on

s b

etw

ee

n s

ho

pp

ing

mo

tiv

es

an

d t

he

Big

Fiv

e F

act

ors

Big

Fiv

e F

act

or

Op

en

ne

ss

Sh

op

pin

g m

oti

ve

Ag

ree

ab

len

ess

Co

nsc

ien

tio

usn

ess

Em

oti

on

al

sta

bil

ity

Intr

ov

ers

ion

to e

xpe

rie

nce

H/A

. Pee

r g

rou

p a

ttra

ctio

n a

nd

div

ersi

on

0.7

83

***

0.0

49

–0

.16

9**

0.0

71

0.5

62

***

D. L

earn

ing

ab

ou

t n

ew t

ren

ds

0.7

68

***

–0

.01

2–

0.0

03

–0

.03

10

.41

2**

*

B. S

enso

ry s

tim

ula

tio

n0

.73

0**

*–

0.0

68

0.0

00

–0

.02

70

.38

5**

*

M. P

lea

sure

in b

arg

ain

s0

.03

40

.30

0**

*0

.02

40

.01

40

.00

8

E. P

hys

ica

l act

ivit

y0

.70

1**

*0

.00

60

.02

3–

0.1

71

**0

.39

2**

*

G/F

. Co

mm

un

ica

tio

ns

an

d s

oci

al e

xper

ien

ces

0.6

41

***

–0

.05

80

.13

6*

–0

.08

10

.31

2**

*

L. P

lea

sure

in b

arg

ain

ing

0.1

93

0.3

02

**0

.20

4**

–0

.14

4*

0.0

32

X. F

reed

om

to

ch

oo

se0

.01

00

.54

4**

*0

.70

4**

*0

.23

9*

0.0

81

Y. E

njo

yin

g b

ein

g o

n o

ne’

s o

wn

0.0

11

–0

.08

80

.02

30

.71

1**

*–

0.2

27

**

I. St

atu

s a

nd

au

tho

rity

0.0

17

0.4

47

***

0.1

18

*0

.47

8**

*0

.04

0

C. S

elf-

gra

tifi

cati

on

0.5

68

***

–0

.05

00

.13

8*

–0

.20

2**

0.3

55

***

No

te: *

= p

< 0

.05

; **

= p

< 0

.01

; ***

= p

< 0

.00

1. A

wh

ite

ba

ckg

rou

nd

in

dic

ate

s th

e h

ed

on

ic m

eta

-dim

en

sio

n, a

gre

y b

ack

gro

un

d t

he

uti

lita

ria

n m

eta

-dim

en

sio

n.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 378

Big Five Factors of personality and these latter, in turn, to the two mainvalues (hedonic and/or utilitarian) pursued by consumers during theirshopping experiences, with one exception: although the Agreeableness andthe Openness to Experience traits were positively related to the hedonicmeta-dimension, and the Conscientiousness and the Emotional Stabilitytraits to the utilitarian one, as found by Guido (2006a,b), the Introversiontrait – which represents the other extreme of the same dimension (i.e.Extroversion/Introversion) – was related to the utilitarian meta-dimension,rather than to the hedonic one. This finding is quite interesting as it showsthat, when individuals are introverted, their shopping behaviours tend tobe utilitarian; whereas, when the same enduring trait of personality isdirected towards extroversion, their shopping behaviours tend to behedonic.

A correlation analysis was carried out to confirm Hypotheses H2ab andH3ab, relative to the second objective, concerning the positive correlationbetween OSL and arousability, on the one hand, and the hedonic shoppinggoal, on the other, and H4ab and H5ab, relative to the third objective ofthis study, concerning the association between OSL and arousability, onthe one hand, and the personality traits underlying the hedonic shoppinggoal, on the other. Results, reported in Table 6, showed that OSL andarousability are positively related to the hedonic meta-dimension andunrelated to the utilitarian one. Hypotheses H2ab and H3ab were, there-fore, fully supported. Consumers seeking emotional and ludic experienceswhen shopping showed a higher OSL, because of their naturally higherarousal-seeking tendency: there was a positive correlation among theirOSL, arousability and the hedonic shopping goal. Instead, the utilitarianmeta-dimension showed no relationship with both OSL and arousability.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

379

Table 5 Pearson’s correlations between shopping meta-dimensions and the Big Five Factors

Shopping meta-dimension

Big Five Factor Hedonic Utilitarian

Agreeableness 0.966*** 0.148*

Conscientiousness –0.030 0.399***

Emotional stability –0.046 0.681***

Introversion –0.140* 0.432***

Openness to experience 0.591** –0.039

Note: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001. A white background indicates the hedonic meta-

dimension, a grey background the utilitarian meta-dimension.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 379

Hypotheses H4ab and H5ab were also supported. Results, reported inTable 7, showed a positive correlation between OSL and arousability, onthe one hand, and the Agreeableness and the Openness to Experiencefactors (mostly related to the hedonic meta-dimension), on the other.These personality traits are peculiar to individuals seeking fun andexcitement in their shopping experiences. Moreover, as hypothesised inH5ab, a non-significant (p > 0.05) correlation was found between OSLand arousability, on the one hand, and the Conscientiousness and theEmotional Stability factors (mostly related to the utilitarian shoppingmeta-dimension), on the other. As for the Introversion factor, whichemerged in this sample with a positive correlation with the utilitarianmeta-dimension, it was found to be negatively correlated with both OSL(r = –0.249, p < 0.001) and arousability (r = –0.248, p = 0.017), thussuggesting that, when the Extroversion/Introversion factor is saturated onthe Introversion extreme, it can also have an impact on the hedonic meta-dimension (as demonstrated by Guido 2006a,b).

An independent sample t-test was carried out to support HypothesisH6ab regarding OSL and arousability in telic vs paratelic subjects.Respondents with a final score on the TSM scale higher than the average

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

380

Table 6 Pearson’s correlations between OSL, arousability, and shopping meta-dimensions

Shopping meta-dimension

Construct Hedonic Utilitarian

OSL 0.898* 0.077

Arousability 0.784* 0.031

Note: * = p < 0.001.

Table 7 Pearson’s correlations between OSL, arousability, and the Big Five Factors

Construct

Big Five Factor OSL Arousability

Agreeableness 0.847** 0.633**

Conscientiousness 0.116 0.100

Emotional stability 0.081 0.116

Introversion –0.249** –0.248*

Openness to experience 0.611** 0.521**

Note: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01. A white background indicates the hedonic meta-dimension, a grey

background the utilitarian meta-dimension.

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 380

were considered as telic, while respondents with a final score lower thanthe average were considered as paratelic. Thus, the sample was split intotwo sub-samples: a telic one consisting of 100 subjects (48.8%), and aparatelic one consisting of 105 subjects (51.2%). Results supported H6ab:paratelic individuals have an OSL and an average level of arousabilitysignificantly higher than those of telic ones (OSL: M = 4.71 vs 4.01, t =9.67, p < 0.001; arousability: M = 5.01 vs 4.40, t = 6.88, p < 0.001).

Since both OSL and arousability were correlated with the hedonicshopping value (see above, H2ab and H3ab), it is possible to say thatindividuals in a dominant paratelic state are more likely to pursue hedonicvalues during their shopping activities than individuals in a dominant telicstate, who, on the other hand, are more likely to pursue utilitarian values.Yet, when considering this implication, one should also keep in mind that,whereas the two motivational states are alternative and mutuallyexclusive, the two shopping values are not and could be pursued jointly atthe same time (see Babin et al. 1994). Thus, the shopping modesubstantially results from the frequency with which a specific motivationalstate occurs (i.e. from its dominance) in the shopping experience.

Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this paper was to investigate the relationship betweenoptimal stimulation level (OSL) and arousability, on the one hand, andshoppers’ personality characteristics, on the other. OLS and arousabilitydescribe consumers in relation to their responses to the environmentalstimulation. In turn, these constructs interact with the structural andcontingent traits of consumers’ personality – that is to say, respectively, withtheir Big Five Factors (Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, Extroversion/Introversion, Emotional Stability/Neuroticism, Conscientiousness) andmotivational states (telic vs paratelic) – to determine their shopping goals(hedonic vs utilitarian).

First of all, results supported Hypothesis H1, according to which OSLand arousability are two positively correlated constructs. Thus, a shoppingenvironment, such as a point of sale, can have a positive influence on bothOSL and arousability. This means that shoppers with a higher OSL shouldbe reached by a greater amount of external stimuli, in order to allow themto feel comfortable. At the same time, shoppers with higher levels ofarousability should be intensively stimulated by marketers, in order torapidly increase their excitement and keep it high for a long time (e.g. forthe extent of the shopping trip). Conversely, shoppers with a lower OSL

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

381

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 381

should be reached by a smaller amount of external stimuli, in order toallow them to feel comfortable; while shoppers with lower levels ofarousability should not be intensively stimulated, in order to avoid anxiety.In fact, these shoppers are likely to be telic-dominated and, if highlystimulated, suffer from anxiety.

Second, by analysing motives inducing individuals to shop, the existenceof the 11 motivational factors was empirically demonstrated, astheoretically identified in the seminal work by Tauber (1972) and verifiedby Guido (2006a,b). These motives were successfully correlated to the BigFive Factors of human personality (see Digman 1990) and to the twometa-dimensions of shopping outcomes (i.e. the hedonic meta-dimensionand the utilitarian one). As hypothesised in H2ab and H3ab, both OSLand arousability are closely and positively correlated with the hedonicshopping value, whereas no significant correlation was found with theutilitarian one. Consumers with higher OSL and arousability tend to seek,in their shopping experiences, hedonic values, thus trying to increase theirstimulation, in order to reach their own optimal level and, thus, to feeladequately aroused. These results are in line with the findings of Boedeker(1995), and Weinberg and Gottwald (1982), which stressed the existenceof a positive relationship, respectively, between recreational shopping andindividual OSL, and between impulsive buying and individual degree ofarousal. Both types of purchase behaviour – that is, recreational andimpulsive – seem, therefore, related to the hedonic meta-dimension ofshopping (see also Rook & Fisher 1995).

Third, it was found that consumers’ OSL and arousability are positivelyrelated to those traits of their personality (i.e. Big Five Factors) mainlylinked to the hedonic shopping value, but not to those mostly linked to theutilitarian meta-dimension. As in Guido (2006a,b), results confirmed thepositive correlation between Agreeableness and Openness to Experience,on the one hand, and the hedonic meta-dimension, on the other. Notably,a significant negative correlation was also found between Introversion andthe hedonic meta-dimension – the latter being positively correlated withExtroversion in Guido’s (2006a,b) studies. As hypothesised in H4ab andH5ab, the hedonic meta-dimension linked to these structural traits ofconsumers’ personality is a valid explanation of the levels of stimulationand arousal sought by shoppers with high OSL and arousability.

Finally, the contingent traits of consumers’ personality were also takeninto account to explain the different values sought in their shoppingexperiences. By using Apter’s (1989) Reversal Theory, it was hypothesised(H6ab) that the dominance of a motivational state (telic vs paratelic) is

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

382

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 382

related to the individual stimulation intensity (measured by OSL andarousability). Results showed that individuals dominated by a paratelicstate are more likely to seek hedonic shopping outcomes than individualsdominated by a telic state. This finding is related to both the high level ofstimulation characterising paratelic consumers and the pleasure theyobtain from the shopping activity in itself, independently of the purchaseof specific products.

Appropriate marketing strategies should take into consideration thetendencies of consumers in seeking hedonic, rather than utilitarian,outcomes in their shopping experiences. Retailers should consider thatfailing to provide shopping incentives corresponding to both targetcustomers’ dimensions of personality and their contingent motivationalstates could lower, rather than increase, consumers’ degree of stimulationand hinder the matching of their level of arousability, with detrimentaleffects on their shopping experiences. Shopping environments shouldmatch consumers’ goals: stores whose target customers are mostlyutilitarian should try to offer products and information capable ofsatisfying their functional needs, such as detailed signs, wide assortments,competitive prices and services, and layouts facilitating price and productcomparisons. Conversely, stores whose target customers are mostlyhedonic should take into consideration strategies emphasising theemotional aspect of shopping through, for instance, multi-sensory buyingexperiences, the continuing innovation of assortments, and the enrolmentof a sales force that cares for the emotional needs of shoppers. In order tostimulate consumers’ arousability and let them reach their OSL, retailersshould enable them to experience shopping as an adventure (Garrett1994), satisfying their needs for novelty, differentiation and sociality(Groeppel & Bloch 1990; Kerin et al. 1992), improving customers’ visitsto the store, their level of emotional involvement and, in turn, their overallsatisfaction (Donovan et al. 1994; Sherman et al. 1997).

References

Addis, M. (2005) L’Esperienza di Consumo. Analisi e Prospettive di Marketing.Milan: Prentice Hall.

Addis, M. & Holbrook, M.B. (2001) On the conceptual link between masscustomisation and experiential consumption: an explosion of subjectivity. Journalof Consumer Behavior, 1, 1, pp. 50–66.

Apter, M.J. (1982) The Experience of Motivation: The Theory of PsychologicalReversal. London: Academic Press.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

383

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 383

Apter, M.J. (1989) Reversal Theory: Motivation, Emotion and Personality. London:Routledge.

Apter, M.J. (1999) Handbook of Reversal Theory. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Babin, B., Darden, W.R. & Griffin, M. (1994) Work and/or fun: measuring hedonicand utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20, pp. 644–655.

Boedeker, M. (1995) Optimal stimulation level and recreational shopping tendency.In: F. Hansen (ed.) European Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 2. Valdosta,GA: Association for Consumer Research, pp. 372–380.

Digman, J.M. (1990) Personality structure: emergence of the Five-Factor Model.Annual Review of Psychology, 41, pp. 417–440.

Digman, J.M. (1997) Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 73, 6, pp. 1246–1256.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G. & Nesdale, A. (1994) Storeatmosphere and purchasing behaviour. Journal of Retailing, 70, 3, pp. 283–294.

Garrett, M. (1994) Attention, all shoppers: now you can try before buying it.Money, January, pp. 142–143.

Grappi, S. (2004) Edonismo e Comportamento d’Acquisto. L’Influenza delleCaratteristiche del Contesto di Acquisto sul Comportamento del Consumatore.Milan: Franco Angeli.

Groeppel, A. & Bloch, B. (1990) An investigation of experience-oriented consumersin retailing. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,1, October, pp. 101–118.

Guido, G. (2001) The Salience of Marketing Stimuli. Boston, MA: Kluwer AcademicPublishers.

Guido, G. (2006a) Shopping motives and the hedonic/utilitarian shopping value: apreliminary study. In: K. Ekstrom & H. Brembeck (eds) European Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 7. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,pp. 168–169.

Guido, G. (2006b) Shopping motives, Big Five Factors, and the hedonic/utilitarianshopping value: an integration and factorial study. Innovative Marketing, 2, 2,pp. 57–67.

Guido, G. & Pellegrino, G. (2003) Dimensioni e Motivi dello Shopping in DueCentri Commerciali: Uno Studio Comparato Carrefour-Ipercoop. Industria &Distribuzione, 1, pp. 37–50.

Guido, G., Capestro, M. & Peluso, A.M. (2007) Livello di Stimolazione e StatoMotivazionale nell’Esperienza di Shopping in Due Centri Commerciali. GiornaleItaliano di Psicologia, 1 (March), forthcoming.

Hirschman, E.C. & Holbrook, M.B. (1982) Hedonic consumption: emergingconcepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Consumer Research, 46,pp. 92–101.

Kerin, R.A., Jain, A. & Howard, D.J. (1992) Store shopping experience andconsumer price–quality–value perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 68, 4,pp. 376–397.

Lussier, D.A. & Olshavsky, R.W. (1979) Task complexity and contingent processingin brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, September, pp. 154–165.

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

384

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 384

McAlister, L. & Pessemier, E. (1982) Variety-seeking behavior: an interdisciplinaryreview. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, December, pp. 311–322.

Mehrabian, A. (1977a) A questionnaire measure of individual differences in stimulusscreening and associated differences in arousability. Environmental Psychologyand Nonverbal Behavior, 1, pp. 89–103.

Mehrabian, A. (1977b) Individual differences in stimulus screening and arousability.Journal of Personality, 45, pp. 237–250.

Mehrabian, A. (1978) Characteristic individual reactions to preferred andunpreferred environments. Journal of Personality, 46, December, pp. 717–731.

Mehrabian, A. (1994) Manual for the Revised Trait Arousability (Converse of theStimulus Screening) Scale. Available from A. Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road,Monterey, CA, USA (93940).

Mehrabian, A. (1995a) Relationships among three general approaches to personalitydescription. Journal of Psychology, 129, 5, pp. 565–581.

Mehrabian, A. (1995b) Theory and evidence bearing on a scale of trait arousability.Current Psychology, 14, Spring, pp. 3–28.

Mehrabian, A. (1996a) Analysis of the Big-Five Personality Factors in terms of thePAD Temperament Model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 2, pp. 86–92.

Mehrabian, A. (1996b) Pleasure–arousal–dominance: a general framework fordescribing and measuring individual differences in temperament. CurrentPsychology, 14, 4, pp. 261–292.

Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J.A. (1974) An Approach to Environmental Psychology.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mooradian, T.A. & Olver, J.M. (1996) Shopping motives and the Five FactorModel: an integration and preliminary study. Psychological Reports, 78,pp. 579–592.

O’Shaughnessy, N.J. & Guido, G. (1996) Reversal theory: implicazioni per lapubblicità ed il marketing aziendale. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria ed EconomiaAziendale, 95, Maggio/Giugno, pp. 238–248.

Puntoni, S. (1999) Personalità della Marca e del Consumatore nell’Analisi delleIntenzioni d’Acquisto: Un’Estensione della Teoria del Comportamento Pianificato.Unpublished dissertation, University of Padua, Italy.

Raju, P.S. (1980) Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality,demographics and exploratory behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 7,December, pp. 272–282.

Rook, D.W. & Fisher, R.J. (1995) Normative influences on impulsive buyingbehavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, pp. 305–313.

Sherman, E., Mathur, A. & Belk Smith, R. (1997) Store environment and consumerpurchase behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology andMarketing, 14, July, pp. 361–378.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. & Baumgartner, H. (1992) The role of optimum stimulationlevel in exploratory consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 19,December, pp. 434–448.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. & Burgess, S.M. (2002) Optimum stimulation level andexploratory consumer behavior in an emerging consumer market. Journal ofResearch in Marketing, 19, pp. 131–150.

Tauber, E.M. (1972) Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, pp. 46–49.

International Journal of Market Research Vol. 49 Issue 3

385

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 385

386

Consumer stimulation and motivational states in shopping experiences

Wahlers, R.G., Dunn, M.C. & Etzel, M.J. (1986) The congruence of alternative OSLmeasures with consumer exploratory behavior tendencies. In: R. Lutz (ed.)Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13. Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch, pp. 398–402.

Wahlers, R.G. & Etzel, M.J. (1990) A structural examination of two optimalstimulation level measurement models. In M.E. Goldberg, G. Gorn & R.W. Pollay(eds) Advances in Consumer Research, vol 17. Provo, UT: Association forConsumer Research, pp. 415–425.

Weinberg, P. & Gottwald, N. (1982) Impulsive consumer buying as a result ofemotions. Journal of Business Research, 10, March, pp. 43–57.

Zuckerman, M. (1994) Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of SensationSeeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

About the authors

Gianluigi Guido (PhD, University of Cambridge, UK) is Full Professor ofMarketing at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Salento, Lecce,and LUISS University of Rome, Italy.

Mauro Capestro is Assistant Researcher in Marketing at the Faculty ofEconomics of the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.

Alessandro M. Peluso is a Doctorate Candidate in Economic andQuantitative Methods for the Analysis of Markets at the Faculty ofEconomics of the University of Salento, Lecce, Italy.

Address correspondence to: Professor Gianluigi Guido, Full Professor ofMarketing, University of Salento, Via per Monteroni, Palazzo Ecotekne,73100, Lecce, Italy.

Email: g.guido@economia.unile.it

Guido.qxp 26/04/2007 14:57 Page 386