An integrative conceptual framework for analyzing customer satisfaction with shopping trip experiences in grocery retailing

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 445–456

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

0969-69

http://d

n Corr

E-m

tib@asb

boztug@1 Te2 Te3 Te4 Te5 Te

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

An integrative conceptual framework for analyzing customer satisfactionwith shopping trip experiences in grocery retailing

Lars Esbjerg a,n, Birger Boutrup Jensen 1,a, Tino Bech-Larsen 2,a, Marcia Dutra de Barcellos 3,b,Yasemin Boztug 4,c, Klaus G. Grunert 5,a

a MAPP — Centre for research on customer relations in the food sector, Aarhus University, Haslegaardsvej 10, 8210 Aarhus V, Denmarkb Management School, Federal Universiity of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Washington Luis 855 Porto Alegre, RS 90010-460, Brazilc Faculty of Economic Sciences, Georg-August-Universitat, Gottingen Platz der Gottinger Sieben, 3 37073 Gottingen, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 10 May 2012

Keywords:

Confirmation/disconfirmation

Customer satisfaction

Expectations

Grocery retailing

Shopping trips

89/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. A

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.04.006

esponding author. Tel.: þ45 87165058.

ail addresses: [email protected] (L. Esbjerg), bbo@as

.dk (T. Bech-Larsen), [email protected] (M

wiwi.uni-goettingen.de (Y. Boztug), klg@asb

l.: þ45 87165401.

l.: þ45 87165017.

l.: þ55 5199021941.

l.: þ49 0 551/39 7328.

l.: þ45 87165007.

a b s t r a c t

Grocery retailers aim to satisfy customers, and because grocery shopping trips are frequently recurring,

they must do so continuously. Surprisingly, little research has addressed satisfaction with individual

grocery shopping trips. This article therefore develops a conceptual framework for analyzing customer

satisfaction with individual grocery shopping trip experiences within an overall ‘disconfirmation of

expectations model’ of customer satisfaction. The contribution of the framework is twofold. First, by

focusing on satisfaction with individual grocery shopping trips, previous research on satisfaction is

extended to a context marked by frequently recurring, often tedious and routine activities. Under-

standing what causes satisfaction/dissatisfaction with individual shopping trips is required to explain

overall, cumulative satisfaction with a retailer, which has been the focus of prior research on

satisfaction in the retailing literature. Second, the framework synthesizes and integrates multiple

central concepts from different research streams into a common framework for analyzing shopping trip

satisfaction. Propositions are derived regarding the relationships among the different concepts in the

framework and suggestions for future research are offered.

& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Grocery shopping is a frequently recurring shopping activitythat provides both utilitarian and hedonic value (Babin et al.,1994). Specifically, consumers obtain utilitarian value by accom-plishing the task that stimulated a particular shopping trip,whereas hedonic value reflects the potential entertainment andemotional worth associated with a shopping process (Babin et al.,1994). In recognizing that they need to help customers satisfyboth types of needs, grocery retailers increasingly try to offerpleasurable or even entertaining shopping experiences (Arnoldand Reynolds, 2003; Wakefield and Baker, 1998). Yet evensatisfied customers sometimes switch brands or retailers torelieve their boredom (Jones and Sasser, 1995; Reese, 1996), so

ll rights reserved.

b.dk (B.B. Jensen),

.D. de Barcellos),

.dk (K.G. Grunert).

retailers must continuously engage consumers and stir theirinterest in a given store (Jones and Reynolds, 2006).

By satisfying customers over and over again, grocery retailerscan encourage customer loyalty. Seen in this light, it is thereforesurprising how little research has focused on customer satisfactionwith individual shopping trips; quite to the contrary, most studieshave conceptualized satisfaction as an overall, cumulative evalua-tion of a retailer based on all relevant encounters (Anderson et al.,1994). This constitutes an important gap in previous researchoverall, cumulative satisfaction can be explained if we have athorough understanding of what causes satisfaction/dissatisfac-tion with individual shopping trips. In retail environments char-acterized by intense competition at both the store level andbetween different retail chains, disappointing a consumer on anindividual shopping trip can have negative consequences forsatisfaction and loyalty because consumers have many alternativeshopping opportunities when buying groceries.

Furthermore, only few studies address satisfaction specificallyin the grocery retail sector (Davies et al., 2001). This is anotherimportant gap, as the task-oriented, routine, frequently recurringnature of grocery shopping implies that it may be dominated byutilitarian concerns, such that different mechanisms determinesatisfaction in this setting compared to other retail settings thatcustomers visit less regularly and that inherently support hedonic

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.04.006



mailto:[email protected]







L. Esbjerg et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 445–456446

shopping experiences (Kozinets et al., 2002). Because the typicalconsumer shops for groceries more frequently than for otherproduct categories, customers have a stronger basis for develop-ing clear shopping trip expectations for grocery shopping than forproduct categories bought less frequently. Consumers store imageperceptions and overall satisfaction with a retailer is thus theresult of a large number of individual shopping trip experiences,although the most recent experiences will probably be the mostsalient and important. Based on these differences, one should becautious about generalizing findings from other shopping andservice contexts to grocery shopping.

Also, compared to other retailers and service providers,grocery retailers are often ill prepared to tackle service failures(negative critical incidents) because contact employees are sub-ject to a fast work pace, in part due to tight staffing levels, and areoften poorly trained. Although there is little research withingrocery retailing in this regard, previous research in other servicecontexts suggests that how well service providers deal withservice failure is important for customer word-of-mouth, overallsatisfaction and loyalty (see, e.g., Maxham and Netemeyer, 2002;Mazaheri et al., 2011; Tax et al., 1998).

In response to these gaps, we propose a conceptual frameworkfor analyzing customer satisfaction with individual grocery shop-ping trip experiences in which we integrate different, previouslylargely separated streams of research pertaining to store image,store environments, critical incidents, and retailer satisfaction.This framework works to overcome the concerns associated withatomistic approaches and to provide managers and researcherswith a well-integrated framework.

2. An integrated framework

Our proposed conceptual framework for analyzing customersatisfaction with individual grocery shopping trip experiencesappears in Fig. 1.

The framework synthesizes and integrates various streams ofresearch within an overall model based on the ‘disconfirmation ofexpectations’ paradigm of customer satisfaction (e.g., Oliver, 1980,1997). As its basic tenet, this model holds that customers comparetheir expectations with their experiences, so an experience thatdisconfirms their expectations – whether positively or negatively –determines their satisfaction. Oliver (1981, p. 27) defines satisfac-tion specifically as ‘‘an evaluation of the surprise inherent in aproduct acquisition and/or consumption experience. In essence, itis the summary psychological state resulting when the emotion

Store imageGeneral

Critical incidentsSelf-congruence

Shopping trip expectations

Shopping motives

Task fulfilmentRecreation

Store environmentTransient and

enduring aspects

Shopping trip experiences

Fig. 1. An integrative framework of cu

surrounding disconfirmed expectations is coupled with the consu-mer’s prior feelings about the consumption experience. Moreover, thesurprise or excitement of this evaluation is thought to be of finiteduration, so that satisfaction soon decays into (but neverthelessgreatly affects) one’s overall attitude toward purchasing products,particularly with regard to specific retail environments’’.

According to Oliver’s (1980, 1997, 2010) ongoing research, thisinfluential model of customer satisfaction applies in principle toany kind or context of buying decisions, including retail settings(e.g., Davies et al., 2001), though to the best of our knowledge, noattempts have applied this paradigm to grocery retailing. Aplausible reason is that disconfirmation is difficult to identifyprecisely during grocery shopping. The frequency with whichmost consumers shop for groceries, the many items usuallypurchased on a single trip, and the vast number of potentialstimuli encountered throughout the shopping trip mean thatgrocery shopping involves a larger and more complex set ofpotential confirmation/disconfirmation processes than most buy-ing contexts. However, these multiple, varied sources of groceryshopping disconfirmation are the very reason, from a retailer’s ormarketing researcher’s perspective, why developing an integratedframework to understand satisfaction with grocery shopping tripsis interesting.

We therefore suggest that customers’ satisfaction or dissatis-faction with a shopping trip depends on whether their expecta-tions are confirmed or disconfirmed. Customers form expectationsof relevant aspects of their projected shopping trip before visitingthe store; they might anticipate the commute to the store, thedifficulty of finding a parking spot close to the entry, their patternof movement through the store, whether they will be able to findeverything they want to buy, and how they will feel during theshopping trip. These expectations reflect the image the customerhas developed of the store, usually through previous shopping tripexperiences (e.g., Theodoridis and Chatzipanagiotou, 2008), dis-cussions with peers, or the retailer’s marketing efforts. Expecta-tions also reflect the situational and enduring shopping motives ofthe individual customer.

For example a customer might experience a shopping trip asfavorable or unfavorable, or even delightful or terrible (Arnoldet al., 2005), depending on both enduring aspects of the storeenvironment (e.g., design, ambience) and more transient aspectssuch as stockouts and interactions with store personnel. Accord-ing to Backstrom and Johansson (2006), stockout situations (e.g.,missing commodities, selling out of products on special offer)constitute critical incidents that contribute to negative shoppingexperiences. In this context though, customers are not just


AttributionLocus

ControlStability

Shopping trip satisfaction

stomer shopping trip satisfaction.

L. Esbjerg et al. / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2012) 445–456 447

passive recipients of shopping trip experiences but insteadactively coconstruct their experiences within the material andsymbolic boundaries of the store (Esbjerg and Bech-Larsen, 2009);thus, customers likely differ in how they experience groceryshopping (see Backstrom, 2011).

In addition to transient and enduring aspects of store environ-ments, we propose that the customer’s expectations also influ-ence shopping trip experiences, for several reasons. First, themultidimensional nature of shopping trip experiences makes itdifficult to evaluate experiences unequivocally. With such acomplex, ambiguous experiential basis, expectations serve ashypotheses that guide customers’ choice and processing of stimuliin the environment (Deighton, 1984; Hoch and Ha, 1986). Aconfirmatory bias also might emerge, such that shopping tripexperiences are assimilated to expectations (Oliver, 2010), orthey might result in contrast effects (Geers and Lassiter, 2005).Customers also have some volitional control over their shoppingtrip outcomes, such that they can help ensure their expectationsare met. When customers act according to their own expecta-tions, those expectations can therefore become self-fulfillingprophecies.

In turn, we conceive of shopping trip satisfaction as anoutcome of a customer’s subjective comparison of expectationswith experience (Davies et al., 2001; Oliver, 1981). According tothe disconfirmation of expectations model (e.g., Oliver, 1980,1997), customers are satisfied if their expectations are met butdissatisfied if the actual shopping experience falls short oftheir expectations (i.e., negative disconfirmation) (Oliver, 1981;Swan and Trawick, 1981). If their expectations are surpassed (i.e.,positive disconfirmation), customers experience high satisfaction(Oliver, 1981; Swan and Trawick, 1981) and perhaps evendelight (Oliver et al., 1997). Attributions regarding responsibility,control, and expected recurrence of causes for positive or negativedisconfirmation of expectations moderate the relationshipbetween shopping trip confirmation/disconfirmation and shop-ping trip satisfaction (Bitner, 1990; Kelley and Michela, 1980;van Raaij, 1985). Finally, we suggest that shopping trip experi-ences and satisfaction can reinforce or change customers’ storeimage and thus influence expectations regarding future shoppingexperiences. In line with adaptation level theory (Helson 1959,but see also Bruggen et al., 2011 for an application of adaptationlevel theory to service settings), we suggest that customersperceive and interpret the stimuli they are exposed to on ashopping trip relative to an adapted standard. In this case, theirstore image perceptions and shopping trip expectations. Changesin the stimuli that customers are exposed to during a shoppingtrip (e.g., transient or enduring aspects of the store environment)can produce both short- and long-term effects in customerperceptions and shopping behavior. Over time, retail customerswill integrate the changed stimuli into the adaptation level (theirstore image perceptions) and thus become the new frame ofreference for forming shopping trip expectations.

The framework we propose offers two important contribu-tions: First, by focusing on customer satisfaction with individualshopping trips, we extend extant research to a context marked byfrequently recurring, often tedious, and routine activities. Groceryretailers depend on repeat purchases and therefore must performagain and again to ensure customer loyalty and firm profitability.Prior research only considers overall satisfaction with the retailer(Anderson et al., 1994), service quality (Parasuraman et al., 1985),or product quality (Spreng et al., 1996). Though related andoften used interchangeably, the concepts of service qualityevaluations and customer satisfaction are not identical: Satisfac-tion judgments are more global than service quality judgments(which evaluate specific cues or attributes), include referents suchas need and equity (rather than perceptions of excellence), and

are more affective than service quality evaluations (which arecognitive) (Oliver, 1997). Satisfaction with products also is rele-vant for grocery shopping but only to the extent that customerscan assess attributes or performance during their shopping trip. Acustomer who buys fresh produce likely can determine thefreshness of the products available in the store, which eitherconfirms or disconfirms that customer’s shopping trip expecta-tions and thereby influences shopping trip satisfaction. However,for many products customers can form satisfaction judgmentsonly after consuming the products, which usually occurs after theshopping trip. Furthermore, many products sold by competingstores are identical (e.g., same manufacturer brands) or compar-able (e.g., similarly positioned retail brands, fresh produce), soassortment differences often are minor. However, even as wefocus on satisfaction with individual trips, we recognize that thedifferent types and levels of satisfaction are related (Oliver, 1981).

Second, our framework synthesizes and integrates variousconcepts from different streams of research into one commonframework. We note several related models (e.g., Bitner, 1990,1992; Oliver, 1997; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Spreng et al., 1996),but none is as comprehensive as the framework we propose. Forexample, unlike Bitner’s (1990) work on servicescapes and serviceencounters, we focus more on the formation of expectations andtake shopping motives into account, which determines whetherstores are approached or avoided (Bitner, 1990, 1992). UnlikeSpreng et al. (1996), we focus on satisfaction with the shoppingtrip experience, not with the products and services bought andconsumed after the end of the shopping trip. Finally, our frame-work addresses the customer’s satisfaction with a particularshopping trip, not his or her judgments of specific aspects ofservice quality (e.g., Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988).

We define and discuss each component of our framework,with particular attention to the relationships between the differ-ent components of the framework. Although it is beyond thescope of this study to offer a detailed review of literature relatedto each component, we cite key studies and note how our workextends them.

3. Determinants of shopping trip expectations

Expectations of a shopping trip to a particular store reflect thecustomer’s previous shopping trip experiences and other infor-mation received about the store. Store image can capture this setof knowledge and previous experience that people have accumu-lated about a particular store or retail chain, though not allelements of store image are necessarily relevant for shopping tripexpectations, depending on the shopping motives. For example, ifthe goal of a shopping trip is simply to pick up the one itemforgotten on a previous trip that is needed for tonight’s dinner,easy access and fast checkout are critical, but personal service anda broad assortment may be less important. We thus propose thatshopping trip expectations are determined by store image andshopping motives in combination (see Fig. 2).

3.1. Store image

The store image concept, usually traced to Martineau (1958),remains a popular concept in retailing research, as the hundredsof published papers citing it testify. Its basic idea and develop-ment is close to the brand image concept: Store image is a set ofassociations that a customer has between the store and certainstore characteristics. These associations may be more or lessfavorable, and they influence overall store preferences, storepatronage behavior, and attitudinal and behavioral aspects ofstore loyalty. Another parallel to brand image though is that the

Store imageGeneral



Shopping motives


P1

P2

Fig. 2. Determinants of shopping trip expectations.


store image literature is not very explicit with regard to how storeimage develops (despite analyses of the impact of certain specificcues; e.g., Hu and Jasper, 2006; Vahie and Paswan, 2006); itappears to result from cumulative information and personalexperience with the store. Thus, the store image positions thestore in the minds of customers, and it follows that store imagecould change with every visit, or other method of learning about,a store.

Yet store image rarely appears in disconfirmation of expecta-tions frameworks, because it serves to explain store preference,satisfaction, loyalty, and patronage over time, not in relation to aparticular shopping trip. However, store image can help explainthe expectations that a customer forms before visiting becausethe sum of previous experiences, plus any external informationthe customer has about the store (e.g., obtained from peers,marketing communication efforts by retailer), creates a bench-mark for evaluating the next experience. In the context of ourconceptual framework, store image research thus might provideinsights into how previous experiences affect the formation ofexpectations and the key dimensions along which they areorganized.

Most store image conceptualizations emphasize functionalattributes, including product, price, assortment, styling, and loca-tion (Doyle and Fenwick, 1974) or price, quality, assortment,atmosphere, location, parking, and friendly personnel (Bearden,1977). In a review of prior literature, Chowdhury et al. (1998)argue that six dimensions cover most of the meaning of storeimage: employee service, product quality, product selection,atmosphere, convenience, and price/value. However, Martineau(1958, p. 47) warns explicitly that store image is more than ‘‘theobvious functional factors of location, price ranges and merchan-dise offerings,’’ and the original concept did not emphasizefunctional attributes — it was more similar to a store personalityconcept. More recent research has returned to this idea, likelyinspired by burgeoning research on brand personality. Suchinvestigations note the congruence of store and personal image:The more the store resembles the consumer, the more likely thatperson is to shop there. Thus, key dimensions include dependable,modern, sincere, rude, responsible, trustworthy, dynamic, appeal-ing, plain, fashionable, outgoing, and depressing (Stern et al.,1977), as well as enthusiasm, sophistication, genuineness, solid-ity, and unpleasantness (d’Astous and Levesque, 2003). In brandimage research, functional and personality aspects of brand imagehave been combined in larger models of brand knowledge (e.g.,Keller, 1993), but a similar model has not emerged in store imageliterature, though Hartman and Spiro (2005) suggest an extendedconcept of store equity that mirrors the consumer-based brand

equity concept, and Sirgy (1985) proposes that store-/self-imagecongruity relates positively to inclinations to visit the store.

Store image measures also successfully predict retail satisfac-tion (e.g., Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998) and a range of otherdependent variables (e.g., intention to repatronize, share ofwallet, store loyalty; e.g., Grewal et al., 1998; Hildebrandt,1988; Schiffman et al., 1977; Sirgy and Samli, 1985). The amountof explained variance ranges from 0.1 to 0.2; we posit that onedeficiency of such applications has been their failure to considerthat different aspects of store image are relevant for differentshopping motives (Thelen and Woodside, 1997).

In contrast, functional dimensions of store image link easily toexpectations of the shopping experience. If ‘‘value for money’’ ispart of a local supermarket’s store image, customers likely expectto find products with reduced or permanently low prices, a senseof pleasure in being thrifty, and an outcome that includes manypurchased items. This link is not necessarily one-to-one though,in that different shopping occasions and motives prime differentstore image aspects. So for major stock-up shopping trips, a‘‘value for money’’ image might create stronger and more pro-nounced expectations than it would when the aim is to buy amissing ingredient.

3.2. Shopping motives

Customers want different things from different shopping trips(Bell et al., 2011), and so they likely form different expectations,depending on their motives for embarking on a particular shop-ping trip. Tauber (1972) argues that to understand why peopleshop, researchers cannot simply answer ‘‘because they need tobuy something,’’ which implies a deceptive product focus. Rather,shopping motives might be indirectly related to purchases,including (1) personal and (2) social motives. Personal motivesinclude role playing (e.g., grocery shopping performed by house-wives), diversion from daily routines, self-gratification, learningabout new trends, physical activity, and sensory stimulation(Tauber, 1972). Social motives instead relate to social interactionsoutside the home, communication with others with similarinterests, peer group attraction, status, or simply the pleasure ofbargaining (Tauber, 1972). Westbrook and Black (1985, p. 87)suggest that these shopping motives represent ‘‘relatively endur-ing characteristics’’ of individual consumers and therefore ‘‘man-ifest themselves on a regular basis over a wide range of shoppingoccasions.’’

Other authors propose ‘‘situational’’ shopping purposes todistinguish different shopping trip types (Bell et al., 2011;Walters, 1994; Walters and Hanrahan, 2000; Walters and Jamil,2003). Thus, when they shop for groceries, customers might be(1) looking for special offers and promotions, (2) buying productsfor immediate consumption, (3) considering products for same-day consumption, (4) filling in daily essentials, or (5) on a majorshopping trip (i.e., weekly or less often) (Bell et al., 2011). Thus,situational motives refer to specific purchasing needs, as reflectedin the formation of expectations of that particular shopping trip.

Beyond the utility of buying particular goods, customers alsomight enjoy the benefits of the activity of shopping as such. Thatis, do consumers view shopping for groceries as a means to anend, which has functional or utilitarian value, or as a desirablerecreational activity that is worthwhile in itself? In addition tothis generic dimension, Wagner and Rudolph (2010) suggestdistinctions between purpose-, activity-, and demand-specificmotives, which implies a hierarchical dimension, ranging fromvery abstract to fairly specific.

At the most abstract level, purpose-specific shopping motivesrefer to customers’ predisposition toward taking a shopping trip,defined as ‘‘the overall underlying objective of the shopping trip’’


(Wagner and Rudolph, 2010, p. 416). Thus, purpose-specificshopping motivation might entail either task fulfillment orrecreation. The activity-specific level is more concrete; it pertainsto activity goals or desired shopping activities that describe howcustomers expect to accomplish their overall objective for theshopping trip (Wagner and Rudolph, 2010). At this level, we stillcan distinguish between task-oriented and recreational shoppingmotives. Because the efficient acquisition of merchandise is animportant characteristic of task-oriented shopping (Tauber,1972); Wagner and Rudolph, 2010 introduce the notion ofefficiency shopping, such that consumers consider a fast andeffortless shopping process one of their goals. Wagner andRudolph also distinguish six activity-specific recreational shop-ping motives: sensory stimulation, gratification, socializing, giftshopping, bargain hunting, and inspiration (see also Arnold andReynolds, 2003). Finally, the demand-specific level relates to theparticular preferences consumers have for the characteristics ofretail facilities (Wagner and Rudolph, 2010), which parallel storeimage components. Wagner and Rudolph (2010) thus considerservice convenience, store atmosphere, assortment innovation,assortment uniqueness, personnel friendliness, and prices. Thesedemand-specific shopping motives again can exhibit both task-related and recreational qualities.

The decision to visit a particular retail outlet reflects acustomer’s anticipation that it will enable him or her to satisfyshopping motives; therefore, if task fulfillment is the primarygoal, a retail outlet that provides information may be preferablebecause it helps customers make a satisfactory purchase effi-ciently. If recreational motives are important, satisfaction shouldbe derived from the shopping process itself, and customersbenefit from interactions with retail environments that better fittheir expectations (Groppel, 1995; Stone et al., 1996).

3.3. Propositions

Shopping trip satisfaction depends heavily on the degree towhich a store meets the specific, situational motives of thecustomer. To predict the expectations a customer forms beforeembarking on a shopping trip, ‘‘it is necessary to look at whetherthe store is suited to address the shopping motives of the targetcustomer group’’ (Morschett et al., 2005, p. 424). Furthermore,shopping trip expectations form on the basis of those aspects ofstore image that are salient, given the shopping motives thatinstigate a particular shopping trip. Store image and shoppingmotives thus interact. We therefore propose the following:

P1: The expectations a customer forms before a shopping tripare influenced by the customer’s store image perceptions.P2: Shopping trip expectations form on the basis of those partsof store image that are retrieved from situationally relevantshopping motives.

Store image and shopping motives thus explain the formationof grocery shopping trip expectations in our model. Theseexpectations can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the actualshopping trip experience of the customer. Thus, we consider nexthow enduring and transient aspects of the store environmentdetermine customers’ experiences.

4. Determinants of shopping trip experiences

Despite the importance of creating superior shopping experiences,our understanding of what consumers actually experience during ashopping trip remains limited (Backstrom and Johansson, 2006;Verhoef et al., 2009). Furthermore, the very concept of experience

remains undefined and without empirical support in literature oncustomer shopping (Backstrom and Johansson, 2006).

Verhoef et al. (2009, p. 32) propose a broad definition ofcustomer experience that is ‘‘holistic in nature and involves thecustomer’s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physicalresponses to the retailer. This experience is created not only bythose factors that the retailer can control (e.g., service interface,retail atmosphere, assortment, price), but also by factors outsideof the retailer’s control (e.g., influence of others, purpose ofshopping).’’ This understanding of the customer experience goesbeyond shopping trips and encompasses what Verhoef et al.denote the total experience (i.e., search, purchase, consumption,and after-sale), which may involve multiple retail stores. Ourframework does not include consumption or after-sales phases,and the search phase would be related to the formation ofexpectations in our framework.

Shopping trip experiences can be very complex, consideringthe number of stimuli shoppers encounter. Backstrom andJohansson (2006) mention personnel, service elements, selection,price, design, display, layout, and atmospherics; Verhoef et al.(2009) include the social environment, service interaction, retailatmosphere, assortment, price, customer experiences in alterna-tive channels, retail brand, and customer experiences, as well assituational and consumer moderators, in their conceptual modelof customer experience creation. These lists indicate abstractgroups of factors that clearly overlap.

On a more concrete level, a customer on a particular shoppingtrip might experience problems locating a shopping cart, a narrowand crowded entrance, spoiled produce in the vegetable depart-ment, noisy children pestering their parents for toys, an unex-pected opportunity to sample a new food product, coffee beingsold at an unexpectedly deep discount, chance encounters withneighbors, a stockout of a favorite brand of cereal, soothingmuzak piped throughout in the store, an inability to locate a staffmember who might help the customer find a particular item,friendly service at the checkout, or a total bill that exceedsexpectations. Not even this long example list is exhaustive,though it gives a vast variety of potentially contradictory cuesthat customers encounter in each shopping trip.

Customers cannot evaluate separately whether every expecta-tion they have is met for each aspect and then compute an overallscore (Oliver, 2010). Instead, they likely form an overall impres-sion of the trip based on a subset of salient concrete attributesand critical incidents, which themselves depend on the shoppingmotives for a particular trip.

Our model distinguishes between enduring and transientaspects of store environments (see Fig. 3). The former are moreor less stable from trip to trip, such as store design and ambience,whereas the latter are situationally specific and thus likely to varybetween trips, such as interactions with employees or othercustomers.

4.1. Enduring aspects of store environments

The grocery store environment sets relatively well-definedmaterial and symbolic boundaries for actual shopping experi-ences (Esbjerg and Bech-Larsen, 2009). For example, retailerspurposefully design store environments to enhance the likelihoodof purchase. Kotler (1974, p. 50) introduced the term atmo-spherics to describe ‘‘the effort to design buying environmentsto produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhancehis purchase probability.’’ He also argued that tangible productsare only a small part of the ‘‘total consumption package,’’ such thatcustomers actually respond to the total product (Kotler, 1974),which includes services, warranties, packaging, advertising,pleasantries, and other features that accompany the product.

Store environmentTransient and

enduring aspects


Shopping motives



P3, P4

P5

P6

Store imageGeneral


P7

Fig. 3. Determinants of shopping trip experiences.


According to Kotler, atmosphere has visual, aural, olfactory, andtactile dimensions, so it primes four of customers’ five senses,whereas taste likely does not apply directly to atmosphere.Although this might be true for many retailers, grocery retailersoften offer customers samples of food and beverages, so taste maybe relevant in our study context.

Bitner (1992) introduced the concept of servicescape to refer tothe built environment (in our case the grocery store) and its effectson customers (and employees). Servicescapes differ in terms ofwho performs particular actions (customers and/or employees)and their complexity (lean to elaborate). Furthermore, Bitneridentifies objective environmental dimensions to servicescapesthat comprise ambient conditions (e.g., temperature, air quality,noise, smell), space/function (e.g., layout, equipment, furnishings),and artifacts (e.g., signage, decor). Most of these dimensions areenduring and change little between shopping trips, though someambient conditions may be relatively transient. Both customersand employees perceive various environmental dimensionsand may respond cognitively, emotionally, or physiologically.These internal responses in turn influence behavioral responses(approach or avoidance) and social interactions.

Finally, Baker (1986) uses three dimensions (ambient, design,and social) to describe the store environment. The ambientdimension includes background conditions, below the level ofimmediate awareness (e.g., d’Astous, 2000), such as temperature,noise, lightning, and music, which influence customer behaviorthrough the senses. Design factors are directly perceived, such asarchitecture, colors, materials, and accessories. Finally, the socialfactor refers to people in the (store) environment, such as othercustomers and store personnel. In this case, customers might beinfluenced by the number of other people in the store (howcrowded the store is), the type of other shoppers, and theirbehaviors.

According to the familiar stimulus – organism – response(SOR) model, retailers’ careful and creative management of atmo-spherics or servicescapes can contribute to the firm’s organiza-tional goals, though little attention focuses on how theycontribute to customers’ individual shopping trip experiences.

Bitner (1992) comes closest by arguing that consumer expecta-tions form on the basis of previous experience, though she doesnot differentiate enduring and transient aspects. Thus, priorresearch has outlined many aspects of store environments thatcan influence customers’ shopping experiences, but none of themexplicitly focus on the individual shopping trip experience andaddress instead observable customer behaviors.

We find similar trends in studies that investigate how specificaspects of store environments influence customer behavior. Moststudies build on environmental psychology literature, especiallyMehrabian and Russel’s (1974) conceptualization of the effects ofphysical environments on human behavior. This model assumesthat a customer’s emotional responses to sensory variablesand the store environment’s information rate induce eitherapproaches toward or avoidance of the environment. Mehrabianand Russel (1974) note three emotional responses to physicalenvironments: pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD). Ingeneral, the pleasure dimension should have a positive influenceon perceptions of the environment. Arousal, which combinesphysical activity and mental alertness, ranges from sleepy tofrantic and indicates an inverted U-shaped relationship, with anoptimal state of arousal somewhere in the middle. Finally, therelationship between dominance and the customer’s perception ofthe environment is likely negative, though most store environ-ment literature prioritizes arousal and pleasure, because domi-nance was found to be insignificant in early retailing research(Donovan and Rossiter, 1982) and thus has been deleted frommost models (Donovan et al., 1994). As Yani-de-Soriano and Foxall(2006) compellingly argue though, the justification for deletingthis dimension actually was rather weak; more recent studiesinstead provide empirical support for the relevance of dominancein retail settings (e.g., Foxall and Greenley, 1999; Foxall Gordonand Yani-de-Soriano, 2005).

Several studies also have investigated how specific enduringand transient aspects of the store environment influence indivi-dual customers using an environmental psychology approach.However, these studies center not on shopping trip satisfactionbut rather on emotional states and shopping behaviors. Somestudies thus assess the influence of music (Garlin and Owen,2006; Milliman, 1982), a combination of scent and music (Mattilaand Wirtz, 2001; Spangenberg et al., 2005), color (Bellizzi andHite, 1992), color and lightning (Bellizzi et al., 1983), or combina-tions of multiple aspects, such as sights, sounds, and smells(Eroglu and Machleit, 1993). These studies typically manipulateone or a few aspects of store atmosphere to measure theirinfluence on some aspect of customer behavior (e.g., amount ofmoney spent, speed of in-store traffic) and they thus ignore howcustomers experience the store environment as a whole on aparticular shopping trip.

A widespread belief indicates that the volume and tempo ofstore music influence shopping behaviors and outcome, includingtime of stay, pace of movement, and store sales. However, fewempirical studies confirm such effects. Various types of musicaffect spending and purchase probabilities (Milliman, 1982;Smith and Curnow, 1966), and this influence changes with thetype of store and age of customers (Yalch and Spangenberg,1990). Compared with disliked music, preferred music increasesthe perceived time spent shopping, even when there areno significant differences in the actual time spent (Yalch andSpangenberg, 1993).

Color is an enduring aspect often used to influence shoppingbehaviors. In general, research suggests that customers are drawn towarm colors (red and yellow), but they find these warm environ-ments less attractive than cool colors (green and blue), because theyexperience warm color environments as unpleasant, negative, andtense. Warm colors (especially red) may overstimulate customers,


both physiologically and psychologically, which interrupts theirdecision-making processes (Bellizzi et al., 1983; Bellizzi and Hite,1992; Crowley, 1993).

Ambient scent – which does not emerge from a particularobject but is present throughout the environment – is anotherenduring aspect that may exert a positive influence on customers’shopping experience. An inoffensive ambient scent can lead toenhanced subjective shopping experiences, cause customers toperceive the time they spent in the store or waiting in lines asshorter, and increase the probability that they visit the storeagain. In addition to this general positive influence, a scent thatmatches the product class prompts customers to take more timeto evaluate products (Mitchell et al., 1995; Spangenberg et al.,1996).

In summary, studies suggest that different enduring aspects ofthe store environment influence customers’ shopping trips. How-ever, their effects on shopping trip experiences have not beencentral to prior conceptualizations, which focus instead on howretailers manipulate store environments to influence outcomessuch as money spent or time in stores. We note though that theaspects discussed in the store environment literature differ fromthose prominent in the store image literature, a point we returnto in our subsequent discussion.

4.2. Transient aspects of store environments

The store environment literature also has examined someaspects of the store environment that we classify as more transient.Perceived crowdedness influences customers’ shopping trip experi-ences, in that store environments seem crowded when the numberof people and/or objects in a space restricts or interferes withshoppers’ goals and activities. With higher perceptions of crowd-edness, customers consider the purchase risky and experiencemore time pressure for realizing purchases. Prior research confirmsa relationship between customer density and perceived control,dependent on customers’ situational goals (Eroglu et al., 2005;Eroglu and Machleit, 1990; Hui and Bateson, 1991).

Critical incidents are other forms of important transientaspects, though this construct does not appear in Baker’s (1986)original description. Critical incidents refer to specific eventsduring a shopping trip that make a significant contribution,whether positively or negatively, to the shopping experience(Arnold et al., 2005) and thus play a prominent role in determiningshopping trip satisfaction. The events a customer characterizes ascritical incidents depend on his or her shopping motivation andexpectations regarding the particular shopping trip.

In several service settings, contact employees play a major rolein creating a positive experience because they are responsible forsatisfying customers’ needs and expectations (Bitner et al., 1990;Arnold et al., 2005). By understanding and responding to custo-mers’ needs, contact employees can enhance shopping tripsatisfaction (Zeithaml et al., 1988). Bitner et al. (1990) thuspropose a classification scheme for employee behaviors in criticalservice encounters. Three primary groups of employee behaviorsunderlie service encounter satisfaction or dissatisfaction: (1) recov-ery, when employees respond to service delivery system failuressuch as a stockout; (2) adaptability, or when the employeeresponses are prompted by customers’ special needs and requests;and (3) spontaneity, or unprompted and unsolicited behaviors.Mohr and Bitner (1995) note that the perceived effort of theemployee is a social factor with a strong positive impact oncustomers’ evaluations of the transaction. According to Bitneret al. (1990), this classification scheme is particularly applicableto high-contact, transaction-based service settings marked byroutine communication between employees and customers. Theseresults thus are particularly interesting to grocery retailers,

especially in areas such as the customer service desk or servicedepartments for meat, fish, and cheese.

However, few studies address critical incidents in groceryretailing; according to Bell et al. (1997), understanding of whatconstitutes quality service in grocery retailing is lacking. Groceryretailing as a service includes a considerable physical goodscomponent, so it differs substantially from pure services(Bell et al., 1997). By applying a critical incident technique,Backstrom and Johansson (2006) also identify retailer-relatedfactors in critical incidents experienced by customers, thoughonly one (interaction or lack thereof) refers to contact employees,and design factors are more dominant. This finding reflects thelimited role of contact employees in personal service in moderngrocery retailing. However, critical incidents related to enduringdesign factors also can lead to negative disconfirmation ofexpectations (and dissatisfaction) unless retail employees per-form service recovery (Bitner et al., 1990).

Backstrom and Johansson (2006) find that customers reportparticularly negative experiences with stockout situations andrecall them for quite some time. Accumulated experiences ofstockouts in a particular store or retail chain therefore could havea negative impact on store image perceptions and thus oncustomers’ expectations of the store on their next trip — if thereis one.

In another study of critical incidents, Arnold et al. (2005)identify interpersonal factors (e.g., effort, engagement, problemresolution, time commitment) and non-interpersonal factors (e.g.,unanticipated acquisition, failure of expected acquisition, unanti-cipated value, lack of expected value) associated with delightfuland terrible shopping experiences. Although they do not addressgrocery retailing, their study demonstrates that critical incidentscan have strong impacts on customers’ shopping experiences.

Critical incidents also may arise from negative or positiveexperiences with other customers (e.g., Grove and Fisk, 1997).Compared with pure services, customer-to-customer experienceslikely are less critical for grocery shopping trip satisfaction,because they allow for relatively limited interactions, relativelyshorter lines, and less close physical contact (Westbrook, 1981).Yet customer-to-customer experiences may be important insmaller communities, such as when social and recreationalmotives are relevant for elderly customers who want to meetwith others they know at the local grocery stores (Backstrom andJohansson, 2006; Hare et al., 2001).

4.3. How expectations influence shopping trip experiences

Perceptions are always guided by expectations, especially ifthe stimulus in question is complex, ambiguous, or transient.Retailing environments comprised of complex sets of elements inwhich the product assortment, store layout, various elements ofstore atmosphere, staff behavior, and behavior of other customersall play a role score high on these characteristics. In such settings,expectations may serve as hypotheses that the shopper seeks toconfirm. Thus, the well-known phenomenon of confirmation biasseems likely (Nickerson, 1998), though it has not been investi-gated in a retail context. Perhaps shoppers seek out, allocate moreattention to, and process more deeply the elements of theshopping environment that are consistent with their expecta-tions. These features may include the route taken through thestore, particular aisles and shelves looked at, products handled,staff with whom the shopper makes contact, and choices aboutinteractions with other shoppers. Such a bias makes it more likelythat the felt experience is closer to expectations, such that itconstitutes an assimilation effect in social judgment theoryterminology. Considerable work in social judgment theory(Schwarz and Bless, 1992) investigates the circumstances in



Shopping trip satisfaction


AttributionLocus

ControlStability

P10

P11P8, P9

Fig. 4. Determinants of shopping trip satisfaction.


which judgments might be biased toward (assimilation) or awayfrom (contrast) expectations. Contrast effects typically occurwhen the discrepancy between expectations and experience islarge, such that they may relate to critical incidents. Recentresearch indicates that contrast effects also can be induced byalerting people to the possibility of deviation (Geers and Lassiter,2005), which likely plays a role in retailing through word ofmouth or media reports about retail price levels and experiences.

4.4. Propositions

Customers’ shopping trip experiences depend on their percep-tions of transient and enduring aspects of the store environment(as mediated by situationally relevant shopping motives) andtheir shopping trip expectations. Therefore, we offer the followingpropositions:

P3: Perceptions of enduring aspects of store environmentsinfluence customers’ shopping trip experiences.P4:Perceptions of transient aspects of store environments(including critical incidents) influence customers’ shoppingtrip experiences.P5: The relationship between perceptions of transient andenduring aspects of store environments and shopping tripexperience is mediated by situationally relevant shoppingmotives.P6:Expectations frame shopping trip experiences when experi-ences are complex.P7: Actual shopping trip experience (particularly related tocritical incidents) influence customers’ store image perceptions.

We now turn our attention to whether expectations areconfirmed and the consequences for customer satisfaction.

5. Determinants of shopping trip satisfaction

Our framework builds on the confirmation/disconfirmationparadigm and posits that customers compare shopping tripexpectations with experiences, such that a disconfirmation oftheir expectations, whether positive or negative, affects shoppingtrip satisfaction. The relationship between confirmation/discon-firmation and shopping trip satisfaction is moderated by attribu-tions about responsibility, control, and expected recurrence in thecauses of the confirmation/disconfirmation (see Fig. 4).

5.1. Confirmation/disconfirmation

Shopping trip satisfaction is an outcome of the customer’ssubjective comparison of expectations with experience. Ingeneral, customers are satisfied when their expectations aremet, dissatisfied when the actual shopping experience falls shortof expectations, and highly satisfied or even delighted if theirexpectations are surpassed (Oliver, 1981; Oliver et al., 1997; Swanand Trawick, 1981).

According to Oliver (2010), there is no absolute relationshipbetween disconfirmation and satisfaction/dissatisfaction; rather a‘‘performance indifference zone’’ determines whether a mismatchresults in satisfaction or dissatisfaction. This zone represents arange of performance below and above expectations that thecustomer is willing to accept, because performance within thisrange essentially fulfils the customer’s needs (Oliver, 2010).Thus, there is an effect on satisfaction only if the customer’sexperiences deviate substantially from his or her expectations.

All other things being equal, a substantial deviation fromexpectations is most likely when expectations are modest. If

expectations are very positive or very negative, the indifferencezone tends to be larger, which implies no influence of a weakdisconfirmation on satisfaction. If expectations are modest, whichshould be the case for most attributes associated with groceryshopping trips, frequent exposures to these attributes shouldcause a relatively close alignment of expectations and experi-ences. In such situations, smaller levels of (positive or negative)disconfirmation can affect customer satisfaction, compared withbuying situations with more extreme expectations (Oliver, 2010).

5.2. Attribution

When expectations are disconfirmed, either positively ornegatively, customers consider the causes for the disconfirmation,which in turn may influence the effect of the disconfirmation onshopping trip satisfaction. Attribution theory appears in multipledomains and offers a valuable framework for understandingvarious marketing problems (Folkes, 1988; Mizerski et al.,1979). The basic notion is that subjective causal inferences forevents influence satisfaction. As Weiner (1985) notes, peopleengage in spontaneous causal thinking when confronted withsurprising or negative events, such as an unexpected priceincrease or stockout.

Causes also reflect their underlying causal dimensions(Weiner, 1985): locus, controllability, and stability. The locusdimension asks, Who is responsible: the customer, the retailer,or somewhere else? The answer influences beliefs about whoshould solve problems or receive credit for positive surprises. Thecontrollability dimension centers on whether the responsibleparty had control over the cause. Service failures that should beunder the control of the retailer increase customers’ desire tocomplain and warn others compared with failures that are out-side the retailer’s control. The third causal dimension, stability,acknowledges that causes might be temporary or fairly perma-nent, which influences their expected recurrence. Several studiesthus examine both buyer- and seller-related attributions forfailure (for a review, see Folkes, 1988). Campbell (1999) appliesattribution theory to study the antecedents and consequences ofperceptions of price unfairness; finding that a motive attributedto the firm modifies the perceived unfairness of a price increaseand mitigates negative effects on satisfaction.

Bitner (1990) also considers the effects of physical surround-ings and employee responses on customers’ evaluations of serviceencounters, to test her hypothesis that customer attributionsmediate disconfirmation and satisfaction judgments. She finds


that customers are more dissatisfied with a service failure whenthey perceive the cause to be within the control of the firm andlikely to recur. In addition, employees who offer an externalexplanation of the failure and offer to compensate for it helpreduce perceptions of the control that can be attributed to thefirm. Bitner also finds an effect of the service environment onstability attributions. For a supermarket, a disorganized storeenvironment may suggest incompetence, inefficiency, and/or poorservice, which would influence customer expectations of a recur-rent service failure. However, in the case of hard discounters, adisorganized store environment might be expected and thus haveno negative effect on satisfaction.

Contact employees’ responses to a failure also can be influen-tial (Bitner et al., 1990). For example, acknowledging a failure,explaining its cause, and offering compensation can alleviatedissatisfaction and even cause customers to recall an initiallynegative event favorably — in line with fairness research (e.g.,Bies and Shapiro, 1987; Campbell,1999) that shows peopleperceive a negative outcome as more fair when they receive ajustification or explanation for it. In turn, the store environmentand service management efforts of the retailer may influencecustomer attributions of a negative (or positive) critical incident:A customer who witnesses chatting store employees and thenconfronts an empty shelf may attribute the controllability of thisservice failure to the retailer, experience negative disconfirmationof expectations, and thus suffer lower shopping trip satisfaction.

In the case of a positive disconfirmation of expectations (e.g., acustomer faced with a much lower price than expected for aneeded product), attributions again may play a role. A retailercould influence perceptions of controllability and stability ofpositive experiences by devoting specific space in the store tounannounced bargains. Attributions then could enhance thepositive disconfirmation of expectations and increase shoppingtrip satisfaction.

Finally, the correct handling of a complaint may create a moresatisfied customer, which matches Bitner et al., 1990 conclusionsabout how to address negative disconfirmations of expectations.

5.3. Propositions

Whether customers are satisfied or dissatisfied with a parti-cular shopping trip is a function of their expectations andexperiences. We therefore offer the following propositions:

P8: Shopping trip satisfaction is determined by comparisonsbetween shopping trip expectations and experiences.P9: For comparisons between grocery shopping trip expecta-tions and experiences, the zone of indifference is large, soconfirmation is more frequent than disconfirmation.P10: When positive/negative disconfirmations happen,they have a strong positive/negative impact on customersatisfaction.

In line with Bitner (1990), we predict that attributions mod-erate the relationship between shopping trip experience andsatisfaction and thus offer the following proposition:

P11: Attributions regarding the causes of confirmation/dis-confirmation of expectations moderate the relationshipbetween actual shopping trip experience and shopping tripsatisfaction.

6. Discussion, further research, and implications for retailers

Grocery shopping is a frequently recurring activity, is oftenroutine and task oriented in nature, is typically motivated by the

need to buy particular products, and can have a recreationalelement. For retailers striving to satisfy their customers, theymust match or even surpass customers’ expectations on everyindividual shopping trip. All else being equal, customers will notcontinue to patronize stores that repeatedly fail to live up to theirexpectations. It therefore seems surprising that little research hasinvestigated satisfaction with individual shopping trips; insteadsatisfaction tends to be conceptualized as an overall cumulativeevaluation of a given retailer, based on all previous shopping tripsto that retailer.

We instead develop a conceptual framework for analyzingcustomer satisfaction with individual shopping trip experiencesin a grocery retailing context by integrating central concepts frommultiple research streams (see Fig. 1). Customers develop expec-tations of the individual shopping trip, based on their perceptionsof the store image of the outlet and the task-oriented and/orrecreational shopping motives that drive their trip. These expec-tations can be confirmed or disconfirmed by the customer’sexperiences during the trip. Transient and enduring aspects ofthe store environment both influence the customer’s experience.Shopping trip satisfaction results from the customer’s comparisonof expectations with experiences, though attributions regardingresponsibility, control, and expected recurrence of causes of aconfirmation/disconfirmation moderate this relationship betweenthe confirmation/disconfirmation of expectations and shoppingtrip satisfaction. As a consequence of their shopping trip experi-ences and level of satisfaction, customers’ store image percep-tions will be either confirmed or adjusted to take their mostrecent experiences into account. In this way, customers’ expecta-tions for subsequent shopping trip can be changed.

6.1. Future research

Our conceptual framework suggests several avenues for furtherresearch, especially in a grocery shopping context. Empiricalresearch on satisfaction with individual shopping trips remainsmissing, and the eleven propositions we offer should provide thestarting point for studying relationships between the constructsrelated to shopping trip satisfaction.

One way to test the framework empirically is to apply awithin-subjects survey design in which a number of shoppersare intercepted before entering a particular store and then againafter having finished their grocery shopping in that store. At thestore entrance, respondents would be interviewed about theirperceptions of store image and the particular shopping motives ofthat day to examine their pre-shopping expectations. At the storeexit, the same respondents then would be interviewed about theirexperiences related to that particular shopping trip. By comparingexpectations and experiences on a number of similar dimensionsit would be possible to deduce confirmation/disconfirmation ofexpectations to measure shopping trip satisfaction. Attributionsrelated to negative or positive disconfirmation of expectationsshould be measured as they may modify the effect of thedisconfirmation on shopping trip satisfaction. Such a design,however, is vulnerable to bias originating from directing theshopper’s attention to that particular shopping trip after theentrance interview.

Research also should take into account that motives drivingshopping trips differ, so different issues are important toconsumers in different situations. Wagner and Rudolph (2010)reveal that food shopping is dominated by task-driven shoppingmotivations, because consumers want more efficiency and showstronger preferences for service convenience than in non-foodshopping settings, which tend to be more recreational in nature.Task-fulfillment is important for grocery retailing; furtherresearch should address the role of recreational shopping


motives. In addition, researchers should investigate how differentshopping motives are expressed in the expectations customersdevelop of particular shopping trips and explore in detail whatcustomers form expectations about.

Further research also could reveal how customers experiencestore environments during shopping trips. Although a substantialbody of literature describes how retailers can influence observa-ble customer behaviors by manipulating enduring and transientaspects of their store environments, very little research hasinvestigated how consumers experience these different aspects,particularly in a grocery retailing environment. Related researchshould recognize that the store environment and store imageswork on different levels. Whereas store environment literaturefocuses on particular details of the experience, store imageliterature takes a more general approach. It would be beneficialto pursue greater coherence and perhaps even find a way tocombine these two research streams.

As Esbjerg and Bech-Larsen (2009) note, the store environmentis but one element of the retailer’s brand architecture, which isdefined as the material and symbolic context of consumer choice.Thus, retailer brand architecture covers retailer processes andproduct brands, as a manifestation of the totality of the retailer’soffer (Esbjerg and Bech-Larsen, 2009). The brand architecture thussets relatively well-defined boundaries for the experiences cus-tomers might have on particular shopping trips.

When discussing and studying consumers’ shopping tripexperiences, it also is important to take into account howcustomers co-create their shopping experience through theirinterpretations, decisions, and actions. Although some studiesinvestigate consumers as co-constructors of experiences in ser-vice settings (Kozinets et al., 2002; Sherry, 1998), there are nostudies of how they do so in the grocery retail context. Perhapscreating rich and elaborate retail settings that promote co-con-struction is viable only if customers are driven by recreationalshopping motives (e.g., to linger, play, seek community, learn,grow; Kozinets et al., 2002), whereas in a grocery retail setting,low prices, convenience, choice, and speed of shopping – that is,task fulfillment – are more important (Kozinets et al., 2002;Wagner and Rudolph, 2010). Studies of consumer co-constructionof shopping experiences have been criticized as too elitist andfocused on what the ‘‘creative class’’ considers valuable experi-ences while overlooking how customers experience mundaneactivities such as hunting for bargains or shopping for groceries(Rasmussen, 2007). Studies that investigate how customersexperience grocery shopping trips thus are in great demand. Inthis context, an issue deserving attention is defining what con-stitutes delightful and terrible shopping experiences (see Arnoldet al., 2005). Research also should define how shopping tripexperiences form.

We finally recommend that research clarify conceptual issuesrelated to the application of the disconfirmation paradigm to thecontext of grocery shopping trip satisfaction and thereby con-tribute to a better understanding of the workings, limits, andapplicability of the confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm.First, is disconfirmation in the grocery shopping trip contextbest described as a switch or critical mass mechanism? Referringto Helson’s (1959) adaptation level theory, Oliver (1980) arguesthat only great impacts on individual customers’ adaptationlevels change their subjective evaluation, which implies thedisconfirmation mechanism functions as a critical mass withsome room for indifference. Meyer’s (2008) finding that indivi-dual customers’ expectancy-experience differences in percep-tions of discount store performance affect their responses only ifthey are less loyal to the store helps validate the conceptualiza-tion of grocery shopping trip disconfirmation as a critical massmechanism.

Second, are the criteria and functional relations involved inshopping trip expectations and experiences identical? In manytraditional grocery shopping contexts, it may be possible to modelexpectations and experiences on the same set of additive criteria.However, the advent of the ‘‘experiential’’ trend in retail market-ing (e.g., Aubert-Gamet and Cova, 1999; Kozinets et al., 2002)suggests that the shopping experience itself changes the evalua-tion criteria used and the functional relations. If customers enterthe store with expectations that are mainly related to thegroceries to buy but leave with experiences formed by otheraspects of the store environment, it could lead them to acknowl-edge new evaluation criteria and interactions.

Third, how do different types of shopping trip expectation andexperience criteria (e.g., search, experience, credibility; seeNelson, 1970) affect disconfirmation? By definition, search cri-teria lend themselves easily to an in-store, single trip-baseddisconfirmation, but the same applicability does not hold formost experience criteria (e.g., how a complaint is handled) or forcredence criteria (e.g., social responsibility of the retail chain), forwhich performance cannot be measured in a single shopping trip,if ever.

Fourth, what is the relative importance of expectations anddisconfirmations in shopping trip satisfaction? In some instances,strong expectations may overrule experiences. As Oliver (1980)notes, Howard and Sheth (1969) even recognize this point in theirbuying behavior theory when they model satisfaction as a sum ofanticipated satisfaction and the difference between anticipatedand received satisfaction. In a grocery context, the effect of theexperience-independent contribution of anticipation on post-purchase evaluations is well observed (Brunsø et al., 2005).

Fifth and finally, the multiple and heterogeneous set ofpotential quality dimensions that characterize grocery shoppingimplies that this context is ideal for exploring the importantquestion of how the confirmation/disconfirmation mechanisminteracts with other antecedents, such as need fulfillment, equity,regret, value, and affect, in the determination of customersatisfaction (see Oliver, 2010).

6.2. Implications for retailers

Only if retailers can satisfy customers on each shopping tripare they likely to develop a loyal customer base, for which loyaltyis not just spurious or due to the lack of better alternatives.Retailers must develop a solid understanding of the task-orientedand recreational motives that consumers want to satisfy, as wellas the expectations that they must meet or surpass to delightcustomers. Just as important, retailers need a good understandingof what constitutes terrible shopping experiences to mitigate orrectify their service failures.

Bitner et al. (1990) calls for structured service managementsystems that train employees on how to engage in recovery,adaptability, and spontaneity behaviors to enhance shopping tripsatisfaction. Fair compensation also can alleviate dissatisfactionwith service failures. Complaint handling thus is critical to servicemanagement, though it requires that customers actively com-plain. Voorhees et al. (2006) examine motivations and conse-quences of non-complaint; time and effort and the lack of serviceproviders’ responsiveness represent the most common reasons.Voorhees et al. (2006) consider non-complainers a potentiallydangerous customer group, because they give the retailer noopportunity to recover or correct their systems. A commonassumption in relationship marketing is that recruiting newcustomers is more expensive than retaining existing customers(Reichheld and Sasser, 1990), but it is uncertain if this assumptionholds for grocery retail. Yet non-complainers also may become ahuge problem if they switch stores as a result of recurrent


negative disconfirmations of their expectations. Complaints couldrefer to products bought in the store, as well as to the serviceencounter overall; yet if the line at the customer information deskis too long, customers likely are discouraged from complaining.

Customers today increasingly replace or supplement interac-tions with service employees with self-service technologies (SST),such as online grocery shopping or self-checkout kiosks at retailstores. Meuter et al. (2000) find that dissatisfying incidentsrelated to SSTs consist of four groups: (1) technology failure,(2) process failure, (3) poor design, and (4) customer-drivenfailure. Customers may find it strenuous to complain becausethey lack any direct contact with service employees. Thus,retailers may have fewer opportunities to alleviate dissatisfactionwith service failures when they rely on SSTs – unless they backthem up with effortless complaint handling systems.

Retailers can use our conceptual framework to track customersatisfaction and to explore changes in customer satisfactionlevels. Specifically, we suggest that retailers regularly monitorcustomers’ (1) store image perceptions, (2) confirmation/discon-firmation of shopping trip expectations, and (3) their satisfactionwith the most recent shopping trip. If scores on either of theseindicators begin to deteriorate, our framework can be used todiagnose the causes behind this. For instance, by first investigat-ing if changes have been made in transient and enduring aspectsof the store environment, then studying if shopping motives havechanged, or asking customers to give specific examples of positiveand negative experiences (critical incidents) on recent shoppingtrips. Our framework can also be used to investigate short- andlong-term effects of remodeling enduring aspects of the storeenvironment, similar to what Bruggen et al. (2011) have recentlydone for a fast-food chain. This should combine data on storeimage perceptions with transaction data.

Retailers should use their understanding of how customersexperience store environments and shopping trips as input todesign store environments that facilitate positive shoppingexperiences.

References

Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., Lehmann, D.R., 1994. Customer satisfaction, marketshare, and profitability: findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing 58 (July),53–66.

Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., 2003. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal ofRetailing 79 (2), 77–95.

Arnold, M.J., Reynolds, K.E., Ponder, N., Lueg, J.E., 2005. Customer delight in a retailcontext: investigating delightful and terrible shopping experiences. Journal ofBusiness Research 58, 1132–1145.

Aubert-Gamet, V., Cova, B., 1999. Servicecapes: from modern non-places topostmodern common places. Journal of Business Research 44 (1), 37–45.

Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonicand utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4), 644–657.

Backstrom, K., 2011. Shopping as leisure: an exploration of manifoldness anddynamics in consumers shopping experiences. Journal of Retailing andConsumer Services 18 (3), 200–209.

Backstrom, K., Johansson, U., 2006. Creating and consuming experiences in retailstore lf,environments: comparing retailer and consumer perspectives. Journalof Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (6), 417–430.

Baker, J., 1986. The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumerperspective. In: Czepeil, J.A., Congram, C.A., Shanahan, J. (Eds.), The ServiceChallenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage. American Marketing Asso-ciation, Chicago, IL.

Bearden, W.O., 1977. Determinant attributes of store patronage: downtown versusoutlying shopping centers. Journal of Retailing 53 (2), 15–96.

Bell, D.R., Corsten, D., Knox, G., 2011. From point of purchase to path to purchase:how preshopping factors drive unplanned behavior. Journal of Marketing 75,31–45.

Bell, J., Gilbert, D., Lockwood, A., 1997. Service quality in food retailing operations:a critical incident analysis. The International Review of Retail, Distribution andConsumer Research 7, 405–423.

Bellizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E., Hasty, R.W., 1983. The effects of color in store design.Journal of Retailing 59 (1), 21–45.

Bellizzi, J.A., Hite, R.E., 1992. Environmental color, consumer feelings, andpurchase likelihood. Psychology & Marketing 9 (5), 347–364.

Bies, R.J., Shapiro, D.L., 1987. Interactional fairness judgments: the influence ofcausal accounts. Social Justice Research 1 (2), 199–218.

Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surround-ings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing 54 (2), 69–82.

Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on custo-mers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56, 57–71.

Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Tetreault, M.S., 1990. The service encounter: diagnosingfavorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing 54 (1), 71–84.

Bloemer, J., de Ruyter, K., 1998. On the relationship between store image, storesatisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing 32 (5/6),499–513.

Brunsø, K., Bredahl, L., Grunert, K.G., Scholderer, J., 2005. Consumer perception ofthe quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes. LivestockProduction Science 94 (1-2), 83–93.

Bruggen, E.C., Faubert, B., Gremler, D.D., 2011. Extreme makeover: short- and long-term effects of a remodelled servicescape. Journal of Marketing 75, 71–87.

Campbell, M.C., 1999. Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and con-sequences. Journal of Marketing Research 36 (2), 187–199.

Chowdhury, J., Reardon, J., Srivastava, R., 1998. Alternative modes of measuringstore image: an empirical assessment of structured versus unstructuredmeasures. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 6 (2), 72–86.

Crowley, A.E., 1993. The two-dimensional impact of color on shopping. MarketingLetters 4 (1), 59–69.

d’Astous, A., Levesque, M., 2003. A scale for measuring store personality. Psychol-ogy & Marketing 20 (5), 455–469.

d’Astous, A., 2000. Irritating aspects of the shopping environment. Journal ofBusiness Research 49, 149–156.

Davies, F.M., Goode, M.M.H., Moutinho, L.A., Ogbonna, E., 2001. Critical factors inconsumer supermarket shopping behaviour: a neural network approach.Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1 (1), 35–49.

Deighton, J., 1984. The interaction of advertising and evidence. Journal ofConsumer Research 11, 763–770.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychologyapproach. Journal of Retailing 58 (Spring), 34–57.

Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere andpurchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing 70 (3), 283–294.

Doyle, P., Fenwick, I., 1974. How store image affects shopping habits in grocerychains. Journal of Retailing 50 (4), 39–52.

Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., 1990. An empirical study of retail crowding:antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing 66 (2), 201–221.

Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., 1993. Athmosperic factors in the retail environment:sights, sounds and smells. Advances in Consumer Research 20, 34.

Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., Barr, T.F., 2005. Perceived retail crowding and shoppingsatisfaction: the role of shopping values. Journal of Business Research 58,1146–1153.

Esbjerg, L., Bech-Larsen, T., 2009. The brand architecture of grocery retailers:setting material and symbolic boundaries for consumer choice. Journal ofRetailing and Consumer Services 16, 414–423.

Folkes, V.S., 1988. The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal ofConsumer Research 15, 13–23.

Foxall, G.R., Greenley, G.E., 1999. Consumers’ emotional responses to serviceenvironments. Journal of Business Research 46, 149–158.

Foxall Gordon, R., Yani-de-Soriano, M.Mirella, 2005. Situational influences onconsumers’ attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business Research 58, 518–525.

Garlin, F.V., Owen, K., 2006. Setting the tone with the tune: a meta-analytic reviewof the effects of background music in retail settings. Journal of BusinessResearch 59, 755–764.

Geers, A.L., Lassiter, G.D., 2005. Affective assimilation and contrast: effects ofexpectations and prior stimulus exposure. Basic & Applied Social Psychology27, 143–154.

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., Borin, N., 1998. The effect of store name, brandname and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions.Journal of Retailing 74 (3), 331–352.

Groppel, A., 1995. Evolution of retail categories — an explanation from consumers’point of view. In: Hansen, F. (Ed.), European Advances in Consumer Research.Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 237–245.

Grove, S.J., Fisk, R.P., 1997. The impact of other customers on service experiences:a critical incident examination of ’’getting along’’. Journal of Retailing 73 (1),63–85.

Hare, C., Kirk, D., Lang, T., 2001. The food shopping experience of older consumersin Scotland: critical incidents. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement 29 (1), 25–40.

Hartman, K.B., Spiro, R.L., 2005. Recapturing store image in customer-based storeequity: a construct conceptualization. Journal of Business Research 58 (8),1112–1120.

Helson, H., 1959. Adaptation level theory. In: Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology. A Study ofa Science. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Hildebrandt, Lutz, 1988. Store image and the prediction of performance inretailing. Journal of Business Research 17, 91–100.

Hoch, S.J., Ha, Y.-W., 1986. Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity ofproduct experience. Journal of Consumer Research 13, 221–233.

Howard, J.A., Sheth, J.N., 1969. The Theory of Buyer Behavior. Wiley, New York.Hu, H., Jasper, C.R., 2006. Social cues in the store environment and their impact on

store image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 34 (1),25–48.


Hui, M.K., Bateson, J.E.G., 1991. Perceived control and the effects of crowding andconsumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 18(2), 174–184.

Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., 2006. The role of retailer interest on shopping behavior.Journal of Retailing 82, 115–126.

Jones, T.O., Sasser, W.E., 1995. Why satisfied customers defect. Harvard BusinessReview (November–December), 88–99.

Keller, K.L., 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-basedbrand equity. Journal of Marketing 57, 1–22.

Kelley, H.H., Michela, J.L., 1980. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review ofPsychology 31, 457–501.

Kotler, P., 1974. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49 (Winter),48–64.

Kozinets, R.V., Sherry, J.F., DeBerry-Spence, B., Duhachek, A., Nuttavuthisit, K.,Storm, D., 2002. Themed flagship brand stores in the new millennium: theory,practice, prospects. Journal of Retailing 78 (1), 17–29.

Martineau, P., 1958. The personality of the retail store. Harvard Business Review36 (1), 47–56.

Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-storeevaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 273–289.

Maxham, J.G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2002. A longitudinal study of complainingcustomers’ evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts.Journal of Marketing 66 (4), 57–71.

Mazaheri, E., Basil, D.Z., Yanamandram, V., Daroczi, Z., 2011. The impact of pre-existing attitude and conflict management style on customer satisfaction withservice recovery. Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services 18 (3), 235–245.

Mehrabian, A., Russel, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology,Cambridge, MA. MIT Press.

Meuter, M.L., Ostrom, A.L., Roundtree, R.I., Bitner, M.J., 2000. Self-service technol-ogies: understanding customer satisfaction with technology-based serviceencounters. Journal of Marketing 64, 50–64.

Meyer, T., 2008. Experience-based aspects of shopping attitudes: the roles ofnorms and loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (4),324–333.

Milliman, R.E., 1982. Using background music to affect the behavior of super-market shoppers. Journal of Marketing 46 (3), 86–91.

Mitchell, D.J., Kahn, B.E., Knasko, S.C., 1995. There’s something in the air: effects ofcongruent or incongruent ambient odor on consumer decision making. Journalof Consumer Research 22 (2), 229–238.

Mizerski, R.W., Allison, N.K., Calvert, S., 1979. A Controlled Field Study ofCorrective Advertising Using Multiple Exposures and a Commercial Medium.Center for Marketing Studies, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

Mohr, L.A., Bitner, M.J., 1995. The role of employee effort in satisfaction withservice transactions. Journal of Business Research 32 (3), 239–252.

Morschett, D., Swoboda, B., Foscht, T., 2005. Perception of store attributes andoverall attitude towards grocery retailers: the role of shopping motives. TheInternational Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 15 (4),423–447.

Nelson, P., 1970. Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy78 (2), 311–329.

Nickerson, R.S., 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in manyguises. Review of General Psychology 2 (2), 175–220.

Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences ofsatisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17, 460–469.

Oliver, R.L., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retailsettings. Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 25–48.

Oliver, R.L., 1997. Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Oliver, R.L., 2010. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, seconded. M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Oliver, R.L., Rust, R.T., Varki, S., 1997. Customer delight: foundations, findings, andmanagerial insight. Journal of Retailing 73 (3), 311–336.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of servicequality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49 (Fall),41–50.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scalefor measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64(Spring), 12–37.

Rasmussen, T.A., 2007. Oplevelsesøkonomien og dens grænser [The experienceecononomy and its limits]. In: Bærenholdt, J.O., Sundbo, J. (Eds.), Oplevelse-søkonomi – Produktion, Forbrug, Kultur [Experience Economy – Production,Consumption, Culture]. Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen, pp. 51–66.

Reese, S., 1996. Happiness is not everything. American Demographics, 52–59.Reichheld, F.F., Sasser, W.E., Jr., 1990. Zero defections: Quality comes to service.

Harvard Business Review.Schiffman, L.G., Dash, J.F., Dillon, W.R., 1977. The contribution of store-image

characteristics to store-type choice. Journal of Retailing 53 (3–14), 46.

Schwarz, N., Bless, H., 1992. Constructing reality and its alternatives: assimilationand contrast effects in social judgment. In: Martin, L.L., Tesser, A. (Eds.),The Construction of Social Judgement. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,pp. 195–216.

Sherry Jr., J.F. (Ed.), NTC Business Books, Chicago, IL.Sirgy, M.J., 1985. Using self-congruity and ideal congruity to predict purchase

motivation. Journal of Business Research 13, 195–206.Sirgy, M.J., Samli, C., 1985. A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-

concept, store image, geographic loyalty, and socioeconomic status. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science 13 (3), 265–291.

Smith, P.C., Curnow, R., 1966. ’’Arousal hypothesis’’ and the effects of music onpurchasing behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 50 (3), 255–256.

Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E., Henderson, P.W., 1996. Improving the storeenvironment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal ofMarketing 60 (2), 67–80.

Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., Sprott, D.E., 2005. It is beginning to smell(and sound) a lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent andmusic in a retail setting. Journal of Business Research 58, 1583–1589.

Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B., Olshavsky, R.W., 1996. A reexamination of thedeterminants of consumer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing 60 (3), 15–32.

Stern, B.L., Bush, R.F., Hair, J.F., 1977. The self image/store image matching process:an empirical test. The Journal of Business 50 (1), 63–69.

Stone, J., Horne, S., Hibbert, S., 1996. Car boot sales: a study of shopping motives inan alternative retail format. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement 24 (11), 4–15.

Swan, J.E., Trawick, I.F., 1981. Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfactionwith a retail service. Journal of Retailing 57 (3), 49–68.

Tauber, E.M., 1972. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing 36 (4), 46–49.Tax, S.S., Brown, S.W., Chandrashekaran, S., 1998. Customer evaluations of service

complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. Journal ofMarketing 62 (2), 60–76.

Thelen, E.M., Woodside, A.G., 1997. What evokes the brand or store? Consumerresearch on accessibility theory to modeling primary choice. InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing 14 (2), 125–145.

Theodoridis, P.K., Chatzipanagiotou, K.C., 2008. Store image attributes and custo-mer satisfaction across different customer profiles within the supermarketsector in Greece. European Journal of Marketing 43 (5), 708–734.

Vahie, A., Paswan, A., 2006. Private label brand image: its relationship with storeimage and national brand. International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement 34 (1), 67–84.

van Raaij, W.F., 1985. Attribution of causality to economic actions and events.Kyklos 38 (Fasc. 1), 3–19.

Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger,L.A., 2009. Customer experience creation: determinants, dynamics andmanagement strategies. Journal of Retailing 85 (1), 31–41.

Voorhees, C.M., Brady, M.K., Horowitz, D.M., 2006. A voice from the silent masses:an exploratory and comparative analysis of noncomplainers. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 34 (4), 514–527.

Wagner, T., Rudolph, T., 2010. Towards a hierarchical theory of shopping motiva-tion. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17, 415–429.

Wakefield, K.L., Baker, J., 1998. Exitement at the mall: determinants and effects onshopping response. Journal of Retailing 74 (4), 515–539.

Walters, D., 1994. Retailing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control. Mac-Millan, London.

Walters, D., Hanrahan, J., 2000. Retail Strategy: Planning and Control. Macmillan,London.

Walters, R.G., Jamil, M., 2003. Exploring the relationships between shopping triptype, purchases of products on promotion, and shopping basket profit. Journalof Business Research 56 (1), 17–29.

Weiner, B., 1985. ’’Spontaneous’’ causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin 97 (1),74–84.

Westbrook, R.A., 1981. Sources of consumer satisfaction with retail outlets. Journalof Retailing 57 (3), 68–86.

Westbrook, R.A., Black, W.C., 1985. A motivation-based shopper typology. Journalof Retailing 61 (1), 78–104.

Yalch, R.F., Spangenberg, E., 1993. Using store music for retail zoning: a fieldexperiment. Advances in Consumer Research 20 (1), 632–636.

Yalch, R.F., Spangenberg, E., 1990. Effects of store music on shopping behavior. TheJournal of Consumer Marketing 7 (2), 55–63.

Yani-de-Soriano, M.M., Foxall, G.R., 2006. The emotional power of place: the falland rise of dominance in retail research. Journal of Retailing and ConsumerServices 13 (6), 403–416.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1988. Communication and controlprocesses in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing 52 (April),35–48.

Documents

An integrative conceptual framework for analyzing customer satisfaction with shopping trip experiences in grocery retailing