Shopping Value and Satisfaction

2. Literature review and hypotheses

2.1. Shopping value and satisfaction

Satisfaction judgments are thought to be comprised of both

affective (Mano and Oliver, 1993; Westbrook, 1987) and cognitive

elements (Oliver, 1993; Oliver and Swan, 1989). Theoretically,

this notion is embodied in the "two-appraisal" model of

satisfaction evaluation (Oliver, 1989; Weiner, 1986), which

posits that affective responses arise from evaluation of the

outcomes of product/service usage, followed by cognitive interpretation

and related processes (e.g., expectancy-disconfirmation)

which lead to satisfaction. Summary satisfaction judgments,

such as satisfaction with the retailer, are then thought to rely on

the accumulated affective experiences with a product or service,

and beliefs and other cognitions which are retained and updated

over time (Oliver, 1997; Mittal et al., 1999; Westbrook, 1987).

A related theory of needs satisfaction suggests that all

consumption events are capable of fulfilling needs at lower,

more functional levels, as well as higher, more psychological

levels (Oliver, 1997; Herzberg et al., 1959). More tangible attributes

of goods and services are thought to be "bivalent satisfiers,"

or those characteristics which can both satisfy and dissatisfy

consumers. Bivalent satisfiers provide input to the cognitive

processes (e.g., expectancy-disconfirmation) underlying satisfaction

(Oliver, 1997), and should be closely related to assessments

of utilitarian value. More abstract, higher-order characteristics of

goods and services are considered "monovalent satisfiers," or

those "extras" which can only contribute to satisfaction – and not

dissatisfaction – in an affective and psychological manner. Hedonic

value therefore should be closely related to the monovalent

satisfiers in the retail environment.

Given this background, it is reasonable to expect that perceptions

of the value of a retail experience should be important

components of the two fundamental satisfaction appraisals, and

hence should be important to overall satisfaction judgments. As a

reflection of this, retail studies have shown linkages between hedonic

and utilitarian value and satisfaction (Babin et al., 1994;

Babin et al., 2005). Therefore, we should expect the following

relationships.

H1a. Hedonic shopping value will positively influence overall

satisfaction with the retailer.

H1b. Utilitarian shopping value will positively influence overall

satisfaction with the retailer.

However, theory and the nature of the shopping experience

suggest that satisfaction should be more strongly related to hedonic

rather than utilitarian value specifically in the shopping

context. This is so because satisfaction processes are thought to

be dependent in part on the context of consumption (Fournier

and Mick, 1999), and in hedonically valenced contexts research

has made close linkages between emotional responses and satisfaction

(Dawson et al., 1990; Wakefield and Baker, 1998).

Prior research illustrates the multisensory, experiential, and

emotional aspects of shopping (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003;

Westbrook and Black, 1985), and that the in-store experience

can elicit feelings of fun, fantasy fulfillment, escapism, and

excitement (Babin et al., 1994; Wakefield and Baker, 1998).

Hence, while shopping often contains a utilitarian component,

its potential for eliciting emotional response is substantial.

This is important because research has shown that, in experiential

contexts, affect is a key driver of satisfaction. For example,

Price, Arnould, and Tierney (1995) investigated satisfaction

drivers in affectively charged service encounters (white water

rafting) and found that positive affect was highly correlated with

satisfaction while overall performance was not correlated at all.

Similarly, Oliver, Rust and Varki (1997) show that a model of

delight