An examination of the retail approach‐avoidance behavior of older apparel consumers

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to examine the four aspects of approach‐avoidance behavior (physical, exploratory, communication, performance and satisfaction) of older apparel consumers (those aged 65 and over). This research also examined the differences in age and shopping orientations relative to the importance of retail store attributes. Participants were 208 older consumers residing in the Southeastern part of the USA. Survey results revealed that older consumers preferred to shop department stores and mass merchandisers for clothing. These consumers reported they would spend more time and money in retail stores that offered credit, discounts for those 65 and over, and liberal return policies. Furthermore, they reported they would not return to and would avoid looking around in retail stores without chairs or benches, with difficult to find items, inferior products, and poor business practices. No differences were found in the age of older consumers relative to the importance of store attributes and shopping orientations. However, differences were found in the shopping orientation groups relative to the importance placed on store attributes.

Importance of apparel store image attributes: Perceptions of female consumers

“…Shopping orientation groups differed with regard to the importance placed on store attributes (Moye & Giddings, 2002). These results were confirmed in a study by Kim and Chen Yu (2005).…”

“…Based on the findings that store image attributes, used by Canadian and English respondents as store selection criteria, were similar in ranking, Van de Velde et al (1996) concluded that similar clothing value hierarchies exist amongst different cultural groups sharing a root culture. Moye and Giddings (2002) found no differences between the age of older consumers (65 and older) and the importance of store attributes.…”

Store Image: Toward a Conceptual Model Part 1

“…Results from studies on the relationship between demographic variables (age, gender, level of education, occupation, residence, income level, marital status and number of children) and perceived store image were marked by contradicting findings (Chowdhary, 1999;Gehrt & Yan, 2004;Hyllegard, Eckman, Descals & Borja, 2005;Moye & Giddings, 2002;Oates, Shufeldt & Vaught, 1996;Odekerken-Schröder, De Wulf, Kasper, Kleijnen, Hoekstra & Commandeur, 2001;Paulins & Geistfeld, 2003;Williams & Slama, 1995). Consequently no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the influence of demographic variables on the perceived importance of store image.…”

“…The relationship between shopping orientation and store image perception was more conclusive although the shopping orientation groups that were identified in specific studies differed (Morschett, Swoboda & Foscht, 2005;Moye & Giddings, 2002;Moye & Kincade, 2002;Shim & Kotsiopulos, 1992;Visser & Du Preez, 2001). The results of Shim and Kotsiopulos (1992) indicated that shopping orientations predict the importance of store attributes.…”

“…Strong support was found for the relationship between store image perception and both patronage preference (Amirani & Gates, 1993;Paulins & Geistfeld, 2003;Thang & Tan, 2003) and approach/avoidance behaviour. However, research indicated that in some instances the relationship between store image perception and approach/avoidance behaviour was mediated by emotional state (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982;Moye & Giddings, 2002;Ward et al, 1992).…”