Identifying Picky Shoppers: Who They Are and How to Spot Them

Cheng, Andong; Baumgartner, Hans; Meloy, Margaret G.

doi:10.1002/jcpy.1223

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scales can measure any of several specific entities (i.e., independent variables, moderators, mediators, and outcome variables), some that are more enduring (typically "trait" measures) and some that are more transitory (typically "state" and/or "response" measures). Trait scales measure an enduring characteristic of a consumer [e.g., consumers who tend to be picky shoppers (Cheng et al, 2021), tend to be environmentally conscientious (Haws et al, 2014), or prefer local food (Reich et al, 2018)]. Measurement of individual differences most typically serves the role of independent variables or moderators.…”

Section: Consi De R At Ions For Va LI Dat Ed a N D I M Prov I Sed Sca...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding consumer-related phenomenon often involves investigating both established and new theoretical constructs. Accordingly, it is imperative that researchers accurately manipulate and measure these constructs. In the current article, we focus on the measurement of constructs via scales-established multi-item instruments that measure focal constructs in a reliable and valid manner (Churchill, 1979;Netemeyer et al., 2003). In some cases, researchers undertake an extensive process to develop useful and psychometrically sound measurements for use in a variety of research (e.g., Hulland et al., 2022;Netemeyer et al., 2003). However, our focus here is on the usage of these measurement tools after their introduction. The issue of scale deployment has received far less attention than scale development. Whereas any researcher measuring a theoretical construct of interest needs to ensure that they appropriately measure it, we focus primarily on consumer behavior research, noting that the conclusions presented here can also be applied to other areas of marketing research (and beyond). In combination with our review of relevant literature more broadly, we offer tangible examples drawn from the Journal of Consumer Psychology (JCP).So, how are consumer researchers using scales? To aid our discussion, we begin with four recent examples of scale usage in JCP that illustrate how researchers apply acceptable current standards in scale deployment. To begin, Farmer et al. ( 2021) utilized several scales in their paper, but we focus on two instances here. First, they utilized the intolerance of ambiguity scale exactly as originally created and validated (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), which we label as "as is, validated" usage, and we argue is the gold standard for scale deployment. As a second example, Farmer et al. ( 2021) also used a scale to measure political ideology (Kidwell et al., 2013). This latter scale, however, was not empirically validated when originally developed

show abstract

Section: Consi De R At Ions For Va LI Dat Ed a N D I M Prov I Sed Sca...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Research Agendamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research that also seeks to combine psychological variables with innovation adoption theories to better explain the MFS phenomenon will lead to new insights and will contribute to theory building. For example, the recently developed picky shopper scale (Cheng et al, 2021) differentiates between picky by acceptance and picky by rejection. Future research can integrate the picky shopper scale into studies comparing the shopping behaviours and innovation adoption of generation X, generation Y and the millennials using MFSs as a context.…”

Section: Advances In Mfssmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advances in mobile financial services: a review of the literature and future research directions

Shaikh

Alamoudi

Alharthi

et al. 2022

IJBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeUsing the theory, construct, method, moderator (TCMM) format, this framework-based review critically analyses the mobile financial services (MFSs) field through a detailed synthesis and analysis of a sample of mainstream empirical research published in various scientific journals within the period 2009–2020.Design/methodology/approachThe authors followed a three-step structured approach suggested by Webster and Watson (2002) to search for the literature to synthesise the global perspectives on MFSs and their associated applications and systems. The literature research resulted in the identification of 115 most relevant articles.FindingsThe authors identified three major categories or domains within the MFSs comprising the entire spectrum of digital financial services. To facilitate the literature analysis, TCMM is developed and proposed as an organising framework. Moreover, the authors also developed and presented the comprehensive framework of MFS domains and explicitly identified 14 different research themes for future research in MFSs.Originality/valuePrior attempts to synthesise and analyse mainstream academic research in MFSs have been scant and limited to a specific MFS domain: mobile banking or mobile payment. The authors synthesised a more extensive body of knowledge and provided a global perspective on the MFS field. Unlike the past literature reviews which followed traditional frameworks such as antecedents, decisions and outcome (ADO); TCCM; and 6 W Framework (who, when, where, how, what and why), the authors developed and proposed TCMM as organising framework.

show abstract

“…In addition, gift decisions can be demanding due to the difficulty in gauging recipients' preferences. This is especially true for gift decisions for picky individuals, whose narrow and idiosyncratic preferences make satisfaction with gifts seem unlikely (Cheng, Baumgartner, et al, 2021). A survey revealed that 39% of Black Friday shoppers considered their recipients picky, highlighting the frequent need to buy gifts for such individuals (Cheng, Meloy, et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gifts that give twice are not twice as nice: Consumers avoid socially responsible gifts for picky recipients

Chin,

Wang,

2024

Psychology and Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gift decisions are challenging. Consumers need to gauge their recipients' preferences—a task that could be especially tough when the recipients are picky. In addition, gift decisions involve consideration of many gift attributes, such as whether the gifts also support worthy causes (i.e., socially responsible gifts). In this research, we examine how givers' decision to give socially responsible gifts is impacted by how picky the recipients are. Five studies provide convergent evidence that gift‐givers are less likely to choose socially responsible gifts for picky recipients because they are perceived as lower in interpersonal warmth. Supporting our theory, the effect attenuates for gift‐givers attend less to interpersonal warmth (i.e., high in social dominance orientation) and when cues indicating recipient warmth are salient. We conclude by discussing the contributions to the gift‐giving and consumer pickiness literature and the practical implications for marketers promoting socially responsible gifts.

show abstract

Identifying Picky Shoppers: Who They Are and How to Spot Them

Cited by 8 publications

References 67 publications

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

Scale use and abuse: Towards best practices in the deployment of scales

Advances in mobile financial services: a review of the literature and future research directions

Gifts that give twice are not twice as nice: Consumers avoid socially responsible gifts for picky recipients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About