Understanding Motivations for Using Grocery Shopping Applications

Abstract

For more than two decades, researchers have been investigating how to technologically enhance the in-store shopping experience. 1 The focus has mainly been on applying shopping assistants at the point of sale, 1-5 but users employ multiple types of devices in multiple contexts and locations, not only in stores. 6 More research is thus needed to understand users' motivations for using shopping applications in the first place.To explore such motivations, we studied the use of Foodie. fi, a popular grocery shopping application for mobile, tablet, and Web clients. Because Foodie.fi provides a wide range of the features explored in previous research prototypes and small-scale trials, it offers a good representation of a real-world deployment of the various ideas presented in the literature. The service can be used both for online shopping and for enhancing the traditional in-store shopping experience. It also combines the shopping experience with online cooking recipes.In this article, we focus on the following research questions:What are the motivations for using a shopping application? Why do people select either in-store or online shopping? In what kinds of situations is the service being used?In particular, we investigate the use of digital shopping lists and how people use technological support to plan and execute their grocery shopping. Related WorkTraditionally, people have used shopping lists written on paper, usually composed at home, to refresh their memory when shopping. Only five percent of paper-based shopping lists are edited in the supermarket. 7 Furthermore, the transition from paper-based to digital shopping lists has been slow. 8 Digital shopping assistants let customers request product information using pervasive technologies. Most of these applications are implemented for mobile phones and PDAs. 1,4,9 Another approach has been to integrate the system into a physical shopping cart. 5 Shopping assistants presented in previous research typically consist of one or more of the following features:This case study of Foodie.fi, a popular grocery shopping application, reveals three main motivations for using the service and compares in-store and online shopping. Integrating a recipe service with the shopping application can engage users and enhance their diets. Pia Tukkinen Aalto University, Finland Janne Lindqvist Rutgers UniversityPER VASI V E computing 39 product information, shopping lists, the user's location, price comparisons, ratings and reviews, and advertisements. Foodie.fi provides all these features either fully or partially, so it is a suitable example for this study.Researchers have mainly performed laboratory tests and field trials focused on in-store use, but online commercial shopping applications, such as Google Shopper, ShopSavvy, and AmazonFresh, are gaining popularity. Although there is not much research on the use of these applications, because companies have been reluctant to release their data, a couple of early studies exist. One study of a widely adopted bargain hunter application...

Mapping the digital food environment: A systematic scoping review

“…[128][129][130][131][132][133][134][135][136] Accessibility A total of 48 studies (13%) related to the accessibility dimension as defined in the food environment framework used. These studies, mostly based on consumer perceptions, 42,[74][75][76][77][78][79][80]104,106,[109][110][111][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147] indicate that food accessibility in the digital food environment relates mostly to time used to acquire food when buying groceries online or ordering food delivery services, as well as the transportation needs to access these foods. Only two studies 138,148 investigated the actual time used for buying food online or changes in travel habits.…”

“…While no studies investigated convenience in depth, the existing studies indicated that convenience in the digital food environment can be influenced by food delivery apps that reduce or eliminate time preparing and cooking food, 100,153 by the improved meal planning afforded by food recipe websites and apps, 154 and online grocery shopping. 43,44,77,112,126,145,155,156…”

Food Democracy in the Making

“…Over the last decade, HCI has increasingly engaged with food and the potential for digital technology to play a role in its production and consumption [17]. Researchers have designed and studied ICT that shapes how we produce (predominantly through growing of vegetables in community gardens) [42,54,62,78], shop [14,15,45,75], prepare [16,32], eat [1,13,14,18], share [34,36], and dispose of [3,19,30,33] food. Within this, HCI has historically focused on the household level [18,35], with the community level primarily researched through community gardening and urban agriculture studies [54,78].…”

Bearing an Open “Pandora's Box”

“…They conclude that food shopping, cooking, eating and associated waste are socially situated and that the complex circumstances of people's lives and their food practices are intertwined and this needs to be considered in future HCI work. Tukkinen and Lindqvist [2015] explore the real world deployment of a grocery shopping app in Finland, while Abbar, Mejova and Weber [2015] use the Twittersphere to uncover food consumption practices and in particular health impacts of different food choices.…”