Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243

Determinants of retail patronage: A meta-analytical perspective夽

Yue Pan a,∗ , George M. Zinkhan b,1
a 812 Miriam Hall, Department of Management & Marketing, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469-2271, United States
b Department of Marketing, Terry College of Business, University of Georgiam, Athens, GA 30602, United States

Accepted 11 November 2005

Abstract

The retail patronage idea includes such key concepts as store choice and frequency of visit. In this study, the authors synthesize previous
empirical studies through a formal, critical review of retailing literature. The meta-analysis suggests that various predictors (e.g., service,
product selection, quality) are strongly related to shoppers’ retail choice, whereas others (e.g., store attitude, store image) are important
antecedents of shopping frequency. However, the relationships between the predictors and retail patronage vary according to the study
characteristics (e.g., experimental vs. other designs). The authors offer implications for retailing research and practice.
© 2006 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Retail patronage; Meta-analysis; Store choice; Frequency of visit

Introduction
An understanding of patronage behavior is a critical issue
for retail managers because it enables them to identify and
target those consumers most likely to purchase. Reflecting
this managerial need, one research stream has focused on
explaining retail patronage with respect to various elements
(e.g., store, frequency of visit, store choice). The practical and
conceptual importance of this topic has been underscored by
the substantial volume of studies published in leading jour-
nals. Decades of research efforts have produced a rich body
of empirical data associated with a variety of research designs
and study contexts. However, a review of the literature reveals
marked differences in both the direction and the magni-
夽 This article is based on the first author’s dissertation and was the 2002
AMS Mary Kay Doctoral Dissertation Competition winner. The authors
acknowledge the helpful input of Don Lehmann, David Henard, Randy
Sparks, and Ashutosh Dixit. They also thank the editors and the anonymous
JR reviewers for their valuable comments on previous drafts of this article.
This work was supported by summer research grants from the University of
Dayton.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 937 229 1773; fax: +1 937 229 3788.
tude of the effects for the same predictor variables across
studies.
Consider “store price level” as an example. Although it is
well documented that low prices accelerate retail purchases
(e.g., Tigert 1983; Walters and Rinne 1986), some research
has found a positive relationship between monetary price
and perceptions of product quality (e.g., Dodds et al. 1991;
Rao and Monroe 1989). Shoppers with limited sources of
diagnostic information tend to make more use of price as
a quality cue (Rao and Monroe 1988). Following this logic,
some consumers may choose a retailer that offers high-priced
products to enhance their expected quality (Tellis and Gaeth
1990).
In addition to conflicting evidence about the direction
of the relationship, the findings pertaining to the strength
of the relationship also vary. For example, though some
researchers report no evidence of a significant relationship
between low-price offerings and retail choice (e.g., Lumpkin
and Burnett 1991–1992), others suggest a significantly posi-
tive relationship (e.g., Thelen and Woodside 1997). Because
of heterogeneous findings and diverse study conditions in the
extant empirical literature, the relationship between various

E-mail addresses: Yue.Pan@notes.udayton.edu (Y. Pan),

predictors and a shopper’s retail patronage are unclear, which
gzinkhan@terry.uga.edu (G.M. Zinkhan). in turn, complicates our efforts to develop a comprehensive
1 Tel.: +1 706 542 3757; fax: +1 706 542 3738. understanding of what affects shoppers’ decisions to patron-

0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2006 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.11.008
230 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
ize a retail outlet. Given this limitation, it is somewhat difficult
to translate academic findings into a form that is useful for
retailing managers.
Despite the importance of retail patronage, no compre-
hensive work has attempted to assess the general findings
across academic studies. We seek to fill that void by conduct-
ing a meta-analysis of empirical findings on the predictors
of retail patronage. Our dependent variable, retail patronage,
includes two dimensions: (1) store choice (i.e., a consumer’s
choice to patronize a particular store) and (2) frequency of
visit (i.e., how often a shopper patronizes that store). Such a
research effort appears useful for at least two reasons. First,
we seek to reconcile inconsistent findings and establish the
generalizability of the relationships between retail patronage
and its correlates. Second, research on retail patronage has
been conducted in various methodological contexts, yet no
attempt has been made to evaluate the robustness of the effects
across study conditions. Here, we attempt to explain differ-
ences in the results of previous studies by investigating var-
ious study characteristics that could moderate the effects of
interest.
In terms of organization, we begin by presenting
antecedents to retail patronage that are frequently reported
in prior research, followed by a discussion of the theoretical
background of these variables. Then, we discuss the sample
frame for the study. We subsequently present the research
method and data analysis procedure, followed by a discus-
sion of the results. We conclude with some implications and
suggestions for further research.
Antecedents of retail patronage: theoretical foundations
A review of the literature reveals 16 antecedents reported
frequently enough (n ≥ 4) to be included in a formal meta-
analysis. To organize the large number of antecedents, we
categorize them into three groups: (1) product-relevant fac-
tors, which pertain to product features and attributes, such as
product quality and price; (2) market-relevant factors, which
pertain to the retailer of interest, such as the service pro-
vided by the store; and (3) personal factors, which pertain
to consumer characteristics, such as demographics. To check
the coding quality of this categorization, two independent
investigators who were familiar with retail patronage liter-
ature placed specific predictors within each category and
reviewed the final taxonomy for completeness and appropri-
ateness of classification. For the 16 items coded, the overall
raw intercoder reliability was 93.8%. The coders resolved any
disagreements by discussing the terms until the team arrived
at a consensus. The three categories of determinants serve to
isolate individual, product, and seller differences and reduce
the large number of independent variables to a more suc-
cinct hierarchical model. Note that it is beyond the scope of
this study to build a holistic theory of retail patronage. We
organize the variables around these three categories and test
relevant hypotheses using meta-analytical integration.
Relationship between product-relevant factors and retail
patronage
Product quality
Consumers perceive the quality of a product differently
depending on the store type from which the purchase is made
(Darden and Schwinghammer 1985). Furthermore, a con-
sumer’s perception of the quality of a store’s merchandise
relates to the patronage of that store (Darley and Lim 1993;
Jacoby and Mazursky 1985; Olshavsky 1985). As an impor-
tant component of store evaluation, merchandise quality has
a positive link to merchandise value (Grewal et al. 2003).
In brief, merchandise determines a retailer’s reputation and
influences consumers’ choice at stores.
H1. Perceived product quality is positively related to retail
patronage.
Price
Shopping channels are significantly different in terms of
the general price levels for products sold. A higher price rep-
resents a monetary measure of immediate costs, which leads
to a reduced willingness to buy (Dodds et al. 1991; Walters
and Rinne 1986). Low prices, in the form of either price pro-
motions or general price levels, can create store traffic and
increase category sales. However, consumers’ responsive-
ness to low prices may be heterogeneous. Consumers may
use under uncertainty another choice strategy, what Tellis
and Gaeth (1990) call “price-seeking,” in which consumers
choose the highest-priced brand to maximize their expected
quality. This theory posits a positive relationship between
monetary price and perceptions of product quality (cf. Dodds
et al. 1991; Kerin et al. 1992; Rao and Monroe 1989). How-
ever, the extent to which consumers use price as an indicator
of quality depends on the availability of alternative diag-
nostic information (Rao and Monroe 1988), in that when
more extrinsic cues (e.g., brand, store name) are available,
the price–quality relationship weakens (Dodds et al. 1991).
Although price has a positive effect on perceived quality, it
has a negative effect on perceived value and willingness to
buy (Dodds et al. 1991).
H2. The general price level in a store is negatively related
to retail patronage.
Product selection/assortment
Product selection (or assortment) is defined as “the number
of different items in a merchandise category” (Levy and Weitz
1995, p. 30). As a major retailer descriptor, product selec-
tion contributes significantly to the explanation of patronage
of alternative retail centers (Arnold et al. 1983; Craig et al.
1984; Koelemeijer and Oppewal 1999; Louviere and Gaeth
1987). The breadth (number of brands) and depth (number
of stockkeeping units) of an assortment offered in a shop-
ping center helps retailers cater to the heterogeneous tastes
of their patrons (Dhar et al. 2001). Not only can greater vari-
ety help a retailer attract more consumers, it also can entice
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
them to make purchases while in the retail center. A wide
selection of products also can minimize the perceived costs
(e.g., travel time, effort) associated with each shopping trip
and ease the shopping task (e.g., by enhancing comparison
shopping); in other words, a retailer that offers greater vari-
ety in product categories can improve shopping convenience
and make it easier for consumers to combine their visits to
different stores (Dellaert et al. 1998). An empirical study by
Stassen et al. (1999) shows that the assortment decision in a
store is as important, if not more important, than other key
variables such as price.
H3. There is a positive correlation between product assort-
ment and retail patronage.
Relationship between market-relevant factors and retail
patronage
Convenience
A convenience orientation is a key benefit that shoppers
seek in the modern environment. In this sense, consumers’
perceptions of convenience (e.g., opening hours, location,
parking) will have a positive influence on their satisfaction
with the service (Berry et al. 2002). Consumers’ perceived
expenditure of time and effort interacts to influence their
perceptions of service convenience (Berry et al. 2002), and
retail facilities can be designed to affect those time and effort
perceptions. For example, a central location can reduce the
transaction costs associated with shopping (e.g., transporta-
tion cost, time spent). The law of retail gravitation (Reilly
1931) suggests that the potential attraction of a shopping
center should be assumed to be inversely proportional to the
driving time from a shopper’s home to the center. The more
recent central place theory (Craig et al. 1984) suggests that
central business districts and regional shopping centers that
offer a large agglomeration of goods and services attract cus-
tomers from greater distances than neighborhood centers that
offer fewer goods and services. Empirical evidence supports
these theories by showing that easy accessibility has a high
correlation with shopping center selection (Bellenger et al.
1977). In addition to a convenient location, other convenience
incentives provided by retailers, such as longer operating
hours or ample parking, can draw patrons to a store (Hansen
and Deutscher 1977–1978).
H4. Shopping convenience (opening hours, location, and
parking) provided by a retailer increases retail patronage.
Service quality
Previous studies have found a direct link between ser-
vice quality and patronage intentions (e.g., Baker et al. 2002;
Sirohi and McLaughlin 1998; Zeithaml and Berry 1996). For
example, Finn and Louviere (1990) find that different apparel
shopper segments tend to choose shopping centers that they
associate with different combinations of features. Shopping
centers that provide good service and a wide selection, but
231
less emphasis on low prices, are more likely to fall into shop-
pers’ consideration set (i.e., retail alternatives a consumer
is aware of and evaluates positively). In Malhotra (1983)
threshold model of store choice, service is one of the five
identified salient characteristics (along with variety and selec-
tion, acceptable prices, convenience of location, and physical
facilities).
H5. Service quality is positively related to retail patronage.
In particular, higher service quality is associated with higher
retail patronage intentions.
Friendliness of salespeople
Retail stores offer a chance for human interactions. Some
consumers enjoy talking to and socializing with others dur-
ing a shopping visit and seek a social experience outside the
home (Tauber 1972). These people generally experience a
strong motivation to associate themselves meaningfully with
groups of “kindred spirits” to reduce feelings of boredom and
loneliness. To cope with and alleviate such feelings of lone-
liness, people pursue various strategies, including shopping
(Rubenstein and Shaver 1980). The desire for human inter-
action thus may drive some shoppers to stores in which they
find salespeople friendly and communicative.
H6. There is a positive correlation between the friendliness
of salespeople and shoppers’ retail patronage.
Store image
Here, store image is defined as “the way in which the store
is perceived by shoppers.” Image formations result in predis-
positions that generally guide patronage (Darley and Lim
1993), including shopping trips, expenditure behavior, and
store loyalty (Arnold et al. 1983; Sirgy and Samli 1985). The
impressions shoppers form of stores have a significant impact
on their store patronage. The retail store environment offers a
multitude of stimuli that can serve as cues to consumers look-
ing for information-processing heuristics (Baker et al. 1994).
These sensory search attributes, particularly visual cues about
the store, have a significant impact on consumers’ patron-
age behavior because consumers tend to make judgments
about stores on the basis of their subjective impressions (e.g.,
ambient design, social factors; Baker et al. 1994). Empirical
evidence suggests that image perceptions account for a very
high proportion of the variance in retail patronage (Finn and
Louviere 1996; Kasulis and Lusch 1981).
H7. Store image is positively related to retail patronage.
Store atmosphere
Unlike store image, which involves shoppers’ percep-
tions, store atmospherics deal strictly with the physical store
attributes. Research on mall shopping has revealed that many
consumers are prone to make a decision about where to
shop on the basis of their attitude toward the shopping cen-
ter environment (Finn and Louviere 1990, 1996; Gentry
232 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
and Burns 1977). For example, recreational shoppers who
enjoy shopping as a leisure activity may shop impulsively
and place higher importance on store décor (Bellenger and
Korgaonkar 1980). Lambert (1979) similarly suggests stores
should provide rest areas and an appropriate store tempera-
ture. Arousal induced by the store environment intensifies
both pleasure and displeasure, such that time and spend-
ing behavior increase in pleasant environments and decrease
in unpleasant environments (Donovan et al. 1994). More-
over, shoppers’ evaluations of the store’s atmosphere affect
their perceptions of value and their store patronage intentions
(Grewal et al. 2003).
H8. Store atmosphere relates to retail patronage behavior,
such that shoppers’ perceptions of pleasant store atmospher-
ics lead to greater retail patronage intentions.
Fast checkout
The time pressures that many people experience are hav-
ing a major effect on consumer behavior; they perceive
their discretionary time available as insufficient to accom-
modate all their desired uses of it. The results are con-
tinual choices among various activities and the pursuit of
efficiency-producing behaviors. Retail stores are devoting
more resources to time-saving services, such as fast checkout
(Lambert 1979). Time savings for consumers are readily rec-
ognized and therefore likely to influence their retail choice.
H9. Checkout speed is positively related to retail patronage.
Relationship between personal factors and retail
patronage
Demographic variables
A considerable body of empirical research on shopping
behavior suggests that consumer demographic variables may
be related to retail store patronage (e.g., Bellenger et al.
1976–1977; Korgaonkar et al. 1985; Samli 1975). However,
no consensus exists about the relationship between shop-
pers’ demographic profiles and their patronage behavior.
For example, in their study of department store shoppers,
Crask and Reynolds (1978) find that frequent patrons tend
to be slightly younger, better educated shoppers with higher
incomes. However, Roy (1994) argues that young people,
facing greater constraints on their time, may be restrained
from frequently visiting a retailer. Empirical studies of shop-
per motivations (Westbrook and Black 1985) also identify
a predominantly older age segment that derives satisfaction
from aspects of shopping, such as negotiation with salespeo-
ple and an affiliation with other shoppers. Older shoppers may
shop more frequently if they view shopping as a recreational
activity.
Conflicting views also emerge with respect to income.
According to Goldman (1977–1978), low-income consumers
tend to have lower marginal opportunity costs for their time,
in that the potential benefits of comparison shopping are
likely to be of greater importance to them. Therefore, they
might be motivated to shop around and thus be less store
loyal than high-income consumers. Levy (1966), however,
states that low-income women may like to go shopping just
to have a reason to get out of the house. Because higher-
income consumers are more likely to visit a mall only when
they have to and lower-income people are more likely to shop
for recreation, there might be a negative correlation between
income and retail frequency of visit.
H10a . Women tend to visit a retail outlet more frequently
than men.
H10b . Frequent patrons tend to be older than less frequent
patrons.
H10c . Frequent patrons tend to have lower incomes than
less frequent patrons.
Store/store-type attitude
According to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen 1985),
a behavioral intention (i.e., decision) is partially determined
by the person’s attitudes, which means that consumers’ atti-
tudes toward retail stores likely play a key role in their choice
of shopping modes. When a consumer holds a general attitude
toward a store (or store type), that attitude is readily acces-
sible and probably will have a direct effect on the person’s
store-specific quality perceptions (Bauer and Greyser 1968;
MacKenzie and Lutz 1989), as well as spillover effects on
store patronage through the process of affect transfer (Darley
and Lim 1993; Lutz 1985). Several empirical investigations
provide support for the positive relationship between attitude
and patronage (e.g., Eastlick and Liu 1997; Korgaonkar et al.
1985).
H11. The general attitude toward a store or store type is
positively related to retail patronage.
Potential moderating effects
Sultan et al. (1990) indicate that four broad categories
of characteristics often account for systematic differences
across correlations: measurement method, research context,
estimation procedure, and model specification. Because our
units of analysis are bivariate correlations that are unaf-
fected by the estimation procedure or model specification,
we seek systematic differences in the study characteristics.
Research on retail patronage has been conducted in a variety
of contexts with different measurement instruments. Differ-
ences in method and research context also could contribute
to the variance in the retail patronage found across studies.
In our investigation, we examine five potential moderators –
type of scale used, type of sample, study design, shopping
mode, and product type – to assess their impact on sample
homogeneity.
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
Multi- versus single-item scale
Single treatments with low reliability can drastically atten-
uate effect-size estimates and decrease precision (Fern and
Monroe 1996). The use of multiple-item scales, in contrast,
enhances measurement reliability. Therefore, this practice
should provide stronger relationships than single-item mea-
sures can (Peter and Churchill 1986).
Student versus nonstudent sample
The composition of samples also has the potential to affect
the relationships studied. The use of student samples in rela-
tional research can lead to restricted ranges and attenuated
effect sizes (Pedhazur and Schmelkin 1991) because a homo-
geneous sample likely will respond similarly to questionnaire
items, which limits the response variation across the range of
scale values (Fern and Monroe 1996). This limitation results
in a bias toward stronger effects than would be found among
nonstudent samples. The heterogeneity of the nonstudent
sample, in contrast, increases error variance, which attenu-
ates the magnitude of effect and possibly underestimates the
effect size (Fern and Monroe 1996). Moreover, the impact of
antecedent variables on retail patronage may differ between
student and nonstudent samples because of inherent differ-
ences in shopping behavior between the two samples.
Experimental versus nonexperimental
The use of experiments also may represent a poten-
tial moderator variable. A carefully conceived experimental
design enables a researcher to assign subjects randomly to
conditions and exercise more control over the variables under
consideration, which in turn generates less error variance in
the denominator of the effect size and produces larger effect
sizes. In addition, the exclusion of potential confounds may
lead to seemingly stronger relationships in an experimental
setting compared with a nonexperimental one.
Store versus nonstore shopping mode
The shopping mode likely will moderate the relation-
ship between retail patronage and its correlates. That is,
store patronage in a traditional bricks-and-mortar store for-
mat might differ from nonstore retailing in various ways.
For example, a consumer who chooses a traditional retailer
over an e-tailer (or catalog) may attach more importance to
customer service, and customer service is more accessible
in a store (e.g., helpful salespeople, easy return of defec-
tive products). Moreover, the physical facilities (e.g., parking
facilities, convenient location, hours of operation) provided
by a bricks-and-mortar retailer should not carry equal weight
for a nonstore retailer.
Type of good
Shopping patterns may vary for different product types.
For example, for specialty goods that demand a considerable
amount of shopping effort, consumers are more likely to rely
on salespeople’s expertise to help them compare among alter-
natives, which would increase the effect of service quality on
retail patronage. In contrast, for convenience goods that peo-
233
ple buy frequently with minimal shopping effort, purchase
is often characterized by inertia, which may lead shoppers to
ignore or overlook the service quality provided. The relation-
ship between price and patronage also might be moderated by
product type; consumers may choose a high-priced retailer
to enhance the expected quality of a product when they know
the price better than they do the quality (Tellis and Gaeth
1990), such as when they shop for specialty goods.
Method and results
Sampling frame
We chose those articles that shared the same criterion
variable: retail patronage. Our review of empirical work
in this area reveals that this construct is often operational-
ized as either shoppers’ store choice or shopping frequency.
For example, some authors focus on shoppers’ store patron-
age (intention or behavior) choice (e.g., Grewal et al. 2003;
Kenhove et al. 1999; Woodside and Trappey 1992), whereas
others examine shoppers’ repeated patronage in a store over
a period of time (i.e., shopping frequency) (e.g., Darley
and Lim 1993; Korgaonkar et al. 1985). Therefore, our
meta-analysis concentrates on these two dimensions of retail
patronage; we define store choice as the likelihood that a
shopper will patronize a retailer and shopping frequency as
the number of times a shopper patronizes a retailer during a
given period of time.
We identified the studies through the following search
procedure: (1) an initial keyword search in business and non-
business databases, including ABI/Inform, PsycInfo, Socio-
logical Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, and Social
Sciences Abstracts; (2) a search through listings of con-
ference proceedings in the “Papers First” database and the
Advances in Consumer Research online proceedings; (3) an
interactive search of the references from relevant articles
identified from the keyword search until no new references
could be identified; and (4) letters sent to 165 authors known
for their work on retail patronage, in which we requested their
published or unpublished studies on this topic.
Our search did not include those studies that examined
patronage intentions for a specific product (e.g., product price
affects a shopper’s intention to buy the product; Dodds et al.
1991; Grewal et al. 1998), because our dependent variable is
the patronage choice/intentions toward a retailer. Of the 165
authors we contacted, 31 responded to our inquiry, and these
responses resulted in one usable study. In total, we identi-
fied 80 studies that reported one or more antecedents of retail
patronage. Among the 80 studies, 35 examine idiosyncratic
relationships that pertain to a specific shopping mode (e.g.,
Internet experience as an antecedent to online shopping inten-
tion, Brengman and Geuens 2002) and are excluded from
further discretion. The remaining 45 studies, which we report
in Appendix, represent empirical work in business, psycho-
logical, and sociological literature and, we believe, a fairly
well rounded set of studies on this topic.
234 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243

Table 1
Effects reported in the studies
Predictor Number of effects reported Range of reported effects (r) Cumulative n
Product-relevant factors
Low pricea 14b /19c −.01 to .702 4302
Qualitya 16/18 −.05 to .90 4443
Selectiona 14/14 .102 to .92 3272
Market-relevant factors
Convenient parking facilitiesa 8/9 .01 to .53 449
Convenient locationa 21/22 −.05 to .76 934
Convenient opening hoursa 8/9 .06 to .56 449
Friendliness of salespeoplea 11/13 −.02 to .62 1206
Servicea 14/17 .045 to .95 3802
Fast checkouta 9/11 .09 to .712 643
Store atmospherea 3/5 .016 to .55 970
Store imaged 12/20 .04 to .468 1445
Personal factors
Store/store-type attituded 13/13 .111 to .45 1271
Genderd 4/4 .139 to .19 1393
Incomed 2/11 −.13 to .198 2514
Aged 5/11 −.104 to .12 2275
a Predictor variables for store choice.
b Number of statistically significant (at α = .05) effects reported.
c Total number of effects reported.
d Predictor variables for frequency of visit.

In Table 1, we provide a complete taxonomy of predictors
of retail patronage and the range of effects (r) reported in the
original studies. It reveals marked differences in the direction,
magnitude, and statistical significance of the effect sizes for
the same pairwise relationships across studies. Take “store
price level” as an example. The range of reported effects for
this relationship across all studies spans −.01 to .702. Among
the 19 studies that examine this relationship, 14 (74%) show
statistically significant results. Only 2 (10.5%) report rela-
tively large effect sizes (r > .5), whereas a few more (5) report
relatively small effect sizes (r < .1). We note that these appar-
ent inconsistencies might be due to nonsubstantive factors
(e.g., sampling error, measurement error, deviation from con-
struct validity).
Computation and coding
We define the effect-size estimate as the degree to which
the predictor–/criterion–variable relationship appears in the
population of retail patronage research. Although correla-
tions are the most common metrics used in our studies,
many also report F, t, and chi-square statistics. To exam-
ine the strength of the relationship, we convert various
summary statistics (e.g., F, t, Z, chi-square) to the com-
mon correlation coefficient metric, r, following the formu-
las suggested by Hays (1973), Kendall and Stuart (1967),
Rosenthal (1991), and Wolf (1986). Furthermore, some stud-
ies report several effect-size estimates for one predictor using
the same subjects. To obtain a single result for the mul-
tiple correlated results from a single study, Wolf (1986)
suggests using the average of the statistics that examine
the same relationship. For correlational relationships, this
process typically involves transforming the raw Pearson cor-
relation coefficients (r) into an associated Z statistic and
then transforming it back to r. In the studies examined here,
199 raw test statistics yielded 150r that we coded into our
database.
To avoid the possibility that smaller or less representa-
tive samples are overrepresented in the analysis, we weight
the effect size r using the relevant sample size information.
In addition to considering sampling errors, we also correct
the effect sizes for attenuation due to measurement errors
if scale reliability measures are available for the predictor
and/or criterion variables. File drawer N indicates the num-
ber of studies that confirm the null hypothesis that would
be needed to reverse a conclusion that a significant rela-
tionship exists, which we estimated for a significance level
of .05. For computational details, see Hunter and Schmidt
(1990).
In Tables 2 and 3, we summarize the number of studies,
weighted mean observed correlation (sample-size adjusted
mean), weighted mean correlation corrected for attenuation
from measurement error (reliability adjusted mean), total
variance, sampling error variance, reliability variation vari-
ance, remaining variance, 95% confidence interval for each
pairwise relationship represented by multiple study effects,
file drawer N, and results of homogeneity tests. Conven-
tional, appropriate magnitudes of r that correspond to small,
medium, and large effect sizes are .1, .3, and .5, respectively.
Following this guideline, we find that a group of predictors
(product quality, service quality, wide selection) provides
relatively large effect sizes for explaining consumers’ retail
Table 2
Main effects of retail choice
Independent variables Ka Weighted ṙ Weighted ṙ 95% Confidence interval 95% Confidence interval Total Sampling Reliability Remaining File drawer Q (df)
(observed) (corrected) (observed) (corrected) variance error variation varianceb N (p = .05)
variance variance
Convenient parking facilities 9 .266 n.a.c .0055 .5265 n.a. .015 .018 n.a.d 39 7.53 (8)
Friendliness of salespeople 12 .273 .286 .0912 .4548 .0946 .4774 .027 .008 .00002 .019 (70.6) 67 37.80e (11)
Service quality 15 .637 .649 .5637 .7103 .5736 .7244 .228 .003 .00003 .225 (98.7) 75 1278.75e (14)
Low price 17 .364 .389 .2569 .4711 .2773 .5007 .044 .003 .00003 .04 (92.7) 94 234.25e (16)
Good quality 17 .579 .595 .4983 .6597 .5117 .6783 .092 .003 .00055 .089 (96.7) 138 710.66e (16)
Store atmosphere 4 .395 .419 .2886 .5014 .3003 .5377 .052 .003 .00011 .049 (94.4) 35 63.2e (3)
Fast checkout 11 .382 n.a. .1612 .6028 n.a. .042 .014 n.a. .028 (67.1) 61 37.66e (10)
Wide selection 12 .696 n.a. .6347 .7573 n.a. .171 .003 n.a. .168 (98.5) 86 950.92e (11)

Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243

Convenient location 12 .386 n.a. .1957 .5763 n.a. .037 .009 n.a. .028 (75.7) 83 54.51e (11)
Convenient opening hours 9 .363 n.a. .1196 .6064 n.a. .027 .017 n.a. .01 (37.4) 45 13.11 (8)
a The number of effect sizes combined.
b The percentage of total variance remaining is in parentheses.
c n.a. indicates insufficient reliability information is available to correct the study effects for measurement error.
d Reliability variation variances are not calculated as predictor or criterion reliability estimates are not available to adjust the mean correlation for the differences in scale reliabilities.
e Significant at p < .05.

Table 3
Main effects of frequency of visit of a particular store
Independent variables Ka Weighted ṙ Weighted ṙ 95% Confidence interval 95% Confidence interval Total Sampling Reliability Remaining File drawer Q (df)
(observed) (corrected) (observed) (corrected) variance error variation varianceb N (p = .05)
variance variance
Age 6 .073 n.a.c −.0273 .1733 n.a. .0052 .0026 n.c.d .0026 (49.6) n.c.e 11.53f (5)
Store/store-type attitude 5 .292 .334 .1793 .4047 .2021 .4659 .0112 .0033 .00032 .0076 (67.6) 30 16.94f (4)
Store image 9 .157 .170 .0057 .3083 .0096 .3304 .0094 .0058 .00001 .0035 (37.9) 26 12.64 (8)
Genderg 4 .154 n.a. .0513 .2567 n.a. .0004 .0027 n.c. 9 .45 (3)
Income 6 .057 n.a. −.0386 .1526 n.a. .0099 .0024 n.c. .008 (75.9) n.c. 23.22f (5)
a The number of effect sizes combined.
b The percentage of total variance remaining is in parentheses.
c n.a. indicates insufficient reliability information is available to correct the study effects for measurement error.
d Reliability variation variances are not calculated as predictor or criterion reliability estimates are not available to adjust the mean correlation for the differences in scale reliabilities.
e n.c. means the file drawer N was not calculated, because the 95% confidence interval contained 0.
f Significant at p < .05.
g Coded as (1) male, (2) female.

235
236 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
choices. Other predictors (store attitude) are important pre-
dictors of the frequency of patrons’ visits to a particular store.
In this sense, we find evidence that retailing literature gener-
ates robust results and has been successful in identifying key
variables that managers should emphasize in their planning
process.
Tables 2 and 3 also show that the corrected mean corre-
lations for 13 of the antecedents are significant at the .05
level. The high file drawer numbers for publication bias also
indicate that these results are significant beyond chance. For
example, to bring the significant effect of service on store
choice down to the level of just significant at α = .05, 75 null
results would need to be uncovered and included in our analy-
sis. The effect sizes for most demographic variables, however,
are relatively small. The mean correlations for age (r = .073)
and income (r = .057) are not statistically significant at con-
ventional probability levels (p > .05), which means that the
cumulative evidence indicates their effects on retail patron-
age do not generalize across studies. As Tables 2 and 3 also
suggest, reliability differences and sampling error account
for only a small proportion of the variation across stud-
ies, which leaves much room for moderator variables to
operate.
Our bivariate analysis confirms all our main effects pre-
dictions except for two hypotheses: H10b (age) and H10c
(income). Shoppers’ retail choice is influenced by the fol-
lowing factors (in order of importance): assortment, service,
product quality, store atmosphere, store location, price level,
checkout speed, hours of operation, friendliness of salespeo-
ple, and parking facilities. The frequency of visits to a store
is subject to the influence of store attitude, store image, and
gender.
Note that for two variables (i.e., convenient parking facil-
ities and gender), the total variances are smaller than the
sampling error variances, a situation for which Hunter and
Schmidt (1990) provide an explanation. We compute the esti-
mated variance of population correlations as the difference
Table 4
Multiple regression models for selected predictors of retail patronage
Predictor
Friendliness of salespeople
Low price
Good quality
Store atmosphere
Age
Store/store-type attitude
Gender
Income
R2 (adjusted R2 )
F (p value)
a Statistical significance is based on the median sample size of 1054, on which the individual correlations are based.
b Statistical significance is based on the median sample size of 812, on which the individual correlations are based.
c p < .001.
between the given variance of the observed correlations and
the statistically given sampling error variance, in which the
variance of the observed correlations is a sample estimate.
Therefore, unless the number of studies is infinite, there will
be some error in the empirical estimate. In our case, sampling
error caused the variance of the observed correlations to dif-
fer slightly from the expected value, and that error caused the
smaller estimated total variance.
Multivariate analysis of the antecedents of retail
patronage
In addition to a bivariate analysis of the correlations, a
multivariate analysis can further our understanding because
we simultaneously estimate the relative impact of the inde-
pendent variables on the dependent variables. We estimate
an ordinary least squares regression model of retail patron-
age, whose matrix of corrected correlations we constructed
from the available data. Because few studies report correla-
tional data about the interrelationships among the predictor
variables, our correlation matrix contains data for only a sub-
set of the predictors. Table 4 contains the findings from our
estimation of the regression models for retail choice and fre-
quency of visit.
As we show in Table 4, the relatively parsimonious model
(Model 1) accounts for a majority of the variance (61.8%)
in retail choice. Product quality (β = .502, p < .001) and low
price level (β = .44, p < .001) have the largest effects on shop-
pers’ intentions to patronize a retailer. Moreover, the effects of
the friendliness of salespeople and store atmosphere, though
relatively small in magnitude, are significant in the regression
model.
In Model 2, we identify store attitude as a dominant predic-
tor of shopping frequency (β = .377, p < .001), and the regres-
sion coefficients for gender (β = .13, p < .001) and income
(β = .188, p < .001), though relatively modest in size, also
emerge as important drivers of shopping frequency. Age is
Standardized coefficient Standardized coefficient
(standard error): Model 1a (standard error): Model 2b
Dependent variable: Dependent variable:
retail choice frequency of visit
.106 (.02)c –
.44 (.019)c –
.502 (.02)c –
.281 (.02)c –
– .019 (.033)
– .377 (.034)c
– .130 (.033)c
– .188 (.035)c
.618 (.617) .158 (.154)
424.23 (<.001) 37.86 (<.001)
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243 237

Table 5
Comparison of complete set and homogeneous subsets
Relationship Complete set Homogeneous subset
K Cumulative N Weighted ṙ Weighted ṙ K Cumulative N Weighted ṙ Weighted ṙ
(observed) (corrected) (observed) (corrected)
Friendliness of salespeople 12 1206 .273 .286 9 968 .212 .221
Service 15 3802 .637 .649 12 1114 .175 n.a.
Low price 17 4302 .364 .389 9 1287 .073 .089
Good quality 17 4443 .579 .595 11 1194 .401 .428
Fast checkout 11 643 .382 n.a.a 9 449 .271 n.a.
Wide selection 12 3272 .696 n.a. 10 759 .344 n.a.
Convenient location 12 934 .386 n.a. 9 599 .271 n.a.
Store atmosphere 4 970 .395 .419 3 679 .543 .640
Store/store-type attitude 5 1271 .292 .334 3 682 .216 .237
Age 6 2275 .073 n.a. 5 1995 .098 n.a.
Income 6 2514 .057 n.a. 5 1933 .015 n.a.
a n.a. indicates insufficient reliability information is available to correct the study effects for measurement error.

the only predictor variable that does not capture much of the
variance in the bivariate and multivariate analyses.
Homogeneity tests
For each pairwise relationship, we conduct a homogeneity
test in which we successively delete the study effects to iden-
tify any outliers, following the procedure recommended by
Hedges and Olkin (1985). We compute the test statistic, Q,
for each pairwise relationship on Fisher’s z-transformations
of the correlation coefficients according to the formula
k


Q= (ni − 3)(zi − z+ )2 ,
i=1
where z+ is the mean of the weighted z-transformed corre-
lations (weights are the reciprocals of the variances, to give
greater weight to more precise estimates), and ni is the sample
size of a study. This statistic has an approximate chi-square
distribution with k − 1 degrees of freedom, where k is the
number of included studies.
Table 2 includes the results of our test for homogeneity
of effects across all studies. If the results are heterogeneous,
moderator variables exist. The homogeneity tests reveal the
overall consistency of results for four relationships (i.e., con-
venient parking facilities → store choice, convenient opening
hours → store choice, store image → frequency of visit, gen-
der → frequency of visit), which signals the robustness and
generalizability of these relationships across study contexts.
We also find significant heterogeneity among the effect sizes
obtained from the independent studies for the other relation-
ships.
To identify outliers, we deleted that study with the largest
weighted deviation from the mean effect size, recalculated
the mean effect size, and repeated the homogeneity test. We
continued until we arrived at a reduced set of homogeneous
studies, the results of which we report in Table 5. For most
pairwise relationships, we must delete a small number of
study effects (n ≤ 3) to achieve overall homogeneity. These
data indicate significant variation in the pairwise relation-
ships.
Because the heterogeneity of study effects suggests the
potential presence of moderator variables, we conducted sep-
arate meta-analytic syntheses for different subsets of studies
by examining a series of potential moderators. Then, we con-
ducted moderating analyses only for those relationships for
which at least 10 study effects were available.
Potential moderating effects of study characteristics:
tests of moderators
(1) We partitioned the study effects into subgroups on the
basis of the values of their moderator variables, then com-
pared the weighted mean correlations of the subgroups. In
Table 6, we report the results of the moderator analyses,
including the means and significance of each moderator for
both the corrected and uncorrected correlations. The aggre-
gated data provide some interesting insights regarding the
relative strength of the effect sizes in specific study con-
ditions. The five potential moderators (i.e., study design,
sample type, scale type, shopping mode, product type) appear
to have a pervasive influence for all but one pairwise relation-
ship (fast checkout).
As we reveal in Table 6, measurement and contextual
factors can account for a statistically significant amount of
the variance. As we expected, shopping mode moderates the
effects of several variables. For example, the effects of ser-
vice, quality, and selection on retail choice are more manifest
for store than for nonstore patronage. Product type also mod-
erates the effect of various variables on retail choice, such
that the impact of service, quality, and selection on patronage
intention is significantly greater for specialty goods than for
convenience goods. This unsurprising result suggests that,
when purchasing a specialty good (as opposed to a conve-
nience good), shoppers are more highly involved with the
purchase and willing to spend more time comparing alter-
native stores on criteria such as service and quality. A few
238 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243

Table 6
Subgroup means by moderator variables
Experimental vs.
nonexperimental
Observed ṙ, corrected ṙ,
N N
Friendliness of .251 vs. .286, .284 vs.
salespeople .286, 2 vs. 10
Service .464 vs. .665a , .526 vs.
.665a , 3 vs. 12
Low price .031 vs. .450a , .037 vs.
.450a , 4 vs. 13
Good quality .444 vs. .604a , .528 vs.
.604a , 3 vs. 14
Fast checkout n.a.b , n.a., 0 vs. 11
Wide selection n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 12
Convenient location n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 12
a Significant at p < .05.
b n.a. means it has not been calculated because the moderator does not exist for this category or the attenuation factor is not available.
Single vs. multiple Student vs. Store vs. nonstore Convenience vs.
scales nonstudent subjects shopping mode nonconvenience
goods
Observed ṙ, corrected ṙ, Observed ṙ, corrected Observed ṙ, corrected ṙ, Observed ṙ, corrected
ṙ, N N ṙ, N
.386 vs. .205a , .386 vs. .251 vs. .286, .284 vs. n.a., n.a., 12 vs. 0 0.251 vs. 0.286, 0.284
.217a , 9 vs. 3 .286, 2 vs. 10 vs. 0.286, 2 vs. 10
.705 vs. .360a , .705 vs. .503 vs. .655a , .591 .683 vs. .210a , .699 vs. 0.158 vs. 0.752a ,
.378a , 12 vs. 3 vs. .655a , 2 vs. 13 .210a , 13 vs. 2 0.158 vs. 0.774a , 10
vs. 5
.483 vs. .048a , .483 vs. .028 vs. .427a , .036 .365 vs. .348, .392 vs. 0.358 vs. 0.365, 0.358
.058a , 12 vs. 5 vs. .429a , 3 vs. 14 .348, 16 vs. 1 vs. 0.397, 11 vs. 6
.604 vs. .444a , .604 vs. .444 vs. .604a , .528 .674 vs. .206a , .700 vs. 0.487 vs. 0.595a ,
.528a , 14 vs. 3 vs. .604a , 3 vs. 14 .206a , 15 vs. 2 0.487 vs. 0.615a , 11
vs. 6
n.a., n.a., 11 vs. 0 n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 11 n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 11 n.a., n.a., 11 vs. 0
.754 vs. .103a , n.a., 11 n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 12 .737 vs. 307a , n.a., 11 0.265 vs. 0.822a , n.a.,
vs. 1 vs. 1 10 vs. 2
.464 vs. .216a , n.a., 11 n.a., n.a., 0 vs. 12 n.a., n.a., 12 vs. 0 n.a., n.a., 12 vs. 0
vs. 1

other patterns are evident across the data, including the differ-
ence in effect sizes for experimental versus nonexperimental
designs. In contrast to our expectation, correlations are lower
with experiments. Furthermore, the impact of sample type on
the effect sizes is directionally inconsistent with our expecta-
tions; student subjects appear to create a downward bias in the
strength of the studied relationships. We also expected rela-
tionships to be weaker in studies that used single scales, but
this expectation is not supported. We discuss the implications
of these findings subsequently.
Discussion and conclusion
Using a meta-analytical approach, our study provides
insights into retail patronage, synthesizes empirical works
from retailing literature, and provides a quantitative summary
of the cumulative findings. As we show in Tables 2 and 3, we
find a relatively strong relationship between shoppers’ store
choice and several important predictors. Of the three cate-
gories of predictor variables, selection has the highest average
correlation with store choice, followed by service, quality,
store atmosphere, low price levels, convenient location, fast
checkout, convenient opening hours, friendliness of sales-
people, and convenient parking facilities. Other antecedent
variables (e.g., store image, store attitude, gender) are impor-
tant predictors of shopping frequencies, though the effect
sizes of some variables (e.g., age, income) are not significant.
Gender is the only successful demographic variable, which
suggests that women tend to be more frequent shoppers than
men.
A second insight relates to the three categories of predictor
variables that explain patronage. The two dimensions of retail
patronage are explained by very different sets of predictors.
Of the three categories, personal factors (e.g., demographics,
attitude toward a store) seem to be the dominant predictors of
shopping frequencies, whereas market- and product-relevant
variables are more likely to influence shoppers’ decisions to
patronize a particular store, given that a variety of stores are
available. These findings suggest that retailers have various
tools at hand (e.g., greater assortment, low prices) to influence
shoppers’ intention to patronize their stores. However, shop-
ping frequency, over which retailers have much less control,
largely depends on a consumer’s will. This conclusion should
be interpreted with caution though. In our analysis of shop-
ping frequencies, some factors (e.g., assortment, quality) that
occur in some studies have not been investigated frequently
enough to be integrated into our meta-analysis. Therefore,
we cannot rule out the possibility that some other product-
and market-relevant factors may have significant influence
on shopping frequencies.
Our findings also reveal the existence of methodological
artifacts. As we indicate in Table 6, the study designs and
research methods used can influence the effects of some key
retailing predictors. Take location as an example. Theoret-
ically, location is a key variable for predicting the success
of traditional retailers, but our results only detect a medium
effect (r = .386). A post hoc analysis reveals that most retail-
ing studies are not really designed to allow location to display
its key effect (e.g., much of the location effect may occur
below the conscious level). In Table 6, we also reveal that in an
artificial research context (e.g., student sample in experimen-
tal settings), the impact of predictors on patronage behavior
is less obvious than in nonexperimental settings. In an exper-
imental setting, researchers often ask subjects to evaluate a
retailer on the basis of a brief description and then indicate
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
their behavioral intentions. These behavioral accounts are
often speculative and perhaps constructed on the spot rather
than being true indicators of the relevant behavior. The use
of these student samples also presents a major challenge to
the generalizability of retailing research findings. Students
seem less interested in retailers’ strategies to attract patrons
(e.g., good service, high product quality) than general con-
sumers, and their shopping behavior may be more influenced
by factors such as peer recommendation and brand.
In addition, single scales produce higher correlations than
multiple scales in many cases. Our post hoc review reveals
varied and sometimes weak measures of key variables and
thereby highlights the need to identify superior measurement
approaches in future studies. The way in which retail patron-
age is measured can lead to different estimates of relationship
strength; for example, research often measures patronage as
recalled behavior (e.g., “Name the regular store in which you
concentrate the majority of your purchases”) or anticipated
future behavior (e.g., “The likelihood that I would shop in this
store is very high”). Neither of these approaches provides a
good estimate of shoppers’ actual patronage behavior. An
understanding of these effects can shed more light on the
robustness of findings in retailing research.
The findings of our study thus call for different theories
for studying retail patronage. For traditional retailers, fac-
tors such as physical location, parking facilities, checkout
speed, and store atmosphere can make or break a store. How-
ever, with the evolution of nonstore retailing formats (e.g.,
e-tailing), these traditionally important predictors of retail
patronage may become less crucial or even obsolete. Our find-
ings provide some indication of this trend; we find that the
effects of various factors on patronage (e.g., service, quality,
selection) are less obvious in nonstore than in store shopping
modes. Shoppers may attach more importance to other fac-
tors (e.g., return policy, company reputation) in their decision
to patronize a nonstore retailer, so the evolution of nonstore
retailing may signal the need to develop an updated set of
retailing theories.
We observe a pattern of strong relationships in our meta-
analysis, but their strength may be inflated by a potential
publication bias. Despite our effort to locate unpublished
studies, we did not find many, which could influence the
effect-size estimates. The file drawer Ns calculated in our
study provide some estimates of the number of studies with
nonsignificant results that would be required to nullify the sig-
nificant results, such as the 94 nonsignificant results studies
needed to nullify the “low price” result at the .05 signifi-
cance level. Given the relatively limited number of studies
we found that report this variable (17), the possibility of find-
ing an additional 94 studies is rather low. All the significant
relationships (except that between gender and frequency of
visit) require many zero-effect studies to lead to conclusions
of nonsignificance. Therefore, we have confidence in these
significant results.
Measurement error in the variables reduces effect-size
estimates, and variations in reliability across studies cause
239
variations in the observed effect sizes beyond that produced
by sampling error. If the true effect size is homogeneous
across studies, the variation in reliability would produce a
false impression of heterogeneity (Hunter and Schmidt 1990).
In our meta-analysis, we corrected for this attenuation by
weighting each study with reliability measures, but many
studies (especially those published a long time ago) did not
report reliability measures, which could lead to systematic
reductions in the mean effect sizes.
Homogeneity tests reveal that the effects of convenient
parking facilities and hours of operation on retail choice and
the effects of gender and store image on shopping frequency
are relatively robust across study contexts. For other rela-
tionships (e.g., fast checkout, selection, store atmosphere),
we must delete one or two outliers to achieve overall homo-
geneity. Homogeneity tests, however, indicate substantial
variation in the relationships between shoppers’ perceptions
of low price and good product quality and their retail choice.
These study effects are significantly affected by the method-
ological choices and study contexts.
Implications and directions for further research
Our study has implications for both academicians and
retail managers. We gauge the current level of knowledge
about retail patronage with our critical review of the empiri-
cal studies on this topic and a meta-analysis of these studies.
By synthesizing the traditional retailing literature in a formal
way, our study offers greater understanding of the general
strength and variability of the relationships and the condi-
tions that moderate those relationships. It also tests a broad
theoretical typology and a wide range of variables that may
explain retail patronage behavior.
We therefore tap into areas that are of great interest to retail
managers. Retailers have tracked, scanned, monitored, and
followed consumers’ shopping behavior for decades. Ques-
tions such as how shoppers choose a particular store, how
often they visit, why they visit, and who visits have been
popular inquiries. However, inconsistent research findings
make it problematic to communicate with retailers who want
to apply this knowledge. We thus provide basic answers to
some key questions. A retailer can enhance consumer patron-
age behavior by identifying and implementing an appropriate
marketing strategy, which must start with a good under-
standing of the many factors and dimensions that influence
shoppers’ choice behavior. For example, to increase initial
patronage, consumer promotions should focus on store- and
product-specific elements (e.g., wide assortment, premium
service, pleasant in-store decor). Managers also must rec-
ognize that shopping frequencies tend to be associated with
shopper characteristics, so they should tailor their marketing
communications to frequent shoppers, which will increase
the likelihood that they experience positive returns from their
promotional efforts. Examining the determinants of store
patronage thus enables managers to evaluate and understand
240 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
the extent to which their own perceptions of the store and its
offerings are congruent with shoppers’ perceptions.
We conclude that differences in study and sample charac-
teristics contribute to the variances in store patronage found
across prior studies. For example, the use of student sub-
jects remains a somewhat controversial issue in marketing
and retailing research. It is argued that student subjects may
be appropriate for tests of theory. Here, however, we find that
the use of such subjects can deflate estimated effect sizes. In
the same way, experimental designs may introduce an ele-
ment of artificiality that can distort results. On the one hand,
such method effects are well known; on the other, researchers
sometimes forget about these crucial differences when trying
to make sense out of cumulative findings (e.g., in research
reports and academic literature).
In terms of main effects, we find that the following vari-
ables are especially important for explaining retail choice:
wide selection, service, and product quality. Store attitude
is a more important predictor than image or demographic
variables for explaining shopping frequencies. But all of the
variables in Tables 2 and 3 have been shown to be important
in some studies, so our analysis reveals a way to rank-order
these predictors.
The study of demographic variables represents pioneer-
ing work on store patronage; we find that the majority of
demographic variables do not have a strong effect, except for
gender, which remains a key predictor of shopping frequency.
With respect to the effects of age and income, our null results
may be due to two factors: First, only a small proportion of the
studies finds a significant effect, and second, there appears to
be a bimodal distribution around 0, in that some studies report
a positive effect and others report a negative one. Given the
small number of studies (n < 10) available, we cannot under-
take a moderator analysis to uncover why such a disparate
pattern occurs. Nonetheless, we take a closer look at the stud-
ies’ characteristics to pinpoint some potential explanations.
Of the two studies that show significant effects for income,
one investigates discount stores and finds a negative relation
between income and shopping frequency (Korgaonkar et al.
1985), and the other studies the frequency of catalog orders
and finds a positive relationship (Lumpkin and Hawes 1985).
For age, the only negative effect reported appears in a study
analyzing convenience food stores (Darden and Lumpkin
1984). We suggest that additional research should explore
the effect of income and age on retail patronage across var-
ious store types and product types (e.g., convenience versus
nonconvenience goods).
Because main effects can be relatively uninteresting in
marketing research, we must go beyond those main effects
and explore the interaction effects. We provide evidence that
as yet unnamed moderators affect key retailing relationships
(e.g., product quality → retail choice). Future researchers
therefore must explore if and to what extent those moder-
ators account for heterogeneity in studies, which could lead
to greater confidence regarding the generalizability of the
relationships.
Our study includes only those antecedent factors that have
been frequently (n ≥ 4) investigated in retailing literature.
Among the predictors that did not meet this threshold are
task definition (i.e., the purpose of a shopping trip), intended
purchase quantities, and personality traits (e.g., risk percep-
tion, self-confidence, locus of control). These factors there-
fore may have not received sufficient attention from retailing
researchers.
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243 241

Appendix A

Selected empirical studies on retail patronage

242 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). “From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior,”
in Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann
eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 11–39.
Arnold, Stephen J., Tae H. Oum and Douglas J. Tigert (May, 1983).
“Determining attributes in retail patronage: seasonal, temporal, regional,
and international comparisons,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20,
149–157.
Baker, Julie, Dhruv Grewal and A. Parasuraman (1994). “The influence of
store environment on quality inferences and store image,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (4.), 328–339.
Baker, Julie, A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal and Glenn B Voss (2002). “The
influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise
value and patronage intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (2.), 120–141.
Bauer, R.A. and Stephen A. Greyser (1968). Advertising in America: The
Consumer View. Boston, MA: Harvard University.
Bellenger, D.N. and P.K. Korgaonkar (1980). “Profiling the recreational
shopper,” Journal of Retailing, 56 (3), 77–91.
Bellenger, D.N., Dan Robertson and Elizabeth Hirschmann (1976). “Age
and education as key correlates of store selection for female shoppers,”
Journal of Retailing, 52 (4), 71–78.
Bellenger, D.N., D.H. Robertson and B.A. Greenberg (1977). “Shopping
center patronage motives,” Journal of Retailing, 53 (2), 29–38.
Berry, Leonard, Kathleen Seiders and Dhruv Grewal (July, 2002). “Under-
standing service convenience,” Journal of Marketing, 66, 1–17.
Brengman, Malaika and Maggie Geuens (2002). “Profiling Internet users
based on their propensity to adopt online shopping,” Asia Pacific
Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 30–39.
Craig, S., A. Ghosh and S. McLafferty (1984). “Models of retail location
process: a review,” Journal of Retailing, 60 (1), 5–36.
Crask, Melvin and Fred Reynolds (1978). “An indepth profile of the depart-
ment store shopper,” Journal of Retailing, 54 (Summer), 23–32.
Darden, William R. and James R. Lumpkin (1984). “Psychographic and
demographic profile of convenience food store users: why people con-
venience shop,” Review of Business & Economic Research, 19 (2), 68–80.
Darden, William R. and JoAnn Schwinghammer (1985). “The influence of
social characteristics on perceived quality in Patronage Choice Behav-
ior,” in Perceived Quality: How Consumers View New Stores and Mer-
chandise, Jacoby Jacob and C. Olson Jerry eds. Lexington, MA: D.C.
Heath and Company, 161–172.
Darley, William K. and Jeen-Su Lim (1993). “Store-choice behavior for
pre-owned merchandise,” Journal of Business Research, 27, 17–31.
Dellaert, Benedict, Theo Arentze and Michel Bierlaire (1998). “Investigat-
ing consumers’ tendency to combine multiple shopping purposes and
destinations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (2), 177–188.
Dhar, S.K., S.J. Hoch and Nirmalya Kumar (2001). “Effective category man-
agement depends on the role of the category,” Journal of Retailing, 77
(2), 165–184.
Dodds, William B., Kent B. Monroe and Dhruv Grewal (August, 1991).
“The effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product
evaluations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 307–319.
Donovan, Robert J., John R. Rossiter, G. Marcoolyn and A. Nesdale (1994).
“Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 70
(3), 283–294.
Eastlick, Mary Ann and Mengmeng Liu (1997). “The influence of store
attitudes and other nonstore shopping patterns on patronage of television
shopping programs,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 11 (3), 14–24.
Fern, F. Edward and Kent B. Monroe (September, 1996). “Effect size esti-
mates: issues and problems in interpretation,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 23, 89–115.
Finn, A. and J. Louviere (1990). “Shopping center patronage models: fash-
ioning a consideration set segmentation solution,” Journal of Business
Research, 21 (3), 159–175.
Finn, A. and J. Louviere (March, 1996). “Shopping center image, con-
sideration, and choice: anchor store contribution,” Journal of Business
Research, 35, 241–251.
Gentry, J.W. and A.C. Burns (1977). “How ‘important’ are evaluative criteria
in shopping center patronage?,” Journal of Retailing, 53 (4), 73–86, 94.
Goldman, Arieh (1977). “The shopping style explanation for store loyalty,”
Journal of Retailing, 53 (4), 33–46, 94.
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent Monroe and R. Krishnan (1998). “The effects of price-
comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value,
transaction value, and behavioral intentions,” Journal of Marketing, 62
(2), 46–59.
Grewal, Dhruv, Julie Baker, Michael Levy and Glenn Voss (2003). “The
effects of wait expectations and store atmosphere evaluations on patron-
age intentions in service-intensive retail stores,” Journal of Retailing, 79,
259–268.
Hansen, Robert and Terry Deutscher (1977). “An empirical investigation of
attribute importance in retail store selection,” Journal of Retailing, 53
(4), 59–72, 95.
Hays, W.L. (1973). Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt, Rin-
chart & Winston.
Hedges, L.V. and Ingram Olkin (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-
Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hunter, John E. and Frank L. Schmidt (1990). Methods of Meta-Analysis:
Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Jacoby, Jacob and David Mazursky (1985). “The impact of linking brand
and retailer images on perceptions of quality,” in Perceived Quality:
How Consumers View New Stores and Merchandise, Jacob Jacoby and
C. Olson Jerry eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 155–159.
Kasulis, Jack and Robert Lusch (1981). “Validating the retail store image
concept,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 9 (4), 419–
435.
Kendall, M.G. and A. Stuart (1967). The Advanced Theory of Statistics sec-
ond ed. New York: Hafner.
Kenhove, Patrick Van, Kristof De Wulf and Walter Van Waterschoot (1999).
“The impact of task definition on store-attribute saliences and store
choice,” Journal of Retailing, 75 (1), 125–137.
Kerin, Roger, Ambuj Jain and Daniel J. Howard (1992). “Store shopping
experience and consumer price-quality-value perceptions,” Journal of
Retailing, 68 (4), 376–397.
Koelemeijer, Kitty and Harmen Oppewal (1999). “Assessing the effects of
assortment and ambience: a choice experimental approach,” Journal of
Retailing, 75 (3), 319–345.
Korgaonkar, Pradeep K., Daulat Lund and Barbara Price (1985). “A
structural-equation approach toward examination of store attitude and
store patronage behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 61 (2), 39–60.
Lambert, Z.V. (1979). “An investigation of older consumers: unmet needs
and wants at the retail level,” Journal of Retailing, 55 (4), 37–57.
Levy, Sidney I. (1966). “Social class and consumer behavior,” in On Know-
ing the Consumer, J. W. Newman ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
146–160.
Levy, Michael and Barton A. Weitz (1995). Retailing management. Chicago:
Richard D. Irwin.
Louviere, J.J. and G.J. Gaeth (1987). “Decomposing the determinants of
retail facility choice using the method of hierarchical information inte-
gration: a supermarket illustration,” Journal of Retailing, 63 (1), 25–48.
Lumpkin, James R. and John J. Burnett (1991). “Identifying determinants of
store type choice of the mature consumer,” Journal of Applied Business
Research, 8 (1), 89–102.
Lumpkin, James R. and J.M. Hawes (1985). “Retailing without stores: an
examination of catalog shoppers,” Journal of Business Research, 13,
139–151.
Lutz, Richard J. (1985). “Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude
toward the ad: a conceptual framework,” in Psychological Processes
and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research and Application, L. F. Alwitt
and A. A. Mitchell eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
45–63.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard L. Lutz (April, 1989). “An empirical
examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in
an advertising pretesting context,” Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65.
 Y. Pan, G.M. Zinkhan / Journal of Retailing 82 (3, 2006) 229–243
Malhotra, N.K. (1983). “A threshold model of store choice,” Journal of
Retailing, 59 (2), 3–21.
Olshavsky, Richard W. (1985). “Perceived quality in consumer decision
making: an integrated theoretical perspective,” in Perceived Quality:
How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, Jacoby Jacob and
C. Olson Jerry eds. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 3–
29.
Pedhazur, Elazar and Liora Schmelkin (1991). Measurement, Design, and
Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Peter, J.Paul and Gilbert Churchill (February, 1986). “Relationships
among research design choices and psychometric properties of rat-
ing scales: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 1–
10.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1988). “The moderating effect of
price knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 15 (2), 253–264.
Rao, Akshay R. and Kent B. Monroe (1989). “The effect of price, brand
name, and store name on buyers’ subjective product assessments:
an integrative review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (3), 351–
357.
Reilly, William J. (1931). The Law of Retail Gravitation. New York: Author.
Rosenthal, Robert (1991). Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Roy, Abhik (1994). “Correlates of mall visit frequency,” Journal of Retailing,
70 (2), 139–161.
Rubenstein, C. and P. Shaver (1980). “Loneliness in two northeastern cities,”
in The Anatomy of Loneliness, New York: International Universities
Press.
Samli, A. Coskun (1975). “Use of segmentation index to measure store
loyalty,” Journal of Retailing, 51 (1), 51–113.
Sirgy, M. Joseph and A. Coskun Samli (1985). “A path analytic model of
store loyalty involving self-concept, store image, geographic loyalty, and
socioeconomic status,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
13 (3), 265–291.
243
Sirohi, Niren and Edward McLaughlin (1998). “A model of consumer per-
ceptions and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer,” Journal
of Retailing, 74 (2), 223–245.
Stassen, Robert, John Mittelstaedt and Robert Mittelstaedt (1999). “Assort-
ment overlap: its effect on shopping patterns in a retail market when the
distributions of prices and goods are known,” Journal of Retailing, 75
(3), 371–386.
Sultan, Fareena, John Farley and Donald Lehmann (February, 1990). “A
meta-analysis of applications of diffusion models,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 27, 70–77.
Tauber, E.M. (October, 1972). “Why do people shop?,” Journal of Marketing,
36, 46–49.
Tellis, Gerard and Gary Gaeth (1990). “Best value, price-seeking, and price
aversion: the impact of information and learning on consumer choices,”
Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 34–45.
Thelen, Eva M. and Arch G. Woodside (1997). “What evokes the brand or
store? Consumer research on accessibility theory applied to modeling
primary choice,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14,
125–145.
Tigert, Douglas J. (1983). “Pushing the hot buttons for a successful retailing
strategy,” in Patronage Behavior and Retail Management, R. Darden
William and F. Lusch Robert eds. New York: North-Holland.
Walters, Rockney G. and Heikki J. Rinne (1986). “An empirical investigation
into the impact of price promotions on retail store performance,” Journal
of Retailing, 62 (Fall), 237–266.
Westbrook, R.A. and W.C. Black (1985). “A motivation-based shopper typol-
ogy,” Journal of Retailing, 61 (1), 78–103.
Wolf, Fredric M. (1986). Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research
Synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Woodside, Arch G. and Randolph J. Trappey (1992). “Finding out why
customers shop your store and buy your brand: automatic cognitive pro-
cessing models of primary choice,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32
(6), 59–78.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Leonard Berry (1996). “The behavioral consequences of
service quality,” Journal of Marketing, 60 (2), 31–46.