A Path-Analytic Exploration of
Retail Patronage Influences
KENT B. MONROE
JOSEPH P. GUlLTINAN*
This article presents the results of a study investigating the dynamics of
retail store choice behavior. It develops the use of time-path analysis
with a working model of the sequence of effects of store choice behavior
to draw conclusions about the probable direction of influence between
four sets of variables thought to influence store choice.
INTRODUCTION
This paper reports on a study designed to develop a
more comprehensive understanding of the changes that
occur in buyer patronage patterns and in buyer search
and information processing behavior over time in a
changing competitive environment. More specifically,
the study employs path analysis to research the prob-
able direction of influence among variables believed to
affect store patronage decisions. The direction of this
research effort is significant for several reasons:
1. Marketing behavior is inherently dynamic and
therefore should be investigated by dynamic models
whenever possible.
2. In order to have significant managerial or public
policy value, behavioral models ultimately must be
causal if the consequences of actions are to be known.
Accordingly, hypotheses regarding direction of influ-
ence must be developed before conclusive research can
be undertaken.
3. The major existing consumer behavior models
have concentrated on brand choice behavior almost to
the exclusion of retail patronage behavior.
4. Simplified paradigms of retail patronage behavior
ignore the interdependence of store choice, product
choice, and brand choice processes, particularly where
planning of shopping trips, overt search, and budgeting
may be involved.
5. Concepts such as search and information proc-
essing are seemingly quite significant yet rather vaguely
defined within the buyer behavior literature.
* The authors are both Associate Pro(essors of Marketing,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Special acknowledge-
ment goes to James Wiek for assistance in the design and
collection of data, and to Roger Calantone and Sue Sprague
for programming assistance. This research was supported in
part by a research grant from the Research Council, University
of Massachusetts.
19
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
These issues are examined in detail in this paper.
Then, a working model of the sequence of effects in
store choice is developed and examined using panel
data and path analytic techniques.
What Determines Store Choice?
A careful search of the literature on buyer behavior
reveals surprisingly little knowledge of how people
choose the store in which to shop. The major models
deal with choice processes as they relate to product
and brand choice and little empirical research is avail-
able to provide additional clues. The linear learning
model was of limited usefulness for predicting store
choice (Aaker and Jones, 1971). Demographic vari-
ables, when taken separately, were not of much value
in analyzing models of store choice (Farley, 1968),
although a model incorporating demographic, attitudi-
nal, and shopping variables to predict when to shop,
number of stores shopped, and store choice has been
suggested (MacKay, 1972).
The role of store image in the patronage decision
was assessed and differences were found in several di-
mensions when respondent's "ideal" combination of
attributes were compared to the store regularly shopped
(Stephenson, 1969). Further research into the influ-
ence of the relative importance of store patronage fac-
tors revealed that it is not always clear which factors
are determinant and which are merely important (J ol-
son and Spath, 1973).
What Factors Influence the Extent of Search?
Other researchers have looked at the issue of store
choice in terms of the number of stores shopped and
specific attempts to obtain information through adver-
tisements. Using these variables as indicants of search,
it has been found that extent of multistore shopping
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH. Vol. 2 • June 1975
20
and the number of advertisements read per trip were
positively associated with wealth and absence of money
as a child, but negatively associated with the tendency
to perceive the benefits of shopping as small and with
the "liberal, worldly, housewife" (Bucklin, 1971).
Multistore shopping has also been found to be posi-
tively associated with the frequency of shopping, size
of the food budget, tendency to mix food and non-food
purchases, but negatively associated with that stage in
the life cycle containing families with household heads
under 35 withovt school-age children (Prasad, 1972).
Although information search is discussed in the lead-
ing consumer behavior books, the specific nature, cause,
and impact of store-related search is generally ignored.
However, it is possible to gain further insight into the
influences of search behavior by consulting these gen-
eral summaries. For example, it is suggested that overt
search is used: (1) to clarify descriptive and evaluative
cognitions, (2) to satisfy motives such as novelty, (3)
to clarify the saliency of motives. It is also suggested
that search is influenced by personality, general experi-
ence, and exposure to stimuli (Howard and Sheth,
1969).
Nicosia (1966) suggests that the type, level, inten-
sity, and duration of search are influenced by: (1) the
buyer's range of values and interests, (2) the buyer's
level of aspiration and its relationship to perceived costs
and payoffs of information, (3) degree of social-psy-
chological involvement with object-need, and (4)
search propensity. Search propensity represents a large
class of psychological traits and processes such as the
need for certainty and the perception and the handling
of risk and ambiguity.
Other factors affecting search have been suggested:
experience, availability of information without search,
the satsifaction derived from search, perceived conse-
quences of search, and the value placed on the product
(Walters and Paul, 1970). Finally, Engel, Kollat, and
Blackwell (1968) cite some evidence of the possible
importance of family role structure, income, and demo-
graphic characteristics.
SEQUENCE OF EFFECTS IN STORE
CHOICE: A WORKING MODEL
Perhaps the most glaring weakness in the available
evidence on what influences store choice is the lack of
any specification of how this general variable might be
linked together. If the study of buyer behavior is to
make substantial advances towards development of a
theory of buyer behavior, it is necessary to design
models that translate known or postulated causal rela-
tionships into structures with more clearly defined the-
oretical and empirical implication (Nicosia and Rosen-
berg, 1972).
Such substantive models advance the efficiency of
research by (1) clarifying the structural relationships
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
underlying the phenomena of interest, (2) uncovering
meaningful alternative research hypotheses, (3) im-
proving the understanding of the empirical results, and
( 4) facilitating the selection of appropriate data ana-
lytic methods. These results are achievable by a model-
ing process that seeks to define and then evaluate
alternative causal networks.
Within the context of modeling store choice behavior
and the role of information search in store choice, the
state of the art is such that, at best, there are only hints
of the types of variables that might be linked together.
Further, due to the lack of specific theoretical and em-
pirical attention to store choice behavior, the relative
directions of influence among variables have not been
clarified. As a first step towards the specification of a
directional model of store choice behavior, a prelim-
inary model was developed to portray the relative di-
rections of influences among the variables suggested in
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
the literature review (Figure 1). Substantive model
building in this area is hindered by a lack of research
evidence to indicate clearly the relationship among
"opinions and attitudes about shopping," "information
search," "information processing," and perceptions,
particularly as they relate to the store choice process.
This model was derived from the sparse research
findings regarding store patronage research, and the
theoretical models of search and buyer behavior. Solid
lines indicate hypothesized directions of influence, and
dashed lines imply some possible feedback influences.
The empirical analysis focused on identifying direc-
tions of influence among four of the sets of variables in
Figure 1: (I) general opinions and activities concern-
ing shopping; (2) specific planning and budgeting
strategies; (3) importance of store attributes dealing
with buyer information; and (4) perceptions of stores
in terms of attributes dealing with buyer information.
(The specific variables used in each of these sets are
discussed below.)
The selection of these particular four sets of vari-
ables was based on three considerations:
( 1) Household/buyer characteristics tend to be en-
during, at least for the time frame of this study. Thus
the effects of changes in these variables could not be
observed, and are not included in the analysis.
(2) Variables which deal primarily with in-store in-
formation processing and product and brand choice
were not included since these behaviors tend to follow
the store choice decision.
(3) Because the concepts of information search and
processing are not well defined with respect to retail
patronage behavior, variables with the greater likeli-
hood of directly influencing such behavior were in-
cluded in the analysis.
Thus, those aspects of the model which bear most
directly on information processing and search were
tested. Variables were selected that focused on the
gathering and use of information, and on those infor-
PATH-ANALYTIC EXPLORATION OF RETAIL PATRONAGE
Household/ Buyer
Characteristics ......~---. .
-Location
-Demographic
-Role Perceptions of
-Life Style Store
-Per sonality Attributes
-Economic
...
••
General Opinions I
and Acti vitie s I•
Concerning
Shopping/Search
tI Strategies for
. ._ _...~ Planning and
L----_________________________ J
Budgeting
I
FIGURE 1
Sequence of Effects in Store Choice
mational factors hypothesized to influence store atti-
tudes and store choice, namely price and advertising.
THE RESEARCH SETTING
The basis for testing the model in Figure 1 resulted
from a unique market disruption over time similar to
the study by Myers and Nicosia (1970): the market
entry of a regional supermarket chain into a duopolistic
market. Food retailing in the study market had been
dominated by one moderately large independent store
(Store L), (estimated market share of 25%), and one
regional chain supermarket (Store S), (estimated mar-
ket share of 60%). Other than a small number of
"mom and pop" food stores, these two stores had a
clear market advantage since the nearest central shop-
ping district (including five chain supermarkets) was
seven miles away on a congested and obsolete highway.
Since the middle 1960's there had been relatively few
changes in the composition of shopping alternatives
available to buyers with no real change in food shop-
ping alternatives. Thus, prior to August 1973 the mar-
ket for food retailing could be characterized as stable
with both retailer and shopper behavioral patterns
relatively consistent.
Data Collection Procedures
Data on subjects' feelings about the relative impor-
tance of attributes of grocery stores using seven-point
rating scales for each attribute were collected from a
panel of grocery shoppers at three time intervals. The
first data collection wave was accomplished four weeks
prior to the opening of the new store; the second data
21
Attitude ..._ _ _ _...~<
Toward
Stores
In - Store
Information
_________________ _ _- - - . J
Processing
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
collection wave was in week six, or during the second
week after the new store had opened; the third data
collection wave was in week 19, or 13 weeks after the
new store had opened. In addition to the relative im-
portance attribute scales, subjects rated each store (2
stores in wave 1 and 3 stores in waves 2 and 3) on
these relative importance attributes using a seven-point
semantic differential scale for each item. Also, in waves
1 and 3 respondents completed an activity, interest,
and opinion (AIO) multiple scale questionnaire. Gen-
eral demographic data were collected dtE'ing wave one,
and additional advertising and coupon dl).ta were col-
lected from the panel members in wave three. All data
collection utilized the mail survey techniques and re-
spondents were compensated for each survey question-
naire completed. One hundred sixty-nine respondents
completed all three waves.
Variables
Since the primary concern of this paper is with
methodological findings, the following variables are an-
alyzed and discussed. The particular attribute variables
were selected because a priori it was expected they
would be the ones most likely to change because of the
relatively heavy promotion by the stores during the
study period. Indeed, the "Advertising helpful" and
"Relatively low prices" variables were found to change
the most during the study period. (Abbreviations used
in Tables 1-4 are shown in parentheses.)
Only the two major, established stores (S and L)
are relevant to the analysis because it is confined to
behavioral changes between waves 1 and 3.
22 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 1
DIFFERENCES IN CROSS-LAGGED PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS-TOTAL SAMPLE
General Opinions Planning & Budgeting Importance Store Perceptions
Can Com- Spe- Diff Use Adv Low Store L Store L Store S Store S
Save pare cials Store Budget Coupon List Ads Helpful Price AH RLP AH RLP
+* +* + + +* + + -* +
_.
Brand Name
Can Save + + + + -* +* +* +* +* +*
Compare +* + +* + + +* +* + + +* +
+ + +. + +. *
Specials
DiffStore
Budget
+ _.
+ +
+ +
+
+
+
+
-* +. +
+
-* +* +* +* + +
Coupon
List + +
+
+* _._. _. -*
-*
+*
Use Ads
AdvHelpful
ReI Low Price
+* _.
-*
-*
StoreLAH +*
Store L RLP
StoreSAH

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016

+ Indicates variable in left column is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients > 0).
- Indicates variable in top row is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients < 0).
* Indicates difference in correlation coefficients is significant at .IS level.

Store attribute variables Activity, interest, and opinion variables

Importance of "Advertising helpful" (ADV HELP- (1) Specific opinion and activities concerning plan-
FUL) ning and budgeting strategies.
Perception of Store S on "Advertising helpful" Before going grocery shopping I prepare a shop-
(STORE S AH) ping list. (LIST) .
Perception of Store L on "Advertising helpful" I try to redeem coupons to reduce the price I
(STORE L AH) pay for grocery products. (COUPON)
Importance of "Relatively low prices" (REL LOW I plan my shopping list around items mentioned
PRICE) in the newspaper ads. (USE ADS)
Perception of Store S on "Relatively low prices" I budget a certain amount to spend on groceries
(STORE S RLP) each week. (BUDGET)
Perception of Store L on "Relatively low prices" (2) General opinion and activities concerning shop-
(STORE L RLP) ping.

TABLE 2
DIFFERENCES IN CROSS-LAGGED PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS-SWITCHER SEGMENT
General Opinions Planning & Budgeting Importance Store Perceptions
Can Com- Spe- Diff Bud- Cou- Use Adv Low Store L Store L Store S Store S
Save pare cials Store get pon List Ads Helpful Price AH RLP AH RLP
Brand Name -* +* + + + + +* -* +
Can Save + + + -* +* + +. + + +.
Compare + +. + + +* + +* +
Specials +* + + +* + +. + +. +
DiffStore + + + + + +* +
Budget + + + + + + +
Coupon + +* +* + + +
List + + + +
Use Ads + +
AdvHelpful +
Rei Low Price
StoreLAH + -*
StoreLRLP +
StoreSAH
+ Indicates variable in left column is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients> 0).
- Indicates variable in top row is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients < 0).
• Indicates difference in correlation coefficients is significant at .IS level.
PATH-ANALYTIC EXPLORATION OF RETAIL PATRONAGE 23

TABLE 3
DIFFERENCES IN CROSS-LAGGED PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS-L-LOYAL SEGMENT
General Opinions Planning & Budgeting Importance Store Perceptions
Can Com- Spe- Diff Use Adv Low Store L Store L Store S Store S
Save pare cials Store Budget Coupon List Ads Helpful Price AH RLP AH RLP
Brand Name +* + + + + -* + + + +
Can Save + + * + + + +
Compare + + +* + +* + + +
Specials + +* +* + + + + + +
Diff Store + + -* + + -* + +
Budget + + + + + +* +
Coupon + +
Ust + + +*
Use Ads +* + +* + + +*
AdvHelpful +* + -* + +
Rei Low Price + + +
Store LAH
Store L RLP
+ +
StoreSAH

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016

+ Indicates variable in left column is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients> 0).
- Indicates variable in top row is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients < 0).
* Indicates difference in correlation coefficients is significant at .15 level.

A person can save a lot of money by shopping THE METHOD OF CROSS-LAGGED

around for bargains. ( CAN SAVE)
I like to shop different stores just to see what is
new. (DIFF STORE)
I shop a lot for store specials. (SPECIALS)
I make my purchase selection according to
my favorite brand name, regardless of price.
(BRAND NAME)
When grocery shopping, I compare prices be-
fore I make my selection. (COMPARE)
PANEL CORRELATIONS
In the recent past, a few studies have been reported
in marketing research that have used the methods of
path analysis (Christopher and Elliott, 1970; O'Brien,
1974; Pelz and Andrews, 1964; Turner, 1974). Essen-
tially, there are two methods for inferring direction of
influence: (1) method of path coefficients, and (2)
method of differential incross-lagged panel correla-

TABLE 4
DIFFERENCES IN CROSS-LAGGED PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS-S-LOYAL SEGMENT
General Opinions Planning & Budgeting Importance Store Perceptions
Can Com- Spe- Diff Use Adv Low Store L Store L Store S Store S
Save pare cials Store Budget Coupon List Ads Helpful Price AH RLP AH RLP
Brand Name +* + +* -* + +*
Can Save + + + + + +* + +
Compare +* +* + +* + +* +* + + +* +
Specials + + -* + * + -* *
Diff Store + + +
Budget -* + + + +
Coupon + + + +* +* +*
Ust
Use Ads
+ -* +
Adv Helpful
+ + + +
ReI Low Price
+ + +
Store LAH
Store LRLP
+
StoreSAH
+
+ Indicates variable in left column is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients> 0).
- Indicates variable in top row is the preceding variable (differences in coefficients < 0).
* Indicates difference in correlation coefficients is significant at .15 level.
24
tions. The method of path coefficients is primarily use-
ful where most of the variation in a given dependent
variable can be associated with the other variables ex-
plicitly included in the system, and where the theory
underlying the model is well developed (Blalock,
1964). The method of cross-lagged panel correlations
is useful when the objective is to isolate probable causal
relations between variables over time. The theory of
the method of path coefficients is succinctly outlined in
Van de Geer (1971) and will not be discussed here.
The Nature of the Analysis for Cross-Lagged
Correlations
Because of the lack of a well-developed theory of
store choice behavior and because the data underlying
this study come from a panel, the data were analyzed
using the method of cross-lagged correlations. To out-
line the nature of the analysis, assume two variables
A and B, measured at two points in time t and t + k.
As shown in Figure 2, six correlations between A and
B are possible. If A has a priority over B such that
changes in A precede changes in B, then A t should be
more strongly associated with BtH than B t is associ-
ated with A tH . That is, r.4.t B tH should be significantly
greater than rBtAt+k' (Or stated alternatively, correla-
tion 5 is greater than correlation 6.) Also, if k is close
to the "causal" interval, correlation 5 should be greater
than correlations 1 or 2. Consequently, this method
provides some fundamental inputs into the generation
of paths of influence.
The analysis requires two basic assumptions. Changes
must occur constantly in the state of variable A, other-
wise correlations 1, 2, 5, and 6 will approach identity.
Also, it is assumed that the effect of A on B is not
totally immediate, but occurs over an interval k, which
can be approximately judged. Research, however, has
indicated that this second assumption can be tolerated
FIGURE 2
Cross-Lagged Correlations
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
as long as the variables involved are not highly incon-
sistent over time (Pelz and Andrews, 1964).
Analytical Complications
The correlational approach of Figure 2 ignores two
possible confounding effects (O'Brien, 1974). To infer
that A has directional influence over B, it is necessary
to account for the effects of the prior level of the de-
pendant variable B t and the subsequent level of the
predictor variable A t + k on B tH • This can be achieved
by computing the partial correlation coefficients. If
l'AtBt+k is sharply reduced by holding AtH constant,
then either the serial effect of At, A t + k is strong, or the
simultaneous effect of A Hk , BHk is strong.
Consequently, in the current study, A will be in-
ferred to exhibit influence over B when l' AtBt+k' AtH:
and r.4.t B tH· Bt are statistically significant, and when
I rAtBtH'At+k I - I rBtAt+k'Bt I is statistically signifi-
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
cant.
A second complication is that there are actually four
hypotheses in competition in the cross-lagged panel
correlation method (Rozelle and Campbell, 1969).
That is, typically the technique is believed to compare
hypotheses that either A causes B or B causes A. Po-
tentially, at least, each of the following hypotheses is
in competition:
(I) Increases in A increase B and decreases in A
decrease B
(2) Increases in A decrease B and decreases in A
increase B
(3) Increases in B increase A and decreases in B
decrease A
( 4) Increases in B decrease A and decreases in B
increase A
When confounded in pairs, then, the result rAtBt+k >
'BtAt+k might mean that the joint effect of A increases
Band B decreases A is greater than the joint effect of
B increases A and A decreases B.
Should the foregoing asymmetry problem exist, the
objective would be to avoid assigning directional pri-
ority to either factor if both priorities are approximately
equal in strength (i.e., to risk erring by not ascribing
priority where some priority exists between a pair of
variables). Accordingly, by testing the statistical sig-
nificance of the difference in the absolute values of 1'5
and 1'6 (rather than the difference of the signed values)
we eliminate this problem for situations where the
synchronous correlations are near zero. (Synchronous
correlations are the within-period correlations between
a pair of variables-in Figure 2, correlations 1 and 2,
i.e., rAtBt and rAt+kRtH)' Further, the effects of high
synchronous correlations are controlled for by the use
and analysis of partial correlation coefficients.
Finally, while many of the variable pairs A and B
could plausibly be viewed as interdependent such that
PATH-ANALYTIC EXPLORATION OF RETAIL PATRONAGE
A and B sequentially influenced each other, there is
not, a priori, any obvious cases in which such paired
effects would move in different directions. Since the
objective in this paper is only to assign probable direc-
tion of influence to one variable or the other (or to
neither), then the nature of the relationship (positive
vs. negative) is not of direct concern.
Analytical Procedure
For each of the foregoing variables, means and stan-
dard deviations were calculated for waves one and
three (the only waves in which all the variables of
interest in this paper were measured). Simple correla-
tion coefficients were calcuated between each pair of
variables in the manner suggested by Figure 2-six
correlations per pair of variables. Partial correlation co-
efficients were calculated to control for serial and simul-
taneous effects as described above.
This procedure was followed for each of four groups
of respondents:
a. the entire sample, n = 169
b. those who shopped only at store L during the 19
weeks (L-Loyal, n 30 =
c. those who shopped only at store S during the 19
weeks (S-Loyal), n = 50
d. those who switched their major store at least once
during the 19 week period, (Switchers), n = 76
(13 respondents were loyal to other stores.)
In terms of Figure 2, correlations r5 and r6 are the
coefficients of primary interest. The results indicated
little difference between the two sets of partials, so r5
and r6 were calculated using those partials which held
At and B t constant. Any value of r5 or r6 which was
statistically significant at the .15 level or better was
then analyzed further to determine the direction of
causal inference and to see if the differences I r5 I -
I r6 I were significant. To answer this question Fisher's
r to Z transformation (Neter and Wasserman, 1974),
given by the rule
Z= t loge [(1 + r.vy)/(l - r",y)] (1)
was used to test the hypothesis: r5 = r6.
The test of equal correlations is given by
(ZI - Z2)/[Var (ZI - Z2)]l (2)
where
Var(ZI - Z2) = (l/NI - 3) + I/N2 -3) (3)
For reasonably large samples this ratio can be referred
to the normal distribution. The important assumption
underlying the use of this test is that each sample is
drawn from a bivariate normal population.
Cross-lagged panel correlations are effective in diag-
nosing delayed causal sequences as opposed to immedi-
ate cause-effect situations (Rozelle and Campbell,
25
1969). However, even in delayed-effect situations much
of the cause-effect relationship occurs within a single
wave, leading to an inevitable underestimation of the
causal relations. Because of this expected underestima-
tion of the causal relations, influence priority of r5 over
r6 (or of r6 over r5) is said to exist if p(r5 = r6) ~ .15.
Results of the analysis are presented in the tables
that follow. Tables 1-4 are set up so that the existence
of a positive entry indicates causal priority of the vari-
ables listed in the left hand column over the variable
listed across the top. (Significant I r5 I - I r6 I differ-
ences are denoted by asterisks.) Table 5 summarizes
the results of Tables 1-4 in terms of the four basic types
of variables studied: Attribute Importance, Store Per-
ceptions, General Opinions and Activities, and Specific
Planning and Budgeting Strategies. Entries to Table 5
indicate the percentage of variable pairs in which vari-
able types in the left hand column preceded those in
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
the right hand column in terms of directions. Statis-
tically significant percentages appear in parentheses.
(For example, of the 20 possible (opinion, activities)-
(planning, budgeting) pairs, the opinion, activities
variables appeared to precede the planning, budgeting
variables in 16 cases and in all of the 3 significant
pairwise relationships, when the total sample was an-
alyzed. See Table 5.)
RESULTS
Despite the limitation of likely underestimation of
the causal relations, the results of this study do indicate
some future research efforts necessary to substantively
model the retail patronage decision process.
The directions of influence as summarized in Tables
1-5, produce a number of generalizations. The attribute
importance variables were consistently second in pair-
wise analyses, particularly for the two largest analytical
groups-the total sample and the "switchers" segment.
In both of these groups there was not a single instance
in which either of the attribute importance variables
displayed directional influence at a statistically signifi-
cant level (Table 5).
Store perceptions variables tended to display rela-
tively frequent directional influence, especially in the
two largest analytical groups with respect to the at-
tribute importance variables.
General opinions and activity variables showed
strong influence over both attribute importance vari-
ables and specific planning and budget strategy vari-
ables. Again this relationship is strongest among the
larger analytical groups.
Specific planning and budgeting variables generally
show little influence except over the AI variables-
and again, particularly in the largest analytical groups.
These results suggest the following directions of in-
fluence among the four types of variables
26 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

TABLE 5
DIRECfION OF INFLUENCE BY VARIABLE TYPE
Fraction of Time a Variable of Left Column Types
Precedes Each of the Following
Variable General Planning & Attribute Store
Sample Type Opinions Budgeting Importance Perceptions
Total
General Opinion 15/20 (5/6) 10/10 (SIS) 9/20 (4/8)
Planning & Budgeting 5/20 (1/6) 6/8 (3/3) 5116 (1/4)
Attribute Importance 0/10 (013) 218 (0/5) 018 (0/5)
Store Perceptions 11/20 (418) 11/16 (3/3) 8/8 (SIS)
Switchers
General Opinion 14/20 (3/4) 7110 (3/3) 12/20 (4/5)
Planning & Budgeting 6/20 (1/4) 5/8 (2/2) 10/16 (0/0)
Attribute Importance 3110 (013) 318 (0/2) 0/8 (0/0)
Store Perceptions 8/20 (115) 6/16 (0/0) 818 (0/0)
L-Loyal
General Opinion 11/20 (3/6) 6110 (0/0) 14/20 (1/2)
Planning & Budgeting 9/20 (3/6) 4/8 (1/1) 10/16 (313)

Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016

Attribute Importance 4110 (0/0) 418 (0/1) 618 (Oil)
Store Perceptions 6/20 (1/2) 6/16 (0/3) 218 (111)
S-Loyal
General Opinion 12120 (3/6) 6110 (313) 8/20 (214)
Planning & Budgeting 8/20 (3/6) 318 (1/1 ) 6/16 (213)
Attribute Importance 4/10 (013) 518 (0/1) 618 (0/0)
Store Perceptions 12/20 (214) 10/16 (1/3) 218 (0/0)

1. General Opinions and Activities (GOA) Store Perceptions-Attribute Importance

and
Store Perceptions (SP)
preceding
2. Specific Planning and Budgeting (SPB)
Strategies
preceding
3. Attribute Importance (AI)
For instance considering the GOA and SP variables
as a group, in the total sample, these two variable types
precede SPB and AI variables in 47 of the 58 pairwise
relationships and in all 16 statistically significant re-
lationships.
DISCUSSION
The significance of this research is the existence of
support for the notion that similar directions of influ-
ence appear to be operating for all of the groups an-
alyzed. Also, the time period for data collection was
marked by relatively heavy promotional activity by the
other stores, and by a concomitant increase in the
levels of all SP's, AI's, and many GOA's and SPB's,
by the "switchers" group. Hence, it is plausible that if
different processes were operating for each of the three
subgroups, the conditions were appropriate for such
differences to be observed.
Additional insight into the implication of these re-
search findings can be obtained by considering some
relationships among the four types of variables.
Observing that store perceptions show an influence
over attribute importance for the two variables studied,
"relatively low prices" and "advertising is helpful," has
significant bearing on attitude modeling. This prece-
dence helps explain the observation that combining at-
tribute importance with store perceptions contributes
little to the ability to predict atttitudes about retail
stores or retail patronage. Moreover, the importance of
"relatively low prices" declined sharply for the L-Loyal
group, while for this variable the perceived rating of
Store S increased and the perceived rating for Store L
declined. This apparent fragility of the importance of
relatively low prices for this L-Loyal group took place
during a period of increased public concern over infla-
tion, the rise in grocery prices, and heavy price promo-
tion by the other stores.
General Opinion and Activities-Attribute Importance
The model suggested that general beliefs about the
benefits of store specials, brand names, and other
shopping variables would influence specific shopping
benefits sought, and the findings substantiate this ex-
pectation. Moreover, the results suggest that general
opinions and beliefs are more stable and do not readily
change, whereas attribute importance is more suscepti-
ble to change. Thus, finding that store perceptions and
general beliefs are more stable and tend to take prece-
dence over attribute importance adds evidence to the
PATH-ANALYTIC EXPLORATION OF RETAIL PATRONAGE
multi-attribute attitude model research issue of whether
the beliefs-importance model is superior to the beliefs-
only model (Bass and Wilkie, 1973). One implication
of our findings would be that attribute importance is a
weak causal agent of store attitudes or store patronage
behavior.
Store Perceptions-Specific Planning and
Budgeting Strategies
Finding that store perceptions precede specific buyer
planning and budgeting strategies supports the notion
that retailer price promotion strategy can have a causal
effect. An apparent effect of the increased price-promo-
tion activity during the study period was an increase
in the use of coupons, the use of advertisements for de-
veloping shopping lists, and additional incidence of
budgeting activity. It is possible, though, that store
perceptions are intervening variables between retail
strategy and store choice, thereby implying that current
store patronage behavior determines the specific shop-
ping strategies.
General Opinions and Activities-Specific Planning
and Budgeting Strategies
The general beliefs about the value of search and
descriptions of search orientation (GOA's) display an
influence over specific strategies of planning and bud-
geting which would be expected to be used to begin
processing the information gained from search activ-
ities. Again this relationship is consistent with the gen-
eral theory discussed above.
CONCLUSION
The objective of this paper has been to examine sub-
stantive modeling, the choice process of retail patron-
age, and a specific analytical technique for synthesizing
these two concepts. The technique of time-path analy-
sis, although using correlational analysis, does offer an
approach for developing hypotheses on directions of
influence. It is recognized that many of the "cause-
effect" relationships are simultaneous; however utilizing
methodology that endeavors to capture the delayed di-
rection of influence provides valuable insight and facil-
itates substantive modeling activity. The results in this
paper offer some substantive finding!> about the nature
of relationships among some key variables believed to
influence retail patronage behavior.
To be sure, there are limitations to the methodology
utilized to capture these relationships. Clearly, addi-
tional long-run analysis of the relationships discussed
in the paper are desirable to provide more definitive
answers. Moreover, the question of the role of attribute
importance weights in attitude research needs addi-
tional analysis, both for brand attitude and store atti-
tude studies. The store choice variable has not received
27
as much empirical or theoretical attention as other
variables, yet, in many situations store choice has di-
rect influence on resultant brand choice decisions.
Buyer information processing is not well-defined in
the literature. Although this study has considered spe-
cific overt search and information utilization variables,
the area of information processing remains an elusive
subject. However, the methodology presented in this·
paper shows promise as a mechanism for. generating
more specific causal hypotheses and . comprehensive
models of buyer information processing. In turn, better
understanding of patronage behavior and information
processing should lead to the development of substan-
tive buyer behavior models.
REFERENCES
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016
Aaker, David A. and J. Morgan Jones. "Modeling Store
Choice Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research, 8
(February 1971),38-42.
Bass, Frank M. and William Wilkie. "A Comparative Anal-
ysis of Attitudinal Predictions of Brand Preference,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (August 1973),
262-9.
Blalock, Hubert M. Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental
Research. New York: Norton Co., 1964.
Bucklin, Louis P. "Consumer Search, Role Enactment, and
Market Efficiency," Journal of Business, 44 (October
1971),416-35.
Christopher, M. G. and C. K. Elliott. "Causal Path Analy-
sis in Market Research," Journal of the Market Re-
search Society, 12 (April 1970), 112-20.
Engel, James F., David T. Kollatt, and Roger D. Blackwell.
Consumer Behavior. New York: Rinehart, and Wins-
ton, Inc.,1968.
Farley, John U. "Dimensions of Supermarket Choice
Patterns," Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (May
1968),206-9.
Howard, John A. and Jagdesh N. Sheth. The Theory of
Buyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969.
Jolson, Marvin and Walter Spath. "Understanding and
Fulfilling Shoppers' Requirements: An Anomaly in
Retailing?" Journal of Retailing, 49 (Summer 1973),
38-50.
MacKay, David B. "A Microanalytic Approach to Store
Location Analysis," Journal of Marketing Research,
9 (May 1972), 134-40.
Myers, John G. and Francesco Nicosia. "Time-Path Types:
From Static to Dynamic Typologies," Management
Science, 16 (June 1970), B584-96.
Neter, John and William Wasserman. Applied Linear Sta-
tistical Models. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D.
Irwin, Inc., 1974.
Nicosia, Francesco and Barr Rosenberg. "Substantive
Modeling in Consumer Attitude Research: Some
Practical Uses," in R. I. Haley. Attitude Research in
Transition. Chicago: American Marketing Associa-
tion, 1972.
O'Brien, Terence V. "Information Sensitivity and Brand
Choice," in J. U. Farley, J. A. Howard, and L. W.
28
Ring. Consumer Behavior and Application. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1974.
Pelz, Donald C. and Frank M. Andrews. "Detecting Causal
Priorities in Panel Study Data," American Sociological
Review, 29 (December 1964), 836-48.
Prasad, V. "Correlates of Multistore Food Shopping Be-
havior," lournal of Retailing, 48 (Summer 1972),
74-81.
Rich, Stuart U. and Subhash C. Jain. "Social Class and Life
Cycle as Predictors of Shopping Behavior," lournal
of Marketing Research, 5 (February 1968),41-9.
Rozelle, Richard M. and Donald T. Campbell. "More
Plausible Rival Hypotheses in the Cross-lagged Panel
THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
Correlation Technique," Psychological Bulletin, 71
(January 1969),74-80.
Stephenson, P. Ronald. "Determinants of Retail Patron-
age," lournal of Marketing, 33 (July 1969), 57-6l.
Turner, Ronald E. "Product Priorities Within a Multiple-
Product Marketing Organization," lournal of Market-
ing Research, 11 (May 1974), 143-150.
Van de Geer, John P.lntroduction to Multivariate Analysis
for the Social Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman
and Co., 1971.
Walters, C. Glenn and Gordon W. Paul. Consumer Be-
havior. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
1970.
Downloaded from http://jcr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on May 10, 2016