See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322173515

Revisiting the supermarket in-store customer shopping experience

Article  in  Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · January 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.004

CITATIONS READS

85 3,721

1 author:

Nic S. Terblanche
Stellenbosch University
88 PUBLICATIONS   1,255 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nic S. Terblanche on 26 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Revisiting the supermarket in-store customer shopping experience MARK

Nic S. Terblanche
Department of Business Management, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag ×1, Matieland, 7602 Stellenbosch, South Africa

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Marketing academics and practitioners agree on customer experience as a means for differentiation. The cus-
Customer tomer experience is challenging for retailers because it is influenced by elements which the retailer can control
In-store shopping experience and elements which are beyond their control. This paper deals with the in-store customer shopping experience of
Supermarket a supermarket and found that merchandise assortment, interaction with staff and the internal shop environment
and customers’ in-shop emotions have a strong positive and significant relationship with cumulative customer
satisfaction. Customer satisfaction has a strong positive relationship with repatronage intentions. A comparison
of the current study's findings with those of two similar earlier studies yielded considerable differences. The
major contributions of this study are firstly the identification of differences over time of the elements of an in-
store customer shopping experience in a supermarket and the role of positive emotions that are caused by
supermarket shopping environments.

1. Introduction
Various diverse and innovative retailing formats emerged as com-
petitors for supermarkets (PWC, 2012). To compete with these new
arrivals, supermarkets had to reconsider their offerings and implement
strategies that are challenging and difficult for competitors to emulate.
In this respect, Levy and Weitz (2012) found that traditional super-
markets use strategies to compete successfully by differentiating their
products and services from other competitors. This they do by em-
phasising the freshness of perishables; focusing on the needs and wants
of health-conscious and multi-cultural consumers; offering superior
value with reduced cost private-label merchandise; and providing cus-
tomers a shopping experience better than those of competitors.
A positive in-store customer shopping experience provides a com-
petitive advantage that enhances the value that a customer gets from a
visit to a supermarket. Unfamiliar and complex competitive environ-
ments, and well-informed customers who continuously demand value
are major forces that require the development and offering of a pleasant
in-store customer shopping experiences to ensure that customers pa-
tronise a supermarket again in the future (Sánchez-Fernández et al.,
2009). To provide a pleasant in-store customer shopping experience for
their customers, supermarkets initially focused on offering more ser-
vices to customers. The arrival of new food retailing formats later ne-
cessitated supermarkets to expand their services to compete success-
fully with these newcomers. Examples of newer competitors are
convenience stores such as Kwikspar, PicknPay Express and Foodstops -
located in neighbourhoods and at service stations - and specialised
shops such as Fruit and Veg City and Food Lovers’ Market that offer a
wide selection of food produce. Many established traditional super-
markets have lost business to these newer store formats. To summarise,
the major new competitors for supermarkets can be grouped into three
phenomena. Firstly, there are Makro and Game that sell food and
groceries and which benefit from Walmart's bargaining power that
enable them to be more price competitive. Secondly there are shops
specialising in food. The essence of the competition that the new food
formats bring is that they do not carry as much stock keeping units
(SKU's) as supermarkets and focus on fewer food SKU's with a higher
turnover for profit. In the third instance, we find convenience stores
that offer an extended merchandise mix of frequently consumed prof-
itable items.
Most supermarkets offer their customers, apart from the typical
groceries, a butchery, a wide range of fresh fruit and vegetables, a
bakery with a variety of breads, a confectionary with freshly baked
products, a delicatessen counter with local and imported specialised
meat and cheese products, take-away meals prepared by chefs, a Sushi
counter and a section offering a selection of local and imported wines.
The supermarket under study offer their customers a choice from more
than 300 different cheeses as well as two special types of beef steaks,
apart from the normal fresh cuts. As far as their prepared food is con-
cerned, a range of the dishes is prepared in accordance with the recipes
of the internationally acclaimed chef, Gordon Ramsay. Ramsay also
endorses these dishes, most of which contain only ingredients from the
supermarket's own private label range of food. Even the traditional
grocery section has been changed to cater for customers with specific

E-mail address: nst@sun.ac.za.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.09.004
Received 7 June 2017; Received in revised form 5 September 2017; Accepted 6 September 2017
0969-6989/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.S. Terblanche
needs such as the health conscious and multi-cultural consumers while
more private label brands are made available to appeal to value-seeking
customers. The intention with these added products and services is to
exceed customers’ in-store shopping experiences in comparison with
those offered by their competitors. Supermarkets thus face the chal-
lenge to deal with both intratype -and intertype competition (Goodman
and Remaud, 2015).
This research has been undertaken for a number of reasons. The
study is first and foremost a response to Verhoef, Lemon, Parasuraman,
Roggeveen, Tsiros and Schlesinger's suggestion that customers’ experi-
ences should preferably follow a longitudinal research design (2009).
This suggestion was in response to the question whether customers’
experiences remain stable over time or if they are sensitive to changes
in the internal and external environments. The initial study used for
comparison purposes, was undertaken in 2006 and now it is revisited a
decade later. Secondly, during the focus group discussion the interac-
tion and communication with other customers emerged the first time as
a factor that customers’ experience as enjoyable in a supermarket.
Thirdly, this research found that customers perceived all merchandise
elements holistically as representative of one construct. This Gestalt-
like processing where the whole is perceived as more than the sum of its
parts has not been published before in respect of merchandise. Fourthly,
positive in-store emotions in a supermarket were also one of the new
factors introduced in this study. This specific factor was included to
represent the envisaged new “feel good emotions” resulting from the
altered atmospherics created by the added services in a supermarket.
2. Research background
The first publications on in-store customer experiences are most
probably that of LeBlanc (1992) that explored in-store customer shop-
ping experiences with travel agencies. Other early customer experience
research was published by Carbone and Haeckel (1994) on “En-
gineering Customer Experiences”. Since then a large number of pub-
lications have been published on in-store customer shopping experi-
ences. Earlier studies on in-store customer shopping experiences of
supermarkets, which are used for purposes of comparison in the current
study, were undertaken more than a decade ago (Terblanche and
Boshoff, 2004, 2006). Most of the expanded service facilities or so-
called ‘additions’ to enhance a supermarket's competitiveness today
have become part of supermarket offerings over time. It is therefore
expected that what constitutes the in-store customer shopping experi-
ence in supermarkets today are likely to differ from those reported in
previous studies a decade ago. The primary objective of this research
was to determine which factors form the in-store customer shopping
experience for supermarket customers at present, compared to those of
earlier studies, and have a positive relationship with customer sa-
tisfaction. The secondary objectives were to:
1) determine whether changes in the internal and external environ-
ment of supermarkets lead to changes in a supermarket's customer
in-store shopping experience;
2) investigate whether in-store emotions featured positively in the in-
store shopping experience of a supermarket customers; and
3) determine whether the presence of and interaction with other cus-
tomers is part of a positive in-store shopping experience of super-
market customers.
In order to attend to these objectives a twofold approach was fol-
lowed. First a review of the theory and literature that relates to in-store
customer shopping experience was undertaken. This review was fol-
lowed by a focus group study during which a sample of frequent
shoppers of a particular supermarket was interviewed to gauge their
views on what constitutes a positive in-store customer shopping ex-
perience. The context of the study is the in-store customer shopping
experience. The importance of customer experience has been endorsed
49
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
by the Marketing Science Institute that identified the understanding of
customers and their experiences as a Tier 2 research priority for the
period 2016–2018 (MSI, 2013). Accenture (2015) has also acknowl-
edged that the improvement of customers’ experience should be a
priority for businesses. The integrative conceptual framework of
Esbjerg et al. (2012) that analyses customer satisfaction with shopping
experiences in grocery retailing was used to inform the investigation.
This integrative conceptual framework enables one to explain overall,
cumulative satisfaction with a supermarket and secondly, the frame-
work provides and integrates several relevant concepts from different
research streams into a common framework to investigate satisfaction
with a shopping trip and future repatronage intentions of a super-
market. A mixed- method approach, which combines input from a
qualitative focus group and a quantitative survey, was used to identify
items for measurement and the statistical analyses.
3. Literature review
Shopping is no longer merely an exercise to obtain a preferred
product or service; it has become a social experience (Van Rompay
et al., 2012). Today's consumers frequently expect a multi-sensory, in-
teractive, and holistic shopping experience that entertains, stimulate,
emotionally affects and creatively challenge them (Schmitt, 1999;
Foster and McLelland, 2015). These circumstances present retailers
with opportunities to differentiate themselves from competitors by
designing retail environments that will create memorable customer
experiences (Petermans et al., 2013). Verhoef et al. (2009) assert that a
customer's experience has not been studied on a large scale as a distinct
construct in the marketing, retailing and service literature. It is espe-
cially research on customer experiences in in-store environments from
an all-inclusive approach that seems to be truly scarce (Petermans et al.,
2013). Holbrook and Hirschman (1982) were most probably the first
researchers to argue that consumption also possesses experiential as-
pects. Schmitt (1999) studied how firms created experiences to de-
termine how customers sense, feel, think, act and relate to a firm. Berry
et al. (2002) propose that if firms wanted to compete on the basis of
providing customers with satisfactory experiences, they need to co-
ordinate all the ‘clues’ that customers perceive in the shopping process.
The insights obtained by these studies have led to various attempts by
researchers to define customer experience. It is unlikely that a com-
prehensive review of the customer shopping experience is possible
within the confines of an academic paper such as this one (Alhouti
et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is necessary to offer different views on
customer shopping experiences to provide some rationalisation for the
context of the study. Thompson and Kolsky (2004: 5), for instance,
describe customer experience as “the sum total of conscious events”,
indicating the importance of the opportunities created by each inter-
action with a customer. Mascarenhas et al. (2006: 399) emphasise the
extensiveness of customer experience by defining it as “a totally posi-
tive, engaging, enduring, and socially fulfilling physical and emotional
customer experience across all major levels of one's consumption chain
and one that is brought about by a distinct market offering that calls for
active interaction between customers and providers”. Gentile et al.
(2007) believe that customer experience is a creation from a set of
dealings and exchanges between customers and products, a firm, or part
of a firm that causes a response. In similar vein, Meyer and Schwager
(2007: 118) and Gentile et al. (2007) describe customer experience as
“…the internal and subjective response customers have to any direct
or indirect contact with a company. Direct contact generally occurs
in the course of purchase, use, and service and is usually initiated by
the customer. Indirect contact mostly involves unplanned en-
counters with representatives of a company's products, service or
brands and takes the form of word-of-mouth recommendations or
criticisms, advertising, news reports, reviews and so forth.”
Berry and Carbone (2007: 26) propose that “an organisation needs
N.S. Terblanche
to create a cohesive, authentic and sensory-stimulating total customer
experience that resonates, pleases and differentiates an organisation
from the competition to build an emotional connection with custo-
mers”. It is evident that the emphasis here is to channel all activities,
interactions and offerings in such a way that it will lead to a unique
emotional experience for customers. Verhoef et al. (2009: 32) view the
customer experience construct as holistic, which involves the custo-
mer's cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to
the retailer. Schmitt (2010: 70–71), in turn, observes dimensions of
experiences that include “sensory-affective, cognitive intellectual, and
behaviour and action-oriented components”. Customer experiences,
however, may differ and each individual customer's experience may
vary with regard to various levels of rational, emotional, sensorial,
physical and spiritual involvement and it is essentially a compromise
between a customer's expectations and their interactions with a firm
(LaSalle and Britton, 2003).
Bagdare and Jain (2013) define retail customer experiences as “the
sum total of cognitive, emotional, sensorial, and behavioural responses
produced during the entire buying process, involving an integrated
series of interaction with people, objects, processes and environment in
retailing”. According to De Keyser et al. (2015), customer experience
consists of “the cognitive, emotional, physical, sensorial, and social
elements that mark the consumer's direct and indirect interaction with a
(set of) market actors”. Yakhlef (2015: 560) add that despite the fact
that retail marketing researchers have been enthusiastic in studying
how in-store retail environments influence customer experience
(Gentile et al., 2007; Meyer and Schwager, 2007; Verhoef et al., 2009),
present-day “methodologies and research designs whether qualitative,
quantitative or triangulation, are unable to capture the tacit unre-
flective dimension of customer experience”.
Several researchers have emphasised that customer experience is
influenced by all the touch points that customers are exposed to in a
store which start with a product search up to and including post-con-
sumption. For these researchers customer experience forms more part
of the process than the outcome (Yang et al., 2012; Mouri et al., 2015).
Other scholars have found that customer experience exerts a significant
influence on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Caruana, 2002).
Customer experience occurs in three phases (Otieno et al., 2005).
These three phases are the pre-sales phase, the in-store interaction
phase and the after-sales phase. The pre-sales phase focuses on a cus-
tomer's expectations about a product, service, benefits and price. The
second phase attends to a customer's experience in the in-store en-
vironment, in terms of the products, services rendered, offering of and
quality of the merchandise, the presence of other customers and re-
wards from buying. In the third phase the customer depends on support,
advice, replacement, refund, repair and effective complaint procedures
from the supermarket. The present study focuses on the second phase.
Although related customer experience measurements such as the
Customer Experience Quality Scale (Maklan and Klaus, 2011) and the
Customer Experience Index (Kim et al., 2011) have been developed
over time, there is not yet a measure to assess the in-store customer
shopping experience.
Most of the aforesaid definitions have certain factors in common,
namely that a customer's experience firstly comprises two vital ele-
ments: rational and emotional elements, and secondly, that a customer's
experience is multi-dimensional. The formation and management of an
unforgettable customer experience thus hinge on the blend of all the
experience dimensions mentioned earlier, in a way that meets the
customer's needs. Furthermore, a customer's experience involves all five
of the human senses and it is therefore essential that these senses are
integrated when retailers design or plan a customer experience.
4. Focus group
The focus group consisted of eight participants (five females; three
males) who were regular customers of the retailer studied. The major
50
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
purpose of the focus group session was to gain insight from the parti-
cipants regarding their in-store customer shopping experiences when
they visited a particular retailer (referred to as XYZ” in the ques-
tionnaire in the Appendix). The in-store shopping experiences that were
examined, focused on, and were limited to, the time from entering the
shop until leaving it. The questions that the focus group participants
had to respond to were related to experiences during the afore-men-
tioned time frame. The transcribed text of the focus group were read
and analysed for coding. A categorisation process was then followed to
identify recurring themes in the data. The identified words that re-
flected similar characteristics were listed together to identify common
descriptors that characterised each theme, and to develop a description
for each theme. The following recurring themes emerged from the
transcribed text (listed in order from the most to the least times men-
tioned):
a) Merchandise on offer. These include house brands and producer
brands, fresh produce, prepared foods, vegetarian foods, delica-
tessen section, bakery, Sushi counter and a flower section.
b) Convenient layout with wide aisles that contribute to easy in-store
movements, and eye-catching displays that expose customers to all
the merchandise. The layout enhances time-saving and efficient self-
service and checkout.
c) Competent and friendly staff who are always willing to attend to
customers’ requests.
d) Quality of products and fresh produce. Prices are in line with the
quality offered.
e) Interaction and communication with other customers during which
experiences and suggestions are shared.
5. Retail type and in-store customer shopping experience
The literature review and the focus group confirm that the factors
that constitute a customer's in-store shopping experience differ between
retail types as well as over time. Supermarkets, compared to other re-
tailing types, have little means at their disposal to create a well dif-
ferentiated in-store shopping experience for their customers. It is
therefore essential that the appropriate factors for a particular retailer
are identified and rendered in a unique way that appeal maximally to
its customers. The major contribution of the focus group was the
identification of a factor related to the interaction and communication
with other customers during shopping in a supermarket. This factor,
together with in-store emotions, whose role in customers’ in-store
shopping experiences was stated repeatedly in the literature review, are
two factors that were not part of the 2006 study but are investigated in
the current study. The literature also did not provide support for po-
sitive in-store emotions and interaction and communication with other
customers as elements of the customer in-store shopping experience in
supermarkets.
6. In-store customer shopping experience in supermarkets
The literature review and insight gained from the focus group in this
study resulted in the identification of six factors that constitute the in-
store customer shopping experience construct in a supermarket.
6.1. Merchandise value
Baker et al. (2002) suggest that merchandise value is the result of
the perceived merchandise price, merchandise quality and that mer-
chandise value has a positive influence on repatronage intentions.
Sirohi et al. (1998) define merchandise value as "what you get for what
you pay", suggesting that merchandise value is a compromise between
money spent and the benefits offered by a supermarket. Sirohi et al.
(1998) also found a positive relationship between merchandise value
and repatronage intentions and that this relationship is influenced by
N.S. Terblanche Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59

customer satisfaction. Cronin et al. (2000) report that customer sa- H3:. There is a positive relationship between interaction with staff and
tisfaction is an outcome of service quality and value. Earlier studies customer satisfaction
found that customers’ perceptions about a store's merchandise quality
affected their satisfaction with and loyalty towards the store (Walsh
et al., 2011). Poncin and Mimoun (2014) state that prior research has 6.4. Merchandise variety
found that merchandise value has a positive influence on satisfaction
(Carpenter and Moore, 2009; Shobeiri et al., 2013). Recently Sivadas It is challenging for supermarkets to offer merchandise that are in
and Jindal (2017) also concur that merchandise value has a strong in- balance with the variety, quality and level of service that customers
fluence on customer satisfaction. Based on the aforementioned discus- expect. Donovan et al. (1994) found that a cognitive factor such as the
sion it is hypothesised that: variety of merchandise, leads to positive customer behaviour such as
spending more money and time than planned in a shop, that is, if
H1:. There is a positive relationship between merchandise value and
customers are satisfied with the merchandise variety. Mantrala et al.
customer satisfaction
(2009: 73) assert that to maximise customer satisfaction and to “pro-
vide a large enough assortment to ensure they carry the consumer's first
choice”, retailers should ensure that they have all the information about
6.2. Internal shop environment
both customers’ preferences and their own abilities to meet customer
demands. Pan and Zinkhan (2006) established that assortment was
The internal shop environment represents both the décor and in-
ranked highest by customers among ten factors when they had to
store physical facilities and amenities such as check-out counters, dis-
choose a particular retailer. Morales et al. (2005: 159) assert that extant
play shelves and promotional displays. The floor layout of the shop,
research found that “consumer attitudes toward and their probability of
product and service groupings, shelf space allocation, product locations
shopping” at a particular retailer are positively linked to their views of
and their role to encourage buying, also form part of the internal shop
the merchandise variety available at the retailer. Bauer et al. (2012)
environment factor. According to Mohan et al. (2012), an effective shop
alludes to a large body of empirical research that confirmed that the
layout will stimulate more in-store exploration by customers that leads
merchandise variety offered by the retailer is a key determinant for
to other positive outcomes of which satisfaction is one. An effective
future patronage of that retailer. Marques et al. (2013) established that
shop layout not only assists customers to purchase, it also leads to
the variety of products offered in a shop emerged as the factor with the
higher satisfaction levels with product choices (Morales et al., 2005).
biggest influence on customer satisfaction. Customer satisfaction, in
Marques et al. (2013) also emphasise the importance of layout and
turn, is a prerequisite for a positive in-store shopping experience. It is
design in that it creates opportunities for customers to explore more,
therefore hypothesised that:
while it also has a relationship with satisfaction. Recent research has
also drawn attention to the so-called ‘kinetic quality’ of a shop's en- H4:. There is a positive relationship between merchandise variety and
vironment – those movements and gestures by customers during customer satisfaction
shopping – that may further enhance their shopping experience and
satisfaction (Bonnin and Goudey, 2012; Borghini et al., 2012). This
notion is supported by Lichtlé and Plichon (2014) who found that the 6.5. Presence of and interaction with other customers
in-store environment influences the emotional states and satisfaction
levels of customers. The aforementioned discussion enabled the for- The earlier generation customers of the so-called ‘traditional’ su-
mulation of the following hypothesis: permarkets most likely wanted a visit to a supermarket to be over as
soon as possible. It is thus possible that the more recent additions to
H2:. There is a positive relationship between the internal shop
supermarket offerings and the type of services added (such as delica-
environment and customer satisfaction
tessen counters, take-away meals, Sushi counters and local and im-
ported wine sections) could spark off more interaction among custo-
mers, resulting in improved in-store shopping experiences for
6.3. Interaction with staff
customers in supermarkets today. Pons et al. (2016) mention that other
customers may contribute to a pleasant experience and in certain si-
The interaction between customers and employees has been found
tuations, crowds can also activate positive experiences for customers
to affect a customer's in-store shopping experience (Brown and Lam,
and yield positive returns for businesses in the process. Brocato et al.
2008). According to Bitner et al. (1994), customer satisfaction is often
(2012) suggest that the importance of investigating the impact of the
influenced by the quality of the interpersonal interaction between the
presence of other customers is to ascertain what their influence is on the
customer and contact employees. Relationships between employees and
assessment of a customer's in-store shopping experience. In-store cus-
customers that increase rapport and employee responsiveness have led
tomer shopping experiences are largely social activities that can be
to greater customer satisfaction (Menon et al., 2000). For instance, Pan
influenced extensively by other customers’ in-store behaviour and in-
and Zinkhan (2006) found that the friendliness and expertise of sales-
teraction. Tombs and McColl-Kennedy (2003: 463–464) mention that
people are significant predictors of future shop patronage. In their study
verbal customer-to-customer interaction frequently “takes on a sup-
of speciality shop customers, Marques et al. (2013) established that staff
plementary or substitute role to the personal selling efforts of the ser-
assistance was the second most important factor when customers rated
vice employee and may greatly impact on customer satisfaction and
their satisfaction with the shop's environmental stimuli. The Retail
perceptions of service quality”. Pan and Zinkhan (2006: 232) identify a
Service Quality scale, developed by Dabholkar et al. in 1996, included
“predominantly older age segment that derives satisfaction from as-
the interaction between staff and shoppers as a factor of the scale.
pects of shopping, such as negotiation with salespeople and an affilia-
Puccinelli et al. (2009: 24) assert that of all atmospheric elements, “the
tion with other shoppers”. When a customer experiences a feeling of
interpersonal nature of the interaction between the customer and em-
being helpful to other customers, it can contribute to higher satisfaction
ployee……may be key to customer satisfaction in the retail environ-
with their own in-store shopping experience (López-López et al., 2014).
ment”. To summarise, positive customer emotions can be the outcome
Given that supermarkets offer more pleasant experiences for their
of courteous and knowledgeable staff, whilst personal attention and
customers, it is hypothesised that:
prompt service by staff can further contribute to pleasant in-store cus-
tomer shopping experiences and customer satisfaction. Based on the H5:. There is a positive relationship between the presence of and
aforegoing literature, it is hypothesised that: interaction with other customers and customer satisfaction

51
N.S. Terblanche
6.6. Customer in-shop emotions
Pleasant customer in-shop emotions such as excitement and joy can
contribute to a positive in-store customer shopping experience.
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) found that customers’ in-store emotions
influence the likelihood of future patronage, while Dawson et al. (1990)
believe that emotions experienced in the retail marketplace affect
preference and choice and that positive emotions should initiate cus-
tomer satisfaction. Consumer behaviour in a retail store environment is
very much a social activity and it is likely that customers’ interactions
with staff members may well be affected by the emotions of staff
members as well (Ellsworth, 1994). Burns and Neisner (2006) assert
that in a retail setting, such as a supermarket, where the products are
distinctly physical, emotions are likely to play a meaningful role in
customer satisfaction, the reason being that the in-store interactions
will include dealing with the retailer's procedures. Store atmospherics
have the ability to affect customers both cognitively and emotionally
(Babin and Darden, 1996). According to Machleit and Mantel (2001:
97), emotions that are attributed to a store, have a stronger impact on
customer satisfaction than emotions that are attributed internally.
Burns and Neisner (2006) found that both cognitive evaluation and
emotional reaction explain the level of satisfaction that customers ex-
perience in a retail shop. Roest and Pieters (1997) conclude that the
affective factor influences consumers’ purchase intentions, whilst Oliver
(1993) has persuasively argued that emotions influence customer sa-
tisfaction. It can therefore be hypothesised that:
H6:. There is a positive relationship between customer in-shop
emotions experienced by customers and customer satisfaction
6.7. Outcomes
When supermarket customers have a positive in-store shopping
experience, the outcomes are inevitably favourable for the super-
market. The two positive outcomes that were examined in this study are
customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions. Customer satisfaction
has typically been studied from either a transactional or a cumulative
perspective. A transactional perspective would be where customers are
required to assess a given service encounter or consumption situation
(Loureiro et al., 2014). Cumulative customer satisfaction comprises all
the experiences of a customer during many visits to a particular su-
permarket and refers to a holistic evaluation of the total purchase and
consumption experiences at the supermarket over time. Previous re-
search has demonstrated empirically that the cumulative perspective is
a superior predictor of loyalty (Nam et al., 2011; Loureiro et al., 2014).
The preference to use cumulative customer satisfaction in this study
was because the respondents were experienced shoppers of a particular
supermarket and the respondents’ assessment of customer satisfaction
was thus based on various visits to that supermarket over time. Fur-
thermore, cumulative customer satisfaction tends to be a better pre-
dictor of a customer's future behaviour (Johnson et al., 2001). Martin
et al. (2008) confirm that customer satisfaction that is based on emo-
tions (resulting from various experiences) is a more robust predictor for
future behavioural buying intentions than are cognitive measures.
The factors of an in-store customer shopping experience - in-
dividually or in combination - inherently have the ability to ensure that
customers’ will revisit a supermarket. For instance, unique merchandise
value, such as certain food products, was perceived by customers to be
so unique that the store where the products were available deserved
repeated visits (Chaudhuri and Ligas, 2009). Hart et al. (2007) and
Mano (1999) report that the quality of a shopping experience has a
positive effect on customers’ repurchase intentions and that a pleasur-
able experience is also associated with increased patronage. Chan et al.
(2015) caution against using repatronage intentions as the only mea-
sure for the future behaviour of customers and argue that repatronage
intentions consist of two dimensions, namely purchase intentions and
52
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
repatronage probability. The measurement of repatronage probability
ensures that behavioural expectations, which are more important than
behavioural intentions, are assessed. Therefore, to improve the accu-
racy when predicting the future behaviour of customers, both measures
should be assessed. The items used in this study to measure repatronage
intentions, represent both intentions and probability measures. Jones
and Reynolds (2006) also found that customer satisfaction with a re-
tailer is a significant predictor of repatronage intentions. López-López
et al. (2014) concur with this finding and confirm a positive relation-
ship between customer satisfaction and repatronage intentions. Bolton
et al. (2000) add that repatronage intentions of customers depend on
positive prior attitudes and customer satisfaction experienced over
time. Various authors refer to the fact that loyalty intentions are a
consequence of customer satisfaction (Rufín et al., 2012; Lin and Lin,
2011). Earlier research has also demonstrated empirically that cumu-
lative customer satisfaction is a superior predictor of loyalty (Fornell
et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 2001; Bodet, 2008; Nam et al., 2011).
Against this background, it is hypothesised that:
H7:. There is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and
customers’ repatronage intentions
Fig. 1 illustrates the hypothesised relationships of the in-store cus-
tomer shopping experience with customer satisfaction and repatronage
intentions
7. Methodology
A mixed-method approach consisting of qualitative and quantitative
research was followed in this study. The qualitative part, namely the
focus group, has been dealt with in an earlier paragraph. This section
attends to the quantitative methodology followed and consists of
questionnaire development, sampling, data collection and the statistical
analyses of the data.
7.1. Questionnaire development
All six factors and the items measuring in-store customer shopping
experiences were subjected to an evaluation by a marketing research
practitioner and senior marketing academics to ensure content validity
of the questionnaire and items for a study on in-store customer shop-
ping experiences. All the items in the questionnaire were measured on a
10-point Likert scale, where 1 represented “Strongly disagree” and 10
“Strongly agree”. The questionnaire contained 39 items in total, of
which 29 measured the six factors of the in-store customer shopping
experience, five items measured Customer Satisfaction and five items
measured Repatronage Intentions. All the items were from previously
used scales identified during the literature review. The final ques-
tionnaire used in the study is attached as an Appendix.
7.2. Sampling procedure and method of data collection
A random sample of 10 000 email addresses of customers of a
particular retailer was purchased from a data supplier. A web-based
questionnaire was then posted on a university website for online data
collection. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter that ex-
plained the purpose of the study, requesting and encouraging customers
to participate in the study. The number of fully completed ques-
tionnaires received was 329, yielding a response rate of 3.29%. Table 1
contains the demographic characteristics of the sample.
7.3. Statistical analyses
The IBM SPSS Version 24 software programme was used to conduct
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify the factor structure of
the in-store customer shopping experience. The EFA was undertaken
with the following settings: Principal Axis extraction, Direct Oblimin
N.S. Terblanche Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59

Fig. 1. Hypothetical model.

rotation (because the factors were correlated). Factor loadings greater
than 0.4 were regarded as sufficient. A factor was retained if it was
interpretable and had an Eigen value of one. A four-factor structure
emerged from the EFA. Table 2 illustrates the EFA results.
As can be seen in Table 2, four factors emerged from the EFA of
which only two, namely ‘Presence of and interaction with other cus-
tomers’ and ‘Interaction with staff’ were representative of the original
factors identified. Items representing ‘Merchandise value’ and ‘Mer-
chandise variety’ combined to form a new factor called ‘Merchandise
assortment’. A number of items that measured ‘Internal shop environ-
ment’ and ‘Customer in-shop emotions’ also combined to form a second
new factor called ‘Internal shop environment and customer in-shop
emotions’. The final items used for data collection as well as their
supporting sources are listed in the Appendix. The new factors were
acceptable from a theoretical viewpoint and their factor loadings were
all above 0.56. It was therefore necessary to reformulate two new hy-
potheses and repeal two of the hypotheses formulated earlier. The re-
vised set of hypotheses reads as follows:
H3: There is a positive relationship between interaction with staff
and customer satisfaction
H5: There is a positive relationship between the presence of and
interaction with other customers and customer satisfaction
H7: There is a positive relationship between customer satisfaction
and repatronage intentions
H8: There is a positive relationship between merchandise assortment

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Age categories of respondents in years Amount in rand spent at supermarket in a year

Male Female Total Male Female Total

Younger than 20 0 2 2 Less than R5 000 5 23 28

Between 20 and 30 1 3 4 Between R5 000 and R10 000 20 37 57
Between 30 and 40 18 29 47 Between R10 000 and R20 000 36 39 75
Between 40 and 50 47 67 114 Between R20 000 and R30 000 35 35 70
Between 50 and 60 51 76 35 Between R30 000 and R40 000 22 29 48
Older than 60 19 16 127 More than R40 000 per year 18 30 51
Total 136 193 329 Total 136 193 329
Years buying at this supermarket
Male Female Total
Less than 2 years 2 14 16
Between 2 and 5 years 12 20 32
Between 5 and 10 years 30 36 66
Between 10 and 20 years 56 59 95
More than 20 years 36 64 120
Total 136 193 329

53
N.S. Terblanche Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59

Table 2 Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results. Reliability results.

Factors Factor Cronbach alpha

1 2 3 4 Merchandise assortment 0.949

Interaction with staff 0.960
MECVAR2 0.976 0.041 0.121 0.012 Internal shop environment and customer in-shop emotions 0.963
MECVAR4 0.935 0.038 0.033 0.035 Other customers’ presence and interaction 0.921
MECVAR3 0.879 0.002 0.031 0.023 Customer satisfaction 0.940
MERVAL3 0.730 0.045 0.086 0.061 Repatronage intentions 0.929
MECVAR1 0.725 0.044 0.056 0.060
MERVAL5 0.612 0.055 0.254 0.078
MERVAL4 0.570 0.035 0.116 0.190 Table 5
INTCUS3 0.016 0.943 0.010 0.039 Fit indices for the structural model.
INTCUS1 0.025 0.839 0.055 0.056
INTCUS2 0.050 0.751 0.029 0.259 Degrees of freedom 579
INTCUS5 0.243 0.568 0.174 0.006
STAFF3 0.033 0.065 0.924 0.034 Fit indices
STAFF2 0.052 0.031 0.890 0.133 Satorra Bentler Scaled Chi-square 1470.968 (p=0.0)
STAFF4 0.033 0.028 0.888 0.042 RMSEA 0.0685
STAFF5 0.086 0.036 0.750 0.095 X2/df ratio 2.54
STAFF1 0.041 0.084 0.742 0.006 ECVI 5.015
INENV2 0.055 0.046 0.071 0.914 NFI 0.983
INENV4 0.060 0.004 0.011 0.863 NNFI 0.989
INENV3 0.145 0.052 0.036 0.782
INENV1 0.023 0.008 0.117 0.781
INEMOS2 0.086 0.020 0.151 0.710
INEMOS4 0.149 0.185 0.048 0.666
the fit indices for the structural model and Fig. 2 illustrates the strength
INEMOS3 0.070 0.241 0.018 0.650 of the relationships with the factors identified in the in-store customer
shopping experience model and customer satisfaction and repatronage
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. intentions (Table 6).
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation. The fit indices of the structural model indicate reasonable fit
(RMSEA = 0.0685), ×2/df is below 3 (2.54) and NNFI is larger than
and customer satisfaction 0.09 (0.989). The relationship between the factors ‘other customers’
H9: There is a positive relationship between the internal shop en- presence and interaction’ and ‘customer satisfaction’ was insignificant
vironment and customers’ in-shop emotions and negative (t-value = −3.90). This finding indicates that super-
market shoppers do not want to interact with other customers during
7.4. Confirmatory factor analysis results their shopping. Three factors with strong positive relationships between
the in-store customer shopping experience and customer satisfaction
The in-store customer shopping experience model was then sub- emerged from the structural model, namely:
jected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the measurement
model as recommended by Gerbing and Anderson (1988). The CFA was 7.5.1. Merchandise assortment
conducted using LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 2006) to assess the this factor is a combination of the items of the initial ‘merchandise
measurement properties of the items used in the model. As it emerged value and merchandise variety’ factors, and refers to the merchandise
that the data were not normally distributed (Chi-square 6669.29 and value (price and quality) and merchandise variety offered by the store.
p < 0.000), the Robust Maximum-Likelihood (RML) estimation method This outcome is in line with what Bauer et al. (2012: 22) reported,
was used to test the theoretical model. Table 3 illustrates the model fit namely that “consumers integrate their assortment price, quality,
statistics of the measurement model and suggests that it fits the data variety, and presentation perceptions into a summary evaluation of the
reasonably well (RMSEA = 0.0655; ×2/df ratio = 2. 41). grocery category's attractiveness”.

7.5. Reliability results 7.5.2. Interaction with staff

this factor denotes the staff's willingness to assist, give personal
The assessment of the internal consistency of each factor was con- attention, to provide prompt service and being courteous to customers.
ducted and the reliability results are summarised in Table 4. All the
latent variables returned Cronbach alpha values well above the cus- 7.5.3. Internal shop environment and customer in-shop emotions
tomary cut-off value of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), suggesting this factor includes items from both the ‘internal shop environment’
that these factors can be regarded as reliable. and the ‘customer in-shop emotions’ factors. It refers to the décor, shop
The factors and items of the in-store customer shopping experience layout, physical facilities, the exciting experiences that are created for
model for a supermarket are set out in the Appendix. Table 5 contains the customer and their interests being satisfied by the in-store atmo-
sphere.
Table 3
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) fit indices for the measurement model.
8. Conclusions
Degrees of freedom 644
The primary objective of this research was to determine which
Fit indices factors represent the in-store customer shopping experience for super-
Satorra Bentler Scaled Chi-square 1550.460(p=0.0)
market customers at present and which factors have a positive re-
RMSEA 0.0655
X2/df ratio 2.41
lationship with customer satisfaction. The secondary objectives were to
ECVI 5.318 determine whether:
NFI 0.985
NNFI 0.990 1) changes in the internal and external environment of supermarkets

54
N.S. Terblanche
Fig. 2. Structural model.
Table 6
Model fit indices for the structural model.
Path
Merchandise assortment → customer satisfaction
Presence of and interaction with other customers → customer satisfaction
Interaction with staff → customer satisfaction
Internal shop environment and customer in-shop emotions → customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction → repatronage intentions
*** = p < 0.001.
lead to changes in a supermarket's customer in-store shopping ex-
perience;
2) in-store emotions featured positively in the in-store shopping ex-
perience of a supermarket customers; and
3) presence of and interaction with other customers resulted in a po-
sitive in-store shopping experience of supermarket customers.
The findings in respect of the secondary objectives will be attended
to first. The findings of this study differ from those reported in earlier
studies on in-store customer shopping experiences in supermarkets.
Research by Terblanche and Boshoff in 2004 and 2006 respectively
ascertained that the in-store customer shopping experience in a super-
market consists of five factors. These factors are: ‘complaint handling’,
‘merchandise variety’, ‘merchandise value’, ‘personal interaction’ and
‘internal store environment’. The current study added two new factors
to the investigation, namely ‘presence of and interaction with other
customers’ and ‘customer in-shop emotions’, which were not explored
in the two earlier studies. One can therefore conclude that the findings
of the current study differ substantially from those of the two earlier
studies.
The current study also found that three factors of the in-store
shopping experience for supermarket customers have a significant and
positive relationship with customer satisfaction, namely ‘interaction
with staff, ‘internal shop environment and customer in-shop emotions’,
and ‘merchandise assortment’. Given the literature review and the focus
group interviews, the ‘interaction with staff’ remained a factor of the in-
store customer shopping experience, while all five items that were
55
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
t-value Path estimate Signifi-cance
4.71 0.36 ***
−3.90 −0.19 n.s.
6.18 0.33 ***
4.85 0.47 ***
11.81 0.88 ***
identified for measurement, remained after the CFA was conducted.
This outcome concurs with the majority of studies that examined in-
teraction with staff as a factor of the in-store customer shopping ex-
perience.
The items that measured ‘internal shop environment and customer
in-shop emotions’ comprised items from the ‘internal shop environ-
ment’ and ‘customer in-shop emotions’ factors. It was the three items of
the customer in-shop emotions in particular that made the store layout
and atmospheric factors different from earlier studies on the in-store
environment. The three items of the ‘customer in-shop emotions’ factor
loaded together with a number of the ‘internal store environment’
items. This outcome may have resulted from recent changes to the
layout and offerings in supermarket environments to create a more
customer-friendly atmosphere and to enhance the customer in-store
shopping experience.
The ‘merchandise assortment’ factor culminated in seven items from
the original nine items that measured the factor ‘merchandise value’ (5
items) and the original factor ‘merchandise variety’ (4 items). Contrary
to the findings of many earlier studies, this study has empirically found
that consumers integrate their merchandise assortment price, quality
and variety into a condensed evaluation of a category's attractiveness.
Bauer et al. (2012) had a similar finding namely that consumers in-
tegrate their assortment price, quality and variety perceptions into a
summary evaluation. The ‘merchandise assortment’ factor can thus be
perceived as a “Gestalt” outcome. It presents a challenge to retailers to
combine merchandise elements in such a way that it portrays a har-
monious entity.
N.S. Terblanche
The factor ‘presence of and interaction with other customers’ did not
emerge as a factor of the in-store customer shopping experience con-
struct. This could possibly be ascribed to the manner in which many
customers still shop in a supermarket, namely to “get it over with” as
soon as possible. It implies that shopping for groceries in a supermarket
rarely needs input from other customers and when the need for assis-
tance or advice is necessary, staff will most likely be approached.
The primary objective of this research was achieved as those factors
which represent the in-store customer shopping experience for super-
market customers at present and which have a positive relationship
with customer satisfaction, were identified.
9. Managerial implications
Offering an in-shop context that facilitates a well differentiated in-
store shopping experience for their customers’ will provide a retailer
with the means to position itself distinctly in the minds of their custo-
mers. Customers’ expectations are highly influential in determining
their in-store shopping experiences and their repatronage intentions
towards a retailer. From the retailer's viewpoint it is essential to know
in advance what customers’ expectations are so that the essential ele-
ments of what customers desire from an in-store shopping experience, is
timely and adequately implemented. It is thus vital that a retailer
should start the development of an in-store shopping experience
strategy by firstly identifying all the touch points that a customer could
be exposed to during an in-store shopping excursion. It is, however,
advisable not to develop a standardised script for in-store shopping
experiences of customers. The relationships between individuals and
their in-shop environments are complex and are contingent on a
number of issues such as, the purpose of the shopping trip and the
different activities each customer are involved in. In essence this may
cause a diversity of possible in-shop experiences within the physical
contextual limits of a shop. The challenge is thus to steer away from a
pre-determined experience format, but to allow customers to use the in-
shop space in a way that provide them with individualised and desired
in-shop experiences.
Retailers have to address both the functional and emotional in-shop
needs of customers. The role of emotions as part of a pleasant in-store
shopping experience for customers in a supermarket that emerged in
this study, warrants closer attention. It was expected that the role of
customer in-shop emotions would be more prominent as a factor of
customer's in-store shopping experience because of the revamped in-
store environments and speciality produce offered by supermarkets. It
did, however, feature as part of the “internal shop environment and
customer in-shop emotions” factor. The influence of customer in-shop
emotions on shopping behaviour is of great significance, making it es-
sential for supermarkets to continually gauge the extent to which cus-
tomers’ emotions are elicited and attended to during their shopping. On
a pragmatic level it is acknowledged that when customers experience
Appendix
Dimensions and items of the in-store customer shopping experience model
Merchandise variety and value
MERC1 XYZ offers a good selection of well-known brands
MERC2 XYZ offers a wide variety of products
MERC3 XYZ offers a variety of brand names that are available in many
different sizes
MERC4 XYZ's products function the way they are supposed to
MERC5 XYZ offers a choice of different brand names
MERC6 XYZ's products are free from defects and flaws
MERC7 XYZ's product prices represent good value
56
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
positive emotions, they tend to not only stay longer in a shop but they
also spend more money.
In line with the findings of earlier studies, the role of staff in
creating customer satisfaction again features to be invaluable in the in-
store customer shopping experience. To this end, it is essential that staff
members are trained in functional product knowledge, presentations
and in communicating with customers in such a way that positive
emotions are elicited. Knowledgeable and skilled staff may lead to
positive emotions, such as delight and joy experienced by customers
which, in turn, are key components of the in-store customer shopping
experience. Moreover, if staff members are successful in dealing with
customer interactions where emotions are involved, competitors will
find it difficult to emulate such actions.
Customers look forward to choose from a variety of merchandise
that offer value to them and it is therefore important that a supermarket
ascertain that its merchandise assortment meet all the requirements of
its customers. Analyses of the contents of baskets and/or trolleys could
be helpful in this regard. It is a well-known fact that the trade-off be-
tween quality and price is accepted to effect customer satisfaction as the
latter is an important outcome of a customer's perception of how the
value they received correspond with the price they paid. Regular
comparisons with competitors’ prices are therefore indispensable.
The environment created by the internal shop layout also play a role
in the in-store customer shopping experience: both the tangible and
intangible shop characteristics should therefore be in place so that the
customer may in the end be rewarded with a worthwhile in-store
shopping experience. If supermarket managers are aware of the factors
that encompass the in-store customer shopping experience, and the
supermarket is able to provide and maintain the expectations that
customers associate with these factors, the supermarket should be able
to offer a remarkable in-store customer shopping experience.
10. Limitations and suggestions
A major limitation of the study is that respondents from only one
supermarket retailer participated in the study. Furthermore, the study
focused on supermarket customers only. Although the results and
conclusions are only based on supermarket customers’ responses, it may
also have value for managers of hypermarkets and large convenient
stores. A study of the demographic variables of the respondents might
also yield some useful insights, especially in respect of the potential
effect thereof on repatronage intentions. It is advisable that the custo-
mers’ in-store shopping experiences are measured over time to identify
possible changes that warrant intervention and also to determine
whether the factors of customer in-store shopping experiences remain
constant over time. Lastly it might also be of value to identify and in-
vestigate the factors that form customer in-store shopping experiences
in other industries such as, for instance, clothing, restaurants and
hardware stores.
Cronbach
alpha
Terblanche and Boshoff (2006). 0.949
Marques et al. (2013).
Machleit et al. (2005)
Sweeney and Soutar (2001).
Marques et al. (2013).
Terblanche and Boshoff (2006).
Baker et al. (2002).
N.S. Terblanche Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59

Internal shop environment and in-store emotions

INEMO1 XYZ has attractive product and promotional displays Bonnin and Goudey (2012). 0.963
INEMO2 XYZ has attractive décor Marques et al. (2013); Sánchez-Fernández
et al. (2009).
INEMO3 XYZ has attractive in-store physical facilities (check-out counters, Baker et al. (2002).
shelves, etc)
INEMO4 XYZ has attractive materials associated with their service (shopping Dabholkar et al. (1996).
bags, brochures, etc)
INEMO5 It is a pleasure to experience the atmosphere of the shop Dawson et al. (1990); Donovan et al. (1994).
INEMO6 Shopping at XYZ satisfies my sense of curiosity Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996); Kim and
Eastin (2011).
INEMO7 Shopping at XYZ offers exciting experiences Im et al. (2015).
Interaction with staff
STAFF1 XYZ's staff give me personal attention Baker et al. (2002). 0.960
STAFF2 XYZ's staff are always willing to help me Marques et al. (2013); Dabholkar et al. (1996).
STAFF3 XYZ's staff provide me with prompt service Baker et al. (2002).
STAFF4 XYZ's staff are courteous Dabholkar et al. (1996); Machleit et al. (2005);
Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004).
STAFF5 XYZ's staff are knowledgeable to assist me Dabholkar et al. (1996).
Presence of and interaction with other customers
INTCUS1 I like to speak to other customers in XYZ Martos-Partal and González-Benito (2013); 0.921
Cox et al. (2005).
INTCUS2 I appreciate the suggestions offered by other customers in the shop Rosenbaum and Massiah (2007).
INTCUS3 I enjoy the contact with other customers in the shop Cox et al. (2005); Donovan and Rossiter
(1982); Dawson et al. (1990).
INTCUS4 The other customers in XYZ are friendly towards me Brocato et al. (2012).
Cronbach alpha of scale (Merchandise variety and value; Internal shop environment and in-store emotions; Interaction with staff) 0.975

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE IN-STORE CUSTOMER SHOPPING EXPERIENCE WITH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND
REPATRONAGE INTENTIONS BY CUSTOMERS

Satisfaction
SATISF1 I am very satisfied with the service provided by XYZ Marques et al. (2013). 0.940
SATISF2 XYZ does a good job with the satisfaction of my needs Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004).
SATISF3 The experience that I have had with XYZ has been Li et al. (2009).
satisfactory
Repatronage intentions
REPINT1 I consider XYZ as my first choice shop for XXXX Zeithaml et al. (1996); Hennig-Thurau, T. (2004); Yoo and Donthu 0.929
(2001).
REPINT2 I intend to shop at XYZ again in the future Sirohi et al. (1998); Maxham III and Netemeyer, 2002.
REPINT3 I am likely to visit XYZ again in the future. Baker et al. (2002).
REPINT4 I will probably use XYZ in the future. Li et al. (2009).
REPINT5 I will continue to shop more at XYZ in future Zeithaml et al. (1996); Baker et al. (2002); Andreu et al. (2006).

References
Accenture, 2015. Improving customer experience is top business priority for companies
pursuing digital transformation. Accenture Study news release, (October 27).
Accessed on 24 May 2017. 〈https://newsroom.accenture.com/news/improving-
customer-experience-is-top-business-priority-for-companies-pursuing-digital-
transformation-according-to-accenture-study.htm〉.
Alhouti, S., Gillespie, E.A., Chang, W., Davis, L., 2015. The thin line between love and
hate of attention: the customer shopping experience. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 23 (4),
415–433.
Andreu, L., Bigné, E., Chumpitaz, R., Swaen, V., 2006. How does the retail environment
influence consumers' emotional experience? Evidence from two retail settings. Int.
Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 16 (5), 259–278.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., 1996. Good and bad shopping vibes: spending and patronage
satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 35 (3), 201–206.
Bagdare, S., Jain, R., 2013. Measuring retail customer experience. Int. J. Retail Distrib.
Manag. 41 (10), 790–804.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. J. Mark.
66 (2), 120–141.
Bauer, J.C., Kotouc, A.J., Rudolph, T., 2012. What constitutes a “good assortment”? A
scale for measuring consumers' perceptions of an assortment offered in a grocery
category. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (1), 11–26.
Baumgartner, H., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 1996. Exploratory consumer buying behavior:
conceptualization and measurement. Int. J. Res. Mark. 13 (2), 121–137.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., 2007. Building loyalty through experience management. Qual.
Prog. 40 (9), 26–32.
Berry, L.L., Carbone, L.P., Haeckel, S.H., 2002. Managing the total customer experience.
Sloan Manag. Rev. 43 (3), 85–89.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Mohr, L.A., 1994. Critical service encounters: the employee's
viewpoint. J. Mark. 58 (4), 95–106.
Bodet, G., 2008. Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four con-
structs, several relationships. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15 (3), 156–162.
Bolton, R.N., Kannan, P.K., Bramlett, M.D., 2000. Implications of loyalty program
membership and service experiences for customer retention and value. J. Acad. Mark.
Sci. 28 (1), 95–108.
Bonnin, G., Goudey, A., 2012. The kinetic quality of store design: an exploration of its
influence on shopping experience. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19, 637–643.
Borghini, S., MacLaran, P., Bonnin, G., Cova, V., 2012. The ecology of the market-place
experience: from consumers' imaginary to design implications. In: Peñaloza, L.,
Toulouse, N., Visconti, L.M. (Eds.), Marketing Management: A Cultural Perspective.
Routledge, New York.
Brocato, E.D., Voorhees, C.M., Baker, J., 2012. Understanding the influence of cues from
other customers in the service experience: a scale development and validation. J.
Retail. 88 (3), 384–398.
Brown, S.P., Lam, S.K., 2008. A meta-analysis of relationships: linking employee sa-
tisfaction to customer responses. J. Retail. 84 (3), 243–255.
Burns, D.J., Neisner, L., 2006. Customer satisfaction in a retail setting: the contribution of
emotion. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 34 (1), 49–66.
Carbone, L.P., Haeckel, S.H., 1994. Engineering customer experiences. Mark. Manag. 3,
8–19.

57
N.S. Terblanche
Carpenter, J.M., Moore, M., 2009. Utilitarian and hedonic shopping value in the US
discount sector. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 16 (1), 68–74.
Caruana, A., 2002. Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of
customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Mark. 36 (7/8), 811–828.
Chan, W.Y., To, C.K.M., Chu, W.C., 2015. Materialistic consumers who seek unique
products: how does their need for status and their affective response facilitate the
repurchase intention of luxury goods? J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 27, 1–10.
Chaudhuri, A., Ligas, M., 2009. Consequences of value in retail markets. J. Retail. 85 (3),
406–419.
Cox, A.D., Cox, D., Anderson, R.D., 2005. Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping. J.
Bus. Res. 58 (3), 250–259.
Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., Hult, G.T.M., 2000. Assessing the effects of quality, value, and
customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. J.
Retail. 76 (2), 193–218.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorpe, D.I., Rentz, J.O., 1996. A measure of service quality for retail
stores: scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24 (1), 3–16.
Dawson, S., Bloch, P., Ridgway, N., 1990. Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail
outcomes. J. Retail. 66 (4), 408–427.
De Keyser, A., Lemon, K.N., Klaus, P., Keiningham, T.L., 2015. A framework for under-
standing and managing the customer experience (Marketing Science Institute
Working Paper Series 2015, Report No. 121-15). Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an experimental psychology ap-
proach. J. Retail. 58 (2), 34–57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and
purchasing behaviour. J. Retail. 70 (3), 283–294.
Ellsworth, P.C., 1994. Sense, culture and sensibility. In: Kitayarna, S., Markus, H.R. (Eds.),
Emotion and Culture: Empirical Studies of Mutual Influence. American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Esbjerg, L., Jensen, B.B., Bech-Larsen, T., Dutra de Barcellos, M., Boztug, Y., Grunert,
K.G., 2012. An integrative conceptual framework for analyzing customer satisfaction
with shopping trip experiences in grocery retailing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (4),
445–456.
Fornell, C., Johnson, M.D., Anderson, E.W., Cha, J., Bryant, B.B., 1996. The American
customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose and findings. J. Mark. 60 (4), 7–18.
Foster, J., McLelland, M.A., 2015. Retail atmospherics: the impact of a brand dictated
theme. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 22, 195–205.
Gentile, C., Spiller, N., Noci, G., 2007. How to sustain the customer experience: an
overview of experience components that co-create value with the customer. Eur.
Manag. J. 25 (5), 395–410.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development in-
corporating unidimensionality and its assessment. J. Mark. Res. 25 (2), 186–192.
Goodman, S., Remaud, H., 2015. Store choice: how understanding consumer choice of
‘where’ to shop may assist the small retailer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 23, 118–124.
Hart, C., Farrell, A.M., Stachow, G., Reed, G., Cadogan, J.W., 2007. Enjoyment of the
shopping experience: impact on customers' repatronage intentions and gender in-
fluence. Serv. Ind. J. 27 (5), 583–604.
Hennig-Thurau, T., 2004. Customer orientation of service employees: its impact on cus-
tomer satisfaction, commitment, and retention. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag. 15 (5),
460–478.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: con-
sumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (2), 132–140.
Im, S., Bhat, S., Lee, Y., 2015. Consumer perceptions of product creativity, coolness, value
and attitude. J. Bus. Res. 68 (1), 166–172.
Johnson, M.D., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L., Cha, J., 2001. The evaluation
and future of national customer satisfaction index models. J. Econ. Psychol. 22 (2),
217–245.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., 2006. The role of retailer interest on shopping behaviour. J.
Retail. 82 (2), 115–126.
Jöreskog, K.G., Sörbom, D., 2006. LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software].
Scientific Software International, Inc, Lincolnwood, IL.
Kim, S., Cha, J., Knutson, B.J., Bexk, J.A., 2011. Development and testing of the
Consumer Experience Index (CEI). Manag. Serv. Qual. 21 (2), 112–132.
Kim, S., Eastin, M.S., 2011. Hedonic tendencies and the online consumer: an investigation
of the online shopping process. J. Int. Comm. 10 (1), 68–90.
LaSalle, D., Britton, T.A., 2003. Priceless: Turning Ordinary Products into Extraordinary
Experiences. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
LeBlanc, G., 1992. Factors affecting customer evaluation of service quality in travel
agencies: an investigation of customer perceptions. J. Trav. Res. 30, 265–293.
Levy, M., Weitz, B.A., 2012. Retailing Management, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New
York, NY.
Li, J.G.T., Kim, J.O., Lee, S.Y., 2009. An empirical examination of perceived retail
crowding, emotions, and retail outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 29 (5), 635–652.
Lichtlé, M.-C., Plichon, V., 2014. Emotions experienced in retail outlets: a proposed
measurement scale. Rech. Appl. Mark. (Engl. Ed.). 29 (1), 3–24.
Lin, J.-S.C., Lin, C.-Y., 2011. What makes service employees and customers smile:
Antecedents and consequences of the employees’ affective delivery in the service
encounter. J. Serv. Manag 22 (2), 183–201.
López-López, I., Ruiz-de-Maya, S., Warlop, L., 2014. When sharing consumption emotions
with strangers is more satisfying than sharing them with friends. J. Serv. Res. 17 (4),
1–14.
Loureiro, S.M.C., Miranda, F.J., Breazeale, M., 2014. Who needs delight? The greater
impact of value, trust and satisfaction in utilitarian, frequent-use retail. J. Serv.
Manag. 25 (1), 101–124.
Machleit, K.A., Mantel, S.P., 2001. Emotional response and shopping satisfaction: mod-
erating effects of shopper attributions. J. Bus. Res. 54 (2), 97–106.
58
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
Machleit, K.A., Meyer, T., Eroglu, S.A., 2005. Evaluating the nature of hassles and uplifts
in the retail shopping context. J. Bus. Res. 58 (5), 655–663.
Maklan, S., Klaus, P., 2011. Customer experience: are we measuring the right things. Int.
J. Mark. Res. 53 (6), 771–792.
Mano, H., 1999. The influence of pre-existing negative affect on store purchase intentions.
J. Retail. 75 (2), 149–172.
Mantrala, M.K., Levy, M., Kahn, B.E., Fox, E.J., Gaidarev, P., Dankworth, B., Sha, D.,
2009. Why is assortment planning so difficult for retailers? A framework and research
agenda. J. Retail. 85 (1), 71–83.
Marketing Science Institute, 2013. MSI Research Priorities 2014–2016. Author,
Cambridge, MA.
Marques, S.H., Cardoso, M.M., Palma, A.P., 2013. Environmental factors and satisfaction
in a specialty store. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 23 (4), 456–474.
Martin, D., O’Neill, M., Hubbard, S., Palmer, A., 2008. The role of emotion in explaining
consumer satisfaction and future behavioural intention. J. Serv. Mark. 22 (3),
224–236.
Martos-Partal, M., González-Benito, Ó., 2013. Studying motivations of store-loyal buyers
across alternative measures of behavioural loyalty. Eur. Manag. J. 31 (4), 348–358.
Mascarenhas, O.A., Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M.D., 2006. Lasting customer loyalty: a total
customer experience approach. J. Consum. Mark. 23 (7), 397–405.
Maxham III, J.G., Netemeyer, R.G., 2002. A longitudinal study of complaining customers'
evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. J. Mark. 66 (4), 57–71.
Menon, K., Dubé, L., 2000. Ensuring greater satisfaction by engineering salesperson re-
sponse to customer emotions. J. Retail. 76 (3), 285–307.
Meyer, C., Schwager, A., 2007. Understanding customer experience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85
(2), 117–126.
Mohan, G., Sivakumaran, B., Sharma, P., 2012. Store environments impact on variety
seeking behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 19 (4), 419–428.
Morales, A., Kahn, B.E., McAlister, L., Broniarczyk, S.M., 2005. Perceptions of assortment
variety: the effects of congruency between consumers' internal and retailers. J. Retail.
81 (2), 156–169.
Mouri, N., Bindroo, V., Ganesh, J., 2015. Do retail alliances enhance customer experi-
ence? Examining the relationship between alliance value and customer satisfaction
with the alliance. J. Mark. Manag. 31 (11–12), 1231–1254.
Nam, J., Ekinci, Y., Whyatt, G., 2011. Brand equity, brand loyalty, and consumer sa-
tisfaction. Ann. Tour. Res. 38 (3), 1009–1030.
Nunnally, J.C., Bernstein, I.H., 1994. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Oliver, R.L., 1993. Cognitive, affective and attribute bases of the satisfaction response. J.
Consum. Res. 20, 418–430.
Otieno, R., Harrow, C., Lea-Greenwood, G., 2005. The unhappy shopper, a retail ex-
perience: exploring fashion, fit and affordability. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 33 (4),
298–309.
Pan, Y., Zinkhan, G.M., 2006. Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical per-
spective. J. Retail. 82 (3), 229–243.
Petermans, A., Janssens, W., Van Cleempoel, K., 2013. A holistic framework for con-
ceptualizing customer experiences in retail environments. Int. J. Des. 7 (2), 1–18.
Poncin, I., Mimoun, M.S.B., 2014. The impact of “e-atmospherics” on physical stores. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 21, 851–859.
Pons, F., Giroux, M., Mourali, M., Zins, M., 2016. The relationship between density
perceptions and satisfaction in the retail setting: mediation and moderation effects. J.
Bus. Res. 69 (2), 1000–1007.
Puccinelli, N.M., Goodstein, R.C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., Stewart, D., 2009.
Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying process. J.
Retail. 85 (1), 15–30.
PWC, 2012. South African Retail and Consumer Products Outlook 2012–2016.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, South Africa.
Roest, H., Pieters, R., 1997. The nomological net of perceived service quality. Int. J. Serv.
Ind. Manag. 8 (4), 336–351.
Rosenbaum, M.S., Massiah, C.A., 2007. When customers receive support from other
customers: exploring the influence of intercustomer social support on customer vo-
luntary performance. J. Serv. Res. 9 (3), 257–270.
Rufín, R., Medina, C., Rey, M., 2012. Adjusted expectations, satisfaction and loyalty de-
velopment in the case of services. Serv. Ind. J. 32 (14), 2185–2202.
Sánchez-Fernández, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á., Holbrook, M.B., 2009. The conceptualisa-
tion and measurement of consumer value in services. Int. J. Res. Mark. 51 (1),
93–111.
Schmitt, B., 1999. Experiential Marketing: How to Get Customers to Sense, Feel, Think,
Act, and Relate to Your Company and Brands. Free Press, New York.
Schmitt, B., 2010. Experience marketing: concepts, frameworks and consumer insights.
Found. Trends Mark. 59 (2), 55–112.
Shobeiri, S., Laroche, M., Mazaheri, E., 2013. Shaping E-retailer's website personality: the
importance of experiential marketing. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (1), 102–110.
Sirohi, N., Mclaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of consumer perceptions and
store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer. J. Retail. 74 (2), 223–245.
Sivadas, E., Jindal, R.P., 2017. Alternative measures of satisfaction and word of mouth. J.
Serv. Mark. 31 (2), 119–130.
Sweeney, J.C., Soutar, G.N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: the development of a
multiple item scale. J. Retail. 77 (2), 203–220.
Terblanche, N.S., Boshoff, C., 2004. The in-store shopping experience: a comparative
study of supermarket and clothing store customers. SA J. Bus. Manag. 35 (4), 1–10.
Terblanche, N.S., Boshoff, C., 2006. A generic instrument to measure customer satisfac-
tion with the controllable elements of the in-store shopping experience. SA. J. Bus.
Manag. 37 (3), 1–14.
Thompson, E., Kolsky, E., 2004. How to Approach Customer Experience Management.
Gartner Inc, Stamford, CT.
Tombs, A., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., 2003. Social-servicescape conceptual model. Mark.
N.S. Terblanche
Theory 3 (4), 447–475.
Van Rompay, T.J.L., Krooshoop, J., Verhoeven, J.W.M., Pruyn, A.T.H., 2012. With or
without you: interactive effects of retail density and need for affiliation on shopping
pleasure and spending. J. Bus. Res. 65 (8), 1126–1131.
Verhoef, P.C., Lemon, K.N., Parasuraman, A., Roggeveen, A., Tsiros, M., Schlesinger, L.A.,
2009. Customer experience: determinants, dynamics and management strategies. J.
Retail. 85 (1), 31–41.
Walsh, G., Shiu, E., Hassan, L.M., Michaelidou, N., Beatty, S.E., 2011. Emotions, store-
environmental cues, store-choice criteria, and marketing outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 64
(7), 737–744.
59
View publication stats
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40 (2018) 48–59
Yakhlef, A., 2015. Customer experience within retail environments: an embodied, spatial
approach. Mark. Theory 15 (4), 545–564.
Yang, X., Mao, H., Peracchio, L.A., 2012. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you
play the game? The role of process and outcome in experience consumption. J. Mark.
Res. 49 (6), 954–966.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based
brand equity scale. J. Bus. Res. 52 (1), 1–14.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioral consequences of ser-
vice quality. J. Mark. 60 (2), 31–46.