Marketing Letters I : I, (1989): 55-69

0 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in the Netherlands.

Shopping Trip Behavior: An Empirical. Investigation

BARBARA E. KAHN
University of California ut Los Angeles

DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN
University of Pennsylvunia

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe shopping trip behavior empirically using shopping trip
data. A better understanding of this aspect of the purchase process can assist in generating testable
hypotheses as to how the shopping trip decision may influence other choice decisions.

1. Introduction

In studying the purchase process, marketing researchers have focused on the con-
sumer’s brand choice decision (Corstgens and Gautschi, 1983; Meyer and Kahn,
1990), the timing of the brand purchase (Morrison and Schmittlein, 1988), the
effects of store knowledge and time available for shopping on purchase behavior
(Park, Iyer, and Smith, 1989), and how various marketing influences (e.g., pro-
motions) affect these elements of the purchase process (Guadagni and Little,
1983; Gupta, 1988). Before a consumer can choose among brands, however, he or
she must first decide to enter the store to shop. If the decision to go shopping and
the brand choice decision are not statistically independent, then it is incorrect to
model these decisions separately. Ignoring the first decision (or the shopping de-
cision) in this hierarchical purchase process can result in inconsistent or inefficient
model parameter estimates at later stages of the process. (For an analogous ex-
ample of such hierarchical effects see Krishnamurthi and Raj, 1988). The purpose
of this paper is to describe shopping trip behavior empirically using IRI shopping
trip data.’ With a better understanding of this aspect of the purchase process, we
can generate testable hypotheses as to how the shopping trip decision may influ-
ence other choice decisions.
Briefly, our analyses yielded the following general conclusions about shopping
trip behavior.

1. The distribution of times between shopping trips and the distribution of times
between purchases of a specific brand are significantly different. Whereas both
interpurchase times and shopping trip histograms show evidence of 7-day (or
multiples of 7 days) cycles, these effects are much stronger for brand interpur-
chase times than for intershopping trip times.
2. There is evidence that these 7-day peaks in the shopping trip data are created
by strong preferences for shopping on a’specific day of the week rather than
based on when the product is used up.
 56 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

3. It is useful to classify shopping trips as quick trips in which a small amount of

money was spent or regular trips in which a larger amount of money was spent
(Kollat and Willett, 1967). We identified two segments of shoppers: those who
made more quick trips than regular trips and those who made more regular trips
than quick trips. We found interesting differences between these two segments
that have implications for market segmentation and for promotion analysis.

In the remainder of the paper we discuss each of these findings in detail, and point
out the implications of the results for models of choice, purchase timing, or pro-
motional-effects.

2. Histogram of intershopping trip times

Perhaps the best way to present a single snapshot of shopping trip behavior is
through an aggregate level histogram of intershopping trip times. The histogram
in figure 1 was created by randomly choosing one time between shopping trips for
each of the panelists in the IRI shopping trip subsample (n = 1442). This histogram
shows marked peaks at 7 days and at 14 days as might be expected, but also shows
a large peak at 24 days.
This intershopping trip times histogram is very different from interpurchase-
times histograms generated by Dunn, Reader, and Wrigley (DRW), 1983, for prod-
uct categories such as toilet tissue, baked beans, and instant coffee. The DRW
interpurchase times histograms show very strong peaks at 7 days, 14 days, 21
days, etc., but show no peak at 2-4 days. These differences between the two types
of histograms are intriguing and suggest research questions, but before drawing
any conclusions about the nature of the differences, we first ascertained that

Figure I. Aggregate Histogram of InterShopping Times.

SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 57

Figwe 2. Aggregate Histogram of Interpurchase Times, IRI Cracker Data Base.

Americans buying crackers yielded similar interpurchase times histograms to

those yielded by British households buying toilet tissue, etc. The histogram in
figure 2 was created by randomly choosing one time between cracker purchases
for each of the panelists in the IRI sample (n = 4302). This histogram is very sim-
ilar to the histograms generated by DRW.

2.1, Day-of-the-week explanation

We believe that there are two plausible explanations for the intershopping trip
histogram to be smoother than the histograms for interpurchase times. First, if
the 7-day peaks occur in the interpurchase-times data because the decision to
purchase a product correlates with what day of the week it is (e.g., Friday is fish
day), and if this day of the week varies across product classes, (e.g., Friday may
be fish day but Saturday is canned goods day), then pooling across product cate-
gories to the shopping trip level will result in a smoother histogram. In this paper,
we are only studying one product category and so cannot test this hypothesis per
se; however, we can investigate whether there is some general relationship be-
tween when consumers choose to go shopping and preferences for a specific day
of the week.

2.2. Fill-in trips explanation

Second, it is possible that the mode at 2-4 days in the shopping trip histogram
represents shopping trips that are fill-in or quick trips (Frisbie, 1980; Kollat and
58 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

Willett, 1967; McKay, 1973). Thus consumers may make a major shopping trip
weekly (e.g., Monday) and also a minor fill-in trip weekly (e.g., Friday before the
weekend). Or, these fill-in trips could be unplanned and thus irregularly pat-
terned. The lack of a mode at 2-4 days in the product interpurchase times histo-
gram could exist because:

1. the product categories that have been studied (e.g., toilet tissue, baked beans,
instant coffee, and crackers) are not bought on fill-in trips, or
2. all product categories generate occasional spur-of-the-moment stock-outs ne-
cessitating a quick run to the store, and these stock-outs occur independently
for different categories. The shopping trip then represents a superposition of
all the individual product class spur-of-the-moment trips. Any time a spur-of-
the-moment need arises for any product class, it shows up in the shopping trip
data thus accumulating to a relatively large number of occurrences. Whereas a
spur-of-the-moment trip shows up infrequently for any specific product class.

3. Day-of-the-week effect

To investigate the relationship between the decision to go shopping and prefer-

ences for specific days of the week, we looked at the percentage of trips made on
each day for each consumer. Those results were then aggregated across con-
sumers by averaging the proportion of trips made on the consumer’s favorite
shopping day, next favorite shopping day, etc., regardless of which day of the
week it was. As table 1 shows, on average 30% of shopping trips are made on the
consumer’s favorite day of the week and more money is spent on average trips
made on this modal day.
A stimulation was used in order to determine whether 30% represents a signif-
icantly higher percentage of trips than under the null hypothesis (i.e., that each
day of the week is equally likely).2 For a household, the baseline expected pro-
portion of trips on the modal day depends on the total number of shopping trips
made by that household. Thus, figure 3 shows these simulated baseline
percentages for trips made on the modal day. The 30% empirical figure is signifi-
cantly greater than the upper bound of the simulated baseline values, thus reject-
ing the null hypothesis that the decision to go shopping is unrelated to a preference
for specific days of the week. Further support for day-of-the-week preferences is
provided by the significant difference between the actual percentage of trips on
the least likely shopping day and that baseline value.
Table 1 also shows that there is heterogeneity in preferences for favorite shop-
ping days. Although Saturday appears to be the most preferred day, it is closely
followed by Friday and Thursday. There is less heterogeneity in preference for
the least likely shopping day - almost 50% of the panelists go shopping least often
on Sunday. Finally, Table 1 also shows that this day-of-the-week phenomenon
would be difficult to detect without individual level shopping trip data. When sim-
SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 59

Table 1. Aggregate shopping day preferences

Baseline
% of shopping probabil.
Individual patterns trips (s.e.) (simulated) Average amount spent (s.e.)

Most likely shopping day 30%(.004) .18 $31.07 (.52)

2nd most likely shopping day 18% (.OOl) .I6 $26.50 (.46)
3rd most likely shopping day 14% (.OOl) .I5 $23.38 (.42)
4th most likely shopping day 12% (.OOl) .14 $21.87 (.40)
5th most likely shopping day 11% (.OOl) .I4 $20.98 (.39)
6th most likely shopping day 9% (.OOl) .13 $20.09 (.39)
Least likely shopping day 6% (.OOl) .I1 $18.50 (.40)

% of all
shopping trips Average amount % as most likely % as least likely
Day of week (s.e.) spent (s.e.) shopping day shopping day

Monday 12% (.002) $19.93 (.38) 9% 13%

Tuesday 13% (.002) $20.16 (.38) 9% 11%
Wednesday 13% C.002) $21.64 (.42) 7% 9%
Thursday 16%(.003) $25.19 (.46) 15% 8%
Friday 18% (.003) $27.76 (.46) 23% 8%
Saturday 18% (.002) $26.54 (.46) 32% 5%
Sunday 10% (.002) $21.17 (.46) 7% 46%

ply looking at shopping trips by day of the week at the aggregate level, one ob-
serves a slight preference for Saturdays and Fridays but no clear pattern emerges.

3.1. Implications of day-of-the-week findings

We have found that households have different shopping trip loyalties for different
days of the week. It is a question for future empirical study whether purchases
made on favorite-day shopping trips differ from purchases made on nonfavorite-
day shopping trips. (It might also be interesting to test how resistent to change
these favorite-day loyalties are.) It is plausible that there may be differences in
price-sensitivity, choice patterns, response to promotions, etc., on shopping trips
made on different types of days. Models of choice and promotion effects may
therefore be missing an important explanatory variable that is easy to measure
and to include.
These findings also have implications for stochastic analyses of purchase timing
models. Currently, there are no models that explicitly include this strong day-of-
the-week phenomenon (although it is discussed in Dunn, Reader, and Wrigley,
1983; and Kahn and Morrison, 1989). Since some researchers (e.g., Grover and
Rao, 1988) have used interpurchase times to try and understand market structure,
60 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

NO. OF TRIPS/HOUSEHOLD

Figure 3. Baseline Proportion of Trips on Modal Day.

it would be desirable to create a parsimonious purchase timing model that includes

day-of-the-week loyalties as well as purchase frequencies.

4. Quidk versus regular shopping trips

4.1. Establishing a cutoff rule for segmentation

As discussed earlier, the aggregate histogram of shopping trip times suggests the
existence of fill-in shopping trips, or quick trips. Similarly to Frisbie (1980), we
distinguish between quick and regular shopping trips by the amount of money
spent on each. However, our cutoff rule is more individually tailored to the habits
of each household. Sample histograms of the amount spent on each shopping trip
across consumers were examined and two dominant patterns were discovered.
These two patterns are illustrated in figures 4 and 5. In order to determine the
number of quick and regular shopping trips for each household, we map each
panelist’s histogram of amounts spent onto one of the two graphs shown in figures
4 and 5 depending upon which is appropriate (i.e., whether a second mode occurs
in the histogram). Thus quick trips are characterized by amounts spent to the left
or equal to the arrow (as shown in the graphs) and regular trips by amounts spent
to the right of the arrow. Table 2 shows the distribution across households of these
cutoff values.
These cutoff values were found to be significantly related to several demo-
graphic variables (namely, income, family size, and age of the adult female in the
household). In general, the lower cutoff values are associated with lower incomes,
small families, and older female heads of the household.3
SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 61

AMOUNT SPENT ON A SHOfPING TRIP

Figure 4. Specification of Cutoff for Quick Shopping Trips.

AMOUNT SPENT ON A SHOPPING TRIP

Figure 5. Specification of Cutoff for Quick Shopping Trips.

Table 2. Distribution of cutoff values

$5.00 20%
$10.00 16%
$15.00 16%
$20.00 19%
$25.00 30%
62 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

4.2. Defining quick and regular segments

Using the cutoff rule defined above, we calculated the number of quick and reg-
ular shopping trips for each household. Then we defined the Quicks to be those
households that made more quick purchases than regular purchases, and Regulars
to be those households that made more regular purchases than quick purchases.
This scheme is obviously ad hoc, but will generate some interesting results below.
The reliability of this segmentation scheme was tested by comparing classifi-
cation of each household using the first half of the shopping trips to classification
of the same household using the second half of the shopping trips, for all panelists.
We found that the segmentation scheme was 85% reliable on a test-retest basis.
This reliability is significantly higher than any of the standard benchmark proce-
dures (e.g., the criterion generated by assuming that proportions of the segments
are equal in both halves (Mosteller and Bush, 1954): 55%; the proportional chance
criterion (Morrison, 1969); 56%; or the largest group criterion (Lehmann, 1985):
67%).

4.3. Differences between the segments

In table 3 we highlight the differences between the segments. Contributing to the

face validity of the segmentation, we find that the proportion of quick versus
regular trips is significantly different between the segments. That is, 65% of the
trips for the Quick segment are quick trips, and only 32% of the trips for Regular
segment are quick trips4 The Quick segments also make more trips to the store
on average than the Regular segment.
Using the average number of days between regular and quick trips, we can
hypothesize a reasonable picture of shopping trip patterns for each segment based
on the superposition of the regular and quick processes (Kahn, Morrison, and
Wright, 1986). The Regular segment makes a regular shopping trip on average
once a week. Every other week, on average, they make a quick run to the store
in between their regular shopping trips. If we superpose these two behaviors into
one observable pattern we obtain the top half of figure 6. Using the data for the
Quick segment in a similar manner we get the bottom half of figure 6. These
graphs show that by superposing the two types of shopping processes the observ-
able behavior appears more like a Poisson process than either of the two compo-
nents. This suggests that analysts who are using observed shopping trips to draw
inferences about shopping behavior are subject to aggregation biases, to the extent
that the analyst is really interested in regular or quick purchases separately.
Aggregated histograms by segments (see figures 7 and 8) provide another view
of shopping trips. The histogram for the Quicks shows modes at 2 and 4 days and
a much smaller mode at 7 days. The histogram for Regulars, on the other hand,
has a modal period at 2-3 days and a large mode at 7 days. This large mode at 7
days for the Regulars indicates that the weekly shopping trip is a much larger
factor for the Regulars than it is for the Quicks.
SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 63

Tuble 3. Characteristics of shopping trips by segment

Quicks (s.e) Regulars (s.e.)

Quick trips 65% + (.005) 32% - (.004)

Regular trips 35% ---) (.005) 68% --i\ (.004)
Trips on modal day 27% - (.005) 31% - (.005)
Regular trips on modal shopping day 44% + (.008) 76% --f (.005)
Average number of total trips 237 - (4.8) 198 - (3.1)
Avg. $ spent on quick trip $ 7.89 - (.15) $ 7.35 - (.13)
Avg. $ spent on regular trip $34.26 + (.66) $41.35 ------f (.64)
Avg. $ spent on modal day $20.35 - (.50) $36.67 - (.67)
Avg. no. of days between regular trips 13.0 - (.71) 6.5 --j (.09)
Avg. no. of days between quick trips 5.8 --j (.13) 19.9 - (1.2)
Avg. no. of days to last shopping trip 4.2 - (.09) 4.8 - (.07)
before a regular trip
Avg. No. of days to last shopping trip 3.3 - (.07) 3.5 C.06)
before a quick trip

GRAPHIC VIEW OF HYPOTHESIZED SHOPPING TRIP PATTERNS BY SEGMENT

Reoular Sesment

QuickTrips Q Q Q

Regular Tdps A i R R ; R R R R A
: ,: ;! :
Observed ,i Qd R QR i A RQ R

Quick Trips Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
i j:
Regular Trips R: Ri j R j
/: ;i I
Observed Q Q dQ Q R Q Q d 6

Figure 6. Graphic View of Hypothesized Shopping Trip Patterns by Segment.

Finally, table 4 illustrates the significant demographic differences between the

two groups, again suggesting that the segmentation is identifying distinct seg-
ments. The Quick segment has smaller-sized families, lower incomes, more apart-
ment dwellers, (more renters in general), more older males and older females, and
more retired people than the Regular segment. This difference is even more sig-
nificant when one takes into account that the cutoff-value rule we used allows
these smaller-sized, lower-income, older female households to have more regular
trips than a uniform cutoff rule would have allowed.
 64 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

Figure 7. Histogram of InterShopping Times, Quick Shoppers.

0 7 14 2, 28 35 42

Figure 8. Histogram of InterShopping Times, Regular Shoppers.

SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 6.5

Table 4. Demographic profile of segments

Family size (X1=51.7, p=O.OOO) Quicks (n = 485) Regulars (n = 957)

l-person households 21%’ 10%

2-person households 40% 35%
3-person households 19% 23%
4-person households 13% 18%
households with 5 or more 8% 15%
100% 100%

Income (X2=42.1. p=O.OOO)

< $11.999 33% 19%

l2.000-19,999 21% 18%
20.000-34,999 27% 34%
35.000-54,999 14% 21%
> 55,000 5% 8%
100% 100%

Residence type (X’= 28.7. p =O.OOO)

single family home 79% 87%

duplex 5% 4%
townhouse or condo 4% 3%
apartment 9% 3%
mobile home 3% 3%
100% 100%

Rent (X’= 16.3, p=O.OOO)

rent 23% 14%

own 77% 86%
100% 100%

(XT= 64.0, p = 0.000. males)

Age (X:=65.1, p=O.OOO, females) Male Female Male Female

18-29 year olds 3% 4% 4% 6%

30-34 year olds 4% 7% 9% 9%
35-44 year olds 14% 15% 20% 24%
45-54 year olds 11% 16% 18% 22%
55-64 year olds IS% 23% 19% 21%
65-99 year olds 25% 34% 15% 17%
no head of household 27% 2% 15% 1%
100% 100% I100% 100%
66 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

Tab/e 4. (continued)

(X2=55.3, p=O.OOO, males)

Hours (X2=31.1, p=o.ooo,
females) Male Female Male Female

unemployed 5% 28% 5% 30%

part-timers 7% 14% 7% 16%
full-timers 38% 32% 56% 40%
retired 23% 24% 16% 13%
no head of household 27% 2% 15% 1%
100% 100% 100% 100%

‘Boldface type indicates which segment percentage is greater

4.4. Similarities between the segments

The segments are also similar in two interesting respects. One is that the average
amount spent on quick and regular trips does not vary across segments. The av-
erage amount spent on a quick trip is a little over $7 for both segments and the
average amount spent on a regular trip ranges between $35-$40 for both segments.
This substantial difference between amounts spent on quick versus regular trips,
and its similarity in both segments, lends additional credibility to the segmentation
scheme.
The other similarity between the two segments is the relative behavior with
regard to day-of-week shopping preferences. As table 3 shows, both segments
shop on their most preferred shopping day approximately 30% of the time. The
most preferred modal shopping day is Saturday and the least preferred shopping
day is Sunday for both segments. As above, the similarity between the two seg-
ments on the day-of-the-week preference phenomenon suggests the robustness of
the variables constructed.

5. Implications of quick-regular shopping trip segmentation

Although empirical verification is needed, it is reasonable to expect that response

to promotions and probability of purchasing from specific product classes depend
on whether the shopping trip is quick or regular, and on whether the consumer is
a member of the Quick or Regular segment. A priori we might expect, for exam-
ple, that coupons are used more often on regular trips. Similarly, consumers may
be more likely to purchase in certain product classes (e.g., perishables) on quick
trips, whereas they may be more likely to purchase in other product classes (e.g.,
laundry detergents) on regular trips. Preliminary evidence for these types of hy-
potheses, although not these specific ones, is given by Kollat and Willett (1967)
who show that the kind of shopping trip (major or fill-in) is significantly related
to the percentage of unplanned purchases. If these differences exist, these vari-
SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 67

ables (i.e., the nature of the shopping trip and the segment identification of the
consumer) should be included in logit models of brand choice.
Understanding shopping trip behavior can also contribute to our understanding
of whether or not promotions accelerate purchases (Neslin, Henderson, and
Quelch, 1985). There are two components to purchase acceleration: 1) the accel-
eration of the consumer’s purchase of the brand (beneficial to the manufacturer),
and 2) the acceleration of the shopping trip to the store (beneficial to the retailer).
To test for the latter acceleration, one should understand quick and regular shop-
ping trips and Quick and Regular shoppers.
For example, if features are accelerating shopping trips we would expect the
percentage of featured brand purchases made on quick trips to be higher than
the percentage of nonfeatured brand purchases made on quick trips, at least for the
Regular segment. Similarly, by examining figure 6 we would also expect that the
average time to the last shopping trip would be shorter for trips in which featured
brands were purchased than the average time to the last shopping trip for trips in
which featured brands were not purchased (again for the Regular segment). Yet
this natural approach for assessing purchase acceleration is not likely to be effec-
tive for the Quick shoppers, as the figure 6 illustrates. Thus, understanding pur-
chase acceleration requires an appreciation of a household’s baseline inclination
to undertake frequent, small, relatively randomly occurring shopping trips.
Identifying the types of shopping trips made could also help determine whether
these accelerated trips to the store increase overall spending. By comparing the
average amount spent across different patterns of shopping trips (e.g., regular-
quick-regular compared to regular-regular for consumers in the Regular segment),
we could assess whether quick trips to the store increase overall expenditures or
just spread the total expenditure over more trips.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have provided a description of shopping trip behavior based on

empirical observation. We discussed several interesting findings. First, the his-
togram of intershopping trips times resembles histograms of interpurchase times
in that they both exhibit noticeable 7-day and multiples of 7-day cycles. However,
the intershopping trip times histogram is much smoother, perhaps because it rep-
resents the aggregated effects of shopping trip behavior over many different prod-
uct classes.
Second, we provided evidence of a significant day-of-the-week phenomenon.
Our analysis indicates that the decision to go shopping is dependent on the par-
ticular day of the week. Finally, we support the previous work (Frisbie, 1980)
showing that shopping trips can be characterized as quick or regular depending
upon the amount spent per trip. However, we also find there appear to be Quick
and Regular consumers. The Quick consumers make many trips to the store, pur-
chasing only a small amount on each trip and only infrequently make regular big
68 BARBARA E. KAHN AND DAVID C. SCHMITTLEIN

shopping trips. The Regular consumers make fewer quick runs to the store and
instead are more apt to have a once-a-week regular shopping day. The robustness
and strength of these phenomena indicate that they may impact brand choice,
purchase time, and the effectiveness of promotional variables, and therefore are
factors worthy of inclusion in future marketing model-building efforts.

Notes

I. Our analyses are based on the Information Resources, Inc. Academic Research Data Base,
Crackers I/02/84-12/29/85. The data are from panelists in Williamsport. PA; Rome, GA; and
Midland, TX.
2. The 30% modal day shopping figure cannot simply be compared with 117 (7 days equally likely)
due to a selection effect. It turns out that the baseline expectation depends on the number of
shopping trips observed for each household. The expectation decreases towards 117 as the num-
ber of shopping trips increases to infinity and, of course, equals 100% for any household ob-
served to make only one shopping trip.
3. This cutoff rule therefore takes into account income, family size, and age of adult female. The
alternative is to use a standard cutoff rule for everyone. We redid the analyses using a standard
$15 cutoff rule. which is the median value (and also may roughly correspond to the maximum
amount spent at an Express Lane) and found no differences in the implications of cur results.
4. Although we used the number of quick versus regular trips to determine the segments, the pro-
portion of each type of trip per segment did not have to differ this greatly from 50-50. The greater
the difference in these proportions between the two groups, the more spread apart the segments
are.

References

Corstgens, Marcel L, and David A. Gautschi. “Formal Choice Models in Marketing.” Mrrrketirtg
Scie/7ce 2 (Winter 1983), 19-56.
Dunn, R., S. Reader. and N. Wrigley. “An Investigation of the Assumptions of the NBD Model as
Applied to Purchasing at Individual Stores.” Applied Stutistics 32 (3, 1983). 249-259.
Frisbie, Gil A., Jr. “Ehrenberg’s Negative Binomial Model Applied to Grocery Store Trips.” lo~r-
na/ of Marketing Reseurch XVI? (August 1980), 385-390.
Grover, Rajiv, and Vithala Rao. “Inferring Competitive Market Structure Based on a Model of
Interpurchase Intervals.” Interrrcrfion~I Jor/rno/ of Research in Mnr-keting 5 (I, 1988), 55-72.
Guadagni, Peter M.. and John D. C. Little. “A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner
Data.” Marketing Science 2 (Summer 1983). 203-238.
Gupta, Sunil. “An Integrated Model of Inter-purchase Time, Brand Choice and Purchase Quan-
tity.” Journul of Murketir~g Reserrrch XXV (November 1988).
Kollat, David T.. and Ronald P. Willett. “Customer Impulse Purchasing Behavior.” Jorrr-rral of
Murkefing Reseurch IV (February 1967). 21-31.
Kahn, Barbara E., Donald G. Morrison, and Gordon P. Wright. “Aggregating Individual Purchases
to the Household Level.” Murkeriilg Science 5 (Winter 1986). 260-268.
Kahn, Barbara E., and Donald G. Morrison. “A Note on ‘Random’ Purchasing: Additional Insights
from Dunn, Reader and Wrigley.” Applied Stufi~tic~ 38 (1, 1989), 111-l 14.
Krishnamurthi, Lakshman, and S. P. Raj. “A Model of Brand Choice and Purchase Quantity Price
Sensitivities.” Marketing Science 7 (Winter 1988), 1-19.
SHOPPING TRIP BEHAVIOR 69

Lehmann, Donald R. Ma&et Research and Anulysis, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Irwin. 1985.
McKay, D. B. “A Spectral Analysis of the Frequency of Supermarket Visits.” Jo~r-nrrl o~MNI.XC~-
ing Research 10 (February 1973). 84-90.
Meyer, Robert .I., and Barbara E. Kahn. “Probabilistic Models of Consumer Choice Behavior.”
Handbook of Consumer Behavior: Theory and Resemch, eds. H. Kassarjian and T. Robertson.
Prentice Hall. 1990.
Morrison, Donald G. “On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis.” Jorrrnrrl of‘ Mtrrhetirlg
Reseuuch 6 (May 1969), 156-163.
Morrison, Donald G., and David C. Schmittlein. “Generalizing the NBD Model for Customer
Purchases: What Are the Implications and Is It Worth the Effort. 7" Journul of Business & Eco-
rzomic Statistics 6 (April 1988), 145-159.
Mosteller, Frederich, and Robert R. Bush. “Selective Quantitative Techniques.” Hrrtzdbook of
Social Psychology, vol. I, ed. Gardner Lindzey. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1954.
Neslin, Scott, Caroline Henderson, and John Quelch. “Consumer Promotions and the Acceleration
of Product Purchases.” Marketing Science 4 (Spring 1985), 147-165.
Park, C. Whan, Easwar S. Iyer, and Daniel C. Smith. “The Effects of Situational Factors on In-
Store Grocery Shopping Behavior: The Role of Store Environment and Time Available for Shop-
ping.” Jo~vlzal of Corzsurrter Research I5 (March 1989), 422-433.