You are on page 1of 28

Kim et al. / TEENS’ MALL FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL 10.

177/1077727X03258701 SHOPPING MOTIV ATIONS

ARTICLE

Teens’ Mall Shopping Motivations: Functions of Loneliness and Media Usage
Youn-Kyung Kim University of Tennessee Eun Young Kim Chungnam National University Jikyeong Kang The University of Manchester

The shopping mall can serve as a venue through which teens can fulfill their needs by socializing with friends, enjoying entertainment, or simply visiting the site. This study tested whether and how mall shopping motivations were related to loneliness and media usage among teen consumers. Data were collected via a mall intercept survey from 531 teens in four large shopping malls in the United States. Findings indicated that mall shopping motivations consisted of five dimensions: service motivation, economic motivation, diversion motivation, eating-out motivation, and social motivation. Results suggest directions for marketers and educators to follow in establishing positive programs to provide social support for teens. Keywords: teens; mall shopping motivations; loneliness; media usage.

Teens need to gain special attention from marketers and scholars in the area of family and consumer sciences because of their unique demographic and psychological characteristics. Teens between the ages of 12 and 19, born in the 1980s to parents of baby boomers or older generation Xers, are growing rapidly in number and consumption power. This population segment is increasing in number at twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (Goff, 1999). Although teens make far less money than adults, they have relatively more disposable income (Zollo, 1995), which is earned from parental allowances and part-time jobs. Furthermore, the decrease in family size because of sociodemographic changes (e.g., delayed marriage, higher divorce

Authors’ Note: This project was funded by the International Council of Shopping Centers Educational Foundation.
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, December 2003 140-167 © 2003 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

140

Kim et al. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS

141

rate) allows parents to spend more money on their children (Anderson, 2000). Traditionally, malls attracted consumers through the availability of a wide assortment of stores and merchandise in a single location. Over the years, the mall has grown larger by increasing its range of social and entertainment providers and activities (e.g., special events, food courts, cinemas, and video arcades). By broadening the mix of tenants and activities, the mall has transcended its role as an economic entity to position itself as a center for entertainment and cultural events (Bloch, Ridgway, & Dawson, 1994; Graham, 1988). In fact, going to the mall has become a major element in the lifestyles of modern U.S. consumers and has been labeled as “a culturally ingrained phenomenon” (Cuneo, 2000, p. 38). Many consumers consider the mall “a premier habitat” and spend a relatively long time on-site (Bloch et al., 1994). Despite all these changes, consumers now go to malls less frequently and instead seek convenient shopping through catalogs and the Internet because they have more time pressures than in the past. However, teens, who have more free time for shopping than other population groups (i.e., baby boomers and generation Xers), are shopping at malls in greater numbers today (Kang, Kim, & Tuan, 1996; Richardson, 1993). Although adolescence can potentially be a time of self-identification and new discoveries that lead to new adult roles, this time period also can bring about stress in the form of depression, loneliness, and other psychological difficulties (S. T. Hauser & Bowlds, 1990; McCord, 1990). These psychological stresses may be compounded by the fact that most teens live in nontraditional families with two working parents, stepparents, or a single parent and/or may have unsatisfactory relationships with their friends. During this stage of their lifetime, teens experience decreases in family influences and increases in peer and media influences (Arnett, 1995). According to Wilson and MacGillivray (1998), most teens reveal a strong psychosocial need to belong to and be approved by others who are significant to them. As a result, they conform to peers in lifestyle preferences, such as leisure-time activities, dress, and music (Berndt & Das, 1987; Huston & Alvarez, 1990). Teens consider shopping more of an experience than a routine (Zollo, 1995). They shop to become more independent, socialize with friends, or express themselves (Omelia, 1998). In fact, many retail settings (e.g., record store, video arcade) provide a meeting place for teens who desire to be with their peer group or reference group. Thus, the venue through which teens can

. 1994).. motivation refers to the drive. As the first step. meeting friends. time. services. Hedonic or experiential motivation involves satisfying emotional or expressive needs. and social experiences outside the home (e.g.e. Next. finding specific products or services. Omelia. it assessed how teens’ various mall shopping motivations are associated with their level of loneliness and media usage. or specific information. 1995). or desire that leads to a goal-oriented behavior (Mowen. 1994). and waiting in check-out lines (Kim & Kang. which entailed using the structural model to investigate the causal relationships among these three variables.. 1996. and Greenberg . Given the role the mall plays in meeting teens’ multiple needs. wish. For instance. Utilitarian motivation involves satisfying functional needs. 1994. it seems critical that educators and marketers understand why and how teens exhibit certain consumption behavior in malls. RESEARCH BACKGROUND Mall Shopping Motivations Within a consumer behavior context. Bloch et al. In reviewing the literature. browsing. such as fun. enjoy entertainment. money. procuring goods. Retailers who develop strategies based on teens’ special needs for shopping will create a strong relationship with this younger group providing long-term results. this study examined how teens vary in the motivations that bring them to the mall.142 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL fulfill their unique needs seems to be a shopping mall where they can socialize with friends. entertainment. and effort) that may have to be expended in transportation. such as convenient shopping. Robertson.. motivations for shopping in malls range from utilitarian motivation to hedonic or experiential motivation (Bellenger & Korgaonkar. and reducing the costs (i. 1980.. watching people). urge. relaxation. Bellenger. Roy. 1991. 1998). Roy. Mall shopping motivation is simply that aspect of motivation that is attributed to shopping in a mall setting. 1997). 1994. More specific mall shopping motivation categories were found in the literature. or solve their loneliness or other psychological stresses (Bloch et al. & Nelson. and gratification (Bloch. This study provides useful information for educators to incorporate teens’ mall shopping motivations into their educational programs. Ridgway. Kang et al. These hedonic satisfactions may be derived from ambience.

Moschis & Churchill. 1983. tapping consumers’ desires for variety or novelty and enjoyment of exploring new products or stores while in the mall • flow. which implies that price-sensitive consumers might wait for special sales before mall visits and thus may become relatively infrequent patrons of shopping malls. and media in consumer behavior (Moore & Schultz. In Roy’s (1994) study. Early research into teens concentrated on understanding the role of consumer socialization agents. On the other hand. addressing the enjoyment of communicating and socializing with others Kang et al. enjoyment of the mall aesthetics (e. engaging in a wide range of behaviors that include a high level of purchasing.. The teen consumer group. reflecting a pleasurable absorption that is associated with losing track of time • knowledge or epistemic. These researchers found that mall shopping motivations vary significantly according to age group. compared to the other age groups (ages 20 to 49 and 50 and older). peer. Convenience or economic shoppers approach mall shopping from a time.or money-saving point of view. such as family. social experience. Recreational shoppers enjoy shopping as a leisure-time activity. The six patterns captured were • mall enthusiasts. and recreational shopping motivation. (1994) identified distinct patterns of the mall habitat. suggesting that people who want to satisfy the needs for affiliation. and an escape from routine • exploration. representing sensory stimulation. the degree of recreational shopping motivation was positively correlated with visit frequency. and experiential consumption • escape. had stronger diversion/browsing and social experience shopping motivations. They found that deal-proneness motivation was negatively correlated with visit frequency. referring to obtaining information about new stores and new products • social affiliation. 1979. . convenient service availability. deal proneness. physical design. mall shopping motivation consisted of three dimensions: functional economic motivation. diversion/browsing. a relief from boredom. economic incentives. (1996) identified six motivation factors of mall shoppers: aesthetic ambience. and stimulation visit malls relatively often.Kim et al. power. appearance). / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 143 (1977) identified two mall shopping groups based on shopping orientations. Bloch et al. and consumption of meal/snack.g.

& Moran. Although there has been some debate about the definition and measurement of loneliness. In fact. 1988). 1987). such as having fewer friends or being isolated from peers (Lewis. teens’ loneliness might be induced from deficient social relationships with their peers or friends. such as enjoying the food court or interior of malls.144 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL Moschis & Moore. 1996). 1993. Nevertheless. Loneliness and Mall Shopping Motivations Loneliness has been documented as a condition that affects many large segments of U. Weiss. one of the best known scales to measure loneliness. 1998). (1980) Revised UCLA (University of California. 1980). Los Angeles) Loneliness Scale. 2002. and a subjective experience with social isolation (Forman & Sriram. enjoying the crowds. 1995. parents’ divorce. Moschis. and entertainment. Limited studies reported that. 1999. or a failed romance (Kostelecky & Lempers. The Russell et al. Peplau. This may be a result of their trying to define their role in the family and search for greater independence (Kostelecky & Lempers. “The Survey Says: Teen-agers Want to Shop ’til They Drop”. conveys these three dimensions. Contrasted with adults. and shopping experience as entertainment (Baker & Haytko. related literature reveals that except for Kang et al. 1979). Other deficient social relationships may be derived from a lack of interpersonal communication among family members. Marcoen & Goossens. 1991. Dyer. Subsequent research combined these variables with shopping orientations (Shim & Gehrt. Perlman. such as an unpleasant experience. compared to adult consumers. society. a commonly held definition of loneliness includes underlying dimensions. 1974). 2000). a lack of empirical research is focused on teen consumer behavior as it relates to mall shopping motivation. a recent death or serious illness in the family or of a close friend. 1994). it has been acknowledged that loneliness is a relatively common experience among teens. Loneliness also can be a subjective experience in the sense that . Lack of research focus on this population group. & Cutrona. than for utilitarian needs (Cebrzynski. deficiencies in a person’s social relationships.S. underscores the need to understand how teens’ mall shopping motivation relates to their needs in retail environments. teen consumers are more likely to be motivated to shop for the hedonic needs of diversion. 1998. Wilson & MacGillivray. 1998. Russell. combined with their number and purchasing power. (1996). clothing or brand choice (Taylor & Cosenza.

The subjective experience of loneliness is supported by McWhirter’s (1997) study that through factor analysis of the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. such as keeping busy. status and authority. (1991) noted that “shopping malls are also hospitable to people who are alone” by providing social contacts (p. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 145 individuals who do not have friends may not feel lonely or that those individuals who have friends can be lonely. As a strategy to cope with and solve their feelings of loneliness. Stone (1954) identified four types of women shoppers: economic shoppers.. learning about new trends). such as drinking or taking drugs.. entertaining. Shopping malls can function as a positive venue for teens to alleviate their loneliness via multiple means such as socializing. Bloch et al. writing. Literature has provided much evidence to support the role of a retail setting as an outlet for social stimulation and support for certain individuals. these efforts may result in sensually oriented solutions. and apathetic shoppers. Rubenstein and Shaver (1980) posed the research question. 446). diversion. teens make an effort to find more satisfying friendships and social contacts.g. two distinct types of loneliness were revealed: intimate loneliness and social loneliness.g. communication with others having a similar interest. calling or visiting a family and friend). doing nothing. social experiences outside the home. Forman and Sriram (1991) suggested a negative attitude toward depersonalized retailing (e. and the pleasure of bargaining) as well as personal motives (e.g. It is contended that . or reading. working on a hobby). or diversionary activities. or depressed. exercising. However. social contact (e. thinking). personalizing shoppers form strong personal attachments to store employees as a substitute for social contact.g. what do you usually do about it?” Results yielded four factors including going shopping. browsing. ethical shoppers. or simply buying what they want. According to Tauber (1972). self-gratification.g... browsing. Tauber argued that an individual may visit a retailer in search of diversion or social contact when he or she feels bored. Among these four groups. personalizing shoppers.Kim et al.g. and active solitude (e. sad passivity (e. working. Finding two separate factors of going shopping and social contact suggests that going to a store or mall may represent a means to fill a social void apart from the more intimate social contacts that may or may not be available.. lonely. shopping can meet social motives (e. selfservice stores) existed among lonely consumers.. sleeping. “When you feel lonely.

and behaviors about their age group and groups they aspire to join. On the other hand. as well as providing teens with a resource for fulfilling various needs (Ferle. Among these needs are relaxation. In addition. which induces them to spend more time on media. listening to music was the coping strategy most commonly used by teens when they are angry. this complex transitional stage may produce teens more inclined to make use of media in their socialization than are younger or older consumers (Arnett.146 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL retailing establishments provide lonely individuals an outlet for social participation. 1997). Media provides teens with norms. & Lee. 1995). Teens reported watching television was a deliberate coping strategy to dispel negative affect (Kurdek. discussing that lonely consumers are less likely to engage in shopping for sensory or novelty needs.g. stressful emotions that had accumulated during the day (Arnett. Hypothesis 1b: Teens’ social loneliness will decrease their mall shopping motivations. According to Moore and Schultz (1983). This supports Eronen and Nurmi’s (2001) argument for the relationship between social avoidance and loneliness. anxious. In the context of shopping. typically have not yet occurred. 1995). youth-culture identification. coping. values. 1995).. Loneliness and Media Usage Adolescence is a time when the presence and power of family diminishes and new adult roles. Similarly. or unhappy. & Offer. and entertainment (Arnett. Accordingly. we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1a: Teens’ intimate loneliness will increase their mall shopping motivations. Edwards. Hirschmann (1984) found that social isolation was negatively related to experiential shopping. 1995. reading printed media (e. 2000). which alleviates feelings of intimate isolation. Larson. such as social loneliness (McWhirter. . killing time. Roe. 1987) or to divert themselves from personal concerns with passive. such as marriage and long-term employment. magazine. Based on reviewing the literature. many teens go home to parentless houses and are alone after school. individuals with fewer social interactions and casual friendships are less likely to cope with their negative feeling.

1979). 1998). 1979. and name-conscious shopper). problem-solving shopper. 1996). among media types. For example. 82% of Seventeen magazine’s female readers are in the age bracket of 12 to 17 years (Ebenkamp. Several consumer studies examined the influence of the media on the development of consumer decisions and socialization (Shim. product evaluations (Churchill & Moschis. the media can act as agents to expand their horizons of consumptionrelated knowledge or preferences (Wilson & MacGillivray. Moschis (1976) associated media usage with different shopping orientations (i. 1999). 1982). 1976). (2000) discovered that. services. shopping orientation (Moschis. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 147 newspaper) can be another activity that teens may use to reduce their level of loneliness. Moschis & Moore. Thus..e. For example. Special shoppers read more home . 2000). 24% of teens listen to the radio. the greatest number of media usage hours among teens was allocated to listening to the radio. Nearly 70% of teens read a daily newspaper at least once a week (Freeman. brand-loyal shopper. Media Usage and Mall Shopping Motivations The pervasive presence of the media in industrialized countries provides teens with vast exposure to a wide range of products. special shopper. psychosocializing shopper. and socially desirable consumer behaviors (Moschis & Moore. the following hypothesis is posed: Hypothesis 2: Teens’ intimate loneliness and social loneliness will increase their media usage.Kim et al. Although teens’ magazine and newspaper readership constitutes a smaller amount of the average teen’s time compared to television and radio. it can be speculated that teens who feel lonely engage in heavier use of media. Although no study examined teens’ loneliness in relation to media usage. More specifically. it should not be ignored because of the media’s reach. Ferle et al. and one half of them watch television with family while eating dinner. problem-solving shoppers and psychosocializing shoppers spent more hours viewing television than other types of shoppers. McGrath (1998) reported that approximately 76% of teenagers watch television at home. and processes that would not be available through the family and friends. store-loyal shopper. as teens seek to distance themselves from the constraints of family and go beyond the influence of friends. In addition.

Lennon. whereas magazines commonly were used for shopping and health-related information. (2000) study. increased reading of printed media (i. and a decreased ability to process information regarding consumption (Ward. newspaper reading was linked to desirable consumer orientations because it was correlated positively with the development of rational consumer orientations. & Rudd. Wackman. Media type also was associated with the creation of positive or negative consumer orientations. and warranty. such as buying expensive. price consciousness. Wilson and MacGillivray (1998) also discovered that television and magazines provided a substantial influence on adolescent clothing choice. and shopping for recreation and entertainment. On the other hand. performance. and value for money (Shim & Gehrt. Shim (1996) investigated adolescents’ consumer decision-making styles from the consumer socialization perspective. This suggested that teens may use brand name as an efficient shopping tool in evaluating various products that have different levels of price. Thus. seeking excitement from novelties and fashion. and business magazines.148 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL magazines. Among the few studies.e. the amount of newspaper reading was highly related to brand preferences among teens. news.. & Wartella. 1981). such as consumer knowledge or financial management (Moore & Moschis. conspicuous consumption (Moschis & Moore. Teens’ receptiveness to television commercials was positively related to the social/conspicuous orientations. the following hypothesis is developed: Hypothesis 3: Teens’ media usage will increase their mall shopping motivations. newspaper) appeared to point adolescents toward more utilitarian orientations including high quality. Conclusively. such as the increased desire for compulsive consumption (Lee. Television watching was related to undesirable consumer orientations. . Additional studies focused on teens’ media usage and how it influenced their consumption decisions. whereas the name-conscious shoppers were more likely to read fashion. 1982). 1977). television and radio were found to fulfill entertainment and leisure needs most often. the literature supports the argument that teens’ media usage can influence why teens visit or shop at the mall. According to Moschis and Moore (1979). In the Ferle et al. Information about teens’ media usage in relation to shopping orientations or motivations is limited. well-known brands. On the other hand. 2000). 1996).

1977. Houston. and reading magazine) were measured. 1972). and loneliness. Bloch et al. Respondents were asked how often they engage in these activities on a 7-point rating scale (1 = never..g. 1980). a list of 16 items of shopping motivations was drawn from the literature encompassing utilitarian aspects as well as hedonic aspects of mall shopping (Bellenger et al. Inputs from the respondents led to several minor revisions in the final questionnaire’s wording.. media usage. The scale consisted of 11 items. watching television. Tauber. Dallas. Examples of shopping motivation items included “to hunt for a real bargain” and “to simply enjoy the crowds. The measure of loneliness was derived from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell et al.. The items were composed of intimate loneliness such as “I feel isolated from others” and “No one really knows me well” and social loneliness such as “There are people who really understand me” and “There are people I can talk to. After obtaining human participant approval from the Internal Review Board. a scale shown to have high internal consistency. Sampling and Data Collection The sample in this study focused on teen consumers aged 12 to 19. data were collected via mall intercept survey in four large shopping malls located in New York. Loneliness. Initially. 7 = always).. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 149 METHOD Measures Measures consisted of three main constructs: shopping motivations. 1994. reading newspaper. listening to radio. 1994.” The items of social loneliness were reverse coded before scoring to reflect the concept of loneliness.” These shopping motivation items were measured on a 7-point rating scale (1 = strongly disagree. Revision of the initially developed questionnaire was based on a pretest of a small convenience sample (n = 20). Four media usages (e. 7 = strongly agree). and Los Angeles. instructions. To ensure adequate sample diversity. Kang et al. Roy.. or formats. Shopping motivations.Kim et al. which assessed an individual’s self-perceived loneliness. Media usage. data collection was . 1996.

Then a confirmatory factor analysis using LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom. the measurement model and structural model using correlation matrix with maximum likelihood (ML) were estimated simultaneously via LISREL 8 (Jöreskog & Sörbom. They took an average of 20 minutes to complete a four-page. Most respondents lived with family (82. The group of respondents in this study consisted of slightly more young women (52. and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). and Hispanic (31.3%). Loneliness also was factor analyzed using principal components analysis with varimax rotation to determine underlying constructs in the structural model. Data Analysis For identifying underlying dimensions of shopping motivation.3%). 1993) verified shopping motivation factors derived from the exploratory factor analysis. A total of 531 teens completed the survey. Three items were eliminated due to loadings less than 0. followed by those employed part-time (28. Prospective respondents were offered a $2 cash payment to secure participation. 1993).4%).4%). The largest number of respondents was unemployed (56. accounting for 64. Three ethnic groups were included in the sample: White (31.7%).0 or higher. adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI).7%). Interviewers intercepted shoppers as they were exiting the malls to ask for their participation in the survey. self-administered questionnaire.150 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL implemented at a variety of times and days of the week.50. we preliminarily conducted an exploratory factor analysis. . goodness of fit index (GFI). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Shopping Motivation Factors An exploratory factor analysis using principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was employed to identify underlying dimensions of 16 shopping motivation items. Black (34.3%). Overall fit of the model was assessed by various statistic indexes: chi-square (χ2).4% of the total variance in shopping motivations. Finally. The remaining 13 items resulted in five factors with eigenvalues of 1.3%) than young men (47.

and to look at the interior design of malls. Tatham. utilitarian motivation is extended to combine assorted tasks in achieving the greatest efficiency and time saving. although teens visit service providers.0017). was 0.97 and 0. a bargain was perceived as an economic aspect to stimulate teen consumers to go shopping. and to comparison shop to find the best for one's money.47 with 54 degrees of freedom. bank and clinics) in malls than are adult consumers. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 151 A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to verify the factor structure of shopping motivation derived from the exploratory factor analysis.4% unemployed.80. economic motivation.76. AGFI. Hair. Therefore. and RMSEA were used to evaluate the goodness of the model fit. the overall model fit indexes are within the acceptable range. The RMSEA is 0. Contrary to Barbin. service motivation.96. and Griffin’s (1994) contention that consumers’ bargain (e. The result revealed that χ2 value was 89. & Black. Therefore. Thus. . or AGFI. The first factor. suggesting that teen consumers in this study were sensitive to price.. and Cronbach’s alphas of the factors ranged from . This result was most likely caused by the sensitivity of the χ2 ratio test overly affected by the large sample size (N = 531) even though the model may explain the data well (Bagozzi & Yi.g. it was deemed that the factor structure of each shopping motivation was valid and could be used to test the structural model. 1995). consisted of three items: to visit medical/dental/vision care office. to hunt for a real bargain.57) of the five shopping motivations. respectively. This finding may have resulted from respondents’ employment status (56.Kim et al. enjoyment of the interiors of the mall may contribute to their perception of time efficiency. Anderson. included three purchaserelated items: to find a good price. alternative fit indexes such as GFI. In this view. (1996) finding that younger consumers are less likely to visit service providers (e. which was significant (p = . which is independent of the sample size and relatively robust against departure from normality. the factor loadings of those indicators ranged from 0. It is notable that the interior design of malls was loaded in the same factor with service providers. 1989. 28. indicating a relatively small residual. Darden.g. price discount) perceptions are related to hedonic value and utilitarian value. The mean of economic motivation was highest (M = 5.. According to Kim and Kang (1997).63 to 0.09) of all shopping motivations. which supports the Kang et al. The GFI. to use banking service.62 to .036.3% employed part-time). The second factor. The mean of this factor was lowest (M = 2. As illustrated in Table 1.

eating-out motivation.93 (1. Tauber.15 14.97) 4.77) 5.47 14.90 (1.14 (1.65 3.51 12.96) 4.09 5.70 (2. and just to browse.99) 2.69 0.61 (1.17) 3.70 (1.51 15.0017) GFI = 0.79).036 0.94 0.96 RMSEA = 0. 1994.63 14.63 0.96) 3.57 2.10 12.63 0.62 12.96 0.44 3.77) 4.66 14.88) 4. p = .. 1996. when I am bored.86) 3.27 NOTE: GFI = goodness of fit index.68 14.88) 2. AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index.82 (1.26 14.71 0.75 0.152 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL TABLE 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Shopping Motivation Factor Items Factor Loading ( ij) t Value Reliability 0. contained three items characterized by nonpurchase shopping activities: just so that I can get out of the house. included such motivations as to get a snack and to have a meal at the food court and resulted .79 4.70 (1. This factor received the second highest shopping motivation mean score (M = 4.08 11.97 AGFI = 0. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.76 17.64 (1.84) 3. diversion motivation. 1972). The fourth factor.60 (2.47 (df = 54.56 0.71 0.18 (1. Kang et al. The importance of diversion as a shopping motivation is consistent with previous findings concerning why people shop in general (Bloch et al.73 M (SD) 2.20 (1. The third factor..67 0.76 0.80 0.51 (1.87) 5.65 0.71 0.07) Service motivation to visit medical/dental/vision care offices to use banking services to look at the interior design of malls Economic motivation to find good prices to hunt for a real bargain to comparison shop to find the best for my money Diversion motivation just so that I can get out of the house when I’m bored just to browse Eating-out motivation when I want to get a snack to have a meal at the food court Social motivation to watch people to simply enjoy the crowds Goodness of Fit Statistics 2 χ = 89.72 0.69 0.06 13.

Kim et al. such as meeting friends and watching people. The estimated measurement model presented in Table 2 consisted of 6 observed x variables for two loneliness factors. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 153 in a moderate mean score (M = 3. indicating that teens may enjoy social stimulation or a sense of belongingness as a secondary purpose of the mall visit. the measurement model was confirmed to be valid and reliable. there are two exogenous variables— intimate loneliness (ξ1) and social loneliness (ξ2)—and seven endogenous variables—media usage (η1 = audiovisual media. The fifth factor. media usage. all observed indicators were set free by standardizing all exogenous and endogenous latent variables because the magnitude of coefficient matrix (β’s or γ’s) for latent variables depends on one observed indicator arbitrarily selected as a referent for latent variables (Jöreskog & Sörbom.001).87. Measurement and Structural Models For testing hypotheses. η5 = diversion motivation. the coefficients of factor loading (λij) on latent constructs ranged from 0. whether they are alone or with friends. Measurement model. Therefore. contained two items: to watch people and to enjoy the crowd. . Reliabilities of latent variables ranged from 0. This factor represents that teens go to malls for social experiences. It consisted of observed exogenous indicators (x variables) for loneliness and observed endogenous indicators (y variables) for media usage and shopping motivations (see Table 2). The structural model tested causative relationships among latent variables (i. but it is an integral part of their visits.88 (p < .. The measurement model assessed how those latent variables are measured in terms of observed indicators and described the validity and reliability of the measurement. an analysis with simultaneous estimation of structural and measurement models was performed by using LISREL 8. Overall. and 13 observed y variables for five shopping motivation factors. to many teens. η4 = economic motivation. In the structural model.65). eating is not their primary purpose for visiting the mall. η6 = eating-out motivation.54 to 0. A moderate mean score also resulted for social motivation (M = 3. and shopping motivations). It is possible that. η7 = social motivation). To assess the measurement model. 4 observed y variables for media usage. loneliness.62 to 0. η2 = printed media) and shopping motivations (η3 = service motivation.44). social motivation. 1989).e.

99) 2.73 0.84) 5.93 (1.77) 2.70 .85 3.47(1.68 0.65 0.57 (1.09 (1.63) 4.88) 4.41(1.77 19.88 18.62) 2.95) 3.48) 5.71) 2.87 (1.87) 5.87) 5.82 0.82) 2.88 (1.13 (1.77 0.70) 2.88 0.99) 2.24 (1.65 21.77 0.67 14.11(1.34 15.80 M (SD) 0.83 0.70 16.63 0.86 (1.85 0.88) 2.65 0.81 19.84) 3.20 (1.77) 5.13 (1.70 (1.68 0.98(1.82 0.77) 0.78 14.67 19.76 17.94 0.88 21.35(1.42 14.81 (1.84(1.87 (1.82 20.33 14.44 13.87 23.31 (1.51 (1.63) 4.00 0.154 TABLE 2: The Measurement Model Result Latent Variables and Observed Indicators Loneliness Intimate loneliness (ξ1) X1: I feel isolated from others X2: I am unhappy being so withdrawn X3: I feel left out Social loneliness (ξ2) a X4: there are people I can turn to a X5: there are people I can talk to a X6: there are people who really understand me Media usage Audiovisual media (η1) Y1: television Y2: radio Printed media (η2) Y3: magazine Y4: newspaper Mall shopping motivation Service motivation (η3) Y5: to visit medical/dental/vision care office(s) Y6: to use banking services Y7: to look at the interior design of malls Economic motivation (η4) Y8: to find good prices Y9: to hunt for a real bargain Y10: to comparison-shop to find the best for my money Standardized Coefficients ( ij) t Value Reliability 0.95 0.68) 5.62) 2.86 0.70 0.61 (1.83 0.54) 5.

71 0.53) 4.81) 3.85 4.14 0.67 0.96) 4.07) 3.17) 155 .60 (2.70 (1. Items reverse coded before scoring.18 (1.65) 3.Diversion motivation (η5) Y11: just so that I can get out of the house Y12: when I am bored Y13: just to browse Eating-out motivation (η6) Y14: when I want to get a snack Y15: to have a meal at the food court Social motivation (η7) Y16: to simply enjoy the crowds Y17: to watch people a.75 0.70 0.54 0.27 7.86) 3.15 14.82 (1.81 11.66 10.90 (1.79 (1.18 0.70 (2.34 13.44 (1.65 (1.83 14. 0.63 0.64 (1.84) 3.96) 3.96) 4.69 0.62 8.

One item loaded on social motivation resulted in a low coefficient but was retained because one indicator for a latent construct is not considered adequate to verify a measurement model (Jöreskog & Sörbom. included five items: “I feel isolated from others.” “I am no longer close to anyone. Therefore. M. which supports a stronger relationship between friends or peers among teens (Berndt & Das. Conclusively. social loneliness. we first estimated a proposed structural model. To examine causal relationships among latent variables (i. However.87).” “I feel left out. Rokach. the mean of loneliness is below the midpoint.” and “There is no one I can turn to. two indicators for the latent Intimate Loneliness factor were removed due to the factor loading lower than 0.” and “There are people who really understand me.0. 2001). the latent variable of loneliness consisted of two latent factors: intimate loneliness (ξ1) measured by three indicators and social loneliness (ξ2) measured by three indicators (see Table 2). but it is very sensitive to a large sample size.e.3% of the total variance for loneliness.” Two factors accounted for 67.60. generated two factors whose eigenvalue was above 1.” “There are people I can turn to.” The second factor. The construct of audiovisual media usage (η1) consisted of two observed indicators of television and radio. followed by the modified model.13) is slightly higher than that of social loneliness (M = 2. Media usage was classified into two constructs: audiovisual media and printed media.156 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL Loneliness. diversion motivation (η5).60. eating-out motivation (η6). and shopping motivation). By confirming the Loneliness factor structure derived from the exploratory factor analysis.41) and printed media (M = 4. A descriptive analysis provided the mean scores for two media groups: audiovisual media (M = 5. and social motivation (η7). which may cause the risk of rejecting a valid model. through an exploratory factor analysis.98). A descriptive analysis of loneliness indicates that the mean score of intimate loneliness (M = 3. Shopping motivation was confirmed to have five constructs: service motivation (η3). media usage. economic motivation (η4). and three items were eliminated due to lower factor loadings below 0. . The first factor. intimate loneliness.. we used the bic statistic adopted by R. printed media usage (η2) consisted of two observed indicators of magazine and newspaper (see Table 2). 1987. 1989). Structural equation model. 2001) and positive nomination in a peer group (Eronen & Nurmi. loneliness. included three items: “There are people I can talk to. The χ2 value was first evaluated.” “I am unhappy being so withdrawn.

08. 1989).85 was significant (df = 205. which implies that the freed parameter (ψ21 = 0. because other fit statistics were not highly acceptable (GFI = 0. Models with lower (more negative) bic statistics are considered as better fit.056). The difference between the likelihood ratio test statistics of these two models was significant (χ2A-B = 169. Comparing Model C to Model B shows that a large change in χ2 compared to the difference in degrees of freedom was significant (χ2B-C = 91. and the bic statistic became negative (–17. However. RMSEA = 0. overall fit statistics of the proposed model suggested that the χ2 value of 706. Hauser & Wong. RMSEA = 0. and N is the sample size. Other fit indexes were also improved (GFI = 0. p < . / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 157 Hauser and Wong (1989) for posteriori tests: bic = L2 – df × log N. p < . p < .93. 1989. p < .08.70 (df = 203.001). R.89.001) and an improved negative bic statistic (–105. to improve the proposed model. AGFI = 0.001). df = 1. Thus. p < .77 (df = 204. The second modification index indicates the existence of a causal structural relationship (β63) between service motivation (η3) and eating-out motivation (η6).11) (Model B in Table 3). M. other indexes were not within the ranges to accept the proposed model (GFI = 0. Model C in Table 3 reveals a decreased χ2 value of 446. Bloch . and the bic of 149. df is the degree of freedom. AGFI = 0.001). As presented in Table 3.92. Although the overall fit of the model was improved. p < . we first introduced a partial covariance (ψ21) between two endogenous variables of audiovisual media (η1) and printed media (η2) based on maximum modification index.048).91.25 was positive. In addition.86..001) between two media usages imposed in our model is accepted (see Figure 1).001). where L2 is the likelihood ratio test statistic or χ2 when the sample size is large under the assumption of multivariate normality. AGFI = 0. it was discovered that a maximum modification index for causal relationship between diversion motivation and social motivation was high. which suggests that the overall fit of the model was improved. 1994. the difference between likelihood ratio test statistics for comparing two nested models is expressed as the difference between the two models in χ2 and degrees of freedom (Bagozzi & Yi. the χ2 value decreased to 537. As a result.90. RMSEA = 0.62. df = 1. we considered other modification indexes to improve the model fit. which reflects that diversion shopping motivation is linked to social aspects of shopping from the hedonic perspective (Barbin et al. Moreover.46).Kim et al.066).

91). which exceeded the 0.00) GFI = 0. 1994). the path (β75) from diversion motivation (η5) to social motivation (η7) was added in the model. other indexes were within ranges for accepting the model (GFI = 0. p = .26*** β61 = . The fit of Model D in Table 3 provided a decreased χ2 value of 414.01. **p < . The difference between Model C and D was significant (χ2C-D = 32. finally. The RMSEA was also .89. p < . p < .94 AGFI = 0. *p < . AGFI = 0.18* β32 = . which implies that the final modified Model D was acceptable. In addition.55 (df = 202. & Malehorn. 1994.16** γ42 = -.17** γ71= .91 RMSEA = 0.55 (df = 202. 1996).35*** γ52 = -. Longfellow.24** γ12 = -.94.05.67*** Eating-out Motivation (η6) β31 = -.. ***p < .15.158 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL Loneliness Media Usage Mall Shopping Motivation γ31= .001). et al. df = 1.18* β41 = . RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.19*** β75 = .62*** β62 = -.17** Social Motivation (η7) Social Loneliness (ξ2) Goodness of Fit Statistics 2 χ = 414.42*** Intimate Loneliness (ξ1) Service Motivation (η3) β63 = . Thus.21** Economic Motivation (η4) Audiovisual Media (η1) ψ21= . Roy.17** Printed Media (η2) Diversion Motivation (η5) γ22 = -.15* β51 = .045 Figure 1: Structural Model of Teens’ Mall Shopping Motivations NOTE: GFI = goodness of fit index.90 standard for model fit (Kelley.001) and a decreased bic statistic of –134.001. AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index.

Teens who are socially isolated . suggesting that lonely teens who feel isolated from others or feel left out are likely to be motivated to shop for enjoying a crowded mall atmosphere and retail environments.85* 537.001) and diversion motivation (γ52 = –.28.09. p < . Loneliness was significantly related to shopping motivations. banks) or enjoy interior design. The final structural model illustrated in Figure 1 includes significant standardized path coefficients.89 GFI 0. but the effects on shopping motivation differed by the Loneliness factor. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 159 TABLE 3: Summary of Goodness of Fit Statistics for Structural Models Model A. Accordingly. More specifically.55* NOTE: Bic = statistics based on Bayesian theory for posteriori tests. Therefore.77* 446. p < . Model C + β75 2 df 205 204 203 202 Bic 149.045 706.01).91 0. such as interiors and service centers.42. in turn. p < .001) was slightly greater than its direct effects on social motivation (0. *p < .94 AGFI 0. Model A + ψ21 C. Model B + β63 D. It is notable that the indirect effect of intimate loneliness on eating-out motivation via the Service Motivational factor (γ31 × β63 = 0.11 –105.001 reduced from 0. the final revised model illustrated in Figure 1 was deemed to be a very good fit.17)..066 to 0. this finding supports Hypothesis 1a.19.17.048 0.045. the Intimate Loneliness factor had positive direct effects on service motivation (γ31 = . whether it was intimate loneliness or social loneliness.89 0. As compared to intimate loneliness. leads to eating in food courts or snack corners.001) and social motivation (γ71 = 0. social loneliness resulted in significant negative effects on economic motivation (γ42 = –. Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis 1. Therefore.93 0. Proposed model B.25 –17. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation.86 0. p < . p < .Kim et al.g. Teens who feel emotionally isolated tend to enjoy being surrounded by the crowds and to use service centers (e. GFI = goodness of fit index. Hypothesis 1b mentioning that social loneliness will decrease mall shopping motivations is supported.056 0. AGFI = adjusted goodness of fit index.91 RMSEA 0.068 0. medical/dental/vision care offices. which indicates a better fit.01).70* 414.92 0. t = 5.17. which.90 0.46 –134.

.001). 1979). social loneliness negatively influenced both types of media usage: audiovisual media (γ12 = –. respectively. uninhibited parties. and comparison shopping. Hypothesis 2.e. magazine. p < . it had positive effects on economic motivation (β41 = 0. such as chat rooms or e-mail (Ferle et al. The finding that socially lonely teens who feel a lack of social networks were less likely to shop for diversion reflects Hirschman’s (1984) argument that a person who feels socially isolated participates in forbidden forms of consumption to meet his or her sensory desires (e. More specifically. Hypothesis 2.01). and eating-out motivation (β61 = 0..15. The effects of intimate loneliness and social loneliness on mall shopping motivations were opposite in direction. 1995. diversion motivation. p < .17. With respect to the relationship between loneliness and media usage. The positive effects of audiovisual media on economic motivation and eating-out motivation suggest that as teen exposure to television and radio commercials . Therefore. intimate loneliness was not significantly related to media usage. p < .18. Media usage is significantly related to four shopping motivations: service motivation. To the contrary. media uses (i.05). p < . Conclusively.26.18. and eating-out motivation. It may be that socially isolated teens use the Internet for social stimulation via interactive Web sites. drug and alcohol experimentation). radio.g.. the two dimensions of loneliness— intimate loneliness and social loneliness—play important roles as antecedents of different mall shopping motivations. diversion motivation (β51 = 0.16. whereas social loneliness was significantly related to media usage. audiovisual media usage resulted in a negative effect on service motivation (β31 = –. is not supported.160 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL were less likely to visit the mall for searching for good prices. television. Fetto. Teens who feel isolated from others may not benefit from media usage as an effective venue to alleviate their loneliness. economic motivation. Hypothesis 3. hunting for bargains.05). and newspaper) decrease. for teens. positive and negative.05). stating that teens’ selfperceived loneliness will increase media usage.. p < . 2002). This finding somewhat supports the literature that teen consumers who had many friends tended to be well informed and sophisticated because their friends or peers were primary sources of shopping information or knowledge (Lewis et al. 2000. however. that is. As teens feel more socially isolated. Moschis & Moore. p < .01) and printed media (γ22 = –.

Audiovisual media resulted in a negative indirect effect on eating-out motivation [(β31) × (β63) = –. whereas the printed media had a positive indirect effect on eating-out motivation [(β32) × (β63) = 0. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 161 increases.01). Shim.01) and a negative effect on eating-out motivation (β62 = –. the result supports that media usage is related to various shopping motivations (Bellenger & Korgaonkar. Bloch et al. t = 2. Considering Shim’s (1996) contention that the visual commercial media (e. Moschis. 1980.01]. Teens who used more printed media were likely to use more service providers. On the other hand. Loneliness exhibited as having two distinct dimensions: intimate isolation and social isolation. television) motivated teen consumers to shop for novelty or sensational and diversion needs.98. their knowledge of products and prices increases and results in visiting the mall for specific reasons. and Limitations This study tested the relationships between teens’ loneliness. Printed-media usage resulted in a positive effect on service motivation (β32 = 0.. p = 0. 1994) suggesting that consumers go to the mall for experiences offered by malls.48. Kang et al. This result is consistent with Shim’s (1996) finding that printed material was related to teens’ utilitarian consumer orientation. Moschis & Moore.21.g. whereas they were less likely to go to malls for having a meal or snack. and social motivation. Therefore.17. 1996).. Results support the related research (Bellenger & Korgaonkar. 1994. as well as the utility of consuming and buying process. Consequently. Roy. 1979. and mall shopping motivations.24. These two factors were linked to teens’ . Hypothesis 3 is partially supported. t = –2. 1996. Implications. media usage. the shopping mall can act as a venue to support their psychological needs. Conclusions. diversion motivation. Effects on teens’ mall shopping motivations differed by type of media used. 1976. p < .Kim et al.01]. p < . service motivation did not encourage heavy users of audiovisual media to eat out in the mall. Findings indicated that teens’ mall shopping motivations consisted of five dimensions: service motivation. Heavy users of printed media may be those shoppers who visit the mall for multiple purposes: using services and having meals or snacks on a single trip.14. eatingout motivation. Indirect effects were also found between two media usages and eating-out motivation via the mediating service motivation. 1980.. economic motivation. p < .

the mall should provide goal-oriented tenants or activities (e. such as meeting friends and solving loneliness. prestige. the critical role of shopping to alleviate teens’ loneliness provides a potential avenue for reshaping or recharacterizing the shopping mall. Usage of media seems to be related to different types of shopping motivations. and watch the crowds in the mall.e.. Audiovisual media usage (i.g. browsing) to alleviate boredom. radio) increased mall shopping for fulfilling diversion or economic motivations. For these teens. or restaurants need to be explored to ensure that they serve to fulfill socializing needs. reduced prices or comparison shopping). because socially isolated teens are not motivated by passive activities (e.. In particular. Malls can be established as multipurpose retail/community centers that provide appropriate intervention and treatment programs for lonely teens and supplement programs created by social agencies. cinema. Special mall events and exhibits might enhance this effect. given the fact that loneliness has been linked to a variety of other serious individual and social problems. Targeted television and radio messages could advertise malls’ special promotions. adolescent . vision care. This information can be used as a basis for developing media plans targeting teens.. including alcoholism (Nerviano & Gross. and shoe repair. In addition. These messages can be conveyed in an attractive and exciting shopping environment appealing to teens who need diversion from their routine daily life..162 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL media usage and particular shopping needs in the mall environment and thus encourage development of programs to meet these needs. The role of the mall becomes more important to meet this goal. eat. whereas printed media usage (i. television.e. Results increase the theoretical understanding of teen consumers’ shopping motivations and suggest directions for retailers and educators as they establish programs directed at teens. expressive mall attributes (e. attractive ambience) may be more important than economic mall attributes (e. enjoy interior design.g. the mall can provide them with opportunities to visit service providers. the formats of food courts. video arcade). newspaper) increased teens’ mall visits of service providers. such as hair styling. Retail business can boost teen socialization by providing entry-level jobs that are fun and exciting to teens. Magazines and newspapers could include information on the availability of services. For socially isolated teens.. 1976). sweepstakes. magazine.g. and complementary lines of products offered for comparison shopping. snack corners.g. For emotionally isolated teens..

mall retailers need to emphasize family-oriented products or services and special community events during weekends. Professionals working in the area of family and consumer sciences should consider programs to educate teens and parents to develop social ethics in shopping malls. 1994.Kim et al. 1997). geographical locations other than the major cities selected for this study should be considered to replicate the findings of the study. or using parents’ credit cards. it is argued that teens bring problems into malls via shoplifting. Research could focus on the need for a revised theoretical structure based on shopping motivation. 2002. and materialism (Carlson.g. music. theoretical considerations should be given to the shopping motivations of teen consumers for nontraditional channels of retailing. In addition. Darley. Mall owners and retailers should ensure that shopping malls are hospitable to teen consumers who are lonely by providing more socially supportive functions that can be performed by service agents and salespeople. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 163 delinquent behavior (Brennan & Auslander. 1977). clothing) or brand preference (Taylor & Cosenza. such as self-esteem.. Internet shopping). Laczniak. However.. The findings of this study should be interpreted with caution due to several limitations. the hypotheses set forth in this study specifically dealt with the shopping motivations of teen consumers with regard to mall shopping. They could provide teen-oriented social interactions. overspending. gender and ethnicity) and psychographic variables. such as special mall events (e. family communication pattern. With increasing debate on the vitality of mall shopping as challenged by growth in nonstore retailing (i. Unquestionably. The sampling was limited to major cities in limited geographic locations. and thus some malls enforce age restrictions for teens under age 16 unless they are accompanied by their parents or someone older than 19 years (Chatzky. and suicide (Wenz. In addition. . the antecedents of mall shopping motivation could include demographic (e. teens’ shopping associated with a specific product (e. Walsh. Likewise. 2002) should be examined for better understanding teens’ shopping motivations. & Grossbart. their experience can be enhanced by attractive décor and music directed at teen consumers. fashion shows) and exhibits.. 1999).g. 1998. 1979).e. For instance. Saelens. In addition.g.. Terlep.

(1995).. A. Survey: The young: Youth. A. N. & Sriram. 28(1). A. Ferle. Carlson. R. J. A. S. W. Journal of Consumer Research. February 28). Malls move to capture sales lost to the Net.. R. Adolescent loneliness: An exploratory study of social and psychological pre-dispositions and theory. The depersonalization of retailing: Its impact on the lonely consumer. On the evaluation of structural equation models. (1999). (1989). 53(2). (1977).. A guide for silver spoon parents.. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Bellenger. W. The shopping mall as consumer habitat. & Lee. Teen chatter.164 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL REFERENCES Anderson. Brennan. Journal of Early Adolescence. 29-38. Journal of Consumer Research. 16(5). 16(1). Larson. P. 38-46. Shopping center patronage motives. (1987). Journal of Youth & Adolescence.. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 14. & Nelson. Baker. Leisure and the shopping mall. Ridgway. G. A. B. & Nurmi. H. 24(5).. J. (1994). March 8). Jr. Bloch.. J. Barbin. (2000). Ridgway. The mall as entertainment: Exploring teen girls’ total shopping experiences. 28. & Yi. 23-35. P. 7.. Berndt. & Moschis. Nation’s Restaurant News. Fetto. 82. N. Z. 33(10). 14. (2000. & Grossbart. J. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. Laczniak. & Das. Bloch. (2000). M. D. 7(1). Robertson. J. 41(9). 77-92. Journal of Retailing. & Greenberg. P. B. J. Darley. Cebrzynski. 25(3). (1995). Advertising Age. 357(8202). M. 203-213. 18(1). Television and interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning. N.. V. 25-53. Journal of Retailing.. T.. (1994).. 40(3). Journal of Retailing. D. (2001). Darden. Y. 70(1). and behaviors of children and mothers. Time. P. 23-42. and cognitive-motivational antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Behavioral Development. Adolescents’ uses of media for self-socialization. D. 67(2). K. Restaurants may want to get wired to reach Generation Y youths. W. D. Ebenkamp. 20(4). N. Beyond effects: Adolescents as active media users. Unpublished manuscript. S9-S10. (1979). Bandweek. Edwards. Psychology & Marketing. J. R.. 71(32). (1979).. (1994). Chatzky. Boulder. (2002. (1991). American Demographics. 74-94. & Auslander. C. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. June 17). Eronen.. D. M. & Dawson. (1999. CO: Behavioral Research Institute. L.. Sociometric status of young adults: Behavioral correlates. Journal of Shopping Center Research. G. S. Teens’ use of traditional media and the Internet. The relationship of antecedents of search and self-esteem to adolescent search effort and perceived product knowledge. P. N. Family communication patterns and marketplace motivations. Walsh. S.. R. Journal of Advertising Research. Profiling the recreational shopper. 511-518. Teen-Y shoppers. (1980). T. & Haytko. attitudes. K. 409-427. Churchill. 445-452. & Offer. . The Economist. 24(5). E.. Effects of popularity and friendship on perceptions of the personality and social behavior of peers. M. C. 644-656. L. & Griffin. Cuneo. (2000). S. L. J... Arnett. Forman. Advances in Consumer Research.. Bellenger. 519-533. G. 429-439.. Bagozzi. (2000). 6(1). 226-243. Inc.. Arnett. R. 55-65. B. J. Journal of Retailing. 29-58. & Korgaonkar. 56(3). (2002). J. A. (1991). 24(4). 159(24).

E. Busy teenagers. 7R. (1997). L. 27-62.). Huston. and solitude: Age differences and developmental significance during adolescence. L.. 12(1). and deviant discretion. M. Gullotta (Eds. and self-esteem in college students. Loneliness. At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. p. B. J. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hauser. & Goossens. Goff. J. Multivariate data analysis (4th ed. Windows LISREL 8. S. Parental and peer influences on the clothing purchases of female adolescent consumers as a function of discretionary income. W. creative. R. Kim.12a. Teen-agers turn heartthrobs for eager publishers. R. R. (1995). S. Motivational factors of mall shoppers: Effects of ethnicity and age. K. 149-171. S. Problem behaviors. Cambridge. At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. Marcoen. J. K.). distress. Hirschman.. 4(2). M. (1996). 197-228). 395-410. G. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences. Kang. Y. A. Adolescence and its social worlds (pp. . & Black. L. Experience seeking: A subjectivist perspective of consumption. NJ: Prentice Hall. D. C. family social support. May 13). & Sörbom. R. 70(18). McWhirter. S. & Bowlds. (1999.. Newbury Park. American Demographics. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal. S.. and adaptation. Longfellow. (2000). Don’t miss the bus! American Demographics. Graham. & Malehorn.Kim et al. Journal of Early Adolescence. Journal of Shopping Center Research.. & Wong. Adams. L. Englewood Cliffs. Hauser. R.... Dyer. Lee. & Tuan. Journal of Counseling & Development. (1988. D. Jackson & H. Stress. In S. G. F. Journal of Retailing. Chicago: Scientific Software International. coping. Sibling resemblance and intersibling effects in educational attainment. Jöreskog. Cambridge. K. MA: Harvard University Press. W.. learned resourcefulness. E. (1987). (1989). 21(8). Y. (1990). Kim. (1993). S. Tatham. J. (1995). & Sörbom. & Moran.. 15-20. In S. Kelly. T.). Feldman & G. Rodriguez-Tome (Eds. & Alvarez. L. Gender differences in the psychological symptomatology and coping strategies of young adolescents.. & Rudd.. (1990). M. 20(7). and well-being in high school seniors. Jöreskog.). Lennon. M. A. From childhood to adolescence: A transitional period? (pp. 7-31. 48-54. (1998). J. The call of the mall. D. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 165 Freeman. CA: Sage.. 75(6). C. S8. Organizational determinants of service employees’ exercise of routine. In R. 37-38. Stress. April 28). (1997). Kostelecky. 463-488. Elliott (Eds. S. (1999). 414-430). E. (1996). Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal. G. C. Anderson. attitudes aloneness. Feldman & G. Consumer perception of shopping costs and its relationship with retail trends. Elliott (Eds. 115-136. 3(1). MA: Harvard University Press. The socialization context of gender role development in early adolescence.). Journal of Shopping Center Research.. 7. 125-145. (1993). 72(2). W. (1984). Journal of Business Research. & T. & Kang.. M. Montemayor. C. 460-469. L. 62(3). K. T. Advertising Age. N. Hair. The Wall Street Journal. D.. (1989). (1998). L. LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed. Kurdek. C. 135-157. 27(2). & Lempers. 156-182). McGrath..). Sociology of Education.. McCord. Loneliness. Lewis. 87. J. (1990). Compulsive consumption tendencies among television shoppers. J. 388-413).. T. Chicago: JÖRESKOG and SÖRBOM/SPSS Inc. In S. 28(4).

W. & Churchill. C. Adolescents’ use of socially disvalued media: Toward a theory of media delinquency. Richardson. G. (2002). A. L. Journal of Retailing. Russell. Retrieved from www. D. Rokach. L. Terlep. Moschis. (1981). G. consumers. A longitudinal study of television advertising effects. (1983). Drug & Cosmetic Industry. 15A-17A. “The survey says”: Teen-agers want to shop ’til they drop. 61-70. family perspective. 72(3). Moschis. 39(3).). MA: Lexington Books. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. R. Hispanic and Native American adolescents: An exploratory study of their approach to shopping..com/editionssummer97/061297/nw_mall. Journal of Consumer Marketing.. Adolescent consumer decision-making styles: The consumer socialization perspective. Taylor. A. & Cutrona. Moschis. K. R. & Cosenza. Journal of Consumer Research. Personality.. J. Loneliness and locus of control for alcoholic males: Validity against Murray need and Cattell trait dimensions. Lexington.com/editionsspring98/032798/ci_mall. Current Psychology: Development. Newbury Park. G. (1972). J. (1997. Correlates of mall visit frequency. In R. Profiling later aged female teens: Mall shopping behavior and clothing choice.166 FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL Moore.. Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory. D. L. 60. (1980). August). 32. 6. 3-18. Tauber. (1979). P.html Shim. Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing. Saelens. M. F. Consumer behavior (4th ed. R. P. 46-49. (1976). (1998). (1993. (1996). Bill may limit mall-goers. L. Englewood Cliffs. 1-8. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. Milardo (Ed. P. Understanding generation Y: A look at the next wave of U. C. 20(1). D. Roe. (1987). The impact of newspaper reading on adolescent consumers. (1979). Shopping orientations and consumer uses of information. N. 617-631. Shim. 43(3). Peplau. New York: John Wiley. R. attributes and coping. L. 24(5). (1976). 393-408. M. (1982). Families and social networks (pp. Social. P. S. Journal of Clinical Psychology. & Moore. March 27).. J. Retrieved from www.. E. Moschis. (1994). 307-324. 190-220). pp. G. 91-96. S. 163(6). Decision making among the young: A socialization perspective..S. Journal of Marketing. S. “Consumers in the 1990s”: No time or money to burn. 547-569. (1994. & Moore. research and therapy. Learning. (1996). E. (1988). Omelia. 279-286. & Schultz.. L. June 12). Strategies of coping with loneliness throughout the lifespan. (1998. P. 90-92. pp. 40-48. G. & Gross. Journal of Consumer Research. (2001). A. Journal of Retailing. 36. P. C. 36-45. The State News. E. Loneliness: A life-span. C.). Senate mulls letting malls limit teen-agers. 1-8. R. Mowen. (1995). K. Chain Store Age Executive. S. November). CA: Sage. Loneliness at adolescence: Correlates. G. Moschis.. A. Stone. Psychology & Marketing. G. Newspaper Research Journal. 52(2). 101-112. Nerviano. (1980). & Moschis. G. The State News. P. Journal of Retailing. City shoppers and urban identification: Observations on the social psychology of city life. (1954). P. American Journal of Sociology. Consumer socialization. 139-161.statenews. Perlman. Rubenstein. 19(5). 70(2).. & Shaver.. 9(3). An analysis of the adolescent consumer. Roy.statenews. (1995). 479-484. & Gehrt. 13(6). 12. NJ: Prentice Hall. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. 2(4). V. Moore. Chain Store Age Executive. 472-480.html .

(1995).).. D. American Demographics. Weiss. J. Englewood Cliffs. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal. P. S. F. (1977). (1998). Z. (1977). Seasonal suicide attempts and forms of loneliness. and media on adolescent clothing choice. Wenz. 17(11). Wilson. & Wartella. Self-perceived influences of family. The provisions of social relationships. M. Rubin (Ed. 40. Wackman. NJ: Prentice Hall.Kim et al. 26(4). . 425-443. B. & MacGillivray. (1974). Psychological Report. 807-810. Beverly Hills.. Talking to teens. / TEENS’ MALL SHOPPING MOTIVATIONS 167 Ward. CA: Sage. 22-28. 17-26). R. How children learn to buy: The development of consumer information-processing skills. friends.. Doing unto others (pp. Zollo. E. In Z.