Blog
Guest book

As discussed in the previous chapter, this study involved consumer perceptions and attitudes toward prototypical EDLP and "high-low" stores based on simple descriptions of each store rather than actual shopping experience. Thus, it was not possible to test those hypotheses proposing actual behavior. Instead, hypotheses related to shopping enjoyment, attitudinal evaluation, repurchase propensity, and perceived value received are examined.

Reliabilities.

Reliabilities for the scales employed are indicated in Table 7.

All scales meet the alpha standard of 0.6 for exploratory studies proposed by Nunnally (1978).

Independent variable: Optimal Stimulation Level (OSL).

Subjects scored a mean OSL level of 4.53 with a standard deviation of 22.10. This mean departs dramatically from the norm mean of 35 (with a standard deviation of 27) reported by Mehrabian (1978). The kurtosis of the present sample is -.238, with a standard error of 0.257. Compared to the expected value of 3.0 for a normal symmetric distribution, this figure suggests a very flat distribution. It should be noted, however, that the kurtosis, which relies on the fourth moment of the distribution, is extremely sensitive to outliers, and thus, this figure should be interpreted with caution. The skewness coefficient of this sample is –0.017, with a standard error of .129. This difference is not significantly different from zero, suggesting that there are no major departures from normality in the distribution of the scores. The issue of the significant differences between the scores of this sample and those of the norm group will be considered in the discussion section of this chapter as well as in the general discussion in chapter 7.

Manipulation checks.

The reported levels of arousal associated with the "high-low" and EDLP retail formats were compared. Results indicate that subjects perceived the "high-low" store as more arousing, with a mean rating of 25.12 (s.d.=3.72, n=136), than the EDLP store at 21.885 (s.d.=3.60, n=136, t₁₃₅=6.42, one-tailed p=.000). Thus, the manipulation appears to have been effective.

Results.

The hypotheses proposed an interaction whereby low OSL subjects would tend to rate EDLP stores more favorably than "high-low" stores while high OSL subjects would evaluate "high-low" stores more favorably than EDLP stores. For four out of the five hypotheses, results support the prediction for high OSL subjects but not for the low OSL subjects. Perceived value differentials between the two stores did not depart significantly from zero for either group.

Hypothesis 1 generally proposed that consumers would evaluate a store more favorably when the price environment is more consistent with his or her preferred stimulation level than when it is not. This hypothesis and the ones that follow can be tested by considering differences between a subject's evaluation of the EDLP store and that of the "high-low" store. The difference score, based on the hypothesis, would be expected to be positive for high OSL subjects and negative for low OSL subjects. As indicated in row 1 of Table 8, results for subjects’ overall evaluation of the store support only the prediction for high OSL subjects (t₆₇=2.252, p>0.02). The prediction that low OSL subjects would prefer the EDLP environment is not supported. (t₆₉=-0.57, p<0.5). That is, while high OSL subjects rate the "high-low" store more favorably, low OSL subjects do not differ significantly in their evaluation of the two stores. The contrast between the two groups is marginally significant (t₁₃₄=-1.54, one-tailed p=0.063). It should be noted that within the present research setting, this difference in evaluation patterns does not appear to predict actual store choice. As indicated in Table 9, a slight majority of subjects in both OSL groups actually chose the EDLP store. A chi-square test suggests that there is no dependence of OSL and store choice (c ₁2=7.19, p=0.66).

Table 9

Subject Store Choice by OSL

Hypothesis 1a suggested that subjects would evaluate more favorably the retail environment most consistent with his or her preferred stimulation level; i.e., high OSL subjects should display a more favorable attitude toward "high-low" stores, but low OSL subjects should hold a more favorable attitude toward EDLP stores. Results indicated in row 2 of Table 8 show high OSL subjects did indeed rate the "high-low" store more favorably (t₆₈=2.43, p<.01). However, low OSL subjects did not differ in their evaluations (t₆₆=-0.155, p<0.5). The contrast between the two groups is marginally significant (t₁₃₂=-1.60, p=0.056). Thus, this hypothesis receives some support.

Hypothesis 1b proposed that high OSL subjects would report greater pleasure shopping in a "high-low" pricing environment, but low OSL subjects would report greater pleasure in the EDLP environment. As reported in row 3 of table 8, high OSL subjects’ ratings are significantly in the predicted direction (t₆₇=3.141, p<0.01). However, the difference scores of low OSL subjects do not depart significantly from zero (t₆₆=0.290, p>0.5). The contrast between the two groups is marginally significant (t₁₃₁=-1.43, p=0.078).

Hypothesis 1d suggested a higher proposed repurchase propensity under an OSL congruent price-environment. Results presented in Row 4 of Table 8 indicate that differences for high OSL subjects are significant in the predicted direction (t₆₉=3.794, p<.001). Differences for low OSL subjects are not (t₇₀=0.440, p<0.5). The contrast between the two groups reveals a significant difference (t₁₃₆=-2.05, p=0.022). Thus, the hypothesis is only partially supported.

Hypothesis 1e suggested that subjects would spend more time in a store featuring an OSL congruent price-environment. This hypothesis is not testable in the present study.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that subjects would rate the value provided higher in the OSL-congruent, as opposed to incongruent, price-environment. Comparing the difference-scores in value-ratings of each environment, as presented in row 5 of Table 8, it is evident that neither high OSL subjects (t₆₈=0.396, p<0.4) nor low OSL subjects (t₇₀=-0.825, p<0.3) differ significantly in their evaluations of the two stores. Further, the contrast between the two groups is insignificant (t₁₃₅=-0.97, p=0.193). Thus, this hypothesis is not supported.

Hypothesis 3 suggested that effects of prior reference prices could not account for any differences in retail format evaluation. This hypothesis is not testable in the context of the present study, where subjects were exposed to a general description of the respective stores rather than to specific prices. Hypotheses 4a and 4b relate to the moderating effect of the presence of an additional source of stimulation in the retail store. These hypotheses, again, were not testable in the present study.

Discussion

The results do not support the hypothesized interaction of OSL and price environment in the evaluation of retail stores. However, with the exception of the hypothesized rating of perceived value, high OSL subjects consistently evaluated the "high-low" store more favorably. Low OSL subjects proved to be relatively insensitive to the retail price format.

The results seem to suggest that while the "high-low" price environment provides benefits for the high OSL shopper, it neither adds to nor subtracts from the experience of the low OSL shopper. Future research is needed to examine the mechanism by which the store price environment influences the consumers’ experience and evaluations. One possible explanation is that while the "high-low" environment allows the high OSL consumer to become involved in the shopping process with the arousal that this process entails, the low OSL consumer can ignore price changes based on the assumption that gains and losses from products going on and off sale will roughly cancel out each other.

Hypothesis 2, which proposed that an OSL congruent price environment would result in evaluations of greater value received, was not supported. In Chapter 2, it was noted as a rationale for this hypothesis that consumers who chose EDLP could support this choice with the common advertising message in which EDLP stores extol the overall savings that they provide the consumer. "High-low" shoppers might base a perception of savings on the significant efforts that they make in searching for good values. Although this reasoning makes sense, it is not as compelling as that behind Hypothesis 1. Thus, in retrospect, it seems reasonable that the second hypothesis failed to be supported to the extent that the first one was. It should also be noted that even if some effect of OSL on perceived value in a retail price environment exists, the modest effect sizes typically encountered in individual difference research may have