• No results found

Online grocery shopping : empirical study on how time pressure, price sensitivity and shopping enjoyment influence the intention to purchase groceries online compared to offline

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Online grocery shopping : empirical study on how time pressure, price sensitivity and shopping enjoyment influence the intention to purchase groceries online compared to offline"

Copied!
75
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Master Thesis

Online Grocery Shopping

Empirical study on how time pressure, price sensitivity and shopping enjoyment influence the intention to purchase groceries online compared to offline

Student: Maria Marstrand Student number: 11126574

MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Antoon Meulemans Date: 24.06.2016

(2)

II

Statement of originality

This document is written by Maria Marstrand, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in

creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

Acknowledgement

This master thesis is the final step in obtaining my masters degree in business

administration at the University of Amsterdam. It has been a great learning experience to write the thesis, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to deep-dive into one of my favorite topics, the development of online shopping. However without the help of others this would not have been possible. I would therefore like to first thank my supervisor, Antoon Meulemans, for all his advice and encouraging mood. Secondly, I would like to thank all the people that took the time to participate in my research. And last but not least, my family and especially Henning Rix for supporting and believing in me. I hope you will enjoy reading this thesis.

(3)

III

Abstract

This thesis focuses on online grocery shopping from a consumer perspective. Online grocery shopping has been growing rapidly in recent years, and it is therefore important for retailers to understand what motivates consumers to purchase groceries online and the differences between the online and offline channel. The three different motives, which are looked upon are; time pressure, shopping enjoyment and price sensitivity including

delivery fee. It is also investigated whether personality traits, extroversion and

innovativeness have a moderating affect. Data was collected first-hand through a survey with a non-probability sample of 233 participants who do either grocery shopping online and/or offline. The results show that even though time saving is often stated to be one of the main advantages of online grocery shopping, consumers that are time pressured do not have a higher intention to purchase groceries online over offline. Instead, consumers who have a low shopping enjoyment offline have a higher intention to purchase groceries online over offline. Consumers who perceive shopping enjoyment to be high online also have a higher intention to shop online over offline, which is caused by convenience online. Price sensitivity does not have an impact on the intention to purchase online over offline. However, it was found that consumers who accept to pay a delivery fee have a higher intention to purchase online. This is explained by the higher perceived convenience when online grocery shopping. Personality traits, extroversion and innovativeness do not appear to have any moderating effect.

Keywords: online grocery shopping, offline grocery shopping, time pressure, shopping enjoyment, price sensitivity, innovativeness, extroversion, convenience

(4)

IV

Table of content

1. Introduction ... 1 1.1 Gap ... 3 1.2 Research question ... 4 1.3 Outline ... 4 2. Literature review ... 4

2.1 Time pressure & convenience ... 4

2.1.1 Time pressure ... 5 2.1.2 Time saving ... 6 2.1.3 Shopping enjoyment ... 7 2.1.4 Convenience ... 8 2.1.5 Quality of products ... 11 2.2 Price sensitivity... 12 2.2.1 Delivery fees ... 12 2.2.2 Money saving ... 13 2.2.3 Shopping frequency ... 14 2.3 Consumer characteristics ... 15 2.3.1 Socio-demographics ... 15 2.3.2 Innovativeness ... 16 2.3.3 Extroversion ... 17 2.4 Conceptual model ... 19 3. Method ... 19 3.1 Research design ... 19 3.2 Sampling ... 20 3.3 Survey flow ... 20 3.4 Pilot test ... 22 3.5 Measurements of variables ... 22 3.5.1 Independent variables ... 22 3.5.2 Dependent variable ... 24

3.5.3 Moderators and mediator ... 24

3.6 Participants ... 25

3.6.1 Socio-demographic profile ... 25

3.6.2 Descriptors of online grocery shoppers ... 27

3.6.3 Purchase intention vs. purchase behavior ... 28

4. Results ... 29 4.1 Data preparation... 29 4.2 Multiple regression ... 32 4.3 Moderators ... 36 4.3.1 Innovativeness ... 36 4.3.2 Extroversion ... 39 4.4 Mediator ... 41 4.5 Summary of results ... 45 5. Discussion ... 46 5.1 Empirical findings ... 46 5.2 Implications ... 47

(5)

V

5.2.1 Theoretical implications ... 47

5.2.2 Managerial implications ... 49

5.3 Limitations & further research ... 51

6. Conclusion ... 52

7. References ... 54

8. Appendix ... 59

Appendix 1: Stimulus-Response Model ... 59

Appendix 2: Survey questions ... 59

Appendix 3: Socio-demographics of survey participants ... 69

(6)

1

1. Introduction

Most consumers in Europe have access to the Internet and buy products online frequently. However, some product categories are more popular to buy online than others. As seen in figure 1, the most popular product categories to buy online are clothing and footwear, followed by home electronics and books. Food is one of the least popular categories to buy online.

Figure 1: Number of people (in millions) that bought in the various product categories online in 2015 (PostNord, 2015)

Grocery shopping through the Internet has had difficulties in acquiring consumers, and the growth of the channel has been much slower than anticipated (Hansen, 2005; Punakivi & Saranen, 2001; Wohlsen, 2014). One of the reasons behind this is that many consumers are simply happy with their usual shopping in the supermarket and do not see the added value of online grocery shopping (A.T.Kearney, 2012). The online grocery channel is therefore still in its infancy stage but in recent years it has experienced high growth (Lim, Widdows & Hooker, 2009). In Germany the online grocery channel

experienced a growth of 38 % between 2013 and 2014, and in the Netherlands it grew 55 % the same year (Syndy, 2015). Still, it is a low percentage of consumers who buy

groceries online. In Germany, 13 % of the consumers bought groceries online in 2015, which was 2 % more than previous year. In the Nordics 7 % and in the Netherlands also 7 %, which was 4 % more than the previous year (PostNord, 2015). From this point on, this

(7)

2 thesis will mainly focus on Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, and use these

countries as examples when appropriate since most of the participants in this study are from these countries.

Grocery shopping differs from other types of shopping due to the level of consumer involvement, enjoyment and frequency of shopping (Verhoef & Langerak, 2001). Grocery shopping has to be done frequently and is a repetitive activity (Chu, Chintagunta, & Cebollada, 2008). The consumer involvement is therefore relatively low, and also the shopping enjoyment is low among many consumers (Huang & Oppewal, 2006). However there are also consumers that enjoy grocery shopping in the supermarket, and see it as a social and recreational activity (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005).

As already mentioned, grocery shopping has to be done frequently and is

therefore a time consuming activity, especially when doing traditional grocery shopping in the supermarket. Consumers that buy groceries online most often state time saving and convenience to be the main advantages of online grocery shopping compared with grocery shopping in the supermarket (Morganosky & Cude, 2000). Pechtl (2003) indicate that this is connected to the flexibility of shopping online 24/7, being independent of opening hours and the opportunity of home delivery. Other important advantages of online grocery

shopping are also price and product range (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005).

The main disadvantage of online grocery shopping is that consumers cannot examine (feel, touch or smell) and determine the freshness of the products before purchase. Consumers are therefore concerned with receiving inferior quality when shopping groceries online compared with offline where the consumers can handpick the products themselves (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005).

Morganosky & Cude (2000) have found that the majority of consumers that

purchase groceries online also purchase groceries offline. In their study of consumers that do online grocery shoppers, it was found that 19 % only buy in the online channel and that the rest buy both online and offline. Many households use the online channel as an

extension to the offline channel because it has more flexible hours and alleviates the burden of grocery shopping (Chu, Arce-Urriza, Cebollada-Calvo, & Chintagunta, 2010).

(8)

3 The items that are bought online can typically be divided into two categories. These are 1) single picked items and 2) food and fruit boxes. The single items are items that the consumer decides, and the food and fruit boxes are usually concepts that are pre-decided by the retailer. Food and fruit boxes can be ordered both as a subscription and on demand. In 2015, 67 % of the consumers that purchased groceries online in Denmark bought single items, while 20 % bought food and fruit subscription boxes, and 13 % bought products from both categories (FDIH, 2015).

The rise of new successful pure online players such as HelloFresh in Germany and the Netherlands and Nemlig.com in Denmark are also part of the growth of online grocery shopping in the last couple of years in these countries.

The rapid growth within the last years shows a lot of potential for online grocery shopping in the future. It is therefore important for retailers to understand the reasons why consumers use the online channel or continue only shopping offline. It is also relevant for retailers to understand whether there is a difference in personality between consumers that use the online / offline grocery channel. This insight can help retailers attract new consumers that have not yet tried the online grocery channel and how to retain existing consumers.

1.1 Gap

Many researchers have looked at the intention and purchase behavior in the online

grocery channel (Morganosky & Cude, 2000; Huang & Oppewal, 2006; Ramus & Nielsen, 2005) but few (Verhoef & Langerak, 2001; Chu, Arce-Urriza, Cebollada-Calvo, &

Chintagunta, 2010) have compared the online channel with the offline channel. Most research about the online grocery channel has also been conducted in the beginning of the millennium when online grocery shopping was predicted to take off. The online grocery shopping is still evolving and according to Hansen (2005), it is therefore important that consumer research is continuously repeated and modified. This study will provide a snapshot of current purchase intention differences between the online and offline channel and how these intention differences are affected by personality traits.

(9)

4

1.2 Research question

Many different factors influence  consumers’  decision  on  whether  or  not  to  buy  groceries online / offline. However since it is beyond the scope of this thesis to look at all factors, this study focuses on three specific factors that are important to understanding more about consumers’  motivation  and personality. These factors are believed to have a great impact on the development of online grocery shopping in the near future. This thesis will therefore answer the following question:

How do time pressure, shopping enjoyment and  price  sensitivity  affect  consumers’   intention to buy groceries online compared with offline? Mediated by convenience and moderated by extroversion and innovativeness.

1.3 Outline

The thesis is divided into 8 chapters and already started with chapter 1, the introduction. In the next chapter, chapter 2 a review of the existing literature will be presented along with hypotheses. In chapter 3 the methodology chosen is presented and in chapter 4, the data analysis and results. Lastly, the results and implications of this study will be discussed in chapter 5, followed by a last conclusion in chapter 6. In chapter 7 and 8, the references and appendixes are shown.

2. Literature review

In the literature review, existing literature about grocery shopping online / offline with a focus on time pressure, convenience, price sensitivity, shopping enjoyment and

personality traits will be looked upon. The chapter is divided into three parts; time pressure & convenience, price sensitivity and consumer characteristics. As it will be shown in the review, many of the factors are highly related to each other, and the parts are therefore sometimes overlapping. Hypotheses will be given throughout the review and at the end of the chapter a conceptual model will be presented.

2.1 Time pressure & convenience

Convenience and time saving are the advantages that are most often given by consumers for buying groceries online (Huang & Oppewal, 2005; Morganosky & Cude, 2000). This

(10)

5 section will review different factors relevant to time pressure and convenience when

buying groceries online and offline. 2.1.1 Time pressure

Srinivasan and Ratchford (1991) describe time pressure as the degree to which

consumers consider themselves busy. Time pressure also refers to the degree in which consumers consider time a scarce resource (Konuş,  Verhoef,  &  Neslin,  2008). In general, time is becoming more and more scarce for consumers and therefore they want to spend their time as efficiently as possible (Quix & van der Kind, 2014).

In Denmark consumers find that they do not have enough time and find

themselves busy. The Danish daily newspaper Berlingske, which is one of three biggest high quality newspapers in Denmark, has done an extensive research in collaboration with Gallup, a Danish research institute, on Danes and their perceived time pressure. In the survey, 42 % of Danes agree or highly agree that they often have too little time (Nissen, Nielsen, & Bojesen, 2015). At the same time, 24 % of the Danes also feel that they are more busy than most people they know (Nissen et al., 2015).

More people also feel stressed than twenty years ago. The National Institute of Public Health in Denmark (Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, 2007) has looked at the development of stress in the time period 1987 to 2005 and found the stress tend to be an increasing phenomenon as seen in figure 2. Generally women also feel more stressed than men and especially women in the age group 25-44 years. This is also supported by a report from RockwoolFonden, which has found that two out of three mothers with pre-school children feel stressed either sometimes or almost all the time (Nissen et al., 2015) Figure 2: Percentage of Danes feeling stressed divided by gender and age groups

(11)

6 However, why do 42 % of the Danes feel that they often have too little time? Both Denmark and also the Netherlands and Germany are among the top 5 of countries in the world with the shortest working weeks (Kurtz, 2013). In Denmark people work on average 33 hours a week and have five weeks of paid holiday a year (Kurtz, 2013). In Germany, people on average work 35 hours a week and in the in the Netherlands they only work 9 hours a week on average, the lowest of any industrialized nation.

Quix & van der Kind (2014) suggest that time has become more dynamic, and that it can no longer be divided into blocks of 3 x 8, meaning 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work and 8 hours of free time. The distinction between working time and free time is no longer as clear as previously, and many personal things are done during work hours and work is being done in the free time e.g. checking e-mails in the evening and during the weekends. This can increase the perception of feeling busy, as consumers are never really off work, but it can also help the flexibility of consumers as they can for example order groceries online while they are at work.

Consumers’  expectations  on what they should have time for in their free time is also high. People want to have time to do sports, spend time with friends and family, travel and many other things. In Denmark, 29 % of people do sports 2-3 times a week, and 25 % spend 2-3 hours with their friends a week going to cafés and similar (Nissen et al., 2015). 66 % of Danes also spend one or more hours per day on watching TV-shows and

entertainment. These are incorporated activities in consumer’s  life  and  things they want to have time for.

2.1.2 Time saving

Online grocery shopping offers consumers the opportunity to save time and make grocery shopping more convenient, as the items can be ordered online around the clock (24/7) and be delivered home (Pechtl, 2003). Time saving is also one of the most stated reasons why consumers choose to shop groceries online (Huang & Oppewal, 2006; Morganosky & Cude, 2000). In a study about consumers’  response  to  online  grocery  shopping,  

Morganosky & Cude (2000) found that online grocery shopping saved them either a lot of time or some time. However when starting to ordering groceries online, it can take time to get to know the system, website and how it works. Some respondents therefore found that online grocery shopping online did not save them time yet but they expected that with

(12)

7 experience, it would in the future (Morganosky & Cude, 2000). Other researchers have also found that ordering time decreases with experience. Boyer, Hult & Frohlich (2003) have found that it takes four to five times of ordering online before customers become really confident with the system and website. In their study they looked at three different food retailers in the UK and found that first time customers online on average spend 40 minutes per order while the average order time for customers that have ordered six times are down to 25-30 minutes in order time (Boyer et al., 2003)

It is therefore likely that busy consumers are more open to shop groceries online due to time saving advantages. Verhoef & Langerak (2001) have already found that there is a positive relationship between time pressure and the relative advantage of using the online channel for grocery shopping. This suggests that busy consumers use online grocery shopping as a mean to reduce time pressure associated with traditional grocery shopping in the supermarket. The first hypothesis is therefore the following:

H1: The higher the perceived time pressure, the higher the intention to purchase groceries online compared with offline will be.

2.1.3 Shopping enjoyment

As already mentioned time is a scarce resource, and people are therefore becoming more selective in what they spend their free time on (Quix & van der Kind, 2014). The time they have available is very precious and most people want to spend that time on things they enjoy, and this is usually not grocery shopping. A survey conducted by Peapod, a big American online food retailer, suggests that people see grocery shopping as a chore they dislike the most next to going to the dentist (Huang & Oppewal, 2006). In other words, for many consumers, the shopping enjoyment for grocery shopping is relatively low. This can also be explained by the fact that groceries are low involvement products (Verhoef & Langerak, 2001). Grocery shopping has to be done frequently and products are bought on routine behavior since it has to be done frequently. Due to this reason grocery shopping might derive less enjoyment than when shopping for other type of products such as apparel and shoes.

On the other hand, other consumers also enjoy grocery shopping. Grocery shopping in the supermarket can be seen as a social experience and a place to meet

(13)

8 other people in the community or people with similar interests. Tauber (1972) is one of the first to look into the motives on why people shop, and found the following five social

shopping motivations: 1) social experience outside the home, 2) communicating with others that have similar interests, 3) peer group attraction, 4) increasing social status and experiencing authority (in regards to the store personal who have to service and fulfill customer wishes), and 5) bargaining and negotiating for lower price in store. Shopping is therefore not only about purchasing products but also about satisfying social and personal needs. Based on the above, the second and third hypotheses are the following:

H2: The lower the perceived shopping enjoyment offline, the higher the intention to purchase groceries online compared with offline will be.

H3: The higher the perceived shopping enjoyment online, the higher the intention to purchase groceries online compared with offline will be.

2.1.4 Convenience

Part of time saving is the convenience that is connected to shopping groceries online. Morgansky & Cude (2000); Ramus & Nielsen (2005) all agree that convenience is one of the key drivers behind online grocery shopping. According to Quix & van der Kind (2014) convenience is often related to saving time and effort. Therefore, in the following I will look into the amount of effort and time that is required for the different delivery options when grocery shopping online and offline

2.1.4.1 Delivery options

When grocery shopping in the supermarket, the consumer has to go to the supermarket, find the items in the supermarket and then return home (Boyer, Hult & Frohlich 2003). See figure 3. This means that time is spent on both travelling to and from the supermarket and while being inside the supermarket. In small countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, consumers usually do not have to go a far distance to reach the closest supermarket (Hansen, 2005). In the U.S where online grocery shopping is more common, the travel time to a supermarket is often higher and that potentially adds to the relative advantages of online grocery shopping in terms of time saving (Hansen, 2005). In several of studies it has been estimated that a family spends two hours or more on grocery shopping a week (Boyer et al., 2003).

(14)

9 Figure 3: Comparison of traditional and home delivery grocery channels (Boyer et al., 2003 p. 653)

When doing grocery shopping online there are more delivery options for the consumers to choose between. Kämäräinen et al. (2001) have identified the following five ways for consumers to receive their groceries when shopping online: 1) home delivery, 2) pick-up in store, 3) drive-in, 4) shared reception boxes and 5) own reception box. The two last options, shared and own reception boxes are cooler boxes that consumers get

installed in their neighborhood or in front of their house. These two delivery options are not widely used in Europe anymore and will therefore not be further discussed. The three other delivery options will be specified more in the following.

Home delivery

The most common delivery method when doing online grocery shopping is home delivery. The groceries are ordered online and delivered to the consumer’s  home. Therefore

consumers do not have to spend time on going to and from the store, or spend time inside the store, or carry heavy items. Boyer et al. (2003) find that home delivery takes the effort out of the hands of the consumers and transfer the effort to the grocery retailer.

In a survey done by the consulting firm A.T.Kearney (2012), consumers were asked why they buy groceries online and 51 % of the participants stated it was because of the home delivery. The survey further found that online grocery shoppers prefer this

(15)

10 delivery method and are willing to pay for home delivery over other pick-up options.

However many consumers also find it inconvenient to have to wait at home to have their groceries delivered (Huang & Oppewal, 2006). This is an issue that according to Huang & Oppewal (2006) should be further examined to see how home delivery and waiting time is related  to  consumers’  reluctance  to  use  the  online  grocery service. For consumers that are time pressured, they might not find home delivery convenient if the delivery window and waiting time is too long.

Pick-up in store

The concept of pick-up in store is also known as “click  and  collect”, where the consumer first orders the groceries online and then go to the pick-up point to collect the items and can leave right after (Lapoule, 2014). In 2014, the expanding pick-up network was the highlight of the year within online grocery shopping in Europe (Syndy, 2015). In the

Netherlands there was a +680% increase in the number of pick-up points compared to the year before (Syndy, 2015). The pick-up model is economic advantageous for grocery retailers as it is less costly than home delivery. Many traditional supermarkets starting with the online channel therefore choose the pick-up model for their roll-out of the online

channel. Pick-up points are also popular for the retailers to reach consumers in less populated areas.

Drive-in

The concept of drive-in is also known as “click  and  drive”, where the consumer orders the groceries online and drives to the supermarket, parks and waits for the groceries to be delivered to the car. Purchases are then usually delivered to the car in less than 5 minutes (Lapoule, 2014). This enables the consumer to save time and effort by not having to go into the supermarket and spend time on picking the items themselves.

Out of the three online delivery options presented above, the option of home delivery is the one that requires the least physical effort from the side of the consumer. When adding the option of shopping offline, this is the one that requires the most effort from the consumer. Verhoef & Langerak (2001) have found that the larger the perceived physical effort is when shopping in the supermarket, the larger the perceived relative advantage of online grocery shopping is. Due to the importance of convenience when

(16)

11 online grocery shopping, it is predicted that the perceived convenience will have a

mediating effect on the factors that have already been mentioned. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H4: Time pressure affect the intention to purchase groceries online over offline, both direct and indirect through an increase in convenience online compared with offline.

H5: Shopping enjoyment affect the intention to purchase groceries online over offline, both direct and indirect through an increase in convenience online compared with offline.

2.1.5 Quality of products

Some grocery products are considered risky to buy online due to various reasons including delivery. Firstly, consumers generally prefer to physically examine the quality of products that belong to the see/touch/smell category such as fruits, vegetables and meat (Forsythe & Shi, 2003). Not being able to do that can act as a barrier to buying groceries online, as consumers are simply afraid of receiving inferior quality groceries when shopping

groceries online (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005).

In a study by Forsythe & Shi (2013) they also found that product performance risk was the most cited reason for not purchasing online. Even experienced online grocery shoppers who frequently buy groceries online do not make all of their grocery purchases through the online channel. Most supplement their online grocery shopping with purchases in a normal grocery store as well, which they find inconvenient (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005). Chu et al. (2008) have had a look at households that shop groceries both online and offline and found that some items are bought more online than offline. In the study they looked at 12 different product categories and found that shelf-stable milk, cooking oil, toilet paper, liquid fabric softener, paper towels and liquid dish detergent are more frequently purchased online than offline. All of these products are search goods, that can easily be evaluated before purchase, and the risk with ordering these online is therefore perceived as lower. It should also be noted that many of these items are heavy items that consumers probably do not wish to carry home or even to the car. The items that were more often bought offline in the supermarkets were yoghurt, bread, eggs and packed oranges. These

(17)

12 products are all sensory of nature and can be classified as experience goods, which are hard to observe in advance. The online and offline channel are therefore used to purchase different type of products.

2.2 Price sensitivity

According to Konuş, Verhoef & Neslin (2008 p. 401) price consciousness can be defined as  “the degree to which a consumer focuses on paying a low price so price conscious consumer seeks to minimize the price paid for an item, which relates to savings”.

Consumers generally believe that online grocery shopping is less expensive than offline grocery shopping also when delivery fees are taken into consideration (Ramus & Nielsen, 2005). This  can  affect  consumers’  choice  to  shop  groceries  in  the  online  channel   because price perceptions of a channel  influence  consumers’  channel  choice  (Baker, 2002;;  Konuş  et  al.,  2008). This indicates that price conscious consumers should be more likely to buy groceries online.

2.2.1 Delivery fees

Despite the perception that it is less expensive to shop groceries online than offline, delivery  fees  have  an  impact  on  consumers’  behavior  when  they  shop  online.  In  general   for online shopping, delivery fees are the main complaint of more than 50 % of online shoppers and more than 60 % of shoppers have abandoned an order when delivery fees are added (Lewis, 2006). Consumers are therefore rather reluctant to pay delivery fees. Various researchers, Lewis (2006) and Lantz & Hjort (2013) have studied how delivery fees impact online shopping in general while Huang & Oppewal (2006) have looked specifically into delivery fees in online grocery shopping.

Lewis (2006) has found that the structure of delivery fees influences the behavior of both existing and potential customers. Delivery fees have a significant impact on how often consumers order and how much they order. Higher delivery fees are associated with reduced ordering rates (Lewis, 2006). Ramus & Nielsen (2005) found the same in their study where many of their survey participants pointed out that delivery fees make small purchases prohibitively more expensive. This makes it more attractive to do larger purchases when shopping groceries online.

(18)

13 In the fashion industry, Lantz & Hjort (2013) have found that free delivery and free returns are associated with an increase in order frequency and free delivery is associated with a decrease in the average value of purchased items. Delivery fees therefore have a big  influence  on  consumers’  behavior  both  when  acquiring  customers  and  keeping   customers, and how much is ordered and how often.

Delivery fees are typically added at the end of the online checkout session. Kukar-Kinney & Close (2010) have done a study on why consumers abandon their online cart, which is a widespread phenomenon. Their findings show that consumers have a tendency to place items in the cart for reasons other than immediate purchase, specifically for research and organization and for the entertainment value, as emerging inhibitors to the

online purchase decision (Kukar-Kinney & Close, 2010). However the reason why people

abandon their online shopping cart can also potentially be related to the delivery fees,

which is added in the checkout. Lewis (2006) also suggests, that delivery fees are not

directly associated with merchandise and may be overlooked by consumers, because it is often added at the end of the transaction

In a survey about online grocery shopping in Germany, the consultancy firm

A.T.Kearney (2012) found that most consumers accept home delivery fees. However most consumers are not wiling to pay extra for just the assembly of an order and having to pick it up themselves at a pick-up point or at the supermarket. This suggests that people are willing to pay for convenience, when convenience is perceived as high as with home delivery. The above leads to the following hypotheses:

H6: The higher the acceptance to pay a delivery fee, the higher the intention to purchase groceries online compared with offline will be.

H7: Delivery fees affect the intention to purchase groceries online over offline, both direct and indirect through an increase in convenience online compared with offline.

2.2.2 Money saving

Many consumers find that grocery shopping online and getting the purchase delivered home, helps them reduce impulse purchases and unnecessary purchases (Boyer et al., 2003). Consumers do not have to go into the supermarket and are therefore not tempted

(19)

14 by additional buys that are not on their grocery list. Shopping groceries online therefore saves consumers money. In a survey conducted in North Carolina in the U.S, saving money was also the second most cited benefit after time saving (Boyer et al., 2003). This indicates that consumers that shop groceries online are price-conscious.

It is also easy for consumers to find the lowest prices for specific products online, due to the reduced search costs and higher price transparency online compared with offline (Brashear, Kashyap, Musante, & Donthu, 2009). This suggests that is easier to find the lowest price online compared with offline. In their study, Brashear et al. (2009) also found that price concerns are different for consumers that shop online and consumers that do not shop online. This suggests that consumers that shop groceries online are likely to be more price-conscious than those who do not shop groceries online.

However in a different study by Donthu and Garcia (1999), this was not the case. Donthu  and  Garcia  (1999)  found  “that many online shoppers are less price conscious, as they are more concerned with finding products that satisfy their needs rather than looking for bargains”  (as cited in Brashear et al., 2009). Another study has found that online

shoppers who are focused on convenience and time-saving tend to be less price sensitive (Swaminathan, Lepkowska-White & Rao, 2003). Given the above, this leads to the

following hypotheses:

H8: The higher the perceived price sensitivity, the higher the intention to purchase groceries online compared with offline will be.

H9: Price sensitivity affect the intention to purchase groceries online over offline, both direct and indirect through an increase in convenience online compared with offline.

2.2.3 Shopping frequency

Other researchers have also found that consumers’ price sensitivity in the online channel is affected by how frequently consumers shop in the online channel (Chu, Arce-Urriza, Cebollada-Calvo, & Chintagunta, 2010). Depending on how often consumers shop in the online channel, consumers are divided into light online shoppers, moderate online

shoppers and heavy online shoppers. Light online shoppers are the least price sensitive online shoppers and are the most brand- and size loyal in the online channel. Heavy online shoppers are on the other hand the most price-sensitive in the online channel and

(20)

15 have low brand and size loyalty. Moderate online shoppers are the most price-sensitive in the offline channel (Chu et al., 2010).

2.3 Consumer characteristics

Up until this point the literature review has focused on different motivations that influence consumer’s decision to purchase online / offline. Much research indicates that socio-demographic factors and personality also have a big influence  on  consumers’  decisions.   This section will therefore focus on different personality traits that can influence these motives. This section will first give an overview of consumer socio-demographics and what has been researched in this field, and then move on to personality traits.

2.3.1 Socio-demographics

There are two groups of consumers that are extremely positive about online grocery shopping. These two groups are mothers with young children and people with physical disabilities (Morganosky & Cude, 2000). This is highly in agreement with the situation in Denmark, where families with children and retired/elderly people are the two groups of consumers that purchase the most groceries online (Jensen, 2015). Usually, elderly people are not among the groups of consumers that shop the most online, however for groceries, the home delivery is a big advantage if their mobility is low. The groceries can be delivered to their home and they do not have to rely on other people to do the grocery shopping for them. It is also not surprising that families with children purchase more groceries online. They find it convenient not to have to go to the supermarket with their children and in general also spend more money on groceries (Nilsson, Gärling, Marell & Nordvall, 2015).

In terms of household income, consumers who have adapted to online grocery shopping tend to have a higher household income and are better educated than non-adopter households (Hansen, 2005; Verhoef & Langerak, 2001). This is also in

agreement with Morganosky & Cude (2000), who have found that online grocery shoppers are young, have children, and relatively high incomes. In regards to gender, it has been found that the intention to purchase products online is significantly higher for male consumers than for female consumers (Brashear et al., 2009).

(21)

16 2.3.2 Innovativeness

There are certain personality traits that are more common for online shoppers to have compared with consumers who do not shop online. According to Brashear et al. (2009), consumers who shop online in general tend to be more innovative, more convenience seeking, and have a higher level of impulsiveness than non-online shoppers. Brashear et al. (2009) have further found that these three characteristics are the same for consumers across the world by doing a study across six countries (United States, England, New Zealand, China, Brazil, and Bulgaria). Convenience seeking has already been focused on earlier in the review, and now innovativeness will be focused on. Innovativeness is “the degree which a person prefers to try new and different products and seek out new experiences” (Midgley and Dowling 1978; as cited in Konuş et al., 2008). Based on the degree  of  innovativeness,  consumers  can  be  categorized  in  the  following  five  “adopter”   categories: innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, or laggard (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991).

Goldsmith & Flynn (2004) also support that innovativeness is a significant predictor for online shopping. In their study focusing on online clothing shopping, they found that consumers who were Internet innovative purchased more clothing online, and that other factors like fashion interest and fashion involvement were not important

predictors for purchasing clothing online.

Based on the above there is good reason to believe that innovativeness is important for the intention to purchase groceries online. Innovativeness will therefore be used as a moderator. This leads to the following three hypotheses:

H10.1: Innovativeness moderates the relationship between shopping enjoyment and intention to purchase groceries online over offline, so that this relationship is stronger with higher levels of innovativeness.

H10.2: Innovativeness moderates the relationship between time pressure and intention to purchase groceries online over offline, so that this relationship is stronger with higher levels of innovativeness.

(22)

17 H10.3: Innovativeness moderates the relationship between price sensitivity and

intention to purchase groceries online, so that this relationship is stronger with higher levels of innovativeness

2.3.3 Extroversion

Another moderator that will be used in this study is extroversion. Extroversion is one of the ‘big  five’  personality  traits.   The  ‘big  five’  personality  traits  consist  of  1)  extraversion,  2)   agreeableness, 3) conscientiousness, 4) neuroticism and 5) openness to experience, and are used to describe the different personality types (Goldberg, 1990; Mccrae & Costa, 1987).  The  ‘big  five’  have been discussed and developed by many different authors throughout the years, and many different instruments have been developed for self-measurements. Some of the most used measurements for self-measurements are the ‘International Personality Item Pool’ (IPIP) (Goldberg et al., 2006), ‘NEO five factor-inventory’ (Mccrae & Costa, 1987) and the  ‘Five-Factor Inventory’ (FFPI) (Hendriks, Hofstee, & Raad, 1999).

In  the  ‘big  five’  model,  all five factors are bipolar and consist of two opposite poles. This means that for extroversion the opposite pole is introversion and people can have different levels of either introversion or extroversion. Extroversion is often used to describe people who are sociable, talkative, joining, outgoing and energetic while introversion is used to describe people who are more retiring, reserved, loner and quiet (Mccrae & Costa, 1987). Extroverts are also said to be more eager to interact with other people and

introverts are known to be more shy and feel less comfortable around strangers than extroverts.

People with high agreeableness describe people who are selfless, open-minded, and trusting in contrast to being selfish, narrow-minded and suspicious which is on the other end of the pole, antagonism (Mccrae & Costa, 1987). For people who have high level of conscientiousness, they are described as well organized, intelligent, practical and ambitious in contrast to disorganized, stupid, impractical and sloppy with undirectedness being on the other end of the pole. For neuroticism the opposite pole is emotional stability, and neurotic people are described as worrying, nervous, emotional and insecure with the

(23)

18 opposite being calm, at east, unemotional and secure (Mccrae & Costa, 1987). The last factor is openness to experience and the opposite is non-openness to experience. People who are open to experience are more curious, daring and variety seeking compared to uncurious, unadventurous and prefer routine.

Huang & Yang (2010) are some of the first to investigate the relationship between personality traits and online shopping motivations and find that these are highly correlated. In their study they found that openness is related to adventure and idea motivations for shopping online, conscientiousness is related to convenience motivations for online shopping and that extroversion is related to sociality motivations for shopping online.

It is especially interesting that extroversion is related to social motivations for shopping online. Previously in the literature review under shopping enjoyment, it was found that grocery shopping in the supermarket for some consumers is seen as a social experience that provide social interaction. It would therefore be more likely to assume that consumers who are more extrovert, are more likely to purchase groceries offline due to the social interaction and that introverts, are more likely to purchase groceries online due to the lack of social interaction. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H11.1: Extroversion moderates the relationship between shopping enjoyment and intention to purchase groceries online over offline, so that this relationship is weaker with higher levels of extroversion

H11.2: Extroversion moderates the relationship between time pressure and intention to purchase groceries online over offline, so that this relationship is weaker with higher levels of extroversion

H11.3: Extroversion moderates the relationship between price sensitivity and

intention to purchase groceries online over offline, so that this relationship is weaker with higher levels of extroversion.

In this study, openness to experience is used in the form of innovativeness. Openness to experience and innovativeness are arguably similar as innovativeness describes people who seek out new experiences, and try new things and openness to experience describe

(24)

19 people who are curious and variety seeking. The other three personality traits would also have been relevant to use as moderators, however they were left as limitations.

2.4 Conceptual model

Based on the hypotheses found in the literature review the following conceptual model has been developed. This will be used as a foundation for the statistical tests that will be

conducted.

Figure 4: Conceptual model

3. Method

This chapter will describe the research method that has been chosen to answer the research question and hypotheses found in the extensive literature review.

3.1 Research design

The study is an explanatory study using a quantitative method, as it will try to explain the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variable in the

research question. Further, how the mediating and moderating variables affect this relationship. The variables will be explained in more detail in the section about

(25)

20 measurements of variables. The study will follow a deductive approach as it is based on a theory, the stimulus-response model by Kotler & Keller (2006). The model can be seen in appendix 1.

The data was collected first hand through an online survey and with quantitative data. This strategy was chosen in order to get quantitative data on the variables and be able to run statistical tests and get a more clear view of the relationship between them. The survey was created and distributed through the online survey program Qualtrics.

3.2 Sampling

The survey focuses on grocery shopping and therefore everyone doing grocery shopping (either online or offline) was able to participate in the study. Due to the short amount of time to collect the data, a non-probability sampling method was chosen using a mix of convenience and snowball sampling. The online survey was first distributed to friends and family of the researcher (convenience sampling) through social media (Facebook) and e-mail. Next, friends and family were asked to share the survey with their friends/work colleagues/network and thereby creating a snowball effect. If more time had been

available to collect the data, a probability sampling would have been more appropriate in order to make sure the whole population doing grocery shopping (age 18-99) would be represented.

It was expected that the majority of the respondents would be from/living in Denmark and the Netherlands, as the first country is where the researcher is from and the second is where she is studying. Both countries are in the top three of countries in the world that speak the best English as their second language with 70 % of the population being fluent in English (EF- English Proficiency Index, 2015). It was therefore decided to keep the survey in English and in order to reach as many respondents possible outside these two countries as well. The full survey can be seen in appendix 2.

3.3 Survey flow

The survey started with an introduction to the topic and the purpose of the research. It was also mentioned that the participant would be anonymous and the participants were

thanked for taking part in the study.

After the introduction, the participants first had to fill in questions about their perceived time pressure overall and then the perceived time pressure when doing grocery

(26)

21 shopping. At this point in the survey grocery shopping had not yet been divided into online and offline in the mind of the participants and it is therefore the perceived time pressure when doing grocery shopping overall without thinking about a specific channel.

In the next part, the price sensitivity was measured by asking the participants about their price consciousness in general and afterwards about how important price saving is when grocery shopping.

After price sensitivity, questions about the offline channel were asked. The definition  of  offline  grocery  shopping  was  “grocery  shopping  in  the  supermarket”  in  order   not to confuse the respondents. First some descriptive questions were asked about how often they shop in the supermarket and how close their regular supermarket was. Then the level of enjoyment when doing grocery shopping in the supermarket was measured

followed by questions about convenience in the supermarket.

After the part about offline came the part about the online channel. First the participants were asked if they had ever bought groceries online. If the answer was no, they would skip through some questions and go straight to the part about shopping enjoyment online and convenience where they were asked to base their answers on their expectations instead of experience. The participants that answered yes to having done online grocery shopping were asked additional questions about their buying frequency, the type of products bought and the benefits of online grocery shopping. For the questions about shopping enjoyment online and convenience online, they were asked to base their answers on their experience.

In the next part, questions about the two personality traits, extroversion and innovativeness were asked. And finally in the last part some socio-demographical questions about age, country, size of household and children were asked. The figure below gives an overview of the order and flow of the survey.

Figure 5: Survey flow

Introduction Time pressure (TP) • TP overall • TP when grocery shopping Price sensitivity • Price conscious overall

• Price saving when grocery shopping Offline • Frequency • Enjoyment • Convenience Online • Frequency • Enjoyment • Convenience Personality traits • Innovativeness • Introversion Demographics • Age • Country • Household • Etc.

(27)

22

3.4 Pilot test

Before the survey was distributed, six people were approached and asked to pilot test the survey in order to make sure all was technically working and the questions were clear, before the survey was widely distributed. The pilot testers were carefully handpicked to represent different age groups and with different first languages. Two were students, two were young professionals with academic backgrounds, and two were above 55 years old. Only one of the testers had English as their native language. It was important to make sure that all questions were clear to all participants despite nationality and age. After the testers had filled in the survey they were asked a list of questions to provide feedback. Based on the  feedback,  two  questions  about  extroversion  containing  the  words  “dull”  and  “captivate”   were replaced by other questions in order to improve the level of understanding. Other small adjustments were also made before it was distributed widely. The survey was launched on the 2nd of May 2016 and remained open for two weeks.

3.5 Measurements of variables

This section gives an explanation of the measurements that were chosen for the variables. In the research question there are three independent variables and one dependent

variable. The three independent variables are shopping enjoyment, time pressure and price sensitivity, and the dependent variable is the intention to purchase online / offline. The measurements for the two moderators, extraversion and innovativeness and the mediator, convenience will also be explained. All the measurements that were used had a high reliability with  Cronbach’s  alpha  of  .70  or  above  in previous research. A full list of the items and reliabilities in this study can be seen in the next chapter in table 3 under results. 3.5.1 Independent variables

Time pressure

Time pressure is measured  in  two  ways  in  this  survey.  First  the  respondents’  overall  time   pressure is measured and then the time pressure while grocery shopping in general is measured. Both ways are important in order to understand how people experience their time.

The overall time pressure measure was originally developed by Srinivasan and Ratchford (1991) and consisted of three items. Based on these three items, Konuş  et  al. (2008) have made two shorter items with  a  Cronbach’s  alpha  of  .83, which were chosen

(28)

23 for this survey. The respondents were presented with the two statements  “I  am  always   busy”  and  “I  usually  find  myself  pressed  for  time”  and  asked  to  indicate  to  what  extent  they   agree with this statement on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neither disagree nor agree, agree, strongly agree). The Likert scale is commonly used in surveys as a rating scale, and the 5-point Likert scale is used consistently for statement questions throughout the survey.

The measurement used for time pressure when grocery shopping has been developed by Putrevu & Ratchfod (1997) and consists of five items with Cronbach’s alpha .90. The items were originally developed as part of a model to test consumer behavior in grocery shopping and are therefore highly relevant in this context. In their study, Putrevu & Ratchford (1997) used a 7-point Likert scale going  from  “never  to  “always”,  which  was  also   used in this survey but on a 5-point Likert scale as already mentioned previously.

Price sensitivity

To find the level of price sensitivity, price saving and price consciousness were measured. These two factors are good indicators of price sensitivity.

The price consciousness was measured on products overall and not specific to grocery products. The two items used were previously used by  Konuş  et  al.,  (2008),   originally from Lichtenstein et al. (1990) and Sproles & Sproles (1990) (as cited in Konuş   et al., 2008). The  two  items  “It  is  important  for  me  to  have  the  best  price  of  the  product”   and  “I  compare  the  prices  of  various  products before  I  make  a  choice”  have  a Cronbach’s   alpha of .70.

The price saving was measured specifically on grocery products by using two items developed by Chandon, Wansink and Laurent (2000). The two original  items  “Price deals are important  while  shopping”  and  “Saving  money  is  important  while  shopping” were slightly adapted  to  fit  the  context  of  grocery  shopping  by  adding  “while  shopping in the supermarket”  or  “while  online  grocery  shopping”. The price sensitivity is also once more measured  under  online  grocery  shopping,  where  respondents  are  asked  “do  you  mind   paying  a  fee  for  home  delivery”  and  indicate  to  what  extent  they  agree with this on the 5-point Likert scale.

(29)

24 Shopping enjoyment

To measure shopping enjoyment, three items developed by Putrevu & Ratchford (1997) were used. The shopping enjoyment was measured individually in the online and the offline channel. The items developed by Putrevu & Ratchford (1997) were originally

developed for grocery shopping in general and the questions were therefore adapted to fit in  online  and  offline  context.  “I  like  grocery  shopping”  was  turned  into  “I  like  online  grocery   shopping”  and  “I  like  grocery  shopping  in  the  supermarket”.  Originally,  the  measure  

consisted of five items, however in this survey the two reverse coded questions were left out in order to avoid repetition of straightforward questions and creating respondent annoyance.

3.5.2 Dependent variable Purchase Intention

The purchase intention was measured in both the offline and online channel by asking two simple questions,  “How  likely  are  you  to  do  grocery  shopping  in  the  supermarket?”  and   “How  likely  are  you  do  online  grocery  shopping?”.  The  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate   to what extent they agree on a 5-point  scale  going  from  “not  at  all”  to  “definitely”.  

3.5.3 Moderators and mediator Extroversion

To measure whether a person is more introvert or extrovert the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was used. The IPIP was first introduced in 1996 and has been widely discussed and gained increased high popularity (Goldberg et al., 2006). Ten items for extroversion developed by Goldberg (1992) were found on the official website

(http://ipip.ori.org), which has been acknowledged by seven experts on personality measurements (Goldberg et al., 2006). The ten items consist of five positive keyed items for extroversion and five negative keyed items for introversion. To give a few examples, for extroversion  the  statements  “I  am  the  life  of  the  party”,  and  “I  feel  comfortable  around people”  are  given  and  for  introversion  “I  don’t  talk  a  lot”  and  “I  keep  in  the  background”  are   given. The respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they agree on a 5-point Likert scale. The ten-item scale has a Cronbach’s  alpha  of  .87.

Innovativeness

(30)

25 developed by Goldsmith & Hofacker (1991) was used. The measure used in this study is a slightly adopted version used by Konuş  et  al.,  (2008) with five items instead of the original six. Among  the  five  items  are  the  statements  “I  like  to  try  new  and  different  products”
 and “I  always  have  the  newest  gadgets”,  which  respondents  are  asked  to  agree  with  on  a  5-point Likert scale. The five items have a Cronbach’s  alpha  of .78.

Convenience

Convenience was measured in both the online and offline channel. To measure the convenience, two items developed by Heitz-Spahn (2013) were used and adapted to fit into the context of grocery shopping instead of just shopping. The two adapted items “Grocery  shopping  should  not  take  too  much  time”  and  “Grocery  shopping  should  be easy to  do”,  originally  have a Cronbach’s alpha of .68. A third item from Heitz-Spahn (2013) was also used under  online  grocery  shopping,  “I  like  grocery  shopping  around  the  clock  (24/7)”.   Additionally, a fourth statement about home delivery was also added to online

convenience  “home  delivery  is  convenient”.

3.6 Participants

The survey was open for exactly two weeks, from the 2nd of May to 16th of May 2016, and 251 people participated within this timeframe. Out of the participants, 233 finished the complete survey, giving a high completion rate of 93 %. The high completion rate can be attributed to the short length of the survey. For the majority of participants (83 %), the survey took 10 minutes or less to complete, and for the remaining (17 %), it took more than 10 minutes and up to 50 minutes.

3.6.1 Socio-demographic profile

The participants were mainly living in Denmark (39 %), Germany (24 %), the Netherlands (21 %) and other countries (17 %). This spread of different countries was also expected due to the sampling technique of convenience and snowball sampling and the survey being in English. The participants from other countries were spread out and included among others Australia, England, the US, and Slovenia. For the Netherlands it was

noteworthy that only 27 % of the participants living in the Netherlands were Dutch citizens. For the gender, 57 % of the participants were female, and 43 % were male. This is

(31)

26 a fairly even distribution. In the study of Morgansky & Cude (2000), they also used non-probability sampling and ended up with 82 % of the respondents being female. The majority of the participants were in the age group between 25-34 years old (55 %) and though all other age groups are also represented, it is not a representative sample of the population. For the age group 18-24 years (18 %), 35-44 years (10 %), 45-54 years (6 %), 55-64 years (7 %), 65-74 years (3 %), 75 -84 years (0.4 %). As previously mentioned in the literature review, the elderly are one of the segments that are extremely positive about online grocery shopping. However they are not well represented in this sample. This can be due to the distribution method (social media and e-mail) and the survey being in English. The majority of participants worked full-time (50 %), followed by being a student (35 %), part-time employed (6 %), unemployed (5 %) and retired (4 %). Most participants live together with one other person (48 %) or by themselves (22 %). The households in the sample are therefore relatively small and not many families are represented in the sample. Only 14 % of the participants have children living at home and 46 % of those have only one child.

The majority of participants do grocery shopping in the supermarket more times a week, 45 % do it 1-2 times a week and 40 % do it 3-4 times a week. This is also in line with what has previously been found in the literature review. In the sample, most

participants also live close to the supermarket that they shop in as 56 % have one or less than one kilometer to their supermarket, and 23 % have between 1,1 - 2 kilometer. This means that 79 % live less than two kilometer from the supermarket they shop in. The participants therefore do not have to travel far or spend much time on going to and from their supermarket. Below in table 1, some of the most important socio-demographical characteristics are shown. For a full view of the socio-demographic variables see appendix 3.

(32)

27 Table 1: Socio-demographics of participants (n=233)

3.6.2 Descriptors of online grocery shoppers

Out of the participants, 36 % of them had tried online grocery shopping before at least one time, and 28 % had done it within the past year. This is considerably higher than the average of 7 % of the Netherlands and Nordics, and 13 % in Germany (PostNord, 2015). The last 64 % of the participants had never tried online grocery shopping before. The majority of the ones who had tried online grocery shopping before, had done it between 1 - 5 times (55 %), and were therefore relatively light and non-frequent online grocery

shoppers. As previously mentioned, it takes 4 - 5 times of ordering to become familiar with the system and website. Among the ones that do online grocery shopping there is also a group of heavy and experienced online grocery shoppers who have tried it more than 20 times. These represent 23 % of the online grocery shoppers. The type of groceries that is most popular to purchase online among the online grocery shoppers is single items (54 %) followed by food boxes (29 %) and fruit boxes (17 %). The main reason why they purchase groceries online is due to time saving (27 %) and convenience (31 %), followed by price (23 %) and product selection (12 %). When asked about other reasons, multiple

(33)

28 items. For a full overview of the ranking (1-6) of the different reasons to shop groceries online, see appendix 4. The other descriptors about the ones that have tried online grocery shopping can be found in table 2.

Table 2: Descriptors of online grocery shoppers

3.6.3 Purchase intention vs. purchase behavior

In this study it is the purchase intention that is focused on. Nonetheless, to gain a more clear view of the differences between intention and behavior, it was investigated whether the ones that have an intention to purchase groceries online had tried it before or not. In the survey 38 % agreed to being either somewhat likely or definitely likely to have an intention to purchase groceries online, 18 % were neither likely or unlikely, and the

remaining 44 % were either unlikely or not at all likely to purchase groceries online. For the ones that had an intention to purchase groceries online, 64 % of them had tried to do grocery shopping online at least once before. This means that 36 % of the ones that have an intention to purchase groceries online had never done it before.

(34)

29

4. Results

In this chapter, the hypotheses will be tested. First multiple regression is used to find out how well the different independent variables predict the purchase intention difference between online and offline and afterwards moderator and mediator tests are carried out. To do all of the statistical analysis, IBM SPSS Statistics 22 was used, along with the tool PROCESS developed by Andrew F. Hayes for the mediator and moderator tests. All of the hypotheses and results will be summarized at the end of this chapter.

4.1 Data preparation

First, in order to get the data ready for testing the hypotheses, different preliminary steps were taken. The six counter-indicative items (5 for extroversion and 1 for time pressure when grocery shopping) were recoded and the reliability of the measurements was

confirmed. The reliability test showed that all scales have a high reliability with Cronbach's Alpha above .70 except for convenience online and offline, which were slightly below. The corrected item - total correlation also indicate that all items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale since all are above .30. Also none of the items would

substantially affect reliability if they were removed. This can be seen in table 3 on the next page.

(35)

30 Table 3: Items and reliabilities

4.1.2 Dependent variable

(36)

31 (purchase intention) was normally distributed since this is often one of the assumptions for running various statistical tests. For a normal distribution, the skewness and kurtosis, should be as close to 0 as possible in SPSS (Field, 2013). First purchase intention online and offline were looked upon individually before the purchase intention difference between online and offline was found. When looking at them individually it was found that the

purchase intention offline had a substantial negative skewness (-1,24). This means that the majority of participants were very likely to do grocery shopping in the supermarket. When looking at the online purchase intention there was no skewness but a slightly negative kurtosis. In the Shapiro-Wilk test, which is also used to check for normal

distribution, both online and offline were significantly non-normal with purchase intention offline D(233) = .820, p < .05, and purchase intention online D(233) =.899, p< .05. This is good to keep in mind, however in this thesis, it is the purchase intention difference

between online and offline that is analyzed. To find the purchase intention difference between online and offline, the offline purchase intention was simply subtracted from the online purchase intention. The distribution of purchase intention online and offline and difference between online and offline can be seen in the histograms below.

Figure 6: Histogram of purchase intention online (1) and offline (2), and difference between online and offline (3)

The purchase intention difference has a skewness of 0.2 and kurtosis of -0.4, which is close to 0 and thereby fairly normally distributed. This can also be seen in

histogram 3 in the figure above. Additionally, most techniques are tolerant of the violations of the assumption of normal distribution. With a large enough sample size (e.g. bigger than

(37)

32 30 participants), violating the assumption of normal distribution should not cause any major problems (Pallant, 2010).

When having a closer look at the purchase intention difference between online and offline, it can be seen that most participants have a higher intention to shop groceries in the supermarket than online. Only 29 participants (12.4 %) have a higher intention to purchase online than offline and 43 (18.5 %) have the same intention to purchase online and offline. The remaining 161 (69.1 %) have a higher intention to purchase groceries offline than online. This can also be seen below in table 4. The purchase intention difference scale goes from -4 to 4 as the purchase intention for online and offline were measured on 5-point Likert scales.

Table 4: Purchase intention difference between online and offline

With the above mentioned preliminary steps being taken, the statistical tests can now be proceeded with.

4.2 Multiple regression

Multiple regression can be used to investigate the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more dependent variables. These variables typically have to be

continuous (Field, 2013). Since both the independent variables and dependent variables in this thesis are measured on 5-point Likert scales this seems appropriate as these are ordinal but also arguably interval. Multiple regression will therefore be used to measure the effect of the independent variables (time pressure, shopping enjoyment, price sensitivity)

(38)

33 on the dependent variable (purchase intention).

Multiple regression is based on correlation but allows a more sophisticated exploration of the interrelationship between a set of variables (Pallant, 2010). The

correlations between the variables are therefore first looked upon. On the following page a correlations mix can be found in table 5. The correlation mix shows that many of the

variables are significantly correlated.

Purchase intention difference between online and offline is significantly correlated with time pressure when grocery shopping, shopping enjoyment online, delivery fee, convenience online, innovativeness and negatively correlated with shopping enjoyment offline and convenience offline. Purchase intention online is also interesting to look at individually as this is the basis for the purchase intention difference between online and offline. It shows that purchase intention online is significantly positively correlated with time pressure when grocery shopping, shopping enjoyment online, price sensitivity, delivery fees, convenience online, innovativeness and negatively correlated with convenience offline.

In the correlation mix it can also be seen that some of the independent variables are significantly correlated with each other. Not surprisingly, time pressure overall is

correlated with time pressure when grocery shopping but also convenience online is highly correlated with shopping enjoyment online and the same for offline, with convenience offline being highly correlated with shopping enjoyment offline. Shopping enjoyment offline is also negatively correlated with time pressure when grocery shopping. Lastly,

extroversion is correlated with shopping enjoyment online and time pressure when grocery shopping.

(39)

34 Table 5: Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Drawing on theories of price fairness and uncertainty, this present study tries to discuss circumstances that affect consumers’ judgments regarding price fairness

The mediation effects of various brand- and product-types, leading to increased number of purchased products. Guus van der Veen

Next, the total number of repurchased brands, repurchased sizes, promoted, non- food, non-sensory, private label brand, premium- &amp; national-brand and high market share

Since both the constant and the direct effect of X on Y, which equals the c’-path in the statistical model, are not significant (p &gt; .05), it can be assumed that mediation

In the case of apparel product pages, it is hypothesized that including more features on the product page would decrease the feeling of risks (and increase benefits) which

o Firms have greater success when they market to consumers from more than one channel (Rangaswamy &amp; Bruggen, 2005).. THE ONLINE AND OFFLINE

count(Data_modelcoh3.1$churn.y) #kijk naar churn.y count(Data_modelcoh3.2$churn.y) #kijk naar churn.y count(Data_modelcoh3.3$churn.y) #kijk naar churn.y #descriptives of coh 1

However, since customers prefer home delivery, it is important for supermarkets to know how they can make pickup points more attractive for customers and keep it profitable at