The mediator effect of store loyalty on the
relationship between assortment variety and
consumers’ store choice likelihood
Marloes van der Borg
The mediator effect of store loyalty on the
relationship between assortment variety and
consumers’ store choice likelihood
By
Marloes van der Borg
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business MSc BA Marketing Management
Master Thesis 2012
ABSTRACT
This study focused on whether there is an indirect relationship between assortment variety in a clothing store and customers’ store choice likelihood. A second focus is whether this indirect relationship is mediated by store loyalty. Through a self reported questionnaire, assortment variety is analyzed. In addition, store choice likelihood and store loyalty data is collected from questionnaires from the field. The results indicate that a large assortment has a strong effect on store choice likelihood while a small assortment has a negative effect. This is the opposite effect than what was predicted beforehand. However, the second test showed an important finding where small assortment has indeed a significant effect on one of the two store choice likelihood variables. The most important finding was that the mediator store loyalty has a significant effect on the relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood. Here again, no effect was found aimed at a small assortment. Considerations can be made in using assortment variety along with store loyalty when predicting store choice.
Keywords: Assortment variety, store choice likelihood, store loyalty.
Research Theme: Mediating role of store loyalty on relationship between assortment variety and store choice likelihood
Supervisor: Mr. G. Haanstra
PREFACE
With this master thesis I finish my study MSc BA marketing management. This thesis is my final report to conclude my period of education. Now, a new phase in life will start; a career in the branch of marketing. Becoming a successful brand manager would be a great purpose for me.
First, I would like to thank my supervisor Mr. G. Haanstra for his precious time, his useful feedback and the contact moments we had during the months, I worked on my thesis. Moreover, I would like to thank my second supervisor Ms. K. Reber for her final feedback. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, brother and friends and boyfriend who supported me during this last two years of study. Especially, many thanks to my dear friend Denise Groeneveld, for reviewing the data and questionnaire.
TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT 3 PREFACE 4 1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Problem statement 8 1.2 Research structure 9 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9 2.1 Focus on women 9 2.2 Assortment variety 10
2.3 Store choice likelihood 12
3. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES 13
3.1 Arguments in favour of a small assortment 13
3.2 Arguments in favour of a large assortment 13
3.3 Store loyalty 14
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17
4.1 Target population 17
4.2 Pre research 18
4.2.1 Results pre test 18
4.3 Research design main research 19
4.4 Procedure 20
4.4.1 Participants 20
4.4.2 Questionnaire 20
4.5 Manipulation of independent variable 20
4.6 Measurements 21
4.7 Plan of analysis 21
5. RESULTS 22
5.1 Representativeness, reliability and validity 22
5.1.1 Representativeness 22
5.1.2 Reliability 23
5.1.3 Validity 25
5.2 Manipulation check 26
5.3 Descriptive results 26
5.3.1 Influence of a large assortment on store choice likelihood 26
5.3.2 Influence of a small assortment on store choice likelihood 27
5.3.3 Mediating effect of loyalty on the relationship between a small
assortment and store choice likelihood 29
5.3.4 Mediating effect of loyalty on the relationship between a large
assortment and store choice likelihood 31
variety and store choice likelihood 32
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 34
6.1 Research design 34
6.2 Discussion 35
6.3 Revised conceptual model 37
6.4 Theoretical and practical implications 37
6.5 Limitations and recommendations 38
6.6 Conclusion 39
REFERENCES 40
APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE 43
1. INTRODUCTION
The number of available product options can influence consumers’ store choice likelihood in multiple ways. Much of the earlier work on assortment variety either suggested or assumed that more options were better, recent research has highlighted the downsides of too much choice (Berger et al, 2007). While there has been done much research on assortment variety in stores, the concept of store loyalty remains relatively unexplored (McMullan and Gilmore, 2002), even if the development of store loyalty has become an important focus for marketing strategies in recent years.
In recent years, interest in category management has increased, and as a consequence, large retailers now systematically review their product assortments. Van Herpen and Pieters (2005) suggest that variety is a key property of assortments. Assortment variety can determine consumers' store and product choice and is gaining in importance with today's increasing numbers of product offerings. To support retailers in managing their assortments, they need insight into the influence of assortment composition on consumers' variety perceptions, and appropriate measures on product choice. Variety of the assortments that retailers carry is an important determinant of store loyalty, satisfaction and sales. Chernev (2003) stated that a common assumption in marketing is that assortment benefits consumers. Although considered crucially important, size is just one of the assortment properties that can affect consumer choices and perceptions. According to Fasolo et al (2009) the rationale behind the increasing growth in assortment size is that customers want choice and variety. People actively seek variety, whether to satisfy the need for stimulation or for other reasons. Larger assortments help consumers satisfy their needs (Kahn and Ratner, 2005).
In recent years, a resurgence of interest in how variety influences consumer choice likelihood and satisfaction has offered an important correction to the notion that more choice is always better (Iyengar and Lepper 2000). This stream of research demonstrates that too many options can lead consumers to not choose at all and to feel less satisfaction and more regret about the options they choose.
Recently, many researchers have been interested in how the number of options affects
less likely to choose when the differences between the available options are minimal (Dahr, 1997).
Briesch et al (2009) found that shoppers consistently report that retail assortments affect their store choice decisions, ranking it third in importance behind convenience location and low price as a choice criterion. With convenience location, Briesch et al (2009) mean easy to reach or a good accessibility. They also concluded that store choice decisions are more responsive to changes in assortment than to changes in price: a shopper’s store choice decision is more sensitive to assortments than to price. There might be a need for deeper understanding of the role of assortment on shopping behaviour and how assortment expectations play a role in store choice. Thus, it is not obvious yet how consumers perceive the variety of an assortment, how assortment variety can be measured, and hence how retailers can cater to the variety concerns of their consumers. For consumers, assortment variety may be more than a large number of products to choose from (Kahn and Lehmann 1991). This paper contributes to the literature since this study examines how assortment variety might influence what consumers choose.
As predicting the likelihood of a consumer choosing to buy the same product again in the future is becoming essential in modern retail practices, the same is true for predicting the likelihood of a consumer choosing to visit a store again in the future (Dixon et al, 2005). However, existing literature is limited in its current investigation of the predictors of future store choice. Repurchase, however, is becoming more difficult to predict due to an increase in competition and in-store issues like assortment variety. Customers are switching between retailers who offer them the best alternative at a particular time with comparable offers (Grewal et al., 2003). With this knowledge, a second aim of this study is to examine if and how store loyalty mediates the relation between assortment variety and store choice likelihood.
1.1 Problem statement
These two variables; assortment variety and store choice likelihood are recently
done research on store loyalty as a mediator on a particular relationship. This effect might result in new striking findings which may expand common literature. Existing literature on this topic has commonly been done in the grocery branch. Retail stores also identify such category as ‘fashion and beauty’ which is often disregarded in experimental studies. For this reason, this study will only focus on clothing stores since this might lead to other conclusions likewise. As the focus will be on clothing stores, the research will be held among women only. The study outcomes of men and women will result in too big differences and will make it hard to come up with conclusions. To make the study even more specific, the main focus will be on young women. Hence, the following problem statement is the guideline for this study;
‘What is the effect of assortment variety in a clothing store on women’s’ store choice likelihood, and is this effect mediated by women’s store loyalty?’
1.2 Research structure
The second chapter is the theoretical framework and will give an overview of the independent and dependent variables, respectively; assortment variety and store choice likelihood. The following chapter gives a framework development and presents the mediator variable, store loyalty. This chapter also introduces three hypotheses and will finish with a visual description of the relationship between all variables in two conceptual models. Chapter four discusses the research methodology of the pre research and the main research. This chapter will cover the study population, pre research outcomes, main research, measurement and a plan of analysis. Chapter five will present the representativeness, reliability and validity of the questionnaire followed by the study results, including an analysis and discussion of empirical data. Finally, the main findings and overall conclusions will be discussed, followed by the managerial recommendations, limitations and opportunities for further research.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Focus on women
technological, social cultural, economic and retail changes during the last 10 to 20 years. The women from last generation have been accurately into an environment that provided more opportunities and reasons to shop than ever before. In contradiction to men, women have been socialized into shopping as a form of leisure. One finding of Bakewell and Mitchell (2009) was that women enjoy shopping more than previous age cohorts. Women see shopping as being as important to women’s’ lives just as the world of work has been historically to men. Adult women are known to be interested in clothing. However for women, higher loyalty can also be an effective means for overcoming confusing what assortment and which store to choose from.
2.2 Assortment variety
Briesch et al (2009) found that assortments are generally more important than retail prices in store choice decisions: store choice decisions are generally more responsive to changes in assortment than to changes in price. They found more heterogeneity in response to assortment than to either convenience or price. Optimal assortments therefore depend on the particular preferences of a retailer’s shoppers. The term assortment size was described by Fasolo et al (2009) as the number of products a customer could choose from within a particular product category. In their study, only visible products on the shelf were counted. Each product was counted once regardless of how many stock keeping units (SKUs) were available. An assortment is therefore composed of different products, not stocks. Briesch et al (2009) also included size and brands to describe assortment. Size is the number of different sizes/types in category scanned by the store chain and brand is the number of brands in category scanned by the retailer.
assortments (van Herpen and Pieters, 2005). As Lurie (2004) concluded, entropy and
assortment size may be negatively related in the marketplace; larger assortments exhibit lower entropy, whereas smaller assortments exhibit higher entropy. However the assortments get more complex and differ on more than one attribute, the actual variety of an assortment is likely to become more complex. This is especially the case in clothing stores, where
assortments become complex due to the high number of attributes. Next to the description of Briesch et al (2009) that assortment variety is the number of products a customer could choose from within a particular product category, in this research assortment variety depends on assortment entropy as well; a clothing store can offer jeans, shirts, dresses and coats which are all subdivided in type, colour and size.
Kahn et al (2004) add a second component to the actual variety in assortments which will add some enlightenment to the definition assortment variety in this research; the number of category replicates. Previous research shows that when a product category is given more shelf space in a retail store, consumers feel that there is more variety then if it is assigned to a smaller shelf space. For example, a clothing store can present all jeans on two tables and all shirts to three racks or present all the clothing categories through the whole store which represents more variety for the consumers.
For this research, the description of Briesch et al (2009) is used to define assortment variety. To make it any clearer, assortment entropy and the number of category replicates are added to finish the description of assortment variety for this research. The five scale items are conducted independently by using the literature of Briesch et al (2009), van Herpen and Pieters (2005) and Kahn et al (2004).
The heterogeneity in assortment response suggests that retailers should not necessarily match each others assortment levels. Ideal assortment levels could differ substantially between retailers depending on the preferences of their customers (Briesch et al, 2009). Assortment variety and consumers’ choice likelihood have received relatively plenty individual attention in the literature. There is, however, surprisingly little evidence that these variables are related and if this relationship is supported in the clothing branch. Most of the recent decision
when large assortments will weaken choice likelihood, as suggested by recent findings in the behavioural decision literature. Beyond, one factor, store loyalty, will be added to the study. 2.3 Store choice likelihood
Choices are central to people’s everyday lives, from choosing what to eat to choosing whom to marry. Research on the psychological consequences of choice indicates that choices are an expression of a person’s selfhood and lead to positive experiences but also that making choices is a difficult, depleting task (Wang et al. 2010) people often defer to avoid discomfort. The dynamic store choice decision can be conceptualised as a problem of deciding where to shop, clicks and bricks (Beynon et al, 2002). The decision in this research is the traditional store choice problem (bricks only). Information on a sequence of shopping trip events yields information about the number of consumers choosing the same store (repeat shopping or store loyalty). In this research store choice likelihood is simply described as visiting the traditional retailer (bricks): enter a physical store. Briesch et al (2009) came up with several predictors of store choice likelihood. They suggest familiarity, distance, feature advertising, price and assortment to be these predictors. Familiarity is described as the degree that someone is known with the store. The second predictor is described as the distance between the shopper’s home and the retailer’s closest store. Feature advertising is the indicator that someone visits the store because she is attracted through advertisements. The fourth predictor describes the relation between price and quality and the last predictor describes the attractiveness of the assortment offered.
The majority of research on consumers’ store choice likelihood has concluded that the main purpose of making a choice is to obtain a selected product (Payne et al. 1992). Choi and Fishback (2011) stated that when people have an external purchase goal, the act of choosing is extrinsically motivating. In contrast, when they want to express their preference or taste, their choice is intrinsically motivating; that is, it is its own goal. According to Vale (2010) the classic consumer choice theory assumes that the consumer acts to maximize his utility. The consumer has the necessary information regarding prices, income and product quality. She is rational, and when she consumes what she wishes, the utility is maximized. By choosing, people express their unique tastes, desires, and goals, and their stated preferences define them not only as consumers but as autonomous human beings.
3. FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT AND HYPOTHESES
3.1 Arguments in favour of a small assortment
Iyengar and Lepper (2000) show that an extensive array of options can at first seem highly appealing to consumers, yet can reduce their motivation to purchase the product. Large assortments also make an exhaustive comparison of all options seem undesirable from a time and effort perspective, which could in turn induce fears of not being able to choose optimally. Large assortments may increase expectations, and if the available options are all very similar, these expectations may not be met (Diehl and Poynor 2007). To the degree that the most attractive options get more similar as choice set size grows, it can also become more difficult to justify the choice of any particular option (Sela et al, 2009). Sela et al (2009) hypothesized that large assortments make it more difficult to come up with a good reason for any particular choice, which might make it harder for some people to commit to a decision.
Kamenica (2006) proves that small assortments are structurally different from, and more informative than, large assortments. Given the reasonable assumption that assortments are constructed to contain popular products, and popularity is bound to decrease the more products are on offer, an uninformed consumer will find it more beneficial to choose from a small assortment of a few more popular products than from many less popular products.
3.2 Arguments in favour of a large assortment
On the other hand, in particular, larger assortments have an advantage over smaller ones when the options carried are lower in attractiveness. Chervey (2003) also suggest that consumers have a stronger preference for retailers offering more variety when the decision is risky. Consumers might feel more confident when selecting from a clothing store that offers a larger assortment because it is less likely that a potentially superior alternative is not
represented in the available choice set. However, while much of the earlier work on variety either assumed that more options were better, recent research has highlighted downsides of too much choice. As mentioned before choice can be overwhelming, and choosing from larger assortments increases choice difficulty and regret. Based on this literature, I come up with the following hypothesis:
3.3 Store loyalty
Previous researches investigated the importance of store loyalty in terms of
competitive advantage (Grewal, 2003). Yet, there is no distinguishing been made between large and small assortments’ influences on store choice likelihood when the relation is
mediated by store loyalty. Thus, there is no evidence that there is an effect of store loyalty on assortment variety and store choice likelihood. The next section discusses and investigates the values of these three variables in a relationship in a clothing store environment. In this
research store loyalty acts as a mediating factor on the relationship between assortment variety and store choice likelihood. This mediator occurs because the relationship of assortment variety and store choice likelihood may depend on store loyalty. One reason for testing mediation is trying to understand the mechanism through which the initial variable affects the outcome. Mediation analyses are a key part of what has been called process
analysis. Moreover when most causal or structural models are examined, the mediation part of the model is the most interesting part of that model. In this research, complete mediation is the case in which assortment size (small or large) no longer affects store choice likelihood after store loyalty has been controlled. Partial mediation is the case in which the path from assortment size to store choice likelihood is reduced in absolute size but is still different from zero when the mediator is introduced.
Combining assortment variety and the mediator store loyalty, to predict store choice likelihood, is the most important addition this paper gives to the existing science. The constructs are presented based on there values according to the consumer research and marketing literature.
Reynolds and Arnold (2000) argue that customers first form loyalty to the most tangible and visible aspects of a service. They define store functional loyalty as loyalty to the tangible, rationally assessed elements of a retailers’ offer, for example competitive prices, assortment, friendliness of sales assistants, convenience offered and store location. On the other hand, Dixon et al. (2005) propose that store loyalty focuses on the influence of the total offer on customers’ choice to revisit. This is a predictive construct. As mentioned above the assortment size is only a small part of the total offer. Thus, a customer who is loyal to the store’s functional attributes, such as product assortment, should be more likely to shop with the store again in the future (Baker et al., 2002).
Dick and Basu (1994) suggest that loyalty will not exist unless customers have viable alternatives, and that they perceive the store is better than others. Without assessing relative advantage, stores can never be sure if their customers’ loyalty is genuine or simply spurious. Selnes (1993) points out that customer store loyalty involves the likelihood of future
consumption, continued service contracts, reduced possibility of brand change, and positive public recommendation. Jones and Sasser (1995) came up with almost the same research outcome, since they posit that loyalty is the willingness of a customer to continue consuming a specific product. The former is genuine customer loyalty, which means that a customer will not readily turn to another business operator or another store. Store loyalty lies mainly in whether a consumer will continue to visit a store over and over again.
Conclusive, the most widely accepted definition of loyalty is by Jacoby and Chesnut (1973). They suggest that customer store loyalty is the behavioural outcome of a customer’s
preference for a particular brand from a selection of similar brands, over a period of time. According to the literature, brand loyalty is different from store loyalty. In this study, the clothing stores used for research are brands of itself: the store name is equal to the brand they offer. If a woman indicates that she is loyal to one of the stores she is loyal to the brand too. This description is the result of an evaluative decision-making process and relies on two or three components, including cognition, affect and behavioural intention. These first three phases lead to a deeply held commitment, which predicts that consumers become loyal, first in a cognitive sense, then later an affective sense and thirdly a conative manner.
McMullan and Gilmore (2002) stated that the cognitive phase is associated with informational determinants or brand beliefs. These relate to individuals’ perceptions of the cost, quality and benefits of the store as push and pull factors. The four dimensions they use within the
Gilmore (2002) stated that within the affective phase, issues relating to satisfaction, liking, and preference have been identified. Once the store has been visited, the customer may evaluate her experience. Decisions may be made on the level of satisfaction, how much she likes the store and the extent of her preference. The dimensions of the affective phase are emotions, moods, primary affect and satisfaction. The last phase, the conative phase is characterised by the level of the consumer’s commitment or intention to buy and how stable or consistent her beliefs are about the store. The dimensions of this phase are commitment, consistency and expectations. In conceptualising store loyalty for this research the measured scale of McMullan and Gilmore (2002) has been chosen. To measure store loyalty in clothing stores the three phases described above will be used.
There is some evidence that loyalty may have an effect on the relationship between assortment variety and store choice likelihood. However, it has remained unclear what the exact effect of store loyalty is on the relationship between assortment variety and store choice likelihood in a clothing store setting. In conceptualising store loyalty, there is a distinction between repeat visiting behaviour and store loyalty. Repeat visiting behaviour is the actual revisiting of the clothing store. The third dimension of McMullan and Gilmore (2002) mentioned above, includes store commitment and is thus used in the assessment of store loyalty. Bloemer and Ruyter (1997) define store commitment as the pledging or binding of an individual to her store choice. As a result of explicit and extensive decision making, a
consumer becomes committed to the store and, therefore, by definition becomes store loyal. This continuum of store loyalty means that at one end of the continuum one finds true store loyalty and on the other end of the continuum one finds spurious store loyalty: repeat visiting of the store not based on any commitment at all. Even thought consumers presumable shop at a particular clothing store because of their loyalty to that store, having too much choice can nonetheless hampered their motivation to buy. Hence, I assert the following hypothesis:
H2. The indirect relationship between a small assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is mediated by loyalty.
consumers are not loyal to a particular clothing store, they might prefer a large assortment to find the piece of clothes they are searching for or to find more variety. Hence, I came up with the last hypothesis:
H3. The indirect relationship between a large assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is not mediated by loyalty.
FIGURE 1. Conceptual models H2 and H3
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter starts with a description of the target population. After the target population the pre research is described followed by an overview of the pre test outcomes. In this chapter the two clothing stores which are used in the questionnaire are chosen. In the third paragraph the type of research has been explained. For this paragraph, some theory of Malhotra (2010) has been used. Paragraph four defines the research procedure and is divided into the participants and an explanation of the questionnaire. Further, manipulation of the independent variable and the measurement conditions of the independent variable, the dependent variable and the mediator variable are defined. A plan of analysis is described in the last paragraph of this chapter.
4.1 Target population
The chosen target group consists of women only. There are several reasons for this decision. Many authors propose that gender has a marked effect on shopping behaviour and store choice. One study that focuses on gender differences concluded that women hold
Women enjoyed the process and were happy to spend time and energy while men sought to buy quickly and avoid it as much as possible. For women, buying clothes is a creative process where they can find some relaxation. For women buying clothes is a way of distressing. A great part of men find buying clothes horrible. For men this activity causes more stress than finding relaxation. The main differences between men and women is that men only shop when they are having a specific goal and women also shop for clothing without accomplishing any goals. In other words, women do shopping with fun and are more involved than men.
Young women were randomly chosen because of the excitement in shopping for clothes and the fact that older people may not be familiar with the mentioned clothing stores in the pre research.
4.2 Pre research
To test the difference between small and large assortments in clothing stores, a pre research is conducted. In this research 43 women were asked to fill out a short questionnaire. I included 15 clothing stores in the city centre of Groningen, for respondents to make
comparisons. The participants specified their opinion to only one specific statement. This statement gives a clear picture of how the participants think about the assortment of the mentioned stores. They needed to answer the statement with a choice between three answers. They needed to choose between a small and a large assortment, and in case of doubt the participants could choose for the ‘differently’ button.
4.2.1 Results pre test
I compared the distributions of two types of assortments for each of the 15 clothing stores. The Chi-square test for independence compared the two sets of categories (small and large assortment) to determine whether these two groups are distributed differently among the categories (the fifteen clothing stores). For each store a single test has been done. The outputs of the tests are depicted in table 1. The chi-square tests confirm that the data contain clear evidence that three of the 15 clothing stores are offering an assortment which women cannot easily criticize in size. These three stores resulted in a high p-value which indicates that these outcomes are not significant. The other 12 stores received a value which resulted in
for the following research even without Mango offering the smallest assortment. These two stores are being chosen because they both offer the same clothing in terms of popularity and seem to attract the same type of customers (age and style etc.).
Clothing Store Small Assortment Large Assortment Significance Zara 8 32 ,000 C&A 3 38 ,000 Men at work 19 16 ,105 Vero moda 27 14 ,000 H&M 3 40 ,000 Mango 31 10 ,000 The sting 10 29 ,000 The store 13 16 ,850 WE 21 17 ,008 Didi 32 5 ,000 Superstar 33 5 ,000 Coolcat 13 19 ,298 Only 39 3 ,000 Mexx 25 12 ,001 Esprit 19 18 ,026
TABLE 1. Outcome pre research
4.3 Research design main research
The main purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between assortment variety and clothing store choice likelihood. A second purpose is to investigate if store loyalty has a mediating effect on the relationship between assortment variety and choice likelihood. The research question is tested through three specific hypotheses and the obtained data has been subjected through quantitative analyses. To conclude; the characteristics of this research are consistent with a relational research design. According to Malhotra (2010) a relational research design is a non experimental research design. A relational design is a design in which a range of variables is measured. These designs are also called correlation studies, since the correlation is most often used analysis.
because an experiment is able to infer causal relationships. In this research, a questionnaire will be conducted by focusing on the effect of the mediator ‘store loyalty’ on the relationship assortment variety choice likelihood. All subjects received the same questions and there were no differences in questionnaire versions.
4.4 Procedure
4.4.1 Participants
A total of 92 new respondents have participated in the experiment. The two clothing stores used in the questionnaire are situated in the city centre of Groningen. All participants are familiar with the mentioned two stores. The questionnaire was conducted by female students of the Rijks University in Groningen and by female facebook members with Groningen as there indicated residence.
4.4.2 Questionnaire
The first part of the questionnaire consists of five questions aimed at H&M and Mango to test if these participants judge H&M has a store with a large assortment and Mango as a store with a small assortment (Briesch et al. 2009, van Herpen and Pieters 2005 and Kahn et al. 2004). The second part of the questionnaire measures the level of store loyalty for both H&M and Mango and contains four questions for all three loyalty phases, cognitive, affective and conative (McMullan and Gilmore, 2002). However, these phases are not visible for the respondents. The last part of the questionnaire measures the dependent variable store choice likelihood. For this measurement the main reasons for choosing a store according to Briesch et al (2009) have been added to the questionnaire. These reasons are described into five different statements.
4.5 Manipulation of independent variable
From the pre research, H&M was judged as a clothing store with a large assortment. Mango, on the contrary, was judged as a clothing store with a small assortment. In this questionnaire the independent variable assortment variety was manipulated by asking the exact same four questions for both the clothing store with the large assortment (H&M) and the clothing store with the small assortment (Mango). Participants were asked to rate the
4.6 Measurements
The following 12 statements measuring the mediating store loyalty had been conducted according to McMullen and Gilmore (2002) and had to be rated on a 5-points Likert scale. The scale items aimed to test the cognitive, affective and conative phases of loyalty. There were four items tapping all three phases and had to be answered two times, for both H&M and Mango.
The cognitive items are as follow: ‘Voor kleding kijk ik altijd bij de H&M’, ‘De H&M verkoopt producten van deze tijd’, ‘De inrichting van de H&M vind ik aantrekkelijk’ and ‘Ik blijf de H&M bezoeken, ook wanneer zij een keer producten verkopen die ik niet mooi vind’. The affective items are the following four: ‘De H&M is een kledingwinkel die bij mij past’, ‘De H&M biedt wat ik zoek in een kledingwinkel’, ‘De H&M hoeft geen individuele aandacht te geven aan mij’ and ‘De H&M is een winkel waar ik vaak over praat’.
The last four items represent the conative phase of store loyalty: ‘Ik geniet van de bezoeken aan de H&M’, ‘Ik kies geen andere kledingwinkel dan de H&M als deze meer kwaliteit zou bieden’, ‘Ik ben loyaal aan de H&M’ and ‘Ik vind het niet saai om elke keer naar de H&M te gaan om te winkelen’.
Respondents were finally asked to answer the following five statements on a 5-points Likert scale towards store choice likelihood: ‘Ik bezoek de H&M omdat ik bekend ben met deze winkel’, ‘Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel dicht bij mijn huis is gevestigd’, ‘Ik bezoek de H&M omdat ik er reclame van ontvang’, ‘Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel een goede prijs-kwaliteit verhouding heeft’ and ‘Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel een aantrekkelijk assortiment aanbiedt’.
4.7 Plan of analysis
To criticize all statements, measuring the three different variables, assortment variety, store choice likelihood and store loyalty, an internal reliability check has been performed first. For this check, a Cronbach’s alpha has been employed first, followed by factor analyses for the statements that have never been checked before. To make sure if the conclusions from the pretest were also perceived by the 92 new participants, and in order to draw valid conclusions, a manipulation check is build into the study design.
has a more positive effect on consumers’ store choice likelihood than a large assortment does. Hyothesis 1 was tested with the independent variables small assortment and large assortment and the dependent variable store choice likelihood. For hypothesis 2 a regression analysis was used to test if the indirect relationship between a small assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is mediated by loyalty. To test if there is a mediation effect, 4 steps were performed with a small assortment as independent variable, store choice likelihood as dependent variable and store loyalty as mediator. The third hypothesis is tested in the same way as the second one has been done, with a large assortment as independent variable. This hypothesis tested if the indirect relationship between a large assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is not mediated by loyalty. Finally, all three hypotheses were likewise tested with a MANOVA to find other outcomes. Thus, three hypotheses were investigated with different tests.
5. RESULTS
5.1 Representativeness, reliability and validity 5.1.1 Representativeness
The research concentrates on women only. Adult women are known to be interested in fashion (Phillips, 1997), plus they have a desire to bolster their self esteem through having a ‘cool’ look. To obtain representativeness these women were randomly assigned. All 92 respondents were positioned in the same group and had to fill out the same questionnaire. In the category ‘age’ there is a mean of 26 which is not striking since almost all respondents were either students at the University of Groningen or Facebook friends of four people between the age of 25 and 28. The mean falls slightly higher because of a few older family members and acquaintances with higher ages. The following table shows an overview of the sample characteristics in this study.
Age Education M = 26,37 SD = 6,556 WO N= 39 HBO N = 37 MBO N = 11 None of these N = 5 N = 92 N = 92
5.1.2 Reliability
Not all statements conducted in the questionnaire were based on scales which reliability has already been proved correctly. The scale testing store loyalty is only used before by McMullen and Gilmore (2002). To be sure that all statements under each variable measure the same thing, a Cronbach’s Alpha will be employed first, to test the internal consistency reliability. The coefficient can take on any value less than or equal to 1 and only positive values make sense. Higher values of alpha are more desirable; as a rule of thumb a reliability of .70 is needed to continue with the questionnaire based on reliability.
A factor analysis will be performed on the items of assortment variety and the items of store choice likelihood since these statements have never been tested before and the Cronbach’s alpha might not be enough evidence. For the existing scale of store loyalty, a factor analysis will be performed as well, since this variable contains a lot of statements. There is a high change that these 12 statements can be factored in the 3 mentioned phases of customer loyalty. The type of factor analysis to be used is the exploratory factor analysis. This analysis is a statistical method used to uncover the underlying structure of these relatively large set of variables. The overarching goal of an exploratory factor analysis is to identify the underlying relationships between measured variables. For this research, it is used for developing a scale and serves to identify a set of constructs underlying a battery of measured variables.
The following table shows that the independent variable assortment variety, the dependent variable store choice likelihood and the mediator variable store loyalty all have a Cronbach’s Alpha value higher than 0,70. In addition the three phases of store loyalty show high values as well. These outcomes mean that all mentioned statements can be included in the questionnaire and none has to be deleted.
Constructs Measures H&M and Mango Independent variable Assortment variety H&M
α = 0,884
Assortment variety Mango α = 0,885
• Het assortiment van de H&M heeft veel variatie • De H&M biedt een ruime keus aan producten • De kleding die de H&M verkoopt wordt
aangeboden in veel verschillenden kleuren • De kleding die de H&M verkoopt wordt
aangeboden in veel verschillende maten • De H&M heeft een groot assortiment
Mediator Loyalty H&M
α = 0,924
Loyalty Mango
α = 0,822
Cognitive phase H&M α = 0,798
Cognitive phase Mango α = 0,766
• Voor kleding kijk ik altijd bij de H&M • De H&M verkoopt producten van deze tijd • De inrichting van de H&M vind ik aantrekkelijk • Ik blijf de H&M bezoeken, ook wanneer zij een
Affective phase H&M α = 0,813
Affective phase Mango α = 0,771
• De H&M is een kledingwinkel die bij mij past • De H&M biedt wat ik zoek in een kledingwinkel • De H&M hoeft geen individuele aandacht te
geven aan mij
• De H&M is een winkel waar ik over praat Conative phases H&M
α = 0,832
Conative phase Mango α = 0,784
• Ik geniet van de bezoeken aan de H&M • Ik kies geen andere kledingwinkel dan de H&M
als deze meer kwaliteit zou bieden • Ik ben loyaal aan de H&M
• Ik vind het niet saai om elke keer naar de H&M te gaan om te winkelen
Dependent variable Store choice likelihood H&M α = 0,813
Store choice likelihood Mango α = 0,778
• Ik bezoek de H&M omdat ik bekend ben met deze winkel
• Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel dicht bij mijn huis is gevestigd
• Ik bezoek de H&M omdat ik er reclame van ontvang
• Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel een goede prijs-kwaliteit verhouding heeft • Ik bezoek de H&M omdat deze winkel een
aantrekkelijk assortiment aanbiedt
TABLE 3. Reliability check
As follow, a factor analysis for assortment variety H&M is conducted to conclude if this variable can be one overall factor and if all five statements measure the same. To proceed, the KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) measures the sampling adequacy which should be higher than .5 for a satisfactory factor. The Barlett’s test of sphericity needs to be less than .05 to support the factorability of the variable assortment variety. All six statements measuring assortment variety are added into the factor analysis. The outcome shows a KMO of .83 which is more than .5 and the Barlett’s test shows a significance level of .00. Besides these findings the Eigenvalues are 3.44, which is more than 1. The first and the only factor accounts for 68.82% of the variance which is quite much. All the remaining factors are not significant. With all these outcomes there can be concluded that the six statements all measure the same thing and can be factored into one single factor. To test the hypothesis both the single factors and the separate statements will be employed to find important differences in the results.
The results of the factor analysis of the first phase of customer loyalty H&M, the cognitive phase show a KMO of .79 and a Barlett’s significance level of .00. The statements can be factored into one single factor because then Eigenvalues are 2.51, which is higher than 1 and the percentage of variance is more than 60% (62.65). The results of the second phase of customer loyalty H&M, the affective phase, show a KMO of .76 and a Barlett’s significance level of .00. The four statements can be factored into one single factor because then
60% (64.33). The last phase; the conative phase (H&M), to measure customer loyalty, show a KMO of .80 and a Barlett’s significance value of .00. The four statements can be factored into one single factor because than Eigenvalues are 2.66 which is higher than 1 and the percentage of variance is more than 60% (66.55).
Finally, a factor analysis for store choice likelihood H&M is conducted to conclude if these five statements all measure store choice likelihood and to measure if these statements can be factored into one single factor. The KMO is .79 and the Barlett’s significance is .00. The five statements all measure the same because the eigenvalue is higher than 1 (2.89) and the percentage of variance is 57.7 which is almost 60%. Table 4 depicts a summary of all outcomes of the different factor analyses for the second clothing store; Mango.
Assortment variety Values
KMO 0,867 Barlett’s test 0,000 Eigenvalues 3,434 % of variance 68,7% Cognitive Phase Store loyalty
Values Affective Phase
Store loyalty
Values Conative phase
Store loyalty
Values
KMO 0,678 KMO 0,547 KMO 0,735
Barlett’s test 0,000 Barlett’s test 0,000 Barlett’s test 0,000
Eigenvalues 2,355 Eigenvalues 2.358 Eigenvalues 2,444
% of variance 58,9% % of variance 59,6% % of variance 61,1%
Store choice likelihood Values KMO 0,758 Barlett’s test 0,000 Eigenvalues 2,662 % of variance 53,2%
TABLE 4. Results factor analyses Mango
5.1.3 Validity
With this been said, it is now possible to draw conclusions for the female clothing store branch.
5. 2 Manipulation check
In order to draw valid conclusions about the further study outcomes a manipulation check is build into the study design to tell how well the results of the pre test are. This manipulation check refers to certain kinds of secondary evaluations of the previous test. To make sure if the conclusions from the pretest about H&M having a large assortment and Mango having a small assortment were also perceived by these 92 participants, the following manipulation check was performed. The results are depicted in table 2. This table shows that these participants criticize H&M’s assortment as large and Mango’s assortment as small.
Statements ‘assortment variety’ H&M and Mango
Small assortment (Mango)
Large assortment (H&M)
∆
Het assortiment van de winkel heeft veel variatie
M = 2,60 M = 3,88 + 1,28
De winkel biedt een ruime keus aan producten
M = 2,78 M = 3,90 + 1,12
De kleding die de winkel verkoopt, wordt aangeboden in veel kleuren
M = 2,36 M = 3,80 + 1,44
De kleding die de winkel verkoopt wordt aan geboden in veel maten
M = 2,25 M = 3,64 + 1,39
De winkel heeft een groot assortiment
M = 2,04 M = 4,07 + 2,03
TABLE 5. Manipulation check
5.3 Descriptive results
5.3.1 Influence of a large assortment on store choice likelihood
To measure the effects of a large assortment and a small assortment on consumers’ store choice likelihood, two separate linear regressions has been performed. A linear
Taking a look at table 6, it becomes clear that a large assortment is a significant predictor of store choice likelihood. The F value tests the overall significance of the regression model. The first regression model (table 6) shows a good estimation of store choice likelihood, since the F value is 29.29 and the P is .00 (p < .01). The F value should normally range from zero to a large number. The adR2 (.23) indicates the percentage variation in store choice likelihood by a large assortment: 23% of the variance of store choice likelihood is explained by a large
assortment. The regression coefficient (B) of the variable large assortment indicates an increase of the effect on store choice likelihood (.51). The β should not be taken into consideration since this model concerns a single regression and not a multiple regression.
Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. Error of the estimate
.49 .24 .23** .83
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression Residual Total 20.50 62.99 83.50 1 90 91 20.50 .70 29.29** .00 Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) Large assortment 1.41 .51 .38 .09 .49 3.71 5.41** .00 .00 ** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1
TABLE 6. Linear regression analysis large assortment on consumers’ store choice likelihood H&M
5.3.2 Influence of a small assortment on store choice likelihood
Taking a look at table 7 it becomes clear that a small assortment is no significant predictor of store choice likelihood. This second regression model shows no good estimation of store choice likelihood because the F value is below 1(.05) and the P is .81 (> .1).
These marks show that a large assortment will have a strong and positive effect on
consumers’ store choice likelihood while a small assortment will have a negative effect on consumers’ store choice likelihood.
Model R R square Adjusted R square Std. Error of the estimate
.02 .00 -.01 .85
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression Residual Total .04 65.77 65.81 1 90 91 .04 .73 .05 .81 Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta (Constant) Small assortment 1.77 -.02 .24 .09 -.02 7.39 -.23 .00 .81 ** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1
TABLE 7. Linear regression analysis small assortment on consumers’ store choice likelihood Mango
To find out if there are more striking findings, the small and large assortments will be tested in one single test with both store choice likelihood variables. For this analysis a MANOVA test will be conducted. MANOVA stands for multivariate analysis of variance and is a statistical test procedure for comparing means of more dependent variables; in this case two. The regression analysis used before, can only measure one dependent variable at one time. The MANOVA helps to answer: 1. do changes in the independent variable(s) have significant effects on the dependent variables; 2. what are the interactions among the dependent variables and 3. what are the interactions among the independent variables. Essentially, MANOVA takes scores from the multiple dependent variables and creates a single dependent variable giving the ability to test for the above effects. Statistical reports however will provide individual p-values for each dependent variable, indicating whether differences and interactions are statistically significant. In comparing with the regression analyses done before, the MANOVA analysis should result in more findings among the different variables.
The SPSS outcome shows three different tables. The second table shows the actual
the Wilks Lambda needs to be regarded. The Wilks Lambda is the measurement of the
difference between groups of means on the independent variables; the smaller the lambda, the greater the differences. In table 8 the test results are depicted. It resulted in a Wilks Lambda of .00 and F = 4.49 for large assortment and a Wilks lambda of .11 and F = 1.59 for small
assortment. The two assortment variables differ on the two Y’s (store choice likelihood H&M and store choice likelihood Mango). According to the third outcome table, the large
assortment shows to have a significant effect on both store choice likelihood with P HM is .04 (< .05) and P Mango is .00 (< .05). The small assortment has only a significant effect on one of the dependent variables: P Mango is .02 (< .05). This last finding shows a different result
as regards the outcome of the regression analysis in paragraph 5.3.2 where the small
assortment shows no significant effect on store choice likelihood at all. After all, this slightly different outcome does not support the first hypothesis, since the large assortment has still a more positive effect on store choice likelihood than the small assortment does. There is not enough evidence for hypothesis 1, thus the first hypothesis must be rejected.
Large and Small assortment on two store choice likelihood
Sig Wilkson Lambba Value
F
Large assortment Small assortment
Between subjects effects
Small assortment Y choice large Y choice small Large assortment Y choice large Y choice small .00** .11 .72 .02* .04* .00** .02 .11 4.49** 1.59 .73 2.98* 2.00* 9.73** ** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1
TABLE 8. MANOVA analysis large and small assortment on both consumers’ store choice likelihood
5.3.3 Mediation effect of loyalty on the relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood
To measure the effect of the mediator store loyalty on the relationship between a small assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood, more than one regression analysis is needed. The causal steps methods developed by Baron and Kenny (1986) is the most
three conditions necessary for mediation, and the updated version by Kenny (1998) describes four steps to infer mediation.
If loyalty (Z) mediates, there can be said that Z is able to fully or partial explain the relation between small assortment (X) and store choice likelihood (Y). As Baron and Kenny
suggested, partial mediation is a more realistic expectation than complete mediation. There are four steps needed to demonstrate a mediator effect. The first step is a regression analysis with Y as dependent variable and X as predictor. This analysis needs to demonstrate that X has a significant effect on Y. Table 8 step 1 shows that there is no relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood.
The second step is a regression analysis with loyalty (Z) as dependent variable and small assortment (X) as predictor. This analysis needs to demonstrate that X (small assortment) has a significant effect on Z (loyalty). This is actually true (see step 2).
The mediator variable Z can only explain a relationship between X and Y if Z is linked with Y as well. Punctually said; a third regression analysis must be performed with Y as dependent variable and Z as predictor. This analysis needs to demonstrate that Z has a significant effect on Y. Step 3 shows that loyalty has no significant effect on store choice likelihood.
If loyalty can explain the relation between a small assortment and store choice likelihood, this would imply that store choice likelihood is no longer in relation with a small assortment as soon as loyalty (Z) will be held constant. To check this, a last regression analysis will be performed with Y as dependent variable and both X and Z as predictors. This analysis needs to demonstrate that the partial regression coefficient of X, keeping Z constant is not
significant. Step 4 shows that store choice likelihood is not in relationship with small assortment as soon as loyalty is held constant, which is good. But since there is no
relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood at all and the fact that loyalty has no significant effect on store choice likelihood, the mediator role of loyalty cannot be measured properly. The mediator variable loyalty is not able to fully or even partial explain the relation between a small assortment (X) and store choice likelihood (Y). With this
information there is not enough evidence to support H2.
Sig Adjusted R square Unstandardized coefficient (B)
STEP 1 X Y .81 -.01 -.02
STEP 3 Z Y .95 -.01 .00 STEP 4 X and Z Y Small assortment (X) Loyaly (Z) .77 .85 -.02 -.03 .02
TABLE 9. Step 1-4 small assortment (** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1)
5.3.4 Mediation effect of loyalty on the relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood
For the final hypothesis the same four steps had been followed, to test the mediator role of store loyalty on the relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood. The third hypothesis predicts that there is no mediated effect of loyalty in this relationship.
Step 1 shows that there is a relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood. The second step measures if X (large assortment) has a significant effect on Z (loyalty). Step 2 shows that a large assortment has indeed a significant effect on loyalty (p = .00). The third step measures if loyalty also has a significant effect on store choice likelihood just has a large assortment has a significant effect on loyalty. Table 9 step 3 shows that loyalty has a significant effect on store choice likelihood. The last step of measuring the value of the mediator variable loyalty is to check if loyalty can explain the relation between large
assortment and store choice likelihood. This would be the case if store choice likelihood is no longer in relation with large assortment as soon as loyalty (Z) will be held constant. This analysis needs to demonstrate that the partial regression coefficient of X, keeping Z constant is not significant.
step 4 =.19). According to step 4, 33% of the total effect on store choice likelihood is
mediated by loyalty. This outcome is in contradiction with the last hypothesis, predicting the opposite effect that there is no mediator effect at all. With these conclusions, H3 is not supported.
Sig Adjusted R square Unstandardized coefficient (B) STEP 1 X Y .00** .23** .51** STEP 2 X Z .00** .49** .73** STEP 3 Z Y .00** .32** .58** STEP 4 X and Z Y Large assortment (X) Loyaly (Z) .13 .00** .33 .19 .44
TABLE 10. Step 1-4 large assortment (** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1)
5.3.5 Mediation effect of loyalty on the relationship between assortment variety and store choice likelihood
Two stepwise regression analyses have been performed to test the mediation effect of loyalty on the relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood and the relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood. To find out if there are more striking findings, the small and large assortments will be tested in one single test. To combine both small assortment and large assortment a different type of test will be used. The MANOVA will be used because, this time, there are two dependent variables (store choice likelihood H&M and store choice likelihood Mango), two independent variables (large assortment and small assortment) and two mediators (store loyalty H&M and store loyalty Mango). Since the mediator role will be tested again, the same four steps as before, will be taken. The second table shows the actual MANOVA outcomes. For the most exact values the Wilks Lambda needs to be regarded.
The first step shows that the two different assortment sizes, small and large assortment, did differ on the two different Y’s (store choice likelihood). Only for the large assortment, the MANOVA resulted in a significant result (Wilks Lambda = .76, F = 13.7, P = .00). The small assortment resulted in no significant results. (Wilks Lambda = .96, F = 1.67, P = .19). From the third table, the between subjects effects we can see that a large assortment has a
The second step shows that both a large and a small assortment have a significant effect on store loyalty. The between subjects effects show that a large assortment has a significant effect on both loyalty large assortment and loyalty small assortment (see table 11).
STEP 1 X1, X2 Y1, Y2 Sig Wilkson Lambba Value
F
Large assortment Small assortment
Between subjects effects
Small assortment Y choice large Y choice small Large assortment Y choice large Y choice small .00** .19 .08 .74 .00** .37 .76 .96 13.7** 1.67 3.1 .10 27.6** .79
STEP 2 X1, X2 Z1, Z2 Sig Wilkson Lambda Value
F
Large assortment Small assortment
Between subjects effects
Small assortment Z loyaltylarge Z loyaltysmall Large assortment Z loyaltylarge Z loyaltysmall .00** .00** .00** .32 .01** .00** .50 .73 44.16** 16.47** 31.35** 1.01 6.05** 86**
TABLE 11. Steps 1 and 2 (** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1)
The third step is performed with the two Y’s as dependent variables and the two Z’s as predictors. The outcome shows that loyalty large assortment has a significant effect on store choice likelihood while loyalty of small assortment shows no significant effect at all (see table 11). From the between subjects effects there can be concluded that there is only a significant effect of loyalty large assortment on store choice likelihood of the store with a large
STEP 3 Z1, Z2 Y1, Y2 Sig Wilkson Lambba Value
F
Loyalty large Loyalty small
Between subjects effects Loyalty small Y choice large Y choice small Loyalty large Y choice large Y choice small .00** .95 .88 .79 .00** .09 .66 .99 22.28** .05 .02 .07 42.56** 3.03
STEP 4 X1, X2 and Z1, Z2 Y1, Y2 Sig Wilkson Lambda Value F Large assortment Small assortment Loyalty large Loyalty small
Between subjects effects
Small assortment Y choice large Y choice small Large assortment Y choice large Y choice small Loyalty small Y choice large Y choice small Loyalty large Y choice large Y choice small .35 .17 .00** .58 .32 .09 .48 .17 .89 .39 .59 .00** .11 .98 .96 .86 .99 1.05 1.79 6.92** .55 1.01 2.99 .50 1.99 .17 .76 .29 11.84** 2.67
TABLE 12. Steps 3 and 4 (** p < .01 ; *p < .05 ; ° p < .1)
6. Conclusion and recommendation
In this final chapter the research design, the conclusions and managerial implications will be described. These components will address academic contribution, limitations and further research as well.
6.1 Research Design
In the first chapter the following research question was formulated: ‘What is the effect
of assortment variety in a clothing store on women’s store choice likelihood, and is this effect mediated by women’s store loyalty?’
To answer this question two different assortment groups were distinguished; a large
Mango representing the small assortment. As a result, there were two dependent variables of ‘store choice likelihood’ and two mediators of ‘store loyalty’ for both clothing stores.
92 female participants were randomly assigned and all filled out the same questionnaire consisting of all the same questions for both H&M and Mango. The independent variable ‘assortment variety’ was measured on five different items just like that the dependent variable ‘store choice likelihood’ was measured on five items. The mediator ‘store loyalty’ was
measured on 12 items with the three loyalty phases cognitive, affective and conative of McMullen and Gilmore (2002).
6.2 Discussion
Current research focused on the question if assortment variety has an indirect effect on store choice likelihood and if this relationship is mediated by store loyalty. As far as known this effect is never been investigated before. It can have an important contribution to the composition of assortments for retailers. Critical here, is the notion if consumers’ loyalty to a clothing store is an important influencer.
From the results of this research first appears that a large assortment is a significant predictor of store choice likelihood. Almost 25% of the variance of store choice likelihood is explained by a large assortment. On the other hand, a small assortment seemed to have a negative effect on store choice likelihood. To come up with other findings, a second test was performed while all variables were tested at the same time. This test showed that the large assortment again has a significant effect on store choice likelihood. A striking finding of this second test is that the small assortment this time showed a significant effect on one of the two dependent variables (store choice likelihood). Combining both outcomes, the first hypothesis can not be supported, since the large assortment has still a more positive effect on store choice likelihood than the small assortment does.
the women won’t negatively stand out of crowd and would probably choose the easy way: wear what everyone else wears, follow the trends.
The second hypothesis predicts that loyalty mediates the indirect relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood. The results indicate that there is no
relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood at all. So that loyalty mediates the relationship seems to be impossible. Further results show that a small assortment has indeed a significant effect on store loyalty but store loyalty has no effect on store choice likelihood. The good thing of this test is that store choice likelihood is not in relationship with small assortment as soon as loyalty is held constant. But since there is no relationship between a small assortment and store choice likelihood at all, the mediator role of loyalty cannot be measured properly. A second test, where all variables are measure together shows the exact same outcome for this relationship. Now, there can be said that there is no relationship
between a small assortment and store choice likelihood and no mediation effect of loyalty can be measured. An explanation for this outcome might be that people become loyal to a clothing store when this store offers everything a customer is looking for. So women do not have to visit several stores to find what they need. A store with a small assortment might only be interesting to visit when someone is looking for something unique for a special occasion or just want to stand out of the crowd. Women may not call themselves loyal if they visit a store only a few times.
The last hypothesis predicts that the indirect relationship between a large assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is not mediated by store loyalty. Unlike what is predicted, the opposite results have been found, thus the third hypothesis can be rejected. The results show that there is a strong relationship between a large assortment and store choice likelihood. The results also show this indirect relationship is mediated by store loyalty. This relationship is partial mediated and not fully mediated. 33% of the total effect on store choice likelihood is mediated by loyalty. Trustworthy, this percentage might be ‘low’ because loyalty has been measured with three different phases according to McMullan and Gilmore (2002). If all twelve statements measured the same phase of loyalty, this mediating effect might result in a higher percentage. Now, participants may have scored higher on one phase (on four out of twelve statements) than they did on another phase. All three phases measure other dimensions of loyalty so it is a little bit hard to come up with one single conclusion.
favour of a large assortment. Further clarification, as the explanations mentioned above, can be the fact that women think that more is always better without considering the benefits of less choice. Dutch women are used to spend a lot of money on pleasure shopping and do not be content with scarcity. On other explanation might be the group of participants. If this research has been done in a more fashionable city, for example Amsterdam other results might be stand out. In bigger cities than Groningen, people may show more cuts and are less afraid to stand out of a growth, which goes together with other shopping habits and store choices.
6.3 Revised conceptual model
A large assortment has a more positive effect on consumers’ store choice likelihood than a small assortment and therefore hypothesis 1 needs to be rejected. Store loyalty, the mediating variable, has no significant effect on the indirect relationship between a small assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood and therefore hypothesis 2 can not be supported. The indirect relationship between a large assortment and consumers’ store choice likelihood is mediated by store loyalty. This is not in line with hypothesis 3 and therefore this hypothesis must be rejected as well. These outcomes lead to a new, revised conceptual model (figure 2).
FIGURE 2. Revised conceptual models H2 and H3
6.4 Theoretical and practical implications
