The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-0552.htm

Grocery store
Grocery store image, travel image
distance, satisfaction
and behavioral intentions
115
Evidence from a Midwest college town
Received January 2009
Maxwell K. Hsu Revised September 2009
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin, USA Accepted October 2009

Yinghua Huang
Xiamen University, Fujian, China, and
Scott Swanson
University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire,
Eau Claire, Wisconsin, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to study the interrelationships among grocery store image,
travel distance (TD), customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions (BI) in a college town setting.
Design/methodology/approach – Surveys are given to undergraduate college student grocery
shoppers in a Midwest college town. The 400 usable questionnaires are randomly divided into two
parts: one subsample was used for exploratory factor analysis while the other (larger) subsample was
used for confirmatory factor analysis and subsequently the structural path analysis.
Findings – Grocery store image is identified as a second-order construct reflected by the three key
components of merchandise attributes (MEA), store ambience and service (SAS), and marketing
attractiveness (MGA). Although store image is an important driver of BI, its indirect effect through
customer satisfaction is found to be substantially greater than its direct effect on BI. Interestingly, TD
is positively related to satisfaction, which highlights the possibility for retailers to overcome the
distance disadvantage.
Originality/value – As few studies have attempted to characterize the US grocery market in terms
of the reasons for their choice, this exploratory study is unique because it investigates grocery
shopping behavior in a traditional American college town. Specifically, the distinctive market factors
(e.g. the relative scarcity of grocery retailers, their distance from campus, and the mix of grocer types
in or around the Midwest college town) add value and contribute to the retailing literature.
Keywords Shopping, Store ambience, Customer satisfaction, Consumer behavior,
United States of America
Paper type Research paper

The first author would like to thank the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater for awarding a International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management
2008 Faculty Research Grant that contributed to the completion of this paper. The second author, Vol. 38 No. 2, 2010
who was a visiting scholar at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater from September 2007 to pp. 115-132
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
January 2009, wishes to thank the China Scholarship Council for awarding her a State 0959-0552
Scholarship Fund (No. 2007102024) which partially contributed to the completion of this paper. DOI 10.1108/09590551011020129
IJRDM Introduction
38,2 Competition in the American retail grocery industry has reached unprecedented levels.
In 2007, this $400 billion industry of approximately 40,000 companies operated 70,000
grocery stores (excluding convenience stores) in just the USA. Grocery stores are now
often providing a wider array of goods and services such as prescription drugs, dry
cleaning, flowers, liquor, and retail banking, as well as postal, catering, and carry out
116 ready-to-eat meals. There are supermarket chains, organic and health food stores, drug
stores, dollar/discount stores, super centers, warehouse stores, neighborhood
convenience stores, and local co-ops. Traditional supermarkets and small-scale
grocers have found greater competition with both value-based retailers such as
supercenters and warehouse clubs, and the emergence of new rivals such as drug stores,
dollar stores, and independents that heavily focus on ethnic food offerings (Chamil and
McTaggart, 2008). In such a competitive and evolving marketplace, understanding
customers’ perceptions of grocery store image and its relationship to patronage
intentions may be crucial to future success.
Martineau (1958) first identified store image as an important element in the
development of retail personality. Store image is a total impression represented in the
memory as a result of perceived attributes associated with the store which are
independent and interdependent in the consumer’s memory based on both current and
previous exposure to stimuli (Hartman and Spiro, 2005). It has been suggested that
store image is a predictor of retailer choice (Hildebrandt, 1988; Grewal et al., 1998), and
a key antecedent of both customer satisfaction (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998; Koo, 2003)
and patronage intentions (Heijden and Verhagen, 2004; Chang and Tu, 2005).
Previous research indicates that the dimensional importance of store image can
vary across store type (Hansen and Deutscher, 1977; Hirschman et al., 1978). For
example, Amirani and Gates (1993) study three types of retail stores: Nieman-Marcus
(a specialty store), Sears (a mass merchandise store), and K-Mart (a discount
department store), and they find that the attributes underlying the store image
construct differ in level of importance and their contribution to the formation of overall
store impressions. Unfortunately, “few recent studies have attempted to characterize
the US grocery market in terms of [. . .] the reasons for their choice (i.e. store attributes)”
(Carpenter and Moore, 2006, p. 435).
In addition to store image, location is a potentially important factor in attracting
patrons to a shopping area (Kim and Jin, 2001; Nevin and Houston, 1980). Although
consumers generally seek to minimize travel time or distance (Handy, 1992), store
image has been shown to lessen potentially negative issues based on travel distance
(TD) (Stanley and Sewall, 1976). This research also investigates how the “distance
effect” (distance from customers’ residence to their primary grocery store) influences
customers’ satisfaction and behavioral intentions (BI) related to grocery shopping.
It is worthy to note that though previous research has examined grocery shopping
behavior in a typical municipality context (Bawa, 1999; Clarke, 2000), there is a paucity
of research related to store image and the sequential influences in the distinctive market
of college towns. A college town refers to a society in which one or more than one
college/university is located, and the culture it creates exerts a dominant influence over
the character of the community (Gumprecht, 2003). Because of the higher education
setting, college towns have a distinctive market environment that many retailers find
compelling. Compared to their metropolitan counterparts, college towns are
characterized with unusually high densities of younger aged citizens, highly educated Grocery store
workforces, comparatively cosmopolitan populations, dominant institutions of higher image
education and a college-oriented shopping district (Gumprecht, 2003). Specifically,
college towns are often youthful places that offer retailers a closed-in market of trendy,
early-adopters, who tend to have developed a unique shopping style.
Since store attributes and image are, to a certain extent, under the direct control of
the store manager (Heijden and Verhagen, 2004), and few studies have focused on 117
empirically verifying the interrelationship among grocery store image, customer
satisfaction and BI (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998), a better understanding of how
customers react to grocery store image would be of great value to both retail marketing
researchers and to grocery store managers. This study specifically provides an
empirical investigation of college town grocery store shopping behavior with a
focus on:
.
exploring key dimensions of store image;
.
examining the influence of store image on customer satisfaction and customer BI;
and
.
investigating the relationship of TD to customer satisfaction and BI.

In the remainder of this paper, we provide a brief literature review and develop the
hypotheses. A proposed theoretical model is tested through structural equation
modeling. The findings are subsequently discussed, and the paper concludes with
study limitations and directions for future research.

Literature review
Store image
Conceptualization of store image as a construct dates back to the 1950s, when
Martineau (1958, p. 47) first introduces it as “a store defined in the shopper’s mind
partly by its functional qualities and partly by an aura of psychological attributes”.
Continuous interest in store image research has contributed to knowledge development
in this area and generated several academic debates on the appropriate theoretical
paradigm and research methodology when researching the store image construct (Yun
and Good, 2007).
The definition of store image has continued to evolve since first being introduced by
Martineau (1958). Wyckham (1967) suggests store image is a consumer’s summative
perception of store attributes, formed as the result of the shopping experience.
Lindquist (1974, p. 30) defines store image as a “structure of some sort that is tying
together the dimensions that are at work”. More recently, store image has been viewed
at the macro-levels of general schematic associations including the perceptions and
beliefs of general categories of retailers (e.g. discount stores, department stores, grocery
stores). For example, some researchers suggest that store image is developed by
comparing incoming information to existing category information in memory; and,
therefore, store image is not only a function of the image of a particular store but also of
the images and associations in the memory of existing store and retail categories
(Grewal et al., 1998; Keaveney and Hunt, 1992). Hartman and Spiro (2005) conclude that
the dominant conception of store image is an overall memory resulting of store
attribute perceptions based on exposure to stimuli.
IJRDM As Chowdhury et al. (1998) point out, a large body of literature on store image
38,2 consists of studies either using structured scales or adopting open-ended measures
(that consumers form composite gestalt images of a store). Accordingly, Chowdhury
et al. (1998, p. 72) empirically assess the comparative properties of these two main
streams that have been proposed to evaluate store image, and they conclude “that the
two types of measures have similar properties and that the structured scales are
118 more correlated with a set of self-reported behavioral measures”. That is, one should
feel comfortable utilizing a structured scale to evaluate store image that fits the specific
context of a certain store category.
Scholars have conceptualized store image with a variety of attribute categories
including assortment, facilities, market posture (Nevin and Houston, 1980) as well as
merchandising, store atmosphere, in-store service, accessibility, reputation,
promotions, facilities, and post-transaction service (Thang and Tan, 2003). However,
four types of store attributes (i.e. merchandise attributes (MEA), service attributes,
store ambience, and marketing attractiveness (MGA)) appear to be employed
consistently by customers to develop their overall impression of a bricks-and-mortar
store. These four store attributes are discussed next.
First, a strong merchandise mix provides consumers with a wide choice of products
and services, and it enhances a store’s ability to fulfill consumers’ needs and wants
(Golledge et al., 1966; Hanson, 1980). In evaluating merchandise related aspects,
product quality, selection or assortment, and pricing appear to be most salient to
customers. Second, to a certain extent, a consumer’s visit to a store often takes the form
of a recreational activity making the level of service provision by the store more
valuable (Bitner, 1990; Westbrook and Black, 1985). The service-related aspects of store
image are often handled by service personnel and would include items such as delivery
and check-out. Third, store ambience is related to the environment that is presented by
a coordinated visual display of merchandise and the ease of mobility within the store
(Ghosh, 1994; Thang and Tan, 2003). Fourth, marketing activities help to create public
awareness of the activities of the store (Bagozzi, 1998). Utilizing these four store
attributes the following hypothesis is provided:
H1. Store image is a function of MEA, service attributes, store ambience, and
MGA.

Satisfaction
Na et al. (1999) view satisfaction as a consequence of strong associations or images.
Satisfied customers experience “a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment”
(Oliver, 1997, p. 13). In the context of retailing, Bloemer and Ruyter (1998, p. 501) define
satisfaction as “the outcome of the subjective evaluation that the chosen alternative
(the store) meets or exceeds expectations”. This conceptualization stems from the
disconfirmation paradigm (Oliver, 1980). Specifically, the level of satisfaction experienced
is based on a comparison of expectations for what will occur in the service experience with
perceptions of what actually occurs (Zeithaml et al., 1993). In the customer loyalty
literature, store image in general (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998; Chang and Tu, 2005), and
store image attributes in particular (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2002; Koo, 2003),
are primary determinants of customer satisfaction. The more favorable the store image,
the more likely customers will be satisfied.
Behavioral intentions Grocery store
BI refer to the degree of conscious effort a person will exert to perform a behavior and image
can be measured by word-of-mouth, willingness to switch stores, and future patronage
(Yun and Good, 2007). Customer satisfaction is generally identified as vital for the
development of long-term relationships (Oliver and Swan, 1989). In addition, customer
satisfaction is an antecedent to store loyalty (Caruana, 2000; Chang and Tu, 2005) and
BI (Osman, 1993; Pan and Zinkhan, 2006; Yun and Good, 2007). 119
Store image has been identified as a predictor of customer satisfaction (Bloemer and
Ruyter, 1998; Chang and Tu, 2005) as well as customer BI (Osman, 1993; Yun and
Good, 2007). For example, it has been found that store image can influence retail store
choice (Lindquist, 1974; Shim and Eastlick, 1998; Giese and Cote, 2000). In addition,
Thang and Tan (2003), adopting Donovan and Rossiter’s (1982) framework of
stimulus-organism-response, suggest that store image can influence consumers’
psychological responses including their behavior.
Though the inter-relationships among store image, satisfaction and BI have been
examined in previous studies, there seems to be no consensus in the literature
regarding the role of satisfaction between store image and BI. Indeed, there is both
evidence for a direct relationship and indirect relationship whereby customer
satisfaction acts as a mediator between store image and BI. Which is the better
predictor of BI, store image or customer satisfaction? As few studies have focused on
empirically verifying the interrelationship among grocery store image, customer
satisfaction and BI, we propose the following hypotheses:
H2. Store image positively and directly influences customer BI.
H3. Store image has an indirect effect on customer BI through customer
satisfaction.

Travel distance
The central place theory suggests that location is an important factor in attracting
patrons to a shopping area (Kim and Jin, 2001; Nevin and Houston, 1980). Utility
maximization models of shopping behavior suggest that travel cost is a disutility,
reducing the probability of more distant destinations being chosen by consumers. The
shopper will generally minimize TD or travel time to shop for convenience goods, such
as grocery items, which the consumer purchases frequently and/or with a minimum of
effort (Handy, 1992; Holton, 1958).
Other researchers point to complexities in shopping behaviors and TD such as
outshopping or “the purchase of goods by consumers outside their local shopping area”
(Jarratt, 2003, p. 287). Blakney and Sekely (1994) suggest that even when households
intend to minimize travel time, outshopping may be undertaken to satisfy
non-purchasing motivations. For example, other researchers have demonstrated the
importance of “image” in retailer choice (Nevin and Houston, 1980; Fotheringham and
Trew, 1993). When Stanley and Sewall (1976) incorporate a store image variable into
Huff’s (1962) model of store size and TD, their empirical results show that stores with
favorable images could attract remote customers and that such images lessen
potentially negative issues regarding location.
The effect of TD on store preference may also vary by product and occasion.
Dissatisfaction with the products/shopping options available locally has been shown to
IJRDM cause higher levels of outshopping activity (Guy, 1990; Lillis and Hawkins, 1974), while
38,2 the availability of other, more attractive, shopping alternatives outside one’s primary
shopping area has also been shown to lead to an increased occurrence of outshopping
(Papadopoulos, 1980; Samli et al., 1983).
Past research has demonstrated ways that retailers can overcome a distance
disadvantage, yet distance is unlikely to have a positive effect on customers’ satisfaction
120 and their shopping BI. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed regarding the impact
of distance from a customers’ residence to their primary grocery store (i.e. distance
effect) in consumers’ grocery shopping behavior:
H4. Distance has a negative impact on customers’ satisfaction and shopping BI.
To summarize, this study investigates the construct of grocery store image and
examines its interrelationships with satisfaction, BI, and TD. Figure 1 shows the
conceptual framework.

Methodology
Survey instrument development
The questionnaire items in the present study were generated via a series of focus groups.
Specifically, a set of eight focus groups were comprised of teams of undergraduate junior
and senior students in two sections of an elective marketing course offered in an
AACSB-accredited business school located in the Midwest region of the USA. The
participating students (n ¼ 65) were first introduced to the concept of store image and
service blueprinting for a grocery store to give the focus group members an opportunity
to better understand the sequential stages of the grocery shopping service encounter.
Next, the grocery store selection scale developed by Ezell and Russell (1985) was
introduced to the students prior to their selection and purification of the grocery store
image scale items. Finally, the members of the eight focus groups were combined into

Merchandise
attributes Travel
distance

Service
attributes Customer
satisfaction

Grocery store
image
Store
ambience Behavioral
intentions

Figure 1. Marketing
Conceptual framework attractiveness
two large teams where all members were encouraged to deliberate possible differences Grocery store
before they reached a consensus on the operational dimensions that they deemed image
appropriate for grocery store image. Though Ezell and Russell’s grocery store selection
scale was adapted in the survey data collection stage, our empirical study focuses only
on the operational questions filtered out through the focus groups because the filtered
items were thought to better reflect what matters to the studied student population.
With regard to the scales for satisfaction and BI, both were adapted from past 121
research and modified by the authors to fit the context of this study. Specifically, the
satisfaction scale is based on Olorunniwo et al. (2006), and the BI scale is adapted from
Grewal et al. (2003) and Olorunniwo et al. (2006). The survey questions are summarized
in Table I. Each question item was rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

Sampling and data analysis

The surveys were given to college student grocery shoppers in a Midwest college town
with a population of 15,000 residents. Out of the 11,000 students in this public

Merchandise attributes
V1. My grocery store provides excellent quality of produce
V2. My grocery store provides excellent quality of meats
V3. My grocery store’s products are competitively priced
V4. My grocery store offers many price specials
V5. My grocery store has an extensive selection of products and brands
V6. It is easy to find items I want in my grocery store
Service attributes
V7. My grocery store’s employees are friendly and helpful
V8. My grocery store has fast check-out
V9. My grocery store provides adequate services (i.e. carry out, check cashing)
Store ambience
V10. My grocery store is clean
V11. My grocery store has a neat, well-organized display of merchandise on shelves
V12. It is easy to move through the store (e.g. wide aisles)
V13. Parking space at my grocery store is adequate
Marketing attractiveness
V14. My grocery store provides informative, helpful advertising
V15. My grocery store has attractive store appearance and décor
V16. My grocery store offers good quality store’s own brand products
Travel distance
TD. My grocery store is far from my residence
Customer satisfaction
SAT1. I am satisfied with my decision to shop at my grocery store
SAT2. My choice to shop at my grocery store is a wise one
SAT3. My experiences at my grocery store have been enjoyable
SAT4. I am satisfied with my grocery store’s products and services
Behavioral intentions
BI1. I would recommend my grocery store to someone who seeks my advice
BI2. I would say positive things about my grocery store to other people
BI3. I would encourage friends and relatives to shop at my grocery store Table I.
BI4. I will continue to shop at my grocery store in the future The survey instrument
IJRDM university, approximately 3,200 undergraduate and 600 graduate students are housed
38,2 in the College of Business and Economics. The grocery shopping environment of this
college town includes one typical grocery store and one small Hispanic grocery store.
The next closest traditional competitive grocery store is located 12 miles away from the
university and the closest big-box low-cost grocery store is located 20 miles away from
the university. Respondents were asked to indicate their perceptions of their main
122 grocery store (i.e. the one that they spend the most money at when grocery shopping).
Students enrolled in several sections of undergraduate International Marketing and
Services Marketing courses were invited to participate in the research. Students’
involvement in the study was strictly voluntary, and they were assured confidentiality
in their responses. Owing to the purposive nature of sample determination, response
rate was not applicable to the present research. Our non-probability judgment sample
of undergraduate students yielded 430 usable questionnaires (including 60
non-business major students). The respondents who indicated that they “rarely” or
“never” shop for groceries (n ¼ 30) were not included in the subsequent analyses. Next,
we tested the assumptions underlying the use of structural equation modeling.
First, there existed no sign of univariate and/or multivariate outliers in the sample.
In order to reduce the likelihood of capitalizing the factors on chance characteristics of
the same sample, the overall sample was randomly divided into two subsamples: S1
and S2 with roughly 35 (n ¼ 142) and 65 percent (n ¼ 258) of the overall useable
responses, respectively. Sample S1 was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
while a larger sample, S2, was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the
structural path analysis. Notably, instead of a 200/200 equal split, a 142/258 (35 vs
65 percent) random split was chosen as the underlying evaluation rule for EFA is less
rigorous than that for CFA in which measurement errors would be taken into account
in the analysis. The minimum required sample size guidelines suggested by Kim (2005)
and MacCallum et al. (1996) indicate that a sample size of 258 is appropriate for CFA in
the current research.
As to the structural equation model, following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) work,
the proposed model was tested using a two-stage structural equation approach. First,
we performed CFA to evaluate construct validity using sample S2. In the second stage,
we performed path analysis to empirically test the research hypotheses on the same
sample (S2).

Results
Respondent characteristics
Respondents (n ¼ 400) were slightly more likely to be female (54.7 percent) and ranged
in age from 19 to 41 years old, with a median age of 22 years. Approximately, 35
percent of the respondents shopped for groceries once a week and about the same
percentage of respondents did their grocery shopping two times a month (36 percent).
Half of the respondents reported spending between US$80 and 500 on groceries
per month (i.e. median ¼ US$80 per month). Approximately, 60 percent of the
respondents grocery shopped in town at a regional chain grocery store, 15 percent
shopped at a competitive regional chain grocery store located 12 miles away from
town, 13 percent shopped 20 miles away at a discount chain grocery store, and
7 percent grocery shopped at a nationwide supercenter located 20 miles away from
town. With respect to gender and age, our sample was representative of the university
undergraduate population and was not atypical of the college student population in the Grocery store
Midwest. image
Exploratory factor analysis
As mentioned above, the 16-item instrument related to store image (Table I) was first
analyzed using EFA over the 142 respondents of S1. Items with a lower than 0.4 factor
loading or with serious cross-loadings were dropped one at a time (i.e. items 9, 10, 11), 123
and Cronbach alphas and item-to-total correlations were recalculated repeatedly as
part of the reassignment and deletion (of items) process. An exception was the
remaining of item no. 4 (price specials), which showed a marginal cross-loading on both
Factors 1 (0.47) and 3 (0.41). Notably, the other price-related item (no. 3, competitive
price) loaded high on Factor 1. In case that this subjective judgment was indeed an
inappropriate one, there was still an opportunity to revisit this matter in the following
CFA stage. The EFA process resulted in a three-factor model. All of the calculated
Cronbach alphas were above 0.7, which indicates a good internal consistency among
items within each identified dimension (Nunnally, 1978). The values of Cronbach alpha
were 0.84 for Factor 1 (i.e. “MEA”), 0.82 for Factor 2 (i.e. “store ambience and service”
(SAS)), and 0.80 for Factor 3 (i.e. “MGA”). Table II presents the rotated factor pattern,
Eigenvalues, cumulative percents of explained variance, and Cronbach alpha for each
identified factor.

CFA and scale reliability

Guided by EFA results generated from the previous analysis on S1, a CFA was
performed on the larger sample (i.e. S2). SPSS-AMOS 17.0 was employed to conduct
structural equation modeling using a two-stage analysis approach (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988; Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). To confirm the dimensions of store image
identified in EFA, we examined CFA of the proposed measurement model, which

F1 (MEA) F2 (SAS) F3 (MGA)

V1. Quality of produce 0.75

V2. Quality of meats 0.67
V3. Competitive price 0.64
V5. Extensive selection of products and brands 0.51
V4. Price specials 0.47 0.41
V6. Items I want 0.44
V13. Parking space 0.96
V12. Easy to move through the store 0.66
V8. Fast checkout 0.52
V7. Employees 0.41
V15. Store appearance and décor 0.85
V16. Store’s own brand products 0.62
V14. Advertising 0.54
Eigenvalue 6.19 1.16 0.99
Cumulative percent of explained variance 47.62 56.52 64.11
Cronbach alpha 0.84 0.82 0.80 Table II.
Factor loadings for the
Notes: EFA was performed on sample S1; extraction method is generalized least squares while underlying dimensions of
rotation method is varimax with Kaiser normalization; factor loading less than 0.40 are not shown store image (EFA)
IJRDM included not only the second-order factor grocery store image but also the first-order
38,2 constructs of customer satisfaction, BI, and distance. Notably, TD is measured as a
single indicator factor and its related error variance was set to be 0.15 (i.e. its reliability
is 1 2 0.15 ¼ 0.85) in order to reflect the notion that this single indicator may not be a
perfect measure for this construct. The CFA fit indices are x 2 (df ¼ 200) ¼ 508.28
( p , 0.001), CFI ¼ 0.94, and RMSEA ¼ 0.07.
124 In the confirmed measurement model, all factor loadings of the indicators related to
each first-order factors of grocery store image (i.e. MEA, SAS and MGA) were
statistically significant and sufficiently large, demonstrating that the indicators and
their underlying constructs were acceptable (standardized loadings ranged from 0.64
to 0.96, all p , 0.001). In addition, the average variance extracted (AVE) values related
to these factors were all above 0.5 (Table III). Together, these results suggest
reasonable overall convergent validity. That is, grocery store image (a second-order
factor) was well reflected by the three EFA identified first-order factors.
It was hypothesized that grocery store image is a function of MEA, store ambience,
service attributes and MGA. Partial support was found for this hypothesis, as two
originally proposed dimensions (service attributes and store ambience) were
condensed into one factor based on the EFA, and this finding was confirmed by the
CFA outcome.
The correlations among the studied constructs along with the construct reliability
and the total amount of AVE are reported in Table III. Notably, the computed construct
reliability values for all studied constructs in our study were higher than 0.7,
a commonly recommended rule of thumb for construct reliability (Hair et al., 2009).
With regard to the discriminant validity, it can be assessed through pairwise
confirmatory factor analyses using the procedure recommended by Anderson (1987),
Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and Bagozzi and Phillips (1982). Practically, forcing
items of two different latent constructs into a single factor should reflect a decreased
model fit when compared to the two-construct solution for each pair of constructs. As
such, a series of x 2 difference tests were performed on the nested models to examine
whether the x 2-value related to the unconstrained model was statistically different
from that of the constrained model where the phi coefficient was constrained to unity
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The fact that all critical values related to a series of x 2
difference tests were statistically significant at the 0.05 level gives supportive evidence
to discriminant validity for all the scales employed in this study.

MEA SAS MGA SAT BI TD

1. MEA 0.55 (0.88)

2. SAS 0.73 * 0.55 (0.83)
3. MGA 0.67 * 0.68 * 0.66 (0.85)
4. Satisfaction (SAT) 0.75 * 0.70 * 0.58 * 0.84 (0.95)
5. BI 0.49 * 0.52 * 0.51 * 0.60 * 0.79 (0.94)
6. TD 0.26 * 0.20 * 0.18 * 0.31 * 0.12 0.94
Table III.
Correlation matrix and Notes: Significance at: *p , 0.001 level; the diagonal represents the total amount of AVE and the
variance extracted composite reliability (within parentheses), while the other matrix entities represent the
(n ¼ 258) intercorrelations
As a more stringent test of discriminant validity, the AVE value for each construct Grocery store
should be larger than the squared correlation between that construct and other related image
constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Surprisingly, a careful examination of Table III
signals one problem in that the AVE value associated with MEA (0.548) was slightly
lower than the squared correlation between this construct and satisfaction
(0.746)2 ¼ 0.556) by a tiny margin of 0.008. A re-examination of this problem reveals
that the culprit of not having had a higher AVE for the MEA factor appears to be the 125
relatively low-factor loading associated with item V6 (i.e. “it is easy to find items I want
in my grocery store”). Recently, Orth and Green (2009) also report a relatively low AVE
(0.594) for store image, but this low AVE score barely passed the discriminant validity
test in their study.
Re-running the CFA with V6 being removed from the list of measures, the MEA’
AVE value was increased to 0.578, which is larger than the biggest squared correlation
between it and other related constructs (0.556) and thus passes the alternative
discriminant validity test. Nonetheless, given that the MEA factor is conceptualized to
be a first-order factor (i.e. the MEA factor is a dimension of the second-order store
image construct) with no direct relationship to satisfaction in the structural path model
and that the discriminant validity has been successfully established by the pairwise
confirmatory factor analyses recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we
decided to keep item V6 in the model and proceeded with the SEM path analysis.

Model and hypotheses testing

Using the same sample as the CFA, the structural model was estimated to fit the data
with the maximum likelihood method. Fit indices of the structural equation modeling
obtained for the proposed theoretical model demonstrated that the model fitted the data
reasonably well (x 2 ¼ 453.99, p , 0.001; CFI ¼ 0.95, NFI ¼ 0.91, RMSEA ¼ 0.07).
Figure 2 shows our empirical findings.
The hypothesized paths between grocery store image, customer satisfaction, and BI
were all positive and statistically significant, thus supporting hypotheses H2 and H3.
The standardized coefficients from grocery store image to customer satisfaction and
from customer satisfaction to BI were 0.82 and 0.48, respectively. A statistically
significant but relatively smaller standardized regression coefficient (i.e. 0.23) was
observed between grocery store image and BI. With regard to the role of TD, it had a
statistically significant and positive effect (standardized regression coefficient ¼ 0.11)
on customer satisfaction, while it had a statistically insignificant effect on BI.

Discussion and implications

The development and maintenance of a favorable store image is critical for retailers to
maintain or improve their market positions (Steenkamp and Wedel, 1991). Increased
competitive forces within the US retail grocery industry are challenging grocers to
evaluate their store image, make necessary changes, and alter marketing strategies to
retain current customers and attract new ones. This research provides grocery retailers
that operate within a traditional US college town specific knowledge of the store
attributes that young consumers consider crucial when they shop for groceries, and
empirically analyzes how these attributes influence customer satisfaction and BI. The
research findings offer several important insights for grocery store managers.
IJRDM TD
38,2 V1
0.999**
0.75**
V2
0.74** Travel
V3 SAT1 SAT2 SAT3 SAT4
0.78** distance
Merchandise
126 V4 0.76**
attributes 0.107* 0.92** 0.91** 0.92** 0.91**
0.77**
V5
0.63**
–0.080
V6 0.927** Customer
satisfaction
0.819**
V7 0.72** R2 = 0.729
Store Grocery
0.66** ambience 0.930** 0.481**
V8 store image
and service
0.83** R2 = 0.443
V12 0.229*
Behavioral
0.75**
V13 0.837** intentions

V14 0.75** 0.96** 0.96** 0.96** 0.65**

Marketing
0.84**
V15 attractiveness
BI1 BI2 BI3 BI4
0.85**
V16

Figure 2. Notes: χ2 = 453.99, df = 200, χ2/df = 2.27, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.95, NFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.07;
Proposed structural model significance at *p < 0.10 and **p < 0.05 levels; all are based on a two-tailed significance level
and hypotheses test with the following directional hypotheses: store image → customer satisfaction (p < 0.001),
results store image → behavioral intentions (p = 0.065), and customer satisfaction → behavioral
intentions (p < 0.001)

First, operationalizable questions were developed to estimate grocery store image via a
series of focus groups, and these question items were subject to EFA. Grocery store
image was identified as a second-order construct reflected by the three key components
of MEA, SAS, and MGA. The merchandise dimension involves customers’ value
perceptions in relationship to quality of produce and meat at fair prices, in addition to an
extensive selection of products and brands to provide customer choice. Store ambience
provides a favorable environment where customers can easily move around the store
and conveniently locate the products they need. The in-store service component reflects
the importance of friendly and responsive employees. In terms of the MGA dimension,
catering to customers’ needs and encouraging repeat visits via in-store promotions and
advertising that provide pertinent information for the customer is critical.
Ideally, improving all three dimensions of grocery store image should be pursued.
However, using sequential improvement allows grocers the opportunity to learn from
possible mistakes in one critical change before a full-range store image campaign is
implemented and allows focus on the most important dimension first. Findings
revealed that the SAS dimension (with a standardized factor loading of 0.930) and the
MEA dimension (with a standardized factor loading of 0.927) were equally important,
and they were slightly more important than the MGA dimension (with a standardized Grocery store
factor loading of 0.837). image
Although store image is an important driver of BI, its indirect effect through
customer satisfaction is substantially greater than its direct effect. This finding was
consistent with earlier studies in the context of hypermarkets and department stores
(Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998; Chang and Tu, 2005) and highlights the role of satisfaction
as a mediator between store image and BI. This relationship is evidenced by the 127
significant relationship between store image and BI through satisfaction as shown in
Figure 2.
Given that patronage intention is strongly related to the profitability and the
long-term growth of a store, it is important for grocers to understand the relevant store
image dimensions perceived by their customers that could reinforce positive customer
satisfaction assessments. Grocers may consider a systematic assessment program to
monitor store image and customer satisfaction over time. Some possible
communication tools to exchange assessment results and resolutions with customers
might include utilization of the store’s web site to conduct survey research or the
establishment of a consumer panel to collect longitudinal data.
The finding of a positive relationship between TD and customer satisfaction is
unexpected. It may reflect the notion that a fixed cost (e.g. distance) may not be more
important than other variable costs (e.g. price and selection) in customers’ minds.
However, this result would be consistent with Simmie and Sutcliffe’s (1994)
observation that out-of-town developments that benefit consumers in terms of lower
prices can overcome TD costs. It is also possible that some customers are
multi-purpose shoppers who combine purposes for different product categories so that
they are more satisfied with a distant grocery store which is near other types of stores
(e.g. a shopping mall).
The choice of grocery stores involves a series of trade-offs, and this study sheds
light on the importance of store image and the possibility for distant retailers to
overcome the distance disadvantage and to compete with local retailers. TD has
particular strategic implications for retailers in rural or more isolated areas. Notably,
studying grocery shopping habits of residents in rural communities in Scotland,
Broadbridge and Calderwood (2002, p. 394) conclude that:
[. . .] while it unlikely that local traders will reverse outshoppers’ shopping behaviors, with a
re-evaluation of their overall offer, they may be able to establish themselves as a reliable
supplementary or secondary choice option, thereby maintaining the local shop as a viable
function.
Thus, rural or small town retailers should monitor the extent of choice available to
their targeted customers within time/distance parameters and try to differentiate their
offerings from the competition in ways relevant to the target market.
As our study is exploratory in nature, it carries several limitations. Although, we
point out some of the distinctive market characteristics of American college towns, this
study focuses only on the student body in one Midwest college town. Surveying only
college students limits the possibility to generalize the findings to the actual population
of grocery store shoppers within the specified geographic constraint of the study. Other
target customers such as residential households, faculty and staff, were not examined
in this study. Future research should consider utilizing a broader range of potential
IJRDM respondents by surveying these aforementioned segments and compare the
38,2 assessments of store image components with the findings presented here.
Transportation availability is an issue that may need to be further explored in a
future study. When investigating residents in a college town, there may be respondents
(e.g. senior citizens) who may not have their own transportation. Notably,
approximately 90 percent of the respondents in this study did have a vehicle, so the
128 lack of transportation was not a major issue. More broadly, additional investigations
should consider whether or not the relationship between TD and customer satisfaction
is unique to the sample investigated in this study or indicative of a more pervasive
shopping mindset.
Another possible extension of this research would be to examine the “outshopping”
attractiveness dimensions utilized by shoppers when patronizing distant grocery
stores or shopping channels (e.g. store-only grocery shoppers, online grocery shoppers
and multi-channel shoppers). Further empirical research needs to investigate the store
image associated with a variety of grocer types and its relationship with customer
satisfaction and BI in different contexts (e.g. e-grocery). Additional investigation of
store image could enhance our understanding of customer satisfaction and BI in
various retail contexts.

References
Amirani, S. and Gates, R. (1993), “An attribute-anchored conjoint approach to measuring store
image”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 30-9.
Anderson, J.C. (1987), “An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation
modeling of organizational properties”, Management Science, Vol. 33, pp. 525-41.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1998), Marketing Management, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Phillips, L. (1982), “Representing and testing organizational theories: a holistic
construal”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp. 459-89.
Bawa, K. (1999), “A model of household grocery shopping behavior”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 149-60.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and
employee responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 69-82.
Blakney, V.L. and Sekely, W. (1994), “Retail attributes: influence on shopping mode choice
behavior”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 101-8.
Bloemer, J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2002), “Store satisfaction and store loyalty explained by
customer- and store-related factors”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 68-80.
Bloemer, J. and Ruyter, K. (1998), “On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction,
and store loyalty”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 499-514.
Broadbridge, A. and Calderwood, E. (2002), “Rural grocery shoppers: do their attitudes reflect
their actions?”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 8,
pp. 394-406.
Carpenter, J.M. and Moore, M. (2006), “Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail
format choice in the US grocery market”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 434-52.
Caruana, A. (2000), “Service loyalty: the effects of service quality and the mediating role of Grocery store
customer satisfaction”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 811-28.
image
Chamil, D. and McTaggart, J. (2008), “Glass half full”, Progressive Grocer, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 24-42.
Chang, C.H. and Tu, C.Y. (2005), “Exploring store image, customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty relationship: evidence from Taiwanese hypermarket industry”, The Journal of
American Academy of Business, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 197-202.
Chowdhury, J., Reardon, J. and Srivastava, R. (1998), “Alternative modes of measuring store 129
image: an empirical assessment of structured versus unstructured measures”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 72-86.
Clarke, I. (2000), “Retail power, competition and local consumer choice in the UK grocery sector”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 975-1002.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Ezell, H.F. and Russell, G.D. (1985), “Single and multiple person household shoppers: a focus on
grocery selection criteria and grocery shopping attitudes and behavior”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 171-87.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp. 39-50.
Fotheringham, A.S. and Trew, R. (1993), “Chain image and store-choice modeling: the effects of
income and race”, Environment and Planning, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 179-96.
Ghosh, A. (1994), Retail Management, 2nd ed., The Dryden Press, Chicago, IL.
Giese, J. and Cote, J. (2000), “Defining customer satisfaction”, Academy of Marketing Science
Review, Vol. 1, pp. 1-27.
Golledge, R.S., Rushton, G. and Clark, W.A. (1966), “Some spatial characteristics of Iowa’s
dispersed farm population and their implications for the grouping of central places
functions”, Economic Geography, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 261-72.
Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M. and Voss, G.B. (2003), “The effects of wait expectations and store
atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service-intensive retail stores”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 79, pp. 259-68.
Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J. and Borin, N. (1998), “The effect of store name, brand name
and price discounts on consumers’ evaluations and purchase intentions”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 331-52.
Gumprecht, B. (2003), “The American college town”, The Geographical Review, Vol. 93 No. 1,
pp. 51-81.
Guy, C.M. (1990), “Outshopping from small towns: a British case study”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 18, pp. 3-14.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis,
7th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Handy, S. (1992), “Regional versus local accessibility: variations in suburban form and the
implications for nonwork travel”, unpublished dissertation, Department of City and
Regional Planning, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Hansen, R.A. and Deutscher, T. (1977), “An empirical investigation of attribute importance in
retail store selection”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53, pp. 59-72.
Hanson, S. (1980), “Spatial diversification and multipurpose travel: implications for choice
theory”, Geographical Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 245-57.
IJRDM Hartman, K.B. and Spiro, R.L. (2005), “Recapturing store image in customer-based store equity:
a construct conceptualization”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 1112-20.
38,2
Heijden, H. and Verhagen, T. (2004), “Online store image: conceptual foundations and empirical
measurement”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 609-17.
Hildebrandt, L. (1988), “Store image and the prediction of performance in retailing”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 91-100.
130 Hirschman, E., Greenberg, B. and Robertson, D. (1978), “The intermarket reliability of retail
image research: an empirical examination”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 54, pp. 3-12.
Holton, R.H. (1958), “The distinction between convenience goods, shopping goods, and specialty
goods”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 53-6.
Huff, D.L. (1962), “Determination of intra-urban retail trade areas”, Real Estate Research
Program, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 11-12.
Jarratt, D. (2003), “Outshopping behaviour: an explanation of behaviour by shopper segment
using structural equation modeling”, International Review of Retail, Distribution &
Consumer Research, Vol. 20, pp. 287-304.
Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. (1996), LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, Scientific Software
International, Chicago, IL.
Keaveney, S.M. and Hunt, K.A. (1992), “Conceptualisation and operationalisation of retail store
image: a case of rival middle-level theories”, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 165-75.
Kim, J.O. and Jin, B. (2001), “Korean consumers’ patronage of discount stores: domestic vs
multinational discount store shoppers’ profiles”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 236-55.
Kim, K.H. (2005), “The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation
modeling”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 368-90.
Koo, D.M. (2003), “Inter-relationships among store images, store satisfaction, and store loyalty
among Korea discount retail patrons”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 42-71.
Lillis, C.M. and Hawkins, D.I. (1974), “Retail expenditure flows in contiguous trade areas”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 30-42.
Lindquist, J.D. (1974), “Meaning of image: survey of empirical and hypothetical evidence”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 29-38.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W. and Sugawara, H.M. (1996), “Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 130-49.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 47-55.
Na, W.B., Marshall, R. and Keller, L.K. (1999), “Measuring brand power: validating a model for
optimizing brand equity”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 170-84.
Nevin, J.R. and Houston, M. (1980), “Images as a component of attractiveness to intra-urban
shopping areas”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (1980), “A cognitive model of the antecedence and consequences of satisfaction
decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 46-9.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. and Swan, J.E. (1989), “Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and satisfaction Grocery store
in transactions: a field survey approach”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, pp. 21-35.
image
Olorunniwo, F., Hsu, M.K. and Udo, G. (2006), “Service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavior
intentions in the service factory”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 59-72.
Orth, U.R. and Green, M.T. (2009), “Consumer loyalty to family versus non-family business:
the roles of store image, trust and satisfaction”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 16, pp. 248-59. 131
Osman, M.Z. (1993), “A conceptual model of retail image influences on loyalty patronage
behavior”, International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 149-66.
Pan, Y. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2006), “Determinants of retail patronage: a meta-analytical
perspective”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 229-43.
Papadopoulos, N.G. (1980), “Consumer outshopping research: review and extension”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 41-58.
Samli, A.C., Riecken, G. and Yavas, U. (1983), “Intermarket shopping behavior and the small
community: problems and prospects of a widespread phenomenon”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Shim, S. and Eastlick, M.A. (1998), “The hierarchical influence of personal values on mall
shopping attitude and behavior”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 139-60.
Simmie, J. and Sutcliffe, A. (1994), “The death and life of town centres”, Planning, Vol. 181 No. 12,
pp. 6-7.
Stanley, T.J. and Sewall, M.A. (1976), “Image inputs to a probabilistic model: predicting retail
potential”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 48-53.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1991), “Segmenting retail markets on store image using a
consumer-based methodology”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 300-20.
Thang, D.C.L. and Tan, B.L.B. (2003), “Linking consumer perception to preference of retail stores:
an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 193-200.
Westbrook, R.A. and Black, W.C. (1985), “A motivation-based shopper typology”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 78-103.
Wyckham, R.G. (1967), “Aggregate department store image: social and experimental factors”,
Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Conference, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 333-7.
Yun, Z.S. and Good, L.K. (2007), “Developing customer loyalty from e-tail store image attributes”,
Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 4-22.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1993), “The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21,
pp. 1-12.

About the authors

Maxwell K. Hsu is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of
Wisconsin-Whitewater in the USA. His research interests include diffusion of innovations,
international business, service marketing management, and information technology
management. His research has been published in Applied Economics Letters, Information &
Management, International Journal of Advertising, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of International Marketing,
IJRDM Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, and Journal of Services Marketing, among
others.
38,2 Yinghua Huang is a PhD Candidate of Tourism and Hospitality Management at the Xiamen
University in China. Her research interests include service marketing, destination marketing, and
tourist behavior. Her research has been published in Asian Pacific Journal of Tourism Research,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Issues in Innovation, and Journal of Quality
Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, among others. Yinghua Huang is the corresponding
132 author and can be contacted at: hyhua1111@hotmail.com
Scott Swanson is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Wisconsin-Eau
Claire in the USA. His research interests include arts marketing, service recovery issues, and
pedagogy. His research has been published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Services Marketing, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, and the Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, among others.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints