The role of anticipated emotion, desire, and intention in the relationship between image and shopping center visits
ABSTRACT Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify variables that intervene in the relationship between shopping center image and frequency of visits to that shopping center. Variables investigated as intervening are desires, intentions, and positive anticipated emotions. Design/methodology/approach – The method uses a two wave mail survey. One wave gathers intentions and variables antecedent to intentions while a second wave gathers behavioral data. Findings – Findings suggest that desire (i.e. motivation), intention, and positive anticipated emotions intervene between shopping center image and frequency of shopping center visits. Positive anticipated emotions are not emotions felt while shopping but are the expected emotional consequences of achieving a goal, in this case visiting a shopping center. Visiting a shopping center might be a goal in itself or it could be the means to goal attainment (e.g. shopping to get a product). Research limitations/implications – A limitation of the study is that results are aggregated across types of shopping centers and across respondent classifications. Practical implications – Results provide evidence that desire, intention, and positive anticipated emotions intervene between shopping center image and frequency of visits to the shopping center. Implications for shopping center managers are guidance for allocating resources towards increasing desire, intention, and positive anticipated emotions. Originality/value – The value of this study is investigation of the process by which shopping center image impacts the frequency of visits to a shopping center. Focusing on this process should allow shopping center managers to more efficiently allocate resources. The value of this study is offering resource allocation guidance to shopping center managers.
- SourceAvailable from: hse.ru
Article: The theory of planned behavior[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Given the lack of unequivocal findings on person-career fit, this investigation aims to gain insight into the role of cognitive styles in understanding students’ career preferences by two complementary studies. In study 1, we examined whether students (n = 84) with different cognitive styles differ in their entrepreneurial attitudes. Results showed a strong positive correlation between the creating style and the overall occupational status choice index, which implies a preference to become self-employed. No significant correlations were found between this index and the knowing and the planning style respectively. A more detailed look at the occupational status choice sub-indexes showed a positive correlation for the knowing style with the ‘economic opportunity’ index, for the planning style with ‘security’ and ‘participation in the whole process’, and for the creating style with ‘career’, ‘challenge’, ‘economic opportunity’, ‘autonomy’, ‘authority’, and ‘self-realisation’. No significant differences in overall occupational status choice were found in terms of gender, degree option, or family background in entrepreneurship. Study 2 focused on the link between students’ career anchors and their cognitive styles and personality profile (n = 275). We found for the knowing style a positive correlation with ‘pure challenge’, for the planning style a positive correlation with ‘lifestyle’ and ‘security/stability’ and a negative one with ‘autonomy/independence’, and for the creating style a positive correlation with ‘entrepreneurial creativity’ and ‘pure challenge’ and a negative one with ‘security/stability’. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that cognitive styles and personality traits could predict people’s career anchors to a certain extent. These findings are particularly relevant for career counselling services of higher education institutions and for selection and recruitment policies of organOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 01/1991; 50(2):179-211. · 3.13 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 01/1987; 51(6):1173-82. · 5.08 Impact Factor