Effects of show windows on female consumers' shopping behaviour

Abstract

Purpose
– The purpose of this study if to investigate the effects of show windows on shopping behaviour among female consumers to provide insights that a manager can use to encourage purchase behaviour.

Design/methodology/approach
– On the basis of 20 in-depth interviews, we developed a survey, which we administered to female consumers (n = 209). The survey was based on a stimulus–organism–response framework. Each respondent was exposed to an image of a show window (images were taken from apparel departments of well-known department stores) and rated her perceptions of the window and intentions to purchase items sold in the store.

Findings
– Using factor analysis, we identify five components of the show window: social, hedonic, informational, image and “feel-good” factors. The first four factors are aggregated into a “show window” metric, which is shown to influence purchase intentions; this influence is fully mediated by the feel-good factor. The image factor and the social and hedonic factors each significantly influence the feel-good factor.

Practical implications
– When developing show windows, brand managers should aim to touch on all factors of the show window to make shoppers “feel good”; these positive feelings might intensify shoppers’ purchase intentions.

Originality/value
– This study identifies five factors that make up consumers’ perceptions of show windows. It shows that exposure to a show window affects consumers’ purchase intentions, and that this influence is determined primarily by the extent to which consumers “feel good” about the store.

Full text

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Effects of show windows on female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain Mika Takayanagi Edward Carl Malthouse
Article information:
To cite this document:
Varsha Jain Mika Takayanagi Edward Carl Malthouse , (2014),"Effects of show windows on female consumers’ shopping
behaviour", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5 pp. 380 - 390
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0946
Downloaded on: 29 September 2014, At: 06:52 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 80 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
, (2014),"Executive summary of “Effects of show windows on female consumer’s shopping behaviour”", Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5 pp. - http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-08-2014-1097
Daniele Scarpi, (2006),"Fashion stores between fun and usefulness", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 Iss 1 pp. 7-24
Liz C. Wang, Lu#Hsin Chang, Scott Wysong, (2012),"An empirical investigation of the influence of optimum stimulation levels in
retailing", International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 Iss 1 pp. 6-20
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 460948 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

Effects of show windows on female
consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain
Marketing Department, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, India
Mika Takayanagi
Department of Business Administration, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
Edward Carl Malthouse
Integrated Marketing Communication, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study if to investigate the effects of show windows on shopping behaviour among female consumers to provide
insights that a manager can use to encourage purchase behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – On the basis of 20 in-depth interviews, we developed a survey, which we administered to female consumers (
n
⫽209).
The survey was based on a stimulus–organism–response framework. Each respondent was exposed to an image of a show window (images were taken
from apparel departments of well-known department stores) and rated her perceptions of the window and intentions to purchase items sold in the store.
Findings – Using factor analysis, we identify five components of the show window: social, hedonic, informational, image and “feel-good” factors.
The first four factors are aggregated into a “show window” metric, which is shown to influence purchase intentions; this influence is fully mediated
by the feel-good factor. The image factor and the social and hedonic factors each significantly influence the feel-good factor.
Practical implications – When developing show windows, brand managers should aim to touch on all factors of the show window to make
shoppers “feel good”; these positive feelings might intensify shoppers’ purchase intentions.
Originality/value – This study identifies five factors that make up consumers’ perceptions of show windows. It shows that exposure to a show window
affects consumers’ purchase intentions, and that this influence is determined primarily by the extent to which consumers “feel good” about the store.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Female shopping behaviour, Show window
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
1. Introduction
Retail environments are dynamic and unpredictable, and it is
challenging for retailers to identify courses of action that might
provide them with a competitive edge. Many retailers rely on
promotional strategies such as visual merchandising as a
means of standing out. Visual merchandising refers to the
development of effective displays – i.e. displays that attract,
engage and motivate consumers (Opris¸ and Bra˘tucu, 2013)–
by means of selection and organization of products (Walters
and White, 1987). Elements of visual merchandising include
mannequins, lighting, store design, graphics and signage,
sound and show windows, i.e. windows that display products
as a means of attracting shoppers (Diamond and Diamond,
2007). The purpose of visual merchandising is to create a
pleasurable shopping experience and to enhance value to
motivate customers to make planned or impulsive purchases
(Levi and Weitz, 2009). More specifically, visual
merchandising displays serve as environmental stimuli that
affect the perceptions of consumers; these perceptions, in
turn, elicit responses (e.g. purchase) (Du Plessisand
Rousseau, 2003). Previous studies have investigated how
visual merchandising displays affect consumers’ perceptions
(Cant and Hefer, 2014).The present paper seeks to further
explore the relationship between visual merchandising and
customer behaviour. Specifically, we examine the influence of
show windows on female shopping behaviour.
Show windows are an important visual merchandising tool
(Morgan, 2010). Historically, these windows were used to depict
various scenes. Today, marketers consider show windows as an
important contact point between retailers and consumers, which
a store can use to convey its identity and brand image (Lague,
1989). A key goal of a show window is to generate excitement
among “window shoppers” and convert them into actual
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
31/5 (2014) 380–390
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0946]
The authors would like to thank the editor, associate editor and
anonymous reviewers for the valuable suggestions and constructive
feedback. The authors are grateful to all the respondents for their valuable
insights and opinion. The authors would also like to thank
Mr Dhruvinkumar Chauhan, Research Assistant, MICA, for help with the
project.
Received 16 April 2014
Revised 15 July 2014
Accepted 21 July 2014
380
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

shoppers. Interestingly, it has been shown that the average
shopper has 11 seconds to take in a show window, which is not
enough time to persuade an individual to purchase a given
product. This emphasizes the notion that the primary role of a
show window is to spark a consumer’s curiosity. In current retail
environments, show windows are so important that they are
typically assigned a separate budget. Notably, however, despite
their utility as a marketing tool, show windows have been largely
overlooked by researchers (Opris¸, and Bra˘ tucu, 2013).
In designing a show window, it is necessary to take into
account several considerations. First, the show window must
create visual impact; it should be exceptional, differentiating
the shop from others. In addition, it should make shoppers
comfortable and “feel good”; during holiday seasons, for
example, many show windows incorporate holiday imagery.
To accomplish these goals, marketers have to deeply
understand the perceptions, thought processes and emotions
of consumers (Diamond and Diamond, 2007). Furthermore,
a show window should facilitate the shopping experience by
providing an idea of which products are available in the store
(Diamond and Diamond, 2007). The elements of the show
window – e.g. colour, lighting, fixtures, signage and layout –
need to be in sync with the interior of the store, thereby
enhancing the store’s overall image.
Numerous studies have explored the relationship between
customer behaviour and the shopping environment. These have
focused on environmental factors, such as location and
environmental aesthetics (Gilboa and Rafaeli, 2010), and on
consumer-level factors, such as shopping-related emotions and
satisfaction (Machleit and Mantel, 2001), and online purchase
intention (Van der Heijden et al., 2003). Although quite a few
studies have investigated the behavioural effects of visual
merchandising (Diamond and Diamond, 2007;Cant and Hefer,
2014;Bhalla and Anuraag, 2010;Mathew, 2008;Pegler, 2010),
we could identify only one conceptual study (Opris¸ and Bra˘ tucu,
2013) on the show window and its impact on shopping
behaviour. Notably, the study has identified consumers’
responses to store attributes such as store layout, design,
aesthetics, cleanliness, product variety, prices and store hours.
Managers take these insights into account in developing store
layouts and product assortments (Chen, 2013).
The present paper uses a stimulus– organism–response
(S-O-R) framework to explore the impact of show windows on
female shopping behaviour. We used in-depth interviews to
understand consumer behaviour, as it relates to show windows
and generated constructs for a quantitative study. On the basis
of these constructs, we developed a survey to measure
consumers’ perceptions of show windows. We factor-analyzed
participants’ responses to understand the specific components
that make up consumers’ experiences of show windows. We
then evaluated the influence of the show window on
respondents’ purchase intentions. This research may provide
marketers with tools for designing show windows that
encourage purchase behaviour among women, who are more
likely than men to shop in department stores.
2. Literature review
2.1 Store environment and shopping behaviour
A store environment can significantly influence consumers’
shopping behaviour. Individuals evaluate their surroundings
on the basis of peripheral sources of information (Petty and
Wegener, 1999), including ambient music (Sweeney and
Wyber, 2002), light (Areni and Kim, 1994), colour (Crowley,
1993), crowding (Michon et al., 2005) and scent (Teller and
Dennis, 2012). Such atmospheric cues have been shown to
have a high impact on consumers’ responses to and
engagement with store offerings (Bruner, 1990). The
shopping environment affects consumers’ emotions (Douce
and Janssens, 2011) and the amount of time they spend in
the store (Thang and Tan, 2003). If consumers perceive a
store environment as pleasant, they are likely to engage
positively with the store, whereas an unpleasant environment
can trigger avoidance (Bone and Ellen, 1999). It is possible to
create a pleasant shopping experience in a retail environment
by triggering consumers’ senses, i.e. sight, sound, scent, touch
and taste (Bäckström and Johansson, 2006;Soars, 2009).
2.2 Visual merchandising and shopping behaviour
Visual merchandising primarily entails creating displays and
organizing elements within a store to spark consumers’ curiosity
and interest, increase footfalls and enhance the appeal of the
store’s brand and its products, for the ultimate purpose of
increasing sales. Visual merchandising can contribute towards a
store’s “feel-good factor” and enhance consumers’ shopping
experience (Mathew, 2008); indeed, it has been found that
shoppers need to be “warmed up” by the right atmospherics and
presentation and displays (Diamond and Diamond, 2007). As
noted above, the components of visual merchandising include
fixtures, store design, graphics and additional atmospheric cues,
which should be incorporated in a manner that captures
consumers’ attention, but is harmonious with the fundamental
nature of the store (Levi and Weitz, 2009). Visual merchandising
display scan act as “silent salespeople”, presenting customers
with visual information that acts on a subliminal level (Diamond
and Diamond, 2007) and encourages them to add the displayed
products to their purchase lists (Bhalla and Anuraag, 2010).
Displays can also save time for shoppers and salespeople, by
presenting the available stock in an accessible manner, thereby
rendering the buying process faster and smoother (Cant and
Hefer, 2014).
2.3 Show windows and shopping behaviour
The design of a show window comprises several elements. One
key element is colour, which can contribute towards creating a
certain mood or theme and potentially gear customers towards
making a purchase (Morgan, 2010). For example, on Valentine’s
Day, a show window might be decorated in red and pink,
encouraging shoppers to buy Valentine’s Day gifts. Show
window colour schemes should be selected with caution, as
different colours have different effects on consumers’ mindsets,
and consumers from diverse cultures might even interpret the
same colour in different ways. Consumers may also be sensitive
to the use of natural vs unnatural colours in show window
displays (Diamond and Diamond, 2007).
Lighting is another important means of influencing
consumers’ mood and enhancing the appearance of products
displayed in a show window. Computer software can be used
to adjust the brightness of the show windows according to the
time of day (Opris¸ and Bra˘tucu, 2013).Additional elements
incorporated into show windows include mannequins,
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
381
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

graphics and photography and background props or scenery.
These elements can be used to create short stories or
messages, which engage consumers, for example, by
surprising or amusing them. Some stores use multiple show
windows to tell a continuous story, thereby increasing
consumer engagement and encouraging them to spend time in
the vicinity of the store. This may lead them to step inside and
acquire products. Furthermore, these elements also enable
show windows to portray fashion trends and to demonstrate
how products might be used. Selection of elements in a show
window might be influenced by consumers, competitors or
industry experts (Opris¸ and Bra˘tucu, 2013).
A show window display is key to a retailer’s communication
strategy (Chain Store Age Executive, 1989), as it determines
customers’ first impressions of the brand at the retail location
and influences their decisions to enter the store, as well as their
liking of the store (Lague, 1989). Thus, a show window
should be designed such that it conveys the specific, nuanced
image that the store wants to display (Doonan, 1998).
2.4 Consumers’ perceptions and shopping behaviour
Although marketers develop visual merchandising stimuli with
explicit purposes in mind, consumers who are exposed to a visual
merchandising display may respond in different ways. Some
might pay attention, whereas others might ignore it completely.
Consumers process information through different filters and
retain the items that are significant to them (Blythe, 2008). In
particular, consumers exposed to a stimulus in a retail
environment assess the congruency of the stimulus with their
desires and experiences (Cant et al., 2006), that is, they develop
their own perceptions regarding the retail environment. These
perceptions ultimately influence consumers’ purchase behaviour
(Evans et al., 2009). Visual merchandising – or, more generally,
store decor – constitutes the most important stimulus affecting
consumers’ perceptions of a store (Cant and Hefer, 2014).
However, consumer perceptions are affected by additional
factors, including the physical proximity of salespeople to
consumers, language used, tone of conversation, body language
and facial expressions. Shopping motivations also influence
consumers’ perceptions of the atmosphere of a store. For
example, functionally motivated individuals prefer a comfortable
and relaxing environment, whereas hedonically motivated
individuals might enjoy a thrilling environment (Cant and Hefer,
2014).
2.5 Role of emotions and shopping motives in
shopping behaviour
Emotions influence consumers’ purchase intentions (Murray,
2013;Verma and Verma, 2012). Marketers typically attempt
to trigger four basic emotions – happiness, sadness, anxiety
and anger – and the intensity of the emotions elicited varies
according to the product categories and media. In general,
consumers prefer pleasant experiences (Schmitt, 1999), and
feelings of happiness and satisfaction, in particular, encourage
customers to purchase products and brands (Pappas et al.,
2013;Thompson, 2013). Shopping motivations affect
consumers’ sensory and emotional experiences (Babin and
Barreto, 2004) and, consequently, their behaviour.
Knowledge of the motives driving customers to shop in a store
can help marketers to enhance the shopping experience and
encourage desired shopping behaviours. Numerous
researchers have attempted to classify consumers’ various
shopping motivations (Wagner and Rudolph, 2010) and
decision-making styles in shopping contexts (Wesley et al.,
2006). Broadly, customers’ motives can categorized as
functional – shopping to acquire a necessary item – or
hedonic – shopping for pleasure and amusement. Consumers
who have functional motives are rational and goal-driven
(Babin and Barreto, 2004). They perceive that value is
achieved when the product is purchased in an efficient
manner, and they seek to save time and to obtain the best deals
or value for money (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). In
contrast, for consumers with hedonic motives, the happiness,
enjoyment and pleasure derived from the shopping experience
are at least as important as acquiring the products (Andersson
et al., 2012;Babin and Barreto, 2004;Douce and Janssens,
2011). Specific hedonic motives include shopping for
stimulation and social shopping (shopping for the purpose of
communication with others); status, authority and pleasure of
bargaining (Michman et al., 2003); shopping for stress relief,
shopping to understand new trends and role shopping, which
is related to the pleasure that is derived from purchasing
products for others; and value shopping, which emphasises the
pleasure derived from sales and bargains (Arnold and
Reynolds, 2003). Functional vs hedonic shoppers are likely to
patronize different types of establishments. Upscale clothing
stores, for example, have been shown to attract customers with
hedonic motivations (Douce and Janssens, 2011).
Social motivations can also play a part in consumers’
shopping behaviour. For example, American shoppers, who
are highly independent (Parment, 2013), may seek products
that emphasize their own uniqueness (Markus and Kitayama,
1992). Clothing, in particular, is a product that consumers
purchase as a means of conveying social identity (Liljander
et al., 2009;Haytko and Baker, 2004) and improving their
self-image (Piacentini, 2010).
2.6 The S-O-R theoretical framework
The S-O-R theoretical framework has been used to study
shopping behaviour (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982;Mehrabian
and Russell, 1974). In this framework, the store environment
(the stimulus, S) is assumed to influence consumers’ internal
evaluations (O), which lead to behavioural responses (R).
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) defined categories of
atmospheric stimuli in retail environments. The categories
they identified included external stimuli, general interiors,
layout and design, point of purchase, decoration and human.
Interior dimensions such as colour, music and scents have
been studied extensively, as they affect consumers’ emotional
states and provide a pleasing shopping environment, as
discussed above.
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) further included consumers’
emotional states as behavioural responses. They defined the
consumer’s emotional state along three dimensions: pleasure,
arousal and dominance (PAD). Pleasure captures the degree
to which the individual is happy in a situation; arousal refers to
the degree to which the individual is stimulated; and
dominance is formulated from the degree to which the
individual can control the situation.
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
382
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

Behavioural responses in the S-O-R framework can be
either negative or positive. Positive responses reflect a desire in
consumers’ minds to spend more time in the store exploring
the brands and products. Negative responses reflect a desire to
leave the store and not to explore it further.
2.7 Shopping behaviour among females
Females tend to be poly chronic, i.e. to carry out multiple
tasks simultaneously. Accordingly, they are likely to shop for
multiple items at the same time (Soars, 2003). They are
frequent shoppers, buying for themselves as well as their
families (Jain et al., 2012). Women browse more alternatives
and spend more time shopping than men do (Laroche et al.,
2000), focusing on the overall retail experience rather than
solely on the specific products they aim to buy. Female
shoppers consider shopping as a leisure activity (Prendergast
and Lam, 2013), as they enjoy it thoroughly. Females who
consider shopping as a “stress-busting”, relaxing activity
spend more time shopping (Jain et al., 2012;Fischer and
Arnold, 1990) than women who do not. They enjoy shopping
for apparel (Prendergast and Lam, 2013) and are more likely
than men to shop for appearance-related products such as
accessories and beauty and skin care products. Likewise,
women are more likely to engage in innovative fashion
behaviour (Muzinich et al., 2003). Women like eye-catching
and stylish in-store displays that facilitate the purchasing
process by enabling them to identify new arrivals and product
information (Prendergast and Lam, 2013).
Women’s shopping behaviour varies across different shopping
environments. In particular, clothes-buying behaviour of women
can be classified into four types: bargain apparel, decisive
apparel, confident apparel and appearance-conscious apparel.
Bargain apparel shoppers focus on sales, low prices and
discounts. Decisive shoppers purchase those products and
brands that they like without any hesitation, and for them, store
layout is very important. Confident apparel shoppers buy
products independently and do not need any help or assistance.
They are fashion-conscious, keep their collections updated and
focus on exclusivity and uniqueness. Appearance-conscious
shoppers are particular about reputation and image, which they
portray through their apparel. They gravitate to exclusive
products and designer brands (Moye and Kincade, 2003).
3. Study overview and hypothesis
The objective of this research is to understand the impact of
show windows on female consumers’ shopping experiences
and behaviours. The insights we obtain may assist marketers
in developing effective strategies to encourage purchasing
behaviour, particularly among women, who shop more
frequently than men do.
As discussed above, several studies have examined visual
merchandising (Cant and Hefer, 2014;Diamond and
Diamond, 2007;Bhalla and Anuraag, 2010). However, to our
knowledge, no empirical studies have specifically examined
the effect of show windows on shopping behaviour of
consumers, in general, or of female consumers, specifically.
To address this gap, we developed a conceptual framework
integrating visual merchandising and S-O-R models (Figure 1).
In particular, we carried out a survey among female
consumers, in which each respondent observed an image of a
show window and rated her perception of the window and her
intentions to purchase the items sold in the store. We sought
to identify the factors composing consumers’ experiences of
show windows and to understand the relationships among
these factors and the extent to which they influence
consumers’ purchase intentions.
We put forward the following hypothesis:
H1. A show window acts as a stimulus that leads customers
to “feel good”, i.e. to experience the store positively.
These positive consumer perceptions generate positive
purchase intentions among consumers.
4. Methodology
We used a qualitative approach (in-depth interviews) to
identify constructs relating to consumer response to show
windows. We developed these constructs into a survey, which
we administered to 209 female consumers. We then used a
quantitative approach to analyze their responses.
4.1 Show window selection
Show windows were used as stimuli in the qualitative and
quantitative studies. The show windows were selected from
popular shopping destinations in Chicago – e.g. Michigan
Figure 1 Conceptual model
Store Environment
Visual
Merchandising Feel Good Factor for
Consumers
Store Experience
Purchase Intention
(Response) Consumer
Perception
(Organism, Internal
Evaluation
)
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
383
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

Avenue, State Street and Oak Street – and in New York, e.g.
Fifth Avenue, Madison Avenue, Third Avenue and 34th Street.
Our sample included several different types of stores,
representing different product categories for which retailers
frequently invest effort in designing show windows: department
stores; clothing, jewellery and shoe stores; and stores selling
household items. We selected 25 windows as the stimuli;
selection was based on the manner in which the show window
incorporated key elements such as colours, lighting, graphics,
background, mannequins, graphics, photography and themes.
4.2 Qualitative research and survey development
The first step was to identify constructs that might shed light
on the relationship between show windows and shopper
behaviour, that is, to identify specific types of thoughts and
feelings that consumers experience upon observing show
windows. To identify such constructs, we conducted
approximately 20 in-depth personal interviews with women
who were aged 25-68 years (Table I). Each interview was
about 30-40 minutes long, so that all the nuances about
respondents’ experiences of show windows could be captured.
The interview protocol was structured such that respondents
would not be able to discern the objective of the study easily.
Respondents were asked about their general shopping
behaviour [When you want to buy clothes, shoes or jewellery,
not daily necessities (convenience goods), where do you go
shopping? Why do you go there? What is important to you
about this specific place?]; their views about show windows
[What store? Why? Did you enter that store? Did you buy
something?]; and their preferences, liking and perceptions
regarding some good show windows that were taken from the
set of stimuli. At the end of the interview, the respondent was
shown a picture of a show window and was asked to share her
thoughts, views, perceptions and behaviour relating to the
show window (Table II). In these interviews, we were not
looking for participants’ descriptions of the show windows,
such as “it is colourful” or “it is trendy”. Rather, we sought
responses that reflected the personal rewards that consumers
derive from viewing a show window, or that indicated how
exposure to a show window relates to a consumer’s personal
goals. For example, observing a trendy show window might
remind a consumer of her goal of projecting a certain image.
The interviews were video-recorded under the consent of
the respondents. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and we
used content analysis methods to identify themes. Specifically,
we used an open coding approach, in which we carried out
word-by-word analysis and grouped codes along themes that
emerged (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Initially, each author
developed the themes and codes independently and then
compared and discussed them until we reached consensus.
We selected themes that were compatible with the S-O-R
model and our research objectives.
The second step was to use the themes that emerged to
generate items for a survey. The survey structure was based on
the S-O-R framework, that is, each respondent was exposed to
a stimulus (an image of a show window), and survey items
sought to capture her evaluations and (intended) behavioural
responses. The items are shown in the form used in the
qualitative survey.
4.3 Survey phase
The third step was to use the developed survey to collect data.
The survey was administered to 310 women who were alumni
of a private graduate business program at a major US
university. Emails were sent to alumni lists. Among the
women who received the survey, 209 responded (response rate
of 69 per cent). The average age of the respondents was 30.0
years, and the age range was 20-65 years. The women who
were surveyed were employed in different organizations,
preferred formal apparel for their clothing and had purchased
from the stores referred to in the survey (see below). Table III
shows a frequency distribution of the amount of money each
respondent reported spending on clothing in a typical month.
Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of four show
windows. The four windows used in the survey were all from
Table I Profile of respondents
Respondents Age Occupation Place to live
Interviewee A 40-49 Artist/Teacher Brooklyn, NY
Interviewee B 40-49 Artist/Real Estate Manhattan, NY
Interviewee C 30-39 Musician Manhattan, NY
Interviewee D 60-69 Artist Manhattan, NY
Interviewee E 60-69 Retired New York, NY
Interviewee F 60-69 Professor New York, NY
Interviewee G 30-39 Manager Austin, TX
Interviewee H 30-39 Administrative Assistant Austin, TX
Interviewee I 30-39 Shop Assistant Chicago, IL
Interviewee J 30-39 Shop Manager Chicago, IL
Interviewee K 30-39 Administrative Assistant Evanston, IL
Interviewee L 40-49 Administrative Assistant Evanston, IL
Interviewee M 40-49 Manager Evanston, IL
Interviewee N 40-49 Professor Evanston, IL
Interviewee O 30-39 Teacher Evanston, IL
Interviewee P 30-39 Housewife Evanston, IL
Interviewee Q 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Interviewee R 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Interviewee S 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Interviewee T 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Interviewee U 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Interviewee V 20-29 Student Evanston, IL
Table II Qualitative questions
Q1. When do you want to buy clothes, shoes or jewellery (not
daily necessaries)?
Q2. Where do you go shopping?
Q3. Why do you go there?
Q4. When I say, “Shop windows” what is the first thing that you
think of?
Q5. Can you recall some special shop window? If yes, what store?
Why? Did you enter that store? Did you buy something?
Q6. Have you ever bought some goods because you saw them in
the window?
Q7. Please look at the shop windows pictures. Then explain your
impressions. When you explain, please include the following
1-5 perceptions
Notes: 1. brand perceptions; 2. attitude towards the product; 3. what
it does and does not capture, such as color, emotion, tastes and touch;
4. purchase intent
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
384
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

the apparel sections of department stores. These windows
were selected from the qualitative study described above. Two
of the show windows that were selected for the study were
from moderately expensive stores (Macy’s and Lord &
Taylor’s), and two were from very expensive stores (e.g.
Barneys New York and Bergdorf Goodman). The participant
responded to each survey item by indicating, on a 5-point
scale (anchored with “strongly disagree” and “strongly
agree”), the extent to which the item described her experience
of the show window she observed. The respondent also
indicated her purchase intentions regarding the items sold in
the store represented in the show window.
4.4 Factor analysis
In the fourth step, we carried out exploratory factor analysis
on the survey data of the experience items. Specifically, we
carried out principal component factor analysis with a varimax
rotation. The initial scree plot suggested five-eight factors. We
eliminated several factors containing only one or two items
and then re-estimated the model to obtain better results. At
this stage, the scree plot suggested a five-factor solution.
Subsequently, those items with factor loading of ⬍0.5 or
cross-loadings ⬎0.4 were removed from the model. This
approach ultimately resulted in five factors comprising 22
items. Table IV shows the largest eigenvalues. The Kaiser
criterion also suggests a five-factor solution, since the first five
eigenvalues are ⬎1. Table V gives the scale items, factor
loadings and reliability computed with Cronbach’s alpha. The
cross loadings of all the factors are omitted, as they are ⬍0.35.
We evaluated convergent and discriminant validity following
the procedure described in Lehmann (1988). Both forms of
validity were supported.
We identified the five dimensions emerging from the show
window as social, informational, hedonic, image-related and
“feel-good” factors. In what follows, we elaborate on each
factor and, in some cases, provide quotes from famous
window designers that suggest that these factors are, indeed,
taken into account in the conceptualization of show windows.
The social factor refers to the individual and her community
and, in particular, her friends. The emergence of this factor
emphasizes that the social component is important in
shopping, e.g. individuals may shop together with friends and
family, or they may respond to show windows and purchase
more from the store if they perceive that the display is relevant
to their friends and family.
The informational factor reflects the role of the show
window in teaching consumers about the latest fashion trends.
A women’s clothing retailer Anthropologie with 175 stores
throughout the USA, Canada and United Kingdom
(Brimmer, 2013) has stated that it is critical for show windows
to display the “trend” of the season.
The hedonic dimension encompasses the fantasy/dreamy
experience that a show window provides. Gene Moore, an
influential show window designer, has stated:
There is a lot of fantasizing that goes on in people’s minds when they look
at things in the windows. They may not even tell themselves about it
directly, but I think subconsciously it’s there (Marcus, 1978).
The image factor is equally important for consumers’ perceptions
of the brand and status of the store. Doonan (1998), creative
director of Barneys New York, has stated: “The windows are
very important to the perception of the Barneys brand, which
Table III Amount spent on clothing in a typical month
Amount spent Frequency %
<$50 36 17.4
$50-100 50 24.2
$100-200 58 28.0
$200-300 38 18.4
$300-500 18 8.7
$500 or more 7 3.4
Table IV Eigenvalues of final factor analysis
Number Eigenvalue Proportion Cumulative
15.747 0.3381 0.3381
22.268 0.1334 0.4715
31.806 0.1063 0.5778
41.397 0.0822 0.6600
51.161 0.0683 0.7282
60.902 0.0531 0.7813
70.694 0.0408 0.8221
80.562 0.0330 0.8551
Table V Scale items with exploratory factor analysis loadings
(value of the largest factor loading) and Cronbach’s alpha
Wording
Standard
loading
Social (alpha
ⴝ
0.84)
I would like to show the products in this shop window
to my friends or family (3.28) 0.8344
I would like to talk about the fashion of the products I
have seen in this window display (3.27) 0.8124
I would talk about this window display with my
friends (2.26) 0.7671
Hedonic (alpha
ⴝ
0.94)
Magical world vs not magical world (2.15) 0.9183
Dream world vs not dream world (2.16) 0.8984
Fantasy vs not fantasy (2.14) 0.8692
Informational (alpha
ⴝ
0.75)
It shows me the latest fashion trends (3.3) 0.7175
It is a place to learn about new products/trends (3.12) 0.7559
Modern vs old-fashioned (2.8) 0.6353
It helps me put outfits together (3.11) 0.7239
Identity (alpha
ⴝ
0.74)
Professional vs. not professional (2.6) 0.4169
Sophisticated vs sophisticated (2.1) 0.6229
This store must be expensive (3.10) 0.7967
It shows me that the store is for people with high
social status (3.8) 0.8370
Happy (alpha
ⴝ
0.88)
I have a peaceful feeling from this shop window (3.19) 0.8590
I have a warm feeling from this shop window (3.18) 0.8239
I am happy when I see this shop window (3.17) 0.7613
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
385
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

centres on the words taste, luxury, and humour. The windows
reflect this”. Likewise, a leading fashion website has mentioned
that show windows are crucial for retail shops and global brands,
as they convey to the customer what the store is all about
(.fibre2fashion.com, 2014).
Finally, happiness, or the “feel-good” factor, relates to
experiences of amusement and enjoyment. Gene Moore states:
“It’s an enjoyable experience, exactly as people see things in
windows (Marcus, 1978)”. Renowned Japanese show window
designer Hattori (1988) mentioned: “The show window is the
place that entertains people. Here, ‘entertains’ means expressing
the feeling of favour and respect that makes people feel good”.
We consider four of the five identified factors – social,
informational, hedonic and image – as reflections of the
consumer’s overall experience of the show window. We use the
average of a respondent’s ratings of these four dimensions as a
metric of her “show window”, and evaluate the relationship of
this metric with the fifth factor, the feel-good factor.
4.5 Quantifying the effects of show window on
shopping behaviour
To assess the validity of H1 – that shoppers’ experiences of
show windows influence their purchase intentions by eliciting
good feelings – we analyzed the relationships between
respondents’ show window (and the components of those
experiences), their purchase intentions and the feel-good
factor. The analysis is divided into two parts. We first examine
the relationship between the “show window” metric and
purchase intent, and evaluate whether it is mediated by the
feel-good factor. Next, we use a multiple regression to
examine how each of the four components of the show
window relates to the feel-good factor.
We follow Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach to testing
mediation. The first step is to estimate the “total effect”, relating
the causal variable, show window, with the outcome variable,
purchase intent. The regression coefficient is significant
(B ⫽0.4252, p⬍0.01; Figure 2). We conclude that there is an
effect to be mediated. The second step is to show that the effect
of show window on purchase intention mediated by the feel-good
factor. As shown in Figure 3, the regression coefficient is
significant (B ⫽0.9452, p⬍0.01). The third step is to show that
the feel-good factor affects purchase intent. The path coefficient
is 0.2526.The fourth step is to estimate the “direct effect” of the
show window on purchase intent, controlling for the feel-good
factor. The coefficient is 0.1864, and is not significantly different
from zero, suggesting that the relationship between show window
and purchase intent is completely mediated by the feel-good
factor, confirming H1.
The Sobol test compares the difference between the total
and direct effects with 0. The test statistic is 0.4252 ⫺0.1864
⫽0.2388 (p⬍0.05). Thus, the direct effect is significantly
smaller than the total effect. We conclude that the experiences
with show windows have an effect on purchase intent even
after controlling for feeling good.
The second part of our analysis examines the effect of each
of the four components of the show window on the feel-good
factor, the mediator.
Table VI shows the regression results and the results of
t-tests evaluating the differences between the effects of the
different components of the show window on the feel-good
factor. These results indicate that image has the strongest
effect on the feel-good factor (0.4651), when the other three
factors are controlled for. The informational factor has the
smallest effect (0.0587), which is not significantly different
from 0. The coefficients for the social and hedonic factors are
approximately equal (around 0.2) and are significant. They
are smaller than the image coefficient, but larger than the
information coefficient (Figure 4). The t-test results confirm
that the image effect is significantly larger than each of the
Figure 2 Effect of show window on purchase intention
Figure 3 Effect of show window mediated by feel-good factor on purchase intention
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
386
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

other effects. The differences among the social, hedonic and
informational effects are not significant.
5. Discussion and conclusion
To our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically examine
the “show window” and its effect on the shopping behaviour of
consumers. We evaluated shopping behaviour using an S-O-R
framework (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982;Mehrabian and
Russell, 1974), in which the show window provides a stimulus
(S), which consumers evaluate internally (O) and then
behaviourally respond to (R). We identified five main factors that
shape consumers’ experiences of show windows: social,
informational, hedonic, image and feel-good factors. We further
showed quantitatively that these factors influence female
consumers’ purchase intentions. In addition, the effect of the
aggregation of the first four factors (referred to as the “show
window” metric) is fully mediated by the feel-good factor,
suggesting that the show window affects the purchase intentions
of consumers, primarily by eliciting positive feelings regarding the
store. In particular, consumers may be more inclined to purchase
products when the show window makes them “feel good”.
Finally, we showed that the image factor, the social factor and the
hedonic factor each significantly affect the feel-good factor, and
that image has the strongest effect.
To summarize, our study suggests that, by making
consumers “feel good”, show windows can positively affect
consumers’ purchase intentions. In particular, even though
females tend to find shopping pleasing and relaxing in any
case (Jain et al., 2012), their shopping behaviour can be
further enhanced by environmental cues such as show
windows. These windows should provide consumers with
social, functional, hedonic and image-related benefits,
offering information on trends and core product attributes
while simultaneously helping consumers to create positive
fantasies about their lives. Show windows that achieve these
goals elicit positive feelings among consumers, and this
enhances their purchase intentions.
6. Future research
Future research can extend the present study in numerous
ways. Herein, we focused on the show window as a complete
entity; future studies might explore individual environmental
cues in show windows, such as colour or lighting. They might
also investigate specific characteristics of show windows in
different product categories, such as jewellery, accessories,
shoes and books. This could provide show window designers
with tools towards tailoring show windows and consumer
experiences to a specific customer base. In addition, the
present study focuses on purchase intention; future studies
might explore the actual shopping process or post-purchase
behaviour. Another potential avenue for future research is to
explore how show windows work together with the retailer’s
other contact points with consumers – e.g. in-store displays –
to convey brand concepts, generate positive feelings about the
products and to enhance the shopping experience.
It might further be of interest to extend our research questions
to include male shopping behaviour, and to evaluate the
differences between men’s and women’s responses to show
windows. Finally, the present study was carried out in the US
market; to gain a more comprehensive perspective on the effects
of show windows on shopping behaviour, future studies should
investigate developing or emerging markets, e.g. in China or
India.
7. Implications
The findings of the present study can be helpful to many
stakeholders, including retail managers, store designers, brand
managers and marketing managers. A key finding of this study
was that consumers’ responses to a show window entail
Table VI Regression estimates of happiness predicted from four
components of show window experience, with estimated contrasts
Parameter/
contrast Estimate
Standard
error
t
-value
p
-value
Intercept 0.0098 0.2540 0.04 0.9691
Social 0.2389 0.0665 3.59 0.0004
Hedonic 0.2142 0.0543 3.94 0.0001
Informational 0.0587 0.0760 0.77 0.4411
Image 0.4651 0.0710 6.56 ⬍0.0001
Image–Hedonic 0.2510 0.0922 2.72 0.0070
Image–Social 0.2263 0.1022 2.21 0.0280
Image–Info 0.4064 0.1174 3.46 0.0007
Social–Hedonic 0.0247 0.0982 0.25 0.8015
Social–Info 0.1802 0.1152 1.56 0.1194
Hedonic–Info 0.1555 0.0971 1.60 0.1108
Figure 4 Effect of show window factors on feel-good dimension
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
387
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

multiple components – including social, informational,
hedonic and image-related factors – and that a show window
that elicits these responses can create a “good feeling” that
enhances purchasing intentions. This implies that all
stakeholders have to work as a team to create an effective show
window that achieves the goals of the store and of the brands
it offers. Show windows could engage the shopper in a
“conversation” through text or elicit social scenes with the
graphics. To meet consumers’ informational needs, store
designers can display new trends in aesthetically appealing
ways and brand managers can ensure that the functional and
symbolic attributes of the products are on display. To elicit a
hedonic response, show windows can incorporate designs and
colours that help consumers to enter a “dream world”, and
display the products in a way that encourages consumers to
fantasize about the possibilities that might await them if they
enter the store. Finally, the show window can use
mannequins, graphics and other visual elements to convey a
certain type of image that customers might seek to achieve. If
marketing managers can incorporate these elements into a
show window, they might succeed in making consumers “feel
good” about the store, increasing the likelihood that window
shoppers will step inside and make a purchase.
References
Andersson, M., Palmblad, S. and Prevedan, T. (2012),
“Atmospheric effects on hedonic and utilitarian
customers”, Bachelor’s degree thesis, Linnaeus University,
available at: http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?
pid⫽diva2:531689 (accessed 19 February 2014).
Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1994), “The influence of in-store
lighting on consumers’ examination of merchandise in a
wine store”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 117-125.
Arnold, M.J. and Reynolds, K.E. (2003), “Hedonic shopping
motivations”, Journal of retailing, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 77-95.
Babin, P. and Barreto, H. (2004), “Union workers provide
quality”, New Orleans City Business, 25 October, pp. 26-26.
Bäckström, K. and Johansson, U. (2006), “Creating and
consuming experiences in retail store environments:
comparing retailer and consumer perspectives”, Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 417-430.
Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 1173-1182.
Bhalla, S. and Anuraag, S. (2010), Visual Merchandising,
McGraw Hill, New Delhi.
Blythe, J. (2008), Consumer Behaviour, Thomson Learning,
London.
Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P.S. (1999), “Scents in the
marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 243-262.
Brimmer, A. (2013), “Retailer Anthropologie to open store
downtown, Businessinsavannah.com”, available at: http://
businessinsavannah.com/bis/2013-05-17/retailer-anthropologie-
open-store-downtown#.U70SWdeSwRt (accessed 9 July 2014).
Bruner, G. II (1990), “Music, mood and marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 94-104.
Cant, M. and Hefer, Y. (2014), “Visual merchandising
displays effect – or not – on consumers: the predicament
faced by apparel retailers”, Journal of Business and Retail
Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Cant, M., Brink, A. and Brijball, S. (2006), Consumer
Behaviour, Juta, Cape Town.
Chain Store Age Executive (1989), “All the store’s a stage at
Bloomingdale’s, Chain Store Age Executive, pp. 283-285.
Chen, R.J. (2013), “How can stores sustain their businesses?
From shopping behaviors and motivations to environment
preferences”, Sustainability, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 617-628.
Crowley, A. (1993), “The two dimensional effect of color on
shopping”, Marketing Letters - A Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 59-69.
Diamond, J. and Diamond, E. (2007), Contemporary Visual
Merchandising and Environmental Design, Pearson Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Donovan, R.J. and Rossiter, J.R. (1982), “Store atmosphere:
an environmental psychology approach”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Doonan, S. (1998), Confessions of a Window Dresser, Penguin
Studio, New York, NY.
Douce, L. and Janssens, W. (2011), “The presence of a
pleasant ambient scent in a fashion store:the moderating
role of shopping motivation and affect intensity”,
Environment and Behavior, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 215-238.
Du Plessis, P.J. and Rousseau, G. (2003), Buyer Behaviour: A
Multi Cultural Approach, Oxford University Press, Cape
Town.
Evans, M., Jamal, A. and Foxall, G. (2009), Consumer
Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Fibre2fashion.com. (2014), “Window display - the new retail
mantra”, available at: www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-
article/4/321/window-display-the-new-retail-mantra2.asp
(accessed 12 March 2014).
Fischer, E. and Arnold, S.J. (1990), “More than a labor of
love: gender roles and Christmas gift shopping”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 333-345.
Gilboa, S. and Rafaeli, A. (2010), “Store environment,
emotions and approach behaviour: applying environmental
aesthetics to retailing”, The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 195-211.
Hattori, H. (1988), How to Understand and Use Display, Books
Nippan, Carson, CA.
Haytko, D.L. and Baker, J. (2004), “It’s all at the mall:
exploring adolescent girls’ experiences”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), “The
experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,
feelings, and fun”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Jain, V., Pingle, S. and Daswani, A. (2012), “Understanding
Indians purchase behavior process: luxury apparel sector”,
Metamorphosis: A Journal of Management Research, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 82-94.
Lague, L. (1989), “The ultimate marketplace; it’s not just
window dressing”, The New York Times, 12November,
pp. 1-3, accessed 19 February 2014.
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
388
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

Laroche, M., Saad, G., Browne, E., Cleveland, M. and Kim, C.
(2000), “Determinants of in-store information search
strategies pertaining to a Christmas gift purchase”, Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Lehmann, D. (1988), “Assessing convergent and discriminant
validity”, Applied Psychologicial Measurement, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 411-423.
Levi, E. and Weitz, S. (2009), Retailing Management, McGraw
Hill, New York, NY.
Liljander, V., Polsa, P. and Van Riel, A. (2009), “Modeling
consumer responses to an apparel store brand: store image
as a risk reducer”, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 281-290.
Machleit, K.A. and Mantel, S.P. (2001), “Emotional response and
shopping satisfaction: moderating effects of shopper attributions”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Marcus, R.P. (1978), “The cost of leasing: inflation and
residual value”, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 58-60.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1992), “The what, why and
how of cultural psychology: a review of Shweder’s thinking
through cultures”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 357-364.
Mathew, R. (2008), Apparel Merchandising, Book Enclave,
New Delhi, Delhi.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J. (1974), An Approach to
Environmental Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Michman, R.D., Mazze, E.M. and Greco, A.J. (2003),
Lifestyle Marketing, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.
Michon, R., Chebat, J. and Turley, L.W. (2005), “Mall
atmospherics: the interaction effects of the mall
environment on shopping behavior”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 576-583.
Morgan, T. (2010), Window Display - New Visual
Merchandising, Laurence King, London.
Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2003), “Shopping
orientation segments: exploring differences in store
patronage and attitudes toward retail store environments
among female apparel consumers”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Murray, P. (2013), “How emotions influence what we buy”
Inside the Consumer Mind, 26 February, available at: www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-the-consumer-mind/201302/
how-emotions-influence-what-we-buy (accessed 12 March
2014).
Muzinich, N., Pecotich, A. and Putrevu, S. (2003), “A model
of the antecedents and consequents of female fashion
innovativeness”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 297-310.
Opris¸, M. and Bra˘tucu, G. (2013), “Visual merchandising
window display”, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of
Bras¸ov, Vol. 6 No. 55, pp. 51-56.
Pappas, I.O., Giannakos, M.N., Kourouthanassis, P.E. and
Chrissikopoulos, V. (2013), “Assessing emotions related to
privacy and trust in personalized services”, IFIP Advances in
Information and Communication Technology, Vol. 399,
pp. 38-49.
Parment, A. (2013), “Generation Y vs. baby boomers:
shopping behavior, buyer involvement and implications for
retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 189-199.
Pegler, M. (2010), Visual Merchandising and Display, Fairchild
Publications.
Petty, E.R. and Wegener, T.D. (1999), “The elaboration
likelihood model: current status and controversies”, in
Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (Eds), Dual Process Theories in
Social Psychology, Guilford Press, New York, NY pp. 41-72.
Piacentini, M. (2010), “Children and fashion”, in
Marshall, D. (Ed.), Understanding Children and Consumers,
Sage Publication, London, pp. 202-217.
Prendergast, G. and Lam, C.C. (2013), “An evolutionary
explanation for shopping behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 366-370.
Schmitt, B. (1999), “Economic geography and contemporary
rural dynamics: an empirical test on some French regions”,
Regional Studies, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 697-711.
Soars, B. (2003), “What every retailer should know about
the way into the shopper’s head”, International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 12,
pp. 628-637.
Soars, B. (2009), “Driving sales through shoppers’ sense of
sound, sight, smell and touch”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 286-298.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sweeney, J.C. and Wyber, F. (2002), “The role of cognitions
and emotions in the music-approach-avoidance behavior
relationship”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 51-69.
Teller, C. and Dennis, C. (2012), “The effect of ambient
scent on consumers’ perception, emotions and behaviour: a
critical review”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28
Nos 1/2, pp. 14-36.
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.
Thompson, M. (2013), “Levels of emotion and situational
emotions”, edstartup 101, 4 April, available at: http://
101.edstartup.net/archives/tag/four-basic-emotions/ (accessed
12 March 2014).
Van Der Heijden, H., Verhagen, T. and Creemers, M.
(2003), “Understanding online purchase intentions:
contributions from technology and trust perspectives”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 41-48.
Verma, P. and Verma, R. (2012), “An on-field-survey of the
impulse buying behaviour of consumers in consumer non
durable sectors in the retail outlets in the city of Indore,
India”, Research Journal of Management Sciences, Vol. 1
No. 4, pp. 1-5.
Wagner, T. and Rudolph, T. (2010), “Towards a hierarchical
theory of shopping motivation”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 17 No. 5, pp. 415-429.
Walters, D. and White, D. (1987), Retail Marketing
Management, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Wesley, S., Lehew, M. and Woodside, A.G. (2006),
“Consumer decision-making styles and mall shopping
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
389
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)

behavior: building theory using exploratory data analysis
and the comparative method”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 535-548.
About the authors
Varsha Jain is an Assistant Professor in Integrated Marketing
Communication and Chair, Dissertation at the Mudra
Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad (India). She has 42
publications in international, national and trade journals,
book chapters and case study collections, including the
International Journal of Mobile Marketing,Journal of Consumer
Marketing,Young Consumers,Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
Administration,Middle East Media Educator,Marketing Insights
and Marketing News and Emerald Emerging Markets Case
Studies Collection. She won gold medals as “Young
Outstanding Management Researcher – 2013” and
“Outstanding Woman Management Researcher–2012” by
AIMS (The Association of Indian Management Scholars)
International. She was a Visiting Scholar at The Medill
School, Northwestern University and a Visiting Professor at
the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore, both in
2013. She received third place in the research paper category
at the 2014 CMC conference in Milan, Italy. Varsha Jain is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
varsha@micamail.in
Mika Takayanagi is an Associate Professor of Business
Administration at Meiji University in Japan. Interested in shop
windows because she was a graduate student, she published a
book titled Shop Window History in Japan. Currently, she has
a strong interest in Japanese ANIME and wrote a chapter of a
book comparing Hollywood and Studio Ghibli (Japanese
animation studio). She teaches undergraduates, graduates and
management.
Edward Carl Malthouse is the Theodore R and Annie Laurie
Sills Professor of Integrated Marketing Communications and
Industrial Engineering at Northwestern University and the
Research director for the Spiegel Institute on digital and
database marketing. He was the co-editor of the Journal of
Interactive Marketing between 2005 and 2011. He earned his
PhD in 1995 in computational statistics from Northwestern
University and completed a post-doc at the Kellogg marketing
department. His research interests centre on media marketing,
database marketing, advertising, new media and integrated
marketing communications. He is the author of Segmentation
and Lifetime Value Models Using SAS and the co-editor of
Medill on Media Engagement. He has published extensively on
these topics. He teaches undergraduates, graduates and
executives and has been a visiting professor at universities in
Japan, China and Europe.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Female consumers’ shopping behaviour
Varsha Jain, Mika Takayanagi and Edward Carl Malthouse
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 31 · Number 5 · 2014 · 380 –390
390
Downloaded by Northwestern University At 06:52 29 September 2014 (PT)