Content uploaded by Mohammed El-Adly
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohammed El-Adly on Feb 11, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
An Empirical Study of the Relationship between Shopping Environment, Customer
Perceived Value, Satisfaction, and Loyalty in the UAE Malls Context
Mohammed Ismail El-Adly
Department of Marketing, Abu Dhabi University, Al Ain,
United Arab Emirates, and
Riyad Eid
Department of Marketing, United Arab Emirates University,
Al Ain, United Arab Emirates and
To cite this document:
El-Adly, M.I. and Eid, R., 2016. An empirical study of the relationship between shopping
environment, customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty in the UAE malls
context. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, pp.217-227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.04.002
Abstract
This study aims to investigate through structural equation modelling (SEM) the relationships between the
shopping environment, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty in regard to
malls in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The main results of this study show that the mall environment
is an antecedent of the customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL) and customer satisfaction.
MALLVAL has a significant positive effect on both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty to malls.
In addition, MALLVAL and customer satisfaction mediate the relationship between the mall environment
and customer loyalty. Finally, customer satisfaction mediates the relationship between MALLVAL and
customer loyalty to malls. Some theoretical and managerial implications of these findings are discussed.
Key Words: Mall Environment, Atmospherics, Customer Perceived Value, Malls, Customer
Satisfaction, Customer Loyalty, SEM, UAE.
1. Introduction
Although customer loyalty has received much attention in the retail marketing literature
over the last two decades (Chebat et al., 2009; Rabbanee et al., 2012), mall loyalty has received
little research attention. Most of the existing research on customer loyalty in the mall context has
focused on examining the factors affecting mall loyalty, such as the effects of store loyalty
(Rabbanee et al., 2012), shopper-based mall equity (Chebat et al., 2009), shopping well-being in
malls (El Hedhli et al., 2013), shoppers’ demographics and patronage of malls (Lee Taylor and
Cosenza, 2002; Laroche et al., 2005; Haj-Salem et al., 2016), self-congruity (Chebat et al., 2009;
2
Haj-Salem et al., 2016), mall environment (Lehew et al., 2002; Stoel et al., 2004; Keng et al., 2007;
Haj-Salem et al., 2016), customer perceived value (Stoel et al., 2004; Keng et al., 2007; Rahman
et al., 2016), and customer satisfaction (Stoel et al., 2004; Kim et al., 2015). None of the previous
research in mall loyalty has been conducted in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in spite of the
noticeable movement to establish malls all over the country, which has intensified the competition
between them (El-Adly, 2007).
Since having a loyal customer in these times of strenuous competition is quite vital to the
success of many types of retailer, including shopping malls, it would be helpful to better
understand the determinants affecting customer loyalty and the relationships between
determinants. Nowadays, customers have become more value-driven; therefore, they tend to be
more selective and are more likely to be loyal to those malls where they perceive high value to be
available and they are more satisfied. By knowing the shopping values that customers derive from
the mall shopping experience and their satisfaction with the mall environment, developers and
managers of malls can identify the attributes that make shoppers loyal to malls (Jackson et al.,
2011). Most studies of perceived value in the mall context (e.g., Stoel et al., 2004; Michon et al.,
2007, 2008; Allard et al., 2009; Jackson et al., 2011, Rahman et al., 2016) have focused on the
dimensions of utilitarian value (i.e., accomplishing the intended purpose of the shopping trip by
getting what is needed or wanted) and hedonic value (i.e., the fun, enjoyment, and playfulness that
shoppers gain during their shopping trip to the mall), but have ignored other dimensions that could
be derived from the complete shopping experience in malls. Therefore, El-Adly and Eid (2015)
proposed a new scale to measure the perceived value of the complete shopping experience in malls
(MALLVAL), which includes more value dimensions than utilitarian and hedonic ones only.
3
Meanwhile, the mall environment has been proved an antecedent to both the hedonic and
utilitarian values of malls (Stoel et al., 2004; Chebat et al., 2014) or hedonic value only (Michon
et al., 2007, 2008). At the same time, the findings of studies that have investigated the relationship
between mall environment and mall loyalty are inconsistent. For instance, Lehew et al. (2002)
have found that there is no significant difference between loyal and non-loyal mall shoppers in
their perception of the mall environment. However, Keng et al. (2007); Chebat et al. (2009) have
found that the perception of the mall environment has an indirect significant effect on mall loyalty.
Yet, Stoel et al. (2004) find an insignificant relationship between the mall environment and mall
loyalty.
From the previous discussion, we conclude the following: First, mall loyalty research has
received little attention in the last two decades compared with customer loyalty in the retail
marketing literature, whether at the product/brand level or at the store level. Second, research
examining the effect of customer perceived value on mall loyalty has focused only on the hedonic
and utilitarian values, ignoring other value dimensions that could be derived from the complete
shopping experience in malls. Third, research findings about the relationship between the mall
environment and mall loyalty are inconsistent. Finally, none of the previous research has
examined mall loyalty and its antecedents in the UAE context. Therefore, this study tries to fill
these theoretical and practical gaps by answering the following questions: First, how does the
perception of the mall shopping environment influence the customer perceived value of malls
(MALLVAL), customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty? Second, what is the role of
MALLVAL in generating mall shopper satisfaction and loyalty? Third, how does customer
satisfaction affect mall loyalty? To answer these questions, we theorised and tested a model that
clarifies how the perceived value of a mall, satisfaction, and loyalty are influenced.
4
This study may contribute in several ways to the literature of the customer perceived value
of malls, customer satisfaction with them, and customer loyalty to them. First, it operationalises
and empirically validates the perceived value of malls (MALLVAL). Second, it assesses the
influence of the shopping environment of the mall on MALLVAL, customer satisfaction, customer
loyalty and the mediating role of MALLVAL and satisfaction in the mall environment-loyalty
relationship. Third, it adds to the very limited research on malls in the Arab countries in general
and the UAE in particular.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The MALLVAL scale of El-Adly and
Eid (2015) is briefly described. This is followed by conceptualisation of the model and formulating
the hypotheses about the relationship between the mall shopping environment, perceived value,
satisfaction, and loyalty. The next section explains the research method. Then, the main results of
the tested model are presented. Finally, the theoretical and managerial implications of the study as
well as its limitations and possible directions for future research are discussed.
2. Customer Perceived Value in Malls (MALLVAL)
From the consumer’s perspective, obtaining value is a substantial consumption goal in the
successful shopping experience (Davis and Hodges, 2012). To reflect the subjective nature of the
value that is provided by the complete shopping experience and not merely in acquiring a product,
value is defined as ‘all the factors, qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective, that make
up the complete shopping experience’ (Zeithaml, 1988; Babin et al., 1994; Jackson et al., 2011).
Previous research on customer perceived value demonstrates its multidimensional and
contextual nature (Chen and Dubinsky, 2003). In the retailing industry specifically, it is mainly
investigated in the product/brand context (see, for example, Sweeney and Soutar, 2001; Chi and
Kilduff, 2011) and in the store context (see, for example, Rintamaki et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2006;
5
Carpenter, 2008; Carpenter and Moore, 2009; Davis and Hodges, 2012). While customers can
derive many values from malls that cannot be found at the store level or at the product level, little
research so far has investigated customer perceived value at the mall level (see, for example, Stoel
et al., 2004; Michon et al., 2007, 2008; Keng et al. 2007; Allard et al., 2009; Jackson et al., 2011;
Singh and Prashar, 2014). Most studies in the mall value context focus mainly on both hedonic
and utilitarian values (Stoel et al., 2004; Michon et al., 2007, 2008; Allard et al., 2009; Jackson et
al., 2011; Rahman et al., 2016), neglecting other important value dimensions that could be
generated during the shopping trip to the mall.
Malls are characterised by many features that cannot be found in stand-alone stores: for
instance, they are open all day without breaks seven days a week; they contain a variety of stores,
products, restaurants, coffee shops, food courts, entertainment facilities, banks, airlines, travel
agents, exchange, car rental agencies, as well as opticians and pharmacies. Therefore, they can
be expected to offer more values to customers than merely utilitarian and hedonic ones.
El-Adly and Eid (2015) conceptualised and empirically validated MALLVAL, a scale of
customer perceived value in malls. Their study confirms that MALLVAL is a multidimensional
scale of eight dimensions, namely: hedonic, self-gratification, utilitarian, epistemic, social
interaction, spatial convenience, time convenience, and transaction values. El-Adly and Eid (2015)
describe hedonic value as the fun and enjoyment that shoppers get from their shopping experience
in the mall, while self-gratification is the improvement of the shopper’s well-being provided by
the shopping experience in the mall, which relieves stress, changes negative moods, and takes
them away from daily routine and problems. At the same time, they see utilitarian value in the
accomplishing of the intended purpose of the shopping trip by getting what is needed or wanted
by every member of the household. In addition, they identify epistemic value as the perceived
6
utility provided by malls to inspire the mall shopper’s curiosity (i.e., to explore stores, products,
and events), to provide novelty through new offers, events, new fashions, new ideas, new
assortments of products, and to satisfy the shopper’s desire for knowledge through keeping them
up to date with the newest trends and fashions. Moreover, El-Adly and Eid (2015) explain social
interaction value in terms of positive feelings gained through interaction with others, such as
friends, family, salespeople, and customers during the shopping experience in the mall. With
regard to spatial convenience as a value of malls, El-Adly and Eid (2015) explain it as the shopper’s
capacity to carry out a wide variety of shopping tasks with minimal time and effort without leaving
the mall. Meanwhile, they explain the time convenience value as the perceived utility of time
provided by malls to shoppers through one-stop shopping, extended trading hours, an enclosed
environment and locations that are close to where customers live or work. Finally, they describe
the transaction value as the positive emotional perception and pleasure of getting good offers,
bargains, and deals in their shopping experience in the mall. The research reported here
operationalises MALLVAL in a model that explains the antecedents of mall loyalty.
3. Conceptual Framework: Model and Hypotheses
Reviewing the mall loyalty literature, we find that very few researchers have investigated
the effect of mall environment on mall loyalty (Lehew et al., 2002; Stoel et al., 2004; Keng et al.,
2007; Haj-Salem et al., 2016). Each one of these studies investigated the effect of mall interior
design and either mall recreational opportunities or mall staff on mall loyalty. None of them
studied all the mall’s environmental factors together (i.e. mall interior design, mall recreational,
and mall staff). In addition, very few researchers investigated the effect of shopping values on
mall loyalty. Stoel et al. (2004); Keng et al. (2007); Rahman et al. (2016) focused only on hedonic
and utilitarian values, ignoring other important value dimensions that can be derived from the
7
complete shopping experience in malls. Moreover, the effect of customer satisfaction with malls
on mall loyalty has been investigated very rarely in the mall context (Stoel et al., 2004; Kim et al.,
2015). Therefore, we theorise a model to study mall loyalty in the UAE context, its antecedents,
and the relationships between them. Our theoretical model is exhibited in Figure 1. We claim that
the positive perception of the mall environment has direct positive influence on the customer
perceived value of malls (MALLVAL), satisfaction, and loyalty. The effect on customer loyalty is
also mediated by MALLVAL and satisfaction. We also argue that MALLVAL has direct and
positive influence on satisfaction and loyalty. However, the effect of MALLVAL on mall loyalty
is also mediated by satisfaction. Finally, satisfaction has direct positive influence on mall loyalty.
8
3.1. Perception of Mall Environment and Customer Perceived Value
Developing an attractive environment (atmospherics) is an important retail strategy to
induce certain positive emotional responses and ultimately affect consumer purchase behaviour
(Levy and Weitz, 2012). From the mall’s point of view, Dennis et al. (2010) predict that
atmospherics contribute to building mall traffic, improved sales and consumer spending. However,
from the shoppers’ point of view, atmospherics is their perception of the quality of their
surroundings. Of course, this perception may not be exactly the same as that identified by the mall
and may also vary from one shopper to another, according to their shopping orientation (task
shopping vs. social shopping) and personal differences (i.e., age and gender) (Baker and
Wakefield, 2012). This conclusion has been confirmed by Sands et al. (2015), who find that task-
oriented consumers derive more value and satisfaction from an education-focused event than from
an entertainment-focused event, while recreation-oriented consumers acknowledge both types of
event.
Turley and Milliman (2000) made an extensive review of the literature on the retail
environment (atmospherics) and classified 57 atmospheric variables into five categories: those of
the mall exterior, general interior, layout and design, point-of-purchase and decoration, and human.
In addition, Lam (2001); Baker et al. (2002); Haj-Salem et al. (2016) classified retail
environmental factors into 3 groups: ambient factors (e.g., music, lighting, colours, scents), design
factors (e.g., layout, signs, textures, display), and social factors (e.g., staff).
Two theories, environmental psychology theory and inference theory, are deployed to
explain the effect of the mall environment on consumer behaviour (Massicotte et al., 2011).
Research based on environmental psychology theory developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
suggests that the mall environment has an effect on shoppers’ behavioural responses: cognitive
9
(e.g. beliefs, categorization, symbolic meaning), emotional (e.g. mood, attitude) and physiological
(e.g. pain, comfort) (Massicotte et al., 2011). These behavioural responses, may successively
influence shopping outcomes positively (i.e., to approach) or negatively (i.e., to avoid), either in
the short term (e.g. more enjoyment, staying longer, less stress, spending more, exploring the
premises, and affiliating with other shoppers and/or sales associates) or in the long term (e.g.,
repeating visits, going there more often, recommending the mall) (Stoel et al., 2004; Massicotte et
al., 2011; Chebat et al., 2014). However, research grounded on the inference theory originated by
Nisbett and Ross (1980) argues that shoppers use atmospherics cues to supply absent or difficult
to evaluate information, such as price and quality (Massicotte et al., 2011).
The relationship between the mall environment and customer perceived value has been
investigated in previous research (Stoel et al., 2004; Keng et al., 2007; Michon et al., 2007, 2008;
Chebat et al., 2014). For example, Stoel et al. (2004) showed that consumer beliefs about mall
attributes positively influence the hedonic and utilitarian shopping values resulting from the mall
visit. In addition, Michon et al. (2007) have explored the impact of the shopping mall environment
on the hedonic and utilitarian shopping experiences of fashion leaders and followers and find that
the mall environment directly influences fashion leaders' hedonic shopping experience. Moreover,
Michon et al. (2008) have found that a positive perception of the mall atmosphere elicits hedonic
shopping experiences but has little or no effect on the utilitarian values of low- or high-fashion
oriented shoppers. Furthermore, Chebat et al. (2014) examined the effect of the renovated mall
atmosphere on shopping values (hedonic and utilitarian) and found that it has positive significant
impact on both hedonic and utilitarian values.
From the above discussion we see that researchers have focused on two value dimensions
only: hedonic and utilitarian values; but have ignored other value dimensions that constitute the
10
MALLVAL. We find as well that the effect of the mall environment on customer perceived value
varies from one study to another. In this situation, we propose that:
H1: Favourable customer perception of mall environment has a positive influence on the customer
perceived value of malls (MALLVAL).
3.2. Perception of Mall Environment and Customer Satisfaction
One can argue that customer satisfaction has received significant attention in the marketing
literature in general and retailing in particular (see, for example, Anderson and Srinivasan, 2003;
Babin et al., 2005; Carpenter, 2008; Chen, 2012; Chebat et al., 2014; Sands et al., 2015; Kwon et
al., 2016). If their customers became satisfied, retailers can benefit from many results, such as
customer loyalty and sustained profitability (Greenwell et al., 2002; Liu and Jang, 2009). Previous
research reports that atmospherics influence a customer’s expectations, perception and
consequently satisfaction (see, for example, Turley and Milliman, 2000; Lam, 2001; Kwon et al.,
2016). Chebat and Michon (2003) have found that the perception of the mall environment very
strongly affects shoppers’ arousal and also has an impact on emotions. This is confirmed by
Nuttavuthisit (2014), who concludes that being in a pleasant mall atmosphere is sufficient to create
aesthetic experience (i.e., enjoyment) for shoppers. In addition, Wright et al. (2006) demonstrate
that shoppers’ perceptions of the mall atmospherics as pleasurable shopping experiences make
them spend more time and money on their shopping trip. Thus, the mall atmospherics can be
designed in a way that leads to positive emotions and increased satisfaction (Stoel et al., 2004;
Wright et al., 2006; Ha and Jang, 2010; Dennis et al. 2010). Therefore, we propose that:
H2: Favourable customer perception of the mall environment has a positive influence on customer
satisfaction.
11
3.3. Perception of Mall Environment and Customer Loyalty
Having loyal and profitable customers represents an ultimate goal for any retailer,
promising future profits and sustainable business (Grace and O’Cass, 2005). In recent years, there
has been an increasing interest in examining the factors influencing customer loyalty (Rabbanee
et al., 2012) which has been measured sometimes by either behavioural (e.g., repeat purchase) or
attitudinal (e.g., positive word-of-mouth) evidence (Mandhachitara and Poolthong, 2011).
According to the conceptual framework of Dick and Basu (1994), a true loyal customer is one who
holds relatively positive attitudes towards the retailer and has high repeat purchase behaviour.
Ideally, and consistent with the conceptual framework of Dick and Basu (1994), loyalty research
should integrate both attitudinal and behavioural measures, since they complement each other in
measuring customer loyalty (Rundle-Thiele and Bennett, 2001). Therefore, in the study reported
here, we used combined measures: behavioural (by asking respondents about their experience with
the mall that they patronise most frequently) and attitudinal (by asking them about their
commitment, positive word-of-mouth activity, and intention to shop in the same mall in the future).
Few studies have been conducted to investigate the effect of mall environment perception
on customer loyalty (see for instance, Lehew et al., 2002; Stoel et al., 2004; Keng et al., 2007). It
has been argued that positive perception of the mall environment has a positive effect on both
excitement and the desire to stay in the mall, which in turn strengthens the intention to repeat the
patronage and the recommendation to others (Rahman et al., 2016). Keng et al. (2007) conclude
that personal interaction encounters and physical environment encounters (both of which shape
the mall environment) positively influence customer experiential value and, in turn, behavioural
intentions, such as the desire to shop at the mall, come back to the mall and recommend the mall
to others. Additionally, Chebat et al. (2009) have found that the perception of the mall
12
environment has an indirect significant effect on mall loyalty. However, Lehew et al. (2002) have
found that loyal mall shoppers were not differentiated from non-loyal shoppers by such perceptions
of the mall environment as mall and restroom cleanliness, adequate comfort areas and security,
attractive decor, and lighting. As seen in most of the previous studies, mall loyalty was
significantly predicted either directly or indirectly by the shopper’s positive perception of the
mall’s environment; therefore, in the present study we propose that:
H3: Favourable customer perception of the mall environment has a positive influence on customer
loyalty.
3.4. Customer Perceived Value and Customer Satisfaction
Creating and delivering superior value and increasing customer satisfaction are crucial
practices for retailers who want to achieve sustainable competitive advantage. From the
customers’ perspective, gaining value and being satisfied are essential consumption outcomes that
influence buying behaviour and post purchase behaviour (Keng et al., 2007). From the academic
point of view, customer perceived value and satisfaction are antecedents of patronage intentions
(Ryu et al., 2008), word-of-mouth (Babin et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2007), loyalty (Lam et al., 2004;
Yang and Peterson, 2004; Eid, 2015), and retention (Eid, 2015).
However, the literature shows that customer perceived value differs from customer
satisfaction in several ways. First, the components of the two concepts are different. While
customer satisfaction is a comparison between the customer’s perception of a product’s
performance (or outcome) and his/her expectations about this performance (Kotler and Keller,
2009); customer perceived value in the specific view is a trade-off between what they get (i.e.,
benefits) for what they give (i.e., price or sacrifice) but, in its panoramic view, is seen as all the
factors, qualitative and quantitative, subjective and objective, that make up the complete shopping
13
experience (Zeithaml, 1988). Second, customer satisfaction has been conceptualised as a
unidimensional construct (Sweeney and Soutar, 2001), whereas the literature has demonstrated the
multidimensional and context-dependent nature of customer perceived value (Chen and Dubinsky,
2003). Third, the occasion of the two notions is different. Customer perceived value can be derived
at various stages of the purchase process, including the pre-purchase stage but customer
satisfaction takes place only after purchasing or using the product or service (Sweeney and Soutar,
2001). This indicates that customer perceived value could be an antecedent of customer
satisfaction. Many researchers have supported this last conclusion and shown that customer
perceived value is a positive and direct antecedent of customer satisfaction (see, for example, Jones
et al., 2006; Babin et al., 2007; Chen and Tsai, 2008; Ryu et al., 2008;Chebat et al., 2014; Sands
et al., 2015). Therefore, we propose that:
H4: The customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL) has a positive influence on customer
satisfaction.
3.5. Customer Perceived Value and Customer Loyalty
The relationship between customer perceived value and customer loyalty has been
examined in many studies and indicates that customer perceived value has a direct and positive
influence on customer loyalty (see, for example, Chen and Tsai, 2008; Pan et al., 2012; Eid, 2015;
Rahman et al., 2016). It has been argued that when perceived value goes down, customers are
more likely to switch to rival brands, indicating a decline in loyalty (Anderson and Srinivasan,
2003). In addition to the direct relationship with loyalty, other researchers indicate that the
relationship between customer perceived value and loyalty could be better explained by presenting
satisfaction as a mediating factor (Lam et al., 2004). Therefore, we propose that:
14
H5: The customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL) has a positive influence on customer
loyalty.
3.6. Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty
Retailers strive to satisfy their customers in order to maximise the benefits gained from
them. A satisfied customer is more likely to spend more money, stay longer with the business
(Chen, 2012) and recommend it positively to others (Babin et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2007). Customer
satisfaction can be measured in transaction-specific terms (i.e., the customer’s emotional response
to the most recent transactional experience with the retailer) or overall satisfaction (i.e., cumulative
evaluation of all encounters with the retailer) (Yang and Peterson, 2004; Chen and Tsai, 2008). In
the present study, we adopt the overall satisfaction measure since it reflects the customer’s
cumulative impression of the retailer’s performance over time and hence it may serve as a better
predictor of customer loyalty (Yang and Peterson, 2004). The relationship between customer
satisfaction and customer loyalty has long been studied by numerous researchers in the retailing
industry (see for instance, Yang and Peterson, 2004; Lam et al., 2004; Chen and Tsai, 2008; Liu
and Jang, 2009; Pan et al., 2012). In general, customer satisfaction is regarded as an antecedent for
customer loyalty. Therefore, we propose that:
H6: Customer loyalty will be positively influenced by customer satisfaction with malls.
4. Research Method
4.1. Sampling Design and Data Collection
The research sample of this study consists of mall shoppers of above 18 years old in three
main cities in the UAE (i.e., Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Al Ain). Using the mall intercept technique
along with the self-administered questionnaire method, 400 questionnaires were distributed to mall
shoppers who were asked by 5 well-trained university senior students to take a few minutes to fill
15
out the questionnaire. A total of 382 questionnaires was returned, but 14 questionnaires had to be
excluded from analysis for various reasons, such as incompleteness or inconsistent answers.
Therefore, 368 completed questionnaires were used in the data analysis. Our sample size was
considered suitable because it fits the recommendations of Bartlett et al. (2001) to have 10
observations (cases) per indicator (independent variable) for studies employing Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). Since we have 368 usable questionnaires and 37 independent
variables were used in the SEM analysis, the current sample size is suitable for employing SEM,
as well as being acceptable in practice. The questionnaire was written not only in Arabic but in
English, since a considerable percentage of residents in the UAE are non-Arabic speakers. The
accuracy of the translation from English to Arabic was secured by the back translation method.
The questionnaire was pre-tested by two marketing experts and piloted with 15 mall shoppers who
were intercepted and asked to complete the questionnaire; their comments or questions were taken
into consideration. A slight modification to the questionnaire was made as a result of the pre-
testing process.
To make sure that there was no non-response bias due to the sampling procedures, the
demographic characteristics of the early respondents (weekday mall shoppers) were compared
with the demographics of the late respondents (weekend mall shoppers). Chi-square tests showed
no significant differences between the two groups of respondents at the 5% significance level,
indicating that non-response bias need not be a concern. Table 1 outlines the respondents’
demographics.
16
Table 1: Sample Characteristics
Demographic characteristics
%
Demographic characteristics
%
Sex
Marital status
- Male
41.8%
- Single
47.0%
- Female
58.2%
- Married
49.5 %
- Divorced
2.7%
- Widowed
0.8%
Age
Household monthly income
- Less than 20 years
8.2%
- Less than 10,000 Dhs*.
32.6%
- From 20 to 30 years
55.6%
- From 10,000 to 15,000 Dhs.
20.9%
- From 31 to 40 years
23.1%
- From 15,001 to 20,000 Dhs.
17.4%
- From 41 to 50 years
10.1%
- From 20,001 to 30,000 Dhs.
12.2%
- From 51 to 60 years
2.2%
- From 30,001 to 40,000 Dhs.
11.1%
- 60 years and above
0.8%
- More than 40,000 Dhs.
5.8%
Occupation
Educational level
- Student
30.2%
- High school or equivalent
18.5%
- Government employee
25.8%
- University degree or equivalent
62.7%
- Private sector employee
38.3%
- Post graduate degree
18.8%
- Housewife
4.1%
- Business man/woman
0.5%
- Retired
1.1%
* $1=3.67 Dhs.
4.2. Measures
We measured the four constructs involved in the model (Mall Environment, Customer
Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty) by multiple-item scales adapted
from previous studies. First, in conceptualising the mall environment, we followed Keng et al.
(2007) defining it as a multidimensional construct: Mall Recreational, Mall Interior, and Mall
Staff. Nine items were adapted or borrowed from Keng et al. (2007); El-Adly (2007) to capture
the mall environment. Second, in conceptualising the customer perceived value of malls, we
adopted from El-Adly and Eid (2015) their multidimensional scale of 37 items (MALLVAL),
which consists of eight first-order constructs: Hedonic, Self-Gratification, Utilitarian, Epistemic,
Social Interaction, Spatial Convenience, Transaction, and Time Convenience. Third, in
conceptualising customer satisfaction, two items were adapted from Carpenter (2008) as a uni-
dimensional construct. Finally, customer loyalty was conceptualised as a uni-dimensional
17
construct of 3 items adapted from Chebat et al. (2009). These items were measured on a five-point
Likert scale anchored by strongly agree and strongly disagree, except for the scale items of the
mall environment which ranged from excellent to extremely poor. Demographic questions were
also included at the end of the questionnaire.
5. Analysis and Results
5.1. Reliability and Validity of the First-Order Measurement Model
As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1982), Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
was performed using principal components analysis with Varimax rotation to identify the latent
factors of the measurement model items. For the given data, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (approx.
chi-square = 9494.61, df = 780, p =.000) was conducted. The significant value for this analysis
indicates that there were correlations in the data set that were appropriate for factor analysis. In
addition, the high value of Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)’s measure of 0.926 indicates that the
sample was appropriate for factor analysis. All the items of the original measures loaded highly on
their intended constructs, except one item from the hedonic value, as well as three items from the
utilitarian value, two items from the transaction value, and all items of the spatial convenience
value which were dropped from further analysis. The final result of the EFA showed 40 items out
of 51 loading on 12 meaningful factors which accounted for 75.91% of the variance extracted, as
shown in Table 2, which presents the items used to measure each construct included in the first-
order measurement model.
Next, we assessed the psychometric properties (reliability, convergent and discriminant
validity) of the twelve factors by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient (Nunnally
and Bernstein, 1994). These coefficients are represented for each of the factors in Table 2. The
reliability coefficients of all constructs range from 0.745 to 0.957, which surpasses the cut-off level
18
of 0.70 set for basic research (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Further, these twelve factors were
subject to Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Estimation displayed excellent goodness-of-fit
statistics for our data, as indicated by X2=933.27, df.=670, p=.000; X2/df=1.393; AGFI=.868;
CFI=.971; IFI=.971; RMSEA=.033.
Table 2: The First-Order Measurement Model
Scalea/Items
EFA
factor
loadings
CFA
standardised
loadings
Mall Environment Construct
Mall Recreationalb (α= 0.767 ; CR= 0.782 ; AVE= 0.549)
Comfortable seats during shopping inside that mall
0.677
0.61
Presence of fun and entertainment programs in that mall
0.797
0.84
Existence of fun spaces for kids and youth in that mall
0.781
0.75
Mall Interiorb (α=0.745 ; CR= 0.757 ; AVE= 0.512)
This mall is decorated in an attractive fashion
0.757
0.77
The layout of that mall makes it easy to get around and reach wherever I want inside the mall
0.567
0.62
The overall design of that mall is interesting
0.799
0.75
Mall Staffb (α=0.882 ; CR= 0.888 ; AVE= 0.726)
The mall staff are friendly
0.846
0.87
The mall staff are helpful
0.845
0.92
The mall staff are knowledgeable
0.778
0.75
MALLVAL Construct
Hedonicc (α=0.881 ; CR= 0.883 ; AVE= 0.602)
I feel excited about walking into that mall
0.737
0.76
I feel sense of joy to look at the merchandise in that mall
0.677
0.77
It is fun to be in that mall
0.669
0.81
I feel happy going to that mall because of its environment
0.721
0.77
Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent in that mall was truly enjoyable
0.619
0.77
Self-Gratificationc (α=0.887 ; CR= 0.889 ; AVE= 0.668)
Shopping trip to that mall truly felt as an escape from life pressure
0.788
0.77
While shopping, I was able to forget my problems
0.805
0.86
Shopping trip to that mall helped me to release stress and to relax
0.798
0.87
For me, doing shopping in that mall is a way to do something different from daily routine
0.701
0.76
Utilitarianc (α=0.888 ; CR= 0.868 ; AVE= 0.622)
This mall can satisfy all family members
0.786
0.82
Every family member can find what he/she wants in that mall
0.815
0.86
I prefer shopping in that mall because it has a variety of activities to satisfy everyone in the
family
0.727
0.79
I prefer shopping in that mall because it has a variety of stores and products to satisfy
everyone in the family
.689
0.80
19
Epistemicc (α=0.866 ; CR= 0.853 ; AVE= 0.595)
I like shopping in that mall to get ideas about new trends, fashion, and style.
0.653
0.79
I do shopping in that mall to see what's interesting or innovative
0.684
0.81
I like to go to that mall to learn interesting ways of decoration and dressing models.
0.814
0.72
I really enjoy looking around in that mall to keep up with newest trends and fashion
0.751
0.83
Social Interactionc (α=0.871 ; CR= 0.874 ; AVE= 0.697)
I often go to that mall with friends, family to have fun and make good memories
0.717
0.83
I often go to that mall with friends not necessarily buying anything but to have good time
interacting with each other
0.811
0.87
I used to go to that mall to socialize with friends and family
0.759
0.80
Transactionc (α=0.852 ; CR= 0.853 ; AVE= 0.660)
I feel good when I get some real bargain in that mall
0.784
0.80
I enjoy the thrill of finding that one expensive piece on sale
0.783
0.85
I consider my shopping trip is successful when I find bargains
0.788
0.79
Time Conveniencec (α=0.778 ; CR= 0.777 ; AVE= 0.538)
It is convenient for me to shop at that mall because it works till late
0.676
0.77
I prefer shopping in that mall because it works continuously without breaks
0.802
0.74
Whenever I want doing shopping in that mall I find it open
0.797
0.68
Customer Satisfactionc (α=0.957 ; CR= 0.959 ; AVE= 0.921)
The shopping experience in that mall makes me satisfied
0.806
0.95
Overall, I feel satisfied about that mall
0.794
0.97
Customer Loyaltyc (α=0.827 ; CR= 0.840 ; AVE= 0.639)
I do not like to change to another mall.
0.772
0.67
I will continue doing shopping in that mall in the future
0.702
0.86
I would be willing to recommend that mall to my friends
0.672
0.85
a Cronbach alpha (α), Composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) are calculated for each
scale
b Anchored by “excellent” and “extremely poor”
c Ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”.
The results shown in Table 2 also supported the internal consistency of all the measures,
since the composite reliability (CR) was greater than 0.70 for all constructs, as recommended by
Fornell and Larcker (1981); Hair et al. (2006). The average variance extracted (AVE) for all
constructs was greater than the generally accepted value of 0.50, confirming the convergent
validity of the constructs in question (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). To assess the discriminant
validity of the first-order measurement model, the correlation matrix, as reported in Table 3, shows
that the square root of the average variance extracted for each construct in the first-order model
20
was greater than the square of the inter-construct correlations, which supports the discriminant
validity of the 12 factors included in the first-order measurement model.
5.2. Reliability and Validity of the Second-Order Measurement Model
Since the mall environment and customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL)
constructs have many dimensions, it is important to know if the dimensions of each construct are
correlated with each other and also to determine the structural relations between the dimensions
and their construct. This is done by specifying a second-order factor model which assumes that
the first-order factors estimated are actually sub-dimensions of a broader and more comprehensive
second-order factor (Hair et al., 2006; Narayan et al., 2008). This second-order factor is completely
latent and unobservable (Narayan et al., 2008). Second-order confirmatory factor analysis is
employed as illustrated in Table 4, which shows that the second-order measurement model has
achieved both convergent and discriminant validity, since the composite reliability (CR) of all
constructs exceeded the recommended value of 0.7, the average variance extracted (AVE) for all
21
constructs was greater than the generally accepted value of 0.50, and the square root of the average
variance extracted for each construct was greater than the square of the inter-construct correlations
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In addition, the estimation displayed excellent goodness-of-fit
statistics for the second-order measurement model, as indicated by X2=1131.47, df.=720, p=.000;
X2/df=1.571; AGFI=.849; CFI=.955; IFI=.955; RMSEA=.039.
Table 4: Convergent and Discriminant Validity Results of the Second-Order Measurement Model
Correlations
CR
AVE
Mall
Environment
Mall Value
(MALLVAL)
Customer
Satisfaction
Customer
Loyalty
Mall Environment
0.790
0.557
0.746
Mall Value (MALLVAL)
0.890
0.538
0.729**
0.733
Customer Satisfaction
0.958
0.919
0.575**
0.623**
0.959
Customer Loyalty
0.840
0.639
0.645**
0.719**
0.687**
0.799
** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
The diagonals represent the square root of average variance extracted (AVE) and the lower cells represents the squared
correlation among constructs/
5.3. Structural Analysis and Model Testing
Finally, using the Structural Equation Modelling package of AMOS 22, we tested the
hypothesised causal relationships between different constructs of the proposed model shown in
Figure 1. We followed the guidelines recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1982) in
performing a path analysis, applying the maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) method. The path
diagram for the causal model, which shows the estimated standardised parameters for the causal
paths, their significance levels, and the square multiple correlations for each construct is presented
in Figure 2.
22
A more detailed analysis of the standardised regression weights for the causal paths, the squared
multiple correlations (R2), and the overall goodness of fit indices is reported in Table 5. The results
indicate excellent goodness of fit for the causal model.
23
Table 5: Standardised Regression Weights for the Causal Paths
Predictor variables
Criterion Variables
Hypothesised
relationship
Standardised
coefficient
Result
R2
Mall Environment
Mall Value
(MALLVAL)
H1
0.729***
Supported
0.532
Mall Environment
Customer Satisfaction
H2
0.258**
Supported
0.419
Mall Value
(MALLVAL)
Customer Satisfaction
H4
0.435***
Supported
Mall Environment
Customer Loyalty
H3
0.164NS
Rejected
0.623
Mall Value
(MALLVAL)
Customer Loyalty
H5
0.376***
Supported
Customer Satisfaction
Customer Loyalty
H6
0.359***
Supported
Statistic
Suggested
Obtained
X2/df
≤5
1.571
Adjusted goodness-of- fit index (AGFI)
≥0.80
0.849
Comparative fit index (CFI)
≥0.90
0.955
Incremental fit index (IFI)
≥0.90
0.955
Root mean square residual (RMSEA)
≤0.10
0.039
**P<0.01, ***P<0.001, NS is not significant
As can be seen in Table 5, all hypotheses were supported except H3, which had no direct
significant effect on customer loyalty. Therefore, we can argue that our conceptual model was
generally supported. A more detailed analysis shows that the mall environment has been found to
significantly affect MALLVAL (H1) (Standardized Estimate=0.729, P< 0.001). Similarly, certain
suggested factors positively affect customer satisfaction, namely the mall environment (H2)
(Standardized Estimate=0.258, P< 0.01) and MALLVAL (H4) (Standardized Estimate=0.435, P<
0.001). Finally, apart from the mall environment (H3) (Standardized Estimate=0. 164, P> 0.05,
not significant), the suggested factors positively affect customer loyalty, namely MALLVAL (H5)
(Standardized Estimate=0. 376, P< 0.001) and customer satisfaction (H6) (Standardized
Estimate=0. 359, P< 0.001. The above significant causal relationships provide empirical support
for the theoretical view which states that the mall environment is an antecedent of MALLVAL and
customer satisfaction. MALLVAL and customer satisfaction, in addition, are direct antecedents
24
of customer loyalty. However, for the purpose of identifying the mediating effects of MALLVAL
and customer satisfaction in the mall environment-loyalty relationship; the direct, indirect (i.e.,
mediated via the effects of other variables), and total effects of the suggested constructs were
computed and are reported in Table 6.
Table 6: Direct, Indirect, and Total Effect of Mall Environment, MALLVAL, and Customer
Satisfaction
Criterion Variable
Predictor variables
Direct
Effect
Indirect
Effect
Total
Effect
Mall Value (MALLVAL)
Mall Environment
0.729
0.000
0.729
Customer Satisfaction
Mall Environment
0.258
0.317
0.575
Mall Value (MALLVAL)
0.435
0.000
0.435
Customer Loyalty
Mall Environment
0.164
0.481
0.645
Mall Value (MALLVAL)
0.376
0.156
0.532
Customer Satisfaction
0.359
0.000
0.359
6. Discussion
The purpose of this study is (a) to provide some valuable and practical insights for mall
developers and managers willing to measure customer perceived value; and (b) to understand the
relationship between the mall shopping environment, customer perceived value of malls
(MALLVAL), customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty; and (c) to determine the mediating role
of MALLVAL and customer satisfaction in the mall environment-loyalty relationship.
6.1. Mall Environment and MALLVAL
This study offers mall developers and managers a number of effective dimensions of the
mall environment where they can improve the shopping experience of their shoppers. These mall
environment factors include: 1) mall recreational amenities, 2) mall interior, and 3) mall staff. The
taxonomy of these three factors is – to some extent – consistent with the mall environment
classification provided by Keng et al. (2007) above. A closer examination of the items constituting
these factors, as illustrated in Table 2, demonstrates the importance of having a comfortable,
25
pleasing environment, and entertainment facilities for different family members, which is
congruent with the findings of El-Adly (2007) about the patronage motives of malls. In addition,
it shows the crucial role played by the mall staff in enhancing customer perceived value and
satisfaction with the mall. This latter result supports the findings of Baker et al. (2002); Keng et
al. (2007) in that friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable mall staff positively affect the mall
shoppers’ perception of the mall environment and consequently their shopping outcomes.
Similarly, this study operationalised the MALLVAL scale developed by El-Adly and Eid
(2015) and confirmed its multidimensional nature of seven first-order value dimensions namely:
hedonic, self-gratification, utilitarian, epistemic, social interaction, transaction, and time
convenience. Although this study dropped one dimension of the original MALLVAL scale, that
is, spatial convenience, it shows that mall shoppers still derive more value during their shopping
trip to the mall than merely utilitarian and hedonic ones. This means that a mall shopper’s decision
to patronise a certain mall should be seen from the experiential view of the value that is provided
by the complete shopping experience and not merely the value of product acquisition, as suggested
by Babin et al. (1994). In addition, this study supports – to some extent – the findings of Rintamaki
et al. (2006), who conceptualise shopping value in department stores as having three dimensions:
utilitarian value, hedonic value, and social value. This is logical, since malls – due to their nature–
are expected to provide shoppers with more values than those provided by stand-alone stores.
6.2. Mall Environment and MALLVAL Consequences
The study, as seen in Tables 5 and 6 reveals that mall environment has direct positive
significant effect on customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL), supporting H1. Also, mall
environment proved to be an important predictor of MALLVAL, accounting 53.2% of the variance
explained. This result supports the findings of Stoel et al. (2004); Chebat et al. (2014) that mall
26
environment positively affects the hedonic and utilitarian values of malls. Similarly, mall
environment has significant positive influence on customer satisfaction supporting H2. This
supports the idea that favourable perception of the mall environment elicits positive emotional
states such as pleasantness, excitement, and satisfaction (Kwon et al., 2016). However, Ha and
Jang (2010) argue that if the perception of mall environment is exaggerated, this may lead to
overestimation of the shopper’s expectations and to lower his/her satisfaction about the mall. This
latter argument is not accurate because perception and expectations are two independent notions
and no causal relationship seems to exist between them. In general, the present findings are in
agreement with the environmental psychology theory developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974)
in that the mall environment has an effect on shoppers’ behavioural responses. However, this
study points out that mall environment has insignificant direct influence on customer loyalty,
rejecting H3. We were surprised to find that the mall environment appears to make only a
negligible and insignificant impact on customer loyalty. However, closer examination of our
findings revealed that this should not have been unexpected. As seen in Table 6, this negligibly
insignificant direct effect (0.164) is enhanced by the strong significant indirect positive effect
(0.481) of the mall environment on customer loyalty. This result is consistent with the findings of
Chebat et al. (2009) that perception of the mall environment has an indirectly significant effect on
mall loyalty.
Moreover, the study demonstrates that MALLVAL has direct significant positive effect on
both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty, supporting H4 and H5 respectively. This result
supports the findings of Babin et al. (2007); Carpenter (2008); Chebat et al., 2014) that utilitarian
value and hedonic shopping value are both positively related to customer satisfaction. It also
supports the findings of Rahman et al. (2016), who found that shopping value significantly
27
influences mall patronage intention. In addition, as expected, customer loyalty is directly and
positively influenced by customer satisfaction, supporting H6, which is consistent with the
findings of Carpenter (2008). This endorses the idea that shoppers tend to be loyal to those malls
where they perceive high value to be available and they are more satisfied. Together, the mall
environment, MALLVAL, and customer satisfaction explain 62.3% of mall shopper loyalty, which
confirms that they are antecedents and powerful predictors of customer loyalty.
6.3. The Mediating Role of MALLVAL and Satisfaction in the Mall Environment-Mall Loyalty
Relationship
As illustrated in Figure 2 and Table 5, there is an insignificant relationship between the
mall environment and customer loyalty, while the relationship between the mall environment and
both MALLVAL and customer satisfaction is significant. This indicates that MALLVAL and
customer satisfaction fully and positively mediate the mall environment-customer loyalty
relationship. Thus, the direct relationship between the mall environment and customer loyalty is
better explained through MALLVAL and customer satisfaction mediators. Similarly, there are
significant relationships among the three constructs of mall environment, MALLVAL, and
customer satisfaction, indicating that MALLVAL partially and positively mediates the relationship
between mall environment and customer satisfaction. The overall conclusion of this mediation is
that the existence of the customer perceived value of malls (MALLVAL) is essential for the effect
of the mall environment to be achieved in both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. This
result is in concert with the findings of Keng et al. (2007), in that customer experiential value
mediates the effect of the mall environment – expressed by personal interaction encounters and
physical environment encounters – on behavioral intention. Moreover, the significant
relationships between the constructs of MALLVAL, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty
28
demonstrate that customer satisfaction plays the role of a mediator between the customer perceived
value of malls (MALLVAL) and customer loyalty. This latter result confirms the findings of Lam
et al. (2004) that the relationship between customer perceived value and loyalty can be better
explained through satisfaction as a mediating factor.
7. Conclusion and Research Limitations
This study contributes to the retailing literature specifically in the mall context of Arab
countries (in the UAE) in several ways: First, it reveals that the mall environment has three
dimensions; mall recreational amenities, mall interior, and mall staff. Second, it operationalises
and empirically validates the perceived value of malls (MALLVAL). The study confirms that
MALLVAL is a multidimensional scale of seven first-order value dimensions (hedonic, self-
gratification, utilitarian, epistemic, social interaction, transaction, and time convenience) and
demonstrates that shoppers derive more values from the complete shopping experience than the
hedonic and utilitarian ones only. Third, it provides a more robust model of the influences of the
mall environment and MALLVAL constructs in the mall context. This claim rests on the fact that
we found strong support for 5 of the 6 hypotheses in our model. The model findings indicate that:
(a) a mall environment is an antecedent of MALLVAL and customer satisfaction; (b) MALLVAL
has a significant positive effect on both customer satisfaction and customer loyalty; (c)
MALLVAL and customer satisfaction fully and positively mediate the relationship between the
mall environment and customer loyalty, (d) MALLVAL partially and positively mediates the
relationship between mall environment and customer satisfaction, and (e) customer satisfaction
partially and positively mediates the relationship between MALLVAL and customer loyalty.
Finally, it adds to the very limited research on malls in the Arab countries in general and the UAE
in particular.
29
From the managerial point of view, this study recognises the importance of the different
dimensions constituting the mall environment and MALLVAL in predicting customer satisfaction
and customer loyalty to the mall. Thus, mall developers and managers should create an appealing
mall environment (atmospherics) that make shoppers perceive the high value of the shopping
experience in the mall (i.e., the seven dimensions of MALLVAL: hedonic, self-gratification,
utilitarian, epistemic, social interaction, transaction, and time convenience) which will positively
affect their satisfaction and their willingness to continue shopping in the mall and to recommend
the mall to others. To do so, they should consider the three mall environmental dimensions that
have been approved in this study; these are mall recreational amenities, mall interior and mall staff
factors.
However, the study has some limitations. First, it is specific to one context (i.e., the UAE)
and one sector of the retailing industry (i.e., malls). As mentioned above, customer perceived value
is subjective and contextual in nature; there is therefore a need to study customer perceived value
and its relationship with the mall environment, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in other
contexts (countries, cultures, and industries). Second, we measured the mall environment through
only three dimensions and MALLVAL through only seven, while there is evidence that the mall
environment and MALLVAL are much wider constructs. For example, the mall environment
might include the mall exterior (Turley and Milliman, 2000); comfort (El-Adly, 2007); while
customer perceived value might include aesthetics (Gallarza and Saura, 2006) and religiosity (Eid,
2015). Finally, although customer perceived value and customer satisfaction are dynamic notions
and should be measured on a continuous basis, this study is cross-sectional in nature. Therefore,
it would better in the future to employ a longitudinal approach in order to shed light on the relative
importance of the seven dimensions of mall value on customer satisfaction and loyalty to malls.
30
References
Allard, T., Babin, B., Chebat, J., 2009. When income matters: Customers evaluation of shopping
malls' hedonic and utilitarian orientations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16
(1), 40-49.
Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W., 1982. Some methods for respecifying measurement models to
obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (4), 453-
460.
Anderson, R. E., Srinivasan, S. S., 2003. E‐satisfaction and e‐loyalty: a contingency
framework. Psychology & marketing 20 (2), 123-138.
Babin, B., Darden, W., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4), 644-656.
Babin, B., Lee, Y., Kim, E., Griffin, M., 2005. Modeling consumer satisfaction and word-of-
mouth: restaurant patronage in Korea. Journal of Services Marketing 19 (3), 133-139.
Babin, B., Gonzales, C., Watts, C., 2007. Does Santa have a great job? Gift shopping value and
satisfaction. Psychology and Marketing 24 (10), 895–917.
Baker, J. and Wakefield, K., 2012. How consumer shopping orientation influences perceived
crowding, excitement, and stress at the mall. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 40 (6), 791-806.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G., 2002. The influence of multiple store
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of
Marketing 66 (2), 120-141.
Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., Higgins, C., 2001. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample
size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 19
(1), 43-50.
Carpenter, J. M., 2008. Consumer shopping value, satisfaction and loyalty in discount retailing.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (5), 358-363.
Carpenter, J. M., Moore, M., 2009. Utilitarian and hedonic shopping value in the US discount
sector. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 16 (1), 68-74.
Chebat, J.C., Michon, R., 2003. Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’ emotions, cognition,
and spending: a test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research 56 (7),
529–539.
Chebat, J. C., El Hedhli, K., Sirgy, M. J., 2009. How does shopper-based mall equity generate mall
loyalty? A conceptual model and empirical evidence. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 16 (1), 50-60.
Chebat, J., Michon, R., Haj-Salem, N. and Oliveira, S., 2014. The effects of mall renovation on
shopping values, satisfaction and spending behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 21 (4), 610-618.
Chen, Z., Dubinsky, A., 2003. A Conceptual model of perceived customer value in E-Commerce:
A Preliminary investigation. Psychology & Marketing 20 (4), 323-347.
Chen, C. F., Tsai, M. H., 2008. Perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty of TV travel product
shopping: Involvement as a moderator. Tourism Management 29 (6), 1166-1171.
Chen, S. C., 2012. The customer satisfaction–loyalty relation in an interactive e-service setting:
The mediators. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (2), 202-210.
Chi, T., Kilduff, P. P., 2011. Understanding consumer perceived value of casual sportswear: An
empirical study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (5), 422–429.
31
Davis, L., Hodges, N., 2012. Consumer shopping value: An investigation of shopping trip value,
in-store shopping value and retail format. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19
(2), 229-239.
Dennis, C., Newman, A., Michon, R., Brakus, J. and Wright, L., 2010. The mediating effects of
perception and emotion: Digital signage in mall atmospherics. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer services 17 (3), 205-215.
Dick, A. S., Basu, K., 1994. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the academy of marketing science 22 (2), 99-113.
Eid, R., 2015. Integrating Muslim customer perceived value, satisfaction, loyalty and retention in
the tourism industry: an empirical study. International Journal of Tourism Research, 17 (3),
209–312.
El-Adly, M., 2007. Shopping malls attractiveness: a segmentation approach. International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management 35 (11), 936-950.
El-Adly, M., Eid, R., 2015. Measuring the perceived value of malls in a non-Western context: the
case of the UAE. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 43 (9), 849-
869.
El Hedhli, K., Chebat, J. and Sirgy, M., 2013. Shopping well-being at the mall: Construct,
antecedents, and consequences. Journal of business research 66 (7), 856-863.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurment error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1), 39-50.
Gallarza, M., Saura, I., 2006. Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: an
investigation of university students' travel behavior. Toursim Management 27 (3), 347-
452.
Grace, D., O’Cass, A., 2005. An examination of the antecedents of repatronage intentions across
different retail store formats. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (4), 227-243.
Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., Pastore, D. L., 2002. Assessing the influence of the physical sports
facility on customer satisfaction within the context of the service experience. Sport
Management Review 5 (2), 129-148.
Ha, J., Jang, S. S., 2010. Effects of service quality and food quality: The moderating role of
atmospherics in an ethnic restaurant segment. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 29 (3), 520-529.
Hair, J., Black, B, Babin, B., Ralph, A., Ronald, T. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
London: Prentice-Hall.
Haj-Salem, N., Chebat, J., Michon, R. and Oliveira, S., 2016. Why male and female shoppers do
not see mall loyalty through the same lens? The mediating role of self-congruity. Journal
of Business Research 69 (3), 1219-1227.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L., Brantley, A. 2011. Mall attributes and shopping value: Differences by
gender and generational cohort. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (1), 1-9.
Jones, M., Reynolds, K., Arnold, M., 2006. Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: investigating
differential effects on retail outcomes. Journal of Business Research 59 (9), 974–981.
Joreskog, K., Sorbom, D., 1982. Recent developments in structural equation modeling. Journal of
Marketing Research 19 (4), 404-416.
Keng, C. J., Huang, T. L., Zheng, L. J., Hsu, M. K., 2007. Modeling service encounters and
customer experiential value in retailing: An empirical investigation of shopping mall
customers in Taiwan. International Journal of Service Industry Management 18 (4), 349-
367.
32
Kim, J., Lee, F. and Suh, Y., 2015. Satisfaction and loyalty from shopping mall experience and
brand personality. Services Marketing Quarterly 36 (1), 62-76.
Kotler, P., Keller, K., 2009. Marketing Management, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kwon, H., Ha, S. and Im, H., 2016. The impact of perceived similarity to other customers on
shopping mall satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28 (1), 304-309.
Lam, S.Y., 2001. The effects of store environment on shopping behaviors: A critical
review. Advances in Consumer Research, 28 (1), 190-197.
Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M., Murthy, B., 2004. Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and
switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 32 (3), 293-311.
Laroche, M., Teng, L., Michon, R. and Chebat, J., 2005. Incorporating service quality into
consumer mall shopping decision making: a comparison between English and French
Canadian consumers. Journal of Services Marketing 19 (3), 157-163.
Lee, C., Yoon, Y., Lee, S., 2007. Investigating the relationships among perceived value,
satisfaction, and recommendations: The case of the Korean DMZ. Tourism Management
28 (1), 204–214.
Lee Taylor, S. and Cosenza, R., 2002. Profiling later aged female teens: mall shopping behavior
and clothing choice. Journal of Consumer Marketing 19 (5), 393-408.
Lehew, A., Burgess, B., Wesley, S., 2002. Expanding the loyalty concept to include preference for
a shopping mall. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer
Research 12 (3), 225-236.
Levy, M., Weitz, B., 2012. Retailing Management, 8th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. Perceptions of Chinese restaurants in the US: What affects customer
satisfaction and behavioral intentions? International Journal of Hospitality Management 28
(3), 338-348.
Mandhachitara, R., Poolthong, Y., 2011. A model of customer loyalty and corporate social
responsibility. Journal of Services Marketing, 25 (2), 122-133.
Massicotte, M-C, Michon, R., Chebat, J-C, Sirgy, J., Borges, A., 2011. Effects of mall atmosphere
on mall evaluation: Teenage versus adult shoppers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 18 (1), 74–80.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology, Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press.
Michon, R., Yu, H., Smith, D., Chebat, J-C., 2007. The shopping experience of female fashion
leaders. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35 (6), 488-501.
Michon, R., Yu, H., Smith, D., Chebat, J-C., 2008. The influence of mall environment on female
fashion shoppers' value and behaviour. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management:
An International Journal 12 (4), 456 – 468.
Narayan, B., Rajendran, C., Sai, L., 2008. Scales to measure and benchmark service quality in
tourism industry: A second-order factor approach. Benchmarking: An International
Journal 15 (4), 469-493.
Nisbett, R., Ross, L., 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Toronto.
Nunnally, J., Bernstein, I., 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3ed. London: McGraw Hill.
Nuttavuthisit, K., 2014. How consumers as aesthetic subjects co-create the aesthetic experience of
the retail environment. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21(4), 432-437.
33
Pan, Y., Sheng, S., Xie, F., 2012. Antecedents of customer loyalty: An empirical synthesis and
reexamination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (1), 150-158.
Rabbanee, F., Ramaseshan, B., Wu, C. and Vinden, A., 2012. Effects of store loyalty on shopping
mall loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 19 (3), 271-278.
Rahman, O., Wong, K. and Yu, H., 2016. The effects of mall personality and fashion orientation
on shopping value and mall patronage intension. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, 28 (1), 155-164.
Rintamaki, T. K., 2006. Decomposing the value of department store shopping into utilitarian,
hedonic and social dimensions: evidence from Finland. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 34 (1), 6-24.
Rundle-Thiele, S., Bennett, R., 2001. A brand for all seasons? A discussion of brand loyalty
approaches and their applicability for different markets. Journal of Product & Brand
Management 10 (1), 25-37.
Ryu, K., Han, H., Kim, T., 2008. The relationships among overall quick-casual restaurant image,
perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intentions. International Journal of
Hospitality Management 27(3), 459–469.
Sands, S., Oppewal, H. and Beverland, M., 2015. How in-store educational and entertaining events
influence shopper satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 23, 9-20.
Singh, H., Prashar, S., 2014. Anatomy of shopping experience for malls in Mumbai: A
confirmatory factor analysis approach . Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2),
220-228.
Stoel, L., Wickliffe, V., Lee, K., 2004. Attribute beliefs and spending as antecedents to shopping
value. Journal of Business Research 57 (10), 1067–1073.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., 2001. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple
item scale. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 203-220.
Turley, L. W., Milliman, R. E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the
experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 193-211.
Wright, L., Newman, A. and Dennis, C., 2006. Enhancing consumer empowerment. European
Journal of Marketing 40 (9/10), 925-935.
Yang, Z., Peterson, R., 2004. Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of
switching costs. Psychology & Marketing 21 (10), 799-822.
Zeithaml, V. A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and
synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing 52 (3), 2-22.
