ilham-involvement in routine food shopping contex

24 BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 97,4

Is routine food shopping always a lowinvolvement activity?Consumer involvement refers to feelings of interest,concern and enthusiasm held towards product categoriesand brands. It is an important concept in consumermarketing in that it provides a basis for a motivationalforce, which can explain various behavioural outcomes ofconsumers, such as number and type of choice criteria,extensiveness of information search, length of decision-making process, variety-seeking behaviour and brandswitching. What is of interest here is the apparentdichotomy assumed in the literature between high andlow involvement, each associated with distinctivedifferences in behavioural outcomes.

In particular, the routine buying situation, such as theweekly shop for groceries, has invariably been regardedas a low involvement activity[1-4], characterized bynegligible information search, little deliberation in brandchoice and ease of brand switching to a substitute withina category.

This article attempts to establish a framework forunderstanding why certain routine buying situationssuch as the weekly routine grocery shop can give rise tobehaviours more typically associated with highinvolvement. More precisely, the broad aim is to establishwhether and under what circumstances the routinegrocery shopping activity may become highly involving.For example, purchase of a preferred brand may beobserved to be associated with minimal search anddeliberation, but in the event of a stock-out what action docustomers take? They may search the whole store or evenundertake a second shopping trip to obtain it.Alternatively, we may observe selection of a substituteproduct with apparent little annoyance or hesitation.

To characterize routine shopping as invariably being at alow level of involvement does not allow us to explain fully

possible differences in purchase behaviour such as brandswitching. Thus, in this article we critically examine thislow involvement assumption by analysing a large-scalein-store survey of shopping behaviour with specificrespect to involvement levels, brand commitment andswitching behaviour.

The conceptual development of involvementThe concept of involvement originated in the field ofsocial psychology[5] which viewed involvement as therelation between ego and an object and, later[6], as thecentrality of beliefs involved with an individual.

A number of writers who recognized and contributed tothe development of the concept of involvement as amotivational force acting on consumer behaviourexplicitly defined the concept in terms of a particularobservable level. For example, Krugman[7,8] viewedinvolvement as the intensity of information processing,operationalized as the number of connections made by anindividual. Similarly, Cohen[9] and Beatty and Smith[10]clearly defined involvement as a person’s activation levelobservable and measurable at a point in time, rather thanan arousal capacity triggered by situational factors.Houston and Rothschild’s[1] path-breaking paperdeveloped the concept of differing types of involvement –“enduring”, “situational” and “response” – by identifyinglinked antecedents, or sources for involvement. Thisimportant paper laid the basis for a more generalizedtheory. Cohen’s further significant contribution[9] was todevelop the concept by defining and separating“antecedents” from “consequent outcomes” from“involvement” as a clear, internal state variable. With thisconceptualization, the response involvement of Houstonand Rothschild can be more clearly categorized as aprocess leading to a final outcome in terms of purchasedecision.

The question of “antecedents” has been discussed by anumber of writers, but McGuire[11] clearly proposed twotypes of motive – “utilitarian” and “value expressive”,both having multiple effects on behaviour. Cohen[9],

Involvement in a routine foodshopping contextBrian Beharrell and Tim J. Denison

Challenges whether shopping for groceries is a low-involvement activity

British Food Journal, Vol. 97 No. 4, 1995, pp. 24-29 © MCB University Press Limited, 0007-070X

Greenwald and Leavitt[12], and Petty et al.[13], alsoincluded the interesting contribution that “effect” is acritical component of consumer decision making. Thus,evaluation may not just be a cognitive process as Houstonand Rothschild[1] argued, with an attribute or feature-based comparative process, but also a process ofexemplar, or prototype, comparison with a built-inevaluative content.

Bloch and Richins[14], following previous writersAntil[15], Houston and Rothschild[1], saw involvement asan internal state variable and distinguished “sources”and “responses” from the involvement concept; they,however, developed the core concept in terms ofimportance as perceived risk. This, however, createddifficulties in developing an integrated measure whichtaps into all possible sources of involvement. Lynch etal.[16] furthered our understanding of the complexity ofthe cognitive processes involved by suggesting thatoverall evaluations gradually become independent of therelated memory-based judgements. Thus, in routinebuying situations, the use of overall evaluations wouldtend to increase as original memory fades and would bebrand rather than attribute based. This supported theearlier comments made by Park and Mittal[17] whonoted, in their authoritative literature review, thatconsumers will vary considerably in the extensiveness oftheir decision making-process, and information search, interms of their number of choice criteria, use of recognitionand effect processes. They argued that their variation isdependent on the level of involvement. They concludedthat the concept of involvement, as variously defined andoperationalized, has given rise to a dichotomy betweenlow and high involvement levels each associated withdistinctive differences in behavioural outcomes. Thus,routine buying situations such as weekly groceryshopping have invariably been regarded as low-involvement behaviour, especially in view of the lowlevels of information search associated with it[1-4].

In Mittal’s view[18] such results need to be treated withcaution as they may come partially from a specification ofthe concept as a particular observed level of arousalrather than an arousal capacity. For example, differinglevels of involvement, operationalized as an activationlevel at a point in time, may be misleading because ofvarying situational factors. One of Mittal’s mostimportant contributions was to synthesize much of theprevious literature which has undoubtedly encouragedresearchers to reach agreement on a suitable definition ofconsumer involvement[18,19]. The involvement conceptin Mittal’s work measures a mind-set about anticipatedconsequences not an observed behavioural response. Inthis context the motivational force derived from arousalcapacity is dependent on situational factors. This morefully specified approach opens up the possibility thatreadiness to switch brands may not only be due to lowinvolvement, but many other factors, such as previouspurchase experience, expert advice or substitute of

product trial for prepurchase information search and useof prototypes or examplars. Mittal’s work, explicitlyincludes both effect and cognition in the antecedents – e.g.sign, hedonistic and utilitarian – rather than modellingthem as a hierarchy of effects. This may affectbehavioural outcomes in that the use of examplars, orprototypes, in making decisions is considered a quickerprocess than attribute- or feature-based comparisonwhich may be more cognitively exhausting. Thus, anapparent lack of care and deliberation could beconfounded with the use of exemplars in decision making.

Moving on to the problem of how actually to measureinvolvement levels, Goldsmith and Emmert[20] recentlyevaluated the different methods that have been used tomeasure involvement. They suggested that whereasZaichkowsky’s[21] scale possessed excellent internalconsistency, and that the Laurent and Kapferer scale[22]possessed validity but lower internal consistency. Theyconcluded that the Mittal scale had advantages of shortlength, convenience and validity. In addition, itconcentrated on purchase-level involvement defined interms of an arousal capacity triggered by situationalfactors.

In our minds, this made the Mittal approach particularlysuitable for measuring in-store variations in involvementand brand commitment, the object of this study.

The role of situational factorsMittal acknowledged his debt to Houston andRothschild[1] in considering situational factors anddifferentiating types of involvement. He developed hisconcepts of product class and purchase level involvementanalogous to their “enduring” and “situational”involvement concepts. Mittal also followedZaichkowsky[21], arguing that situational factors shouldbe regarded as qualifiers to involvement both at theproduct class or purchase level. The former was definedas interest in a product class, the latter as interest in thedecision on which brand to buy within the product class.

Generally, situational factors affecting variations do notappear to be well researched. Belk[23] distinguishedbetween a situation bounded in space and time and abehavioural context or setting within which a sequence ofcomplete actions or action patterns occur. He argued thatthis would exist irrespective of the persons present, butone within which situation variations can occur. Therelevant factors that Belk considered were physical,social, temporal, task and antecedent. The distinctionbetween what is situation specific and general may bedifficult to make. Nevertheless, a special promotionalprice, a special merchandising display, unusual states ofanxiety and a trigger such as a lost shopping list wouldall clearly be situation specific, while time available andstore knowledge would be globally relevant situational

25INVOLVEMENT IN A ROUTINE FOOD SHOPPING CONTEXT


factors. The importance of in-store stimuli in influencingdecisions in a shopping situation with varying degrees ofinvolvement has been emphasized by writers such asPark et al.[24] and Chattopadhyay and Alba[25].

Thus, following Belk, we can define the routine shoppingpurchase as a behavioural activity, or context, with aclear sequence of actions, within which situationalvariations can occur. Mittal[18], as previously mentioned,viewed situational factors as qualifiers to purchase-levelinvolvement and empirically analysed the effect ofvariations in usage situations on involvement levels.However, he specifically excluded the specification of in-store situation variations given above. Thus, in thebehavioural context of the routine shopping trip, within-store situational factors were not specified eithertheoretically or practically. As Mittal’s model is centredaround a mind-set, not a response behaviour, strictlyspeaking it is not necessary to specify the situationalvariation within the measurement technique to assessbehavioural outcomes. In fact, this becomes analogous toconsidering behavioural intentions. In response to ahypothetical situation, it is not necessary therefore toestablish empirically, and describe, all the situationvariations, unless the objective is to explain actualbehaviour in a more experimentally-controlled situation.

In summary, in our view, the key intellectualdevelopments in the involvement concept have been asfollows:

● as a motivating force;● an internal state variable with goal objective;● clear separation of involvement from behavioural

effects;● clear specification of antecedents, including sign;

product- and purchase-level involvementdistinguished;

● product importance subsumed in a generalinvolvement scale;

● involvement as an arousal capacity not anactivation level at particular point in time;

● involvement as a mind-set about an anticipatedpurchase decision;

● situational factors as qualifiers to purchase-levelinvolvement.

Thus, we contend that a current theoretical and practicalapproach must include all these elements to avoidunnecessary confounding of empirical results.

A study of consumer involvement levels ingrocery shoppingIn response to the call for more empirical studies ofinvolvement in buying behaviour, we undertook a

research project based on a sample of customers of amajor European retailer.

The first stage of the study was to hold a series of focusgroups to categorize product lines into meaningfulgroups, or product categories, and then identify theproduct attributes most influential in brand selectionwithin those product categories. No attempts were madeto standardize the attributes arising across the categories,but replies were elucidated at the appropriate level ofabstraction. Based on the focus group discussions, sevenproduct categories of grocery goods were differentiatedwithout undue difficulty and were, consequently, adoptedfor the remaining stages of the research programme. Aquestionnaire was constructed, which was designed tomeasure consumers’ levels of purchase involvementacross the seven product categories. For reasons alreadycovered, we chose to use Mittal’s means of measuringpurchase involvement. This involves four separatecomponents (V1-V4 ) measured on simple 1-7 scales toindicate the level of interest/involvement taken in theshopping decision:

V1 = amount customer cares about choice.V2 = perception of variation in type of brand.V3 = importance of right choice.V4 = concern over outcome of choice.

Besides measuring purchase level involvement, wewanted to assess a particular behavioural outcome –brand commitment – arising from a situational variant.This we did by asking respondents what action theywould take if they could not buy the specific brand ofproduct they had intended to purchase. The scale ofpossible responses ranged from “perfectly happy toaccept a substitute” to “shop elsewhere to buy my brand”.

After extensive pretesting and piloting of thequestionnaire, a consumer survey was conducted basedat ten stores, which reflected the national operations ofthe retailer in terms of store sales turnover, location andproduct range. Within each store, quota sampling wasapplied, based on the known customer characteristics ofage and gender. Interviews were carried out throughoutall days of the week to ensure a representative cross-section of shopper types. A total of 463 (usable)interviews were carried out within the stores beyond thecheckout desks. In the event, the overall sample statisticswere consistent with the store profiles, apart from anunder-representation of pensioners. In other respects, thesample was broadly representative of the retailers’customer base in terms of age, gender and shoppingbehaviour type (time of day, day of the week).

Survey resultsUsing simple factor analysis, we can confirm that Mittal’sfour components load successfully as a single coherent

measure of purchase involvement, with eigenvaluesreflecting approximately 60 per cent of the varianceexplained across all seven of the product categories westudied (see Table I). In general terms, the importance ofthe right choice is the most powerful single component.

Adopting Mittal’s composite measure of purchase-levelinvolvement, we found that the levels of involvement weresignificantly higher for the grocery categories selectedthan might be expected based on a knowledge of theliterature (see Table II). Indeed, to the extent they arecomparable with Mittal’s 1989 study[18], we find thatconsumers seem to be as highly involved in purchasedecisions related to fresh meats and dairy products asthey are about buying car insurance and restaurantvisits. Our results seem to throw in doubt the notion thatpurchasing grocery products, given the low level of riskattached, necessarily concerns low involvementdecisions.

The second objective of our study was to determinewhether there is an association between levels ofinvolvement and brand commitment. We measured brandcommitment on a 1-7 scale, where 1 = “perfectly happy toaccept a substitute” and 7 = “will go elsewhere to buy my

brand”. Our hypothesis is that the higher the level ofpurchase involvement, the more likely the shopper willdecide to shop elsewhere for a brand that is not availablein the store at the time of shopping, rather than accept asubstitute readily or under duress. Across six of the sevenproduct categories, the hypothesis was confirmed (seeTable III); though the correlations were low, they weresignificant.

We had not, however, anticipated that the behaviouralresponse outcome would be so polarized. We felt thismight help explain the low correlation values. To explorethe nature of the association in more depth, we conductedcross-tabular analysis, dividing involvement levels into“above average” and “below average” purchase-levelinvolvement within each product category; andbehavioural responses into “accept a substitute” and“shop elsewhere”. In this way, we constructed a 2 × 2 gridrelated to purchasing behaviour associated with each ofthe seven product categories (see Figure 1). Using the chi-squared test, the pattern that emerges establishes that the


Table II. Involvement levels across product categories

Preserves 4.95Bakery 5.33Cereals 5.52Dairy 5.68Soup 4.68Toiletries and cosmetics 5.08Fresh meat 5.96

(1 = minimum, 7 = maximum)

Table III. Association between purchase-level involvementand behavioural response by product category

R

Preserves 0.2598*Bakery 0.1677*Cereals 0.2625*Dairy 0.1598*Soup 0.2211*Toiletries and cosmetics 0.2924*Fresh meat 0.0416

* Level of significance = 0.0001

Table I. Factor analysis of Mittal’s four components of purchase-level involvement

Product category

Preserves Bakery Cereals Dairy Soup Toiletries Fresh meat

Factor loadings

Care (V1) 0.81 0.78 0.64 0.72 0.72 0.78 0.75Variety (V2) 0.63 0.66 0.83 0.72 0.90 0.74 0.72Importance (V3) 0.87 0.84 0.75 0.84 0.79 0.86 0.85Concern (V4) 0.72 0.75 0.77 0.69 0.79 0.77 0.77

Eigenvalue 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.4Percentage varianceexplained 58.6 58.2 57.0 55.9 64.8 63.1 60.4

association between levels of purchase involvement andbrand commitment are significant in six out of sevenproduct categories.

In support of McWilliam’s[26] conjecture andpractitioner’s intuition, it seems that strong brands arehighly involving. In summary, variations in purchase-level involvement across a wide range of groceryproducts in routine weekly shopping help to explainpurchase intentions to accept a substitute or provide themotivating force to shop elsewhere. The notion that

routine shopping is inevitably low involvement isdecisively rejected and the powerful influence ofinvolvement on purchase intentions by brands withindifferent product class is confirmed.

ConclusionsThe conclusion in much of the literature (for example, seeMcWilliam [26]), that most fast-moving consumerproducts are uninvolving, seems to us to be based on alack of appreciation of the need to specify fully theinvolvement concept, specifically in terms of “capacityarousal”, not an activation level at a point in time. Therole of situational factors has also been inadequatelyapplied from a detailed taxonomy. The very generality ofMittal’s “mind-set approach” to involvement, that makesdetailed situational analysis difficult, has reduced ourapproach to one of analysis of purchase intentions ratherthan actual behaviour. We accept this as a limitation ofour study. Our empirical approach had the additionallimitation that it concentrated on purchase-levelinvolvement not product-level involvement and analysedonly one behavioural outcome, brand commitment. Notwithstanding these limitations, the conclusion of ourresearch, that routine food shopping for many consumerscan be highly involving, is not, we believe, withoutinterest.

References

1. Houston, M.J. and Rothschild, M.L., A Paradigm forResearch on Consumer Involvement, working paper 11-77-46, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1977.

2. Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D., “Low involvementversus high involvement cognitive structures”, in Hunt,K. (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 5, 1978,pp. 87-92.

3. Winter, F.L. and Rossiter, J.R., “Pattern-matchingpurchase behaviour and stochastic brand choice: a lowinvolvement model”, Journal of Economic Psychology,Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 559-85.

4. Foxall, G., “Cognitive style and healthy eating”, BritishFood Journal, Vol. 94 No. 8, 1993.

5. Sherrif, M. and Cantril, H., The Psychology of Ego-Involvement, Wiley, New York, NY, 1947.

6. Sherrif, C.W., Sherrif, M. and Nebergall, R.W., Attitudeand Attitude Change: The Social Judgement InvolvementApproach, Saunders, Philadelphia, PA, 1965.

7. Krugman, H.E., “The impact of television advertising:learning without involvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. 29, Autumn 1965, pp. 349-56.

8. Krugman, H.E., “The measurement of advertisinginvolvement”, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29, Summer1966, pp. 583-96.

9. Cohen, J.B., “Involvement separating the state from itscauses and effects”, paper presented at the InvolvementColloquium, New York University, New York, NY, 3-4June 1982.


125 73

70 93

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentPreserves

2 = 13.4

Significance = 0.00025

113 71

53 97

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentCereals

2 = 22.48


86 67

59 89

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentSoup

2 = 8.049


111 92

60 94

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentBakery

2 = 8.7


119 85

70 89

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentDairy

2 = 7.329


113 68

67 102

High Low

High

Low

Level ofinvolvement

Brand commitmentToiletries

2 = 26.007


χ

χ

χ

χ

χ

χ

Figure 1. Product involvement and brand commitmentmatrices across seven product categories


10. Beatty, S.E. and Smith, S., “External search effort: aninvestigation across several product categories”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 14, 1987, pp. 83-95.

11. McGuire, W.J., “Psychology motives and communicationgratification”, in Blumler, G. and Katz, E. (Eds), The Usesof Mass Communication: Current Perspectives onGratifications Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,CA, 1974, pp. 167-96.

12. Greenwald, A.G. and Leavitt, C., “Audience involvment inadvertising: four levels”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 11 No. 1, 1984, pp. 581-92.

13. Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D., “Central andperipheral routes to advertising effectiveness: themoderating role of involvement”, Journal of ConsumerResearch, Vol. 10 No. 2, 1983, pp. 135-46.

14. Bloch, P.H. and Richins, M., “A theoretical model for thestudy of product importance perceptions”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47, Summer 1983, pp. 69-81.

15. Antil, J.H., “Conceptualization and operationalization ofinvolvement”, in Kinnear, T. (Ed.), Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 11, 1984, pp. 203-9.

16. Lynch, J.G. Jr, Marmostein, H. and Weigold, M.F.,“Choices from sets including remembered brands: use ofrecalled attributes and prior overall evaluations”, Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, 1988, pp. 169-96.

17. Park, W.C. and Mittal, B., “A theory of involvement inconsumer behaviour: problems and issues”, in Sheth, J.N.(Ed.), Research in Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, JAI Press,Greenwich, CT, 1985, pp. 201-32.

18. Mittal, B., “Measuring purchase decision involvement”,Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 6, 1989, pp. 147-62.

19. Mittal, B. and Lee, M.-S., “Separating brand choiceinvolvement from product involvement via consumerinvolvement profiles”, in Houston, M. (Ed.), Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 15, 1988, pp. 36-40.

20. Goldsmith, R. and Emmert, J., “Measuring productcategory involvement: a multitrait-multimethod study”,Journal of Business Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, 1991, pp. 363-71.

21. Zaichkowsky, J.L., “Measuring the involvementconstruct”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, 1985,pp. 341-52.

22. Laurent, G. and Kapferer, J.-N., “Measuring consumerinvolvement profiles”, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol. 22, February 1985, pp. 41-53.

23. Belk, R.W., “Situational variables and consumerbehaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, December1975, pp. 157-64.

24. Park, W.C., Iyer, E.S. and Smith, C., “The effects ofsituational factors on in-store grocery shoppingbehaviour: the role of store environment and timeavailable for shopping”, Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 15 No. 4, 1989, pp. 422-33.

25. Chattopadhyay, A. and Alba, J.W., “The situationalimportance of recall and inference in consumer decisionmaking”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1,1988, pp. 1-12.

26. McWilliam, G., “Consumers’ involvement in brands andproduct categories”, in Baker, M. (Ed.), Perspectives onMarketing Management, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, 1992,pp. 325-50.

Further reading

Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D., “The components ofinvolvement”, in Maloney, J. and Silverman, B. (Eds),Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, AmericanMarketing Association, New York, NY, 1979, pp. 53-7.

Brian Beharrell is Senior Lecturer and Tim J. Denison is Senior Research Fellow, both at Cranfield University, SilsoeCollege, Silsoe, Bedford, UK.

ilham-involvement in routine food shopping contex

Documents