need for uniqueness: shopping mall preference and choice activity

Introduction

Choice of shopping destination is a topicreceiving increasing attention, especiallywhere the suburban regional shopping mall isconcerned. Although suburban regionalshopping malls are still a relatively recentphenomenon in most European countries[1],this is not the case in the USA. Indeed, thedata seem to indicate that the golden days ofthe suburban regional shopping mall in theUSA may be drawing to an end. Vacancies inregional shopping malls are close to 12 percent[2]. Delinquency rates on regional shop-ping mall mortgages are increasing[3]. Thesales of GAF (general merchandise, appareland furnishings) products, the majority ofsales at regional shopping malls, haveplateaued since 1972[4]. Despite this, retailspace per capita, at nearly 19 sq. ft, is morethan twice what it was just 15 years ago[3]. As a result, mall sales per square ft. havedeclined by 17 per cent since 1978[2], and13 per cent since 1986[5].

The problems experienced by suburbanregional shopping malls do not appear to bedue solely to overbuilding. The results of asurvey by the Chicago research firm MASrevealed that a significant change in mallshopping activity has occurred over the pastdecade. They observed that between 1980and 1990 consumers were making over one-third fewer trips to the shopping mall (2.0times per month in 1990 as opposed to 3.1 in1980), were visiting half as many stores pertrip (3.5 stores in 1990 as opposed to 7.0 in1980), and were spending only one-third theamount of time in the mall (4.0 hours permonth in 1990 as opposed to 12.0 hours in1980)[3]. Although not all studies haveobserved such a sharp decline in suburbanregional shopping mall activity (e.g. [6,7]),the trend is the same – Americans today areshopping less at suburban regional shoppingmalls than before.

Within this environment of possible over-building and changing consumer shoppingactivities, the level of competition betweensuburban regional shopping malls located inthe same metropolitan area has increasedsignificantly. One contributing factor for theincreased competition is that manyconsumers live within a “reasonable” drivingdistance of a number of suburban regionalshopping mall alternatives from which they can choose. Another factor is that the

4

International Journal of Retail & Distribution ManagementVolume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · pp. 4–12© MCB University Press · ISSN 0959-0552

Need for uniqueness:shopping mallpreference and choiceactivity

David J. Burns andHomer B. Warren

The authorsDavid J. Burns and Homer B. Warren are AssociateProfessors of Marketing at Williamson School of Business,Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, USA.

AbstractSince the store mix and product offerings of many regionalshopping malls are very similar, often the primary discrimi-nator between many of these centres is merely location.Making the choice to shop at a regional shopping mallother than the one nearest to one’s place of residence,therefore, does not appear to be a logical choice in manyinstances. Such behaviour, however, appears to be relative-ly common. It would appear, therefore, that regionalshopping mall choice may not always be based solely onthe offerings and location of the available shoppingalternatives. Appears to provide support for the hypothesisthat regional shopping mall choice can be an avenue forexpression of an individual’s need for uniqueness. Sug-gests that outshopping activity as it relates to choice ofregional shopping mall, may, at least in part, be promptedby the personal uniqueness which can be experienced bychoosing to patronize regional shopping malls other thanthe one which is nearest to one’s place of residence.

attributes of these alternative shopping malls(e.g. store mix and product offerings) areoften very similar[6]. In fact, the anchorstores of these shopping alternatives are oftenidentical, as is the mix of smaller national andregional stores also located in the malls. Fur-thermore, the stores located outside, butwithin close proximity of, regional shoppingmalls are also often virtually identical.

Given the apparent homogeneity, it wouldappear logical to expect that individuals facedwith the existence of more than one suburbanregional shopping mall within a “reasonable”driving distance will probably choose to shopprimarily at the regional shopping mall closestto their place of residence. Therefore, it couldbe assumed that mall location would probablybecome the salient quality affecting differ-ences in such preferences. Interestingly, someindividuals appear not to conform to suchnormative behaviour. Instead, they appearroutinely to choose to patronize a suburbanregional shopping mall alternative to the onelocated closest to their respective places ofresidence[8]. Furthermore, they seem toengage in such nonconforming behaviourseemingly for no “rational” reason.

Outshopping

Shopping at a suburban regional shoppingmall other than the one closest to one’s placeof residence, or the process of shopping out-side of the primary trading area in which oneresides[9], may be classified as a form ofoutshopping. Since trading areas are “geo-graphic subsets of markets (cities or metro-politan areas)…containing destination storesand intercept stores”[10], each suburbanregional shopping mall and associated retailactivity can be considered as comprising thenode of a separate trading area.

Outshopping has received a considerableamount of attention from both practitionersand researchers (e.g. [11-13]). This attention,however, has generally been focused only onone dimension of outshopping, that of indi-viduals residing in small towns choosing tooutshop by shopping in larger cities ratherthat in their home towns[14]. This orientationdeveloped in response to the improvements inintra- and intercity transportation systemswhich occurred earlier in this century andwhich provided consumers with the ability totravel long distances easily, including travel-ling to more distant shopping alternatives. As

a consequence of this environmental change,circumstances became favourable for theformation of large shopping complexes,including suburban regional shopping malls,in many communities. These large shoppingcomplexes proved to be very successful inattracting potential customers, often fromgreat distances. For instance, the residents ofmany small communities were suddenly ableto make their purchasing choices from ahitherto unavailable assortment of productssimply by commuting to a regional shoppingcomplex located in a neighbouring, largercommunity. Outshopping, as a shoppingalternative, increasingly became a commonpractice of the residents of many smallercommunities.

Identification of the outshopperThe goal of the majority of studies on out-shopping has been to attempt to characterizethe outshopper based on demographic vari-ables (e.g. [13,15-20]), psychographic vari-ables (e.g. [17,21-22]) and/or perceivedimportance of shopping area attributes[23].Unfortunately, the results of these studieshave generally been inconclusive and oftencontradictory[24]. Although identifying whois the outshopper is not without merit, it maybe more fruitful to attempt to identify andunderstand why individuals engage in suchactivity. Only by understanding why con-sumers engage in outshopping can retailersand shopping complexes hope to affect thisprocess. Along this vein, Samli et al.[18, p. 3]state:

if the local retailers understand the nature andcauses of outshopping, they can be instrumentalin stopping or even reversing these patterns (theincreasing levels of outshopping).

Attempts have been made to identify some ofthe reasons why consumers engage in out-shopping. For instance, dissatisfaction withthe products/shopping options availablelocally has been shown to lead to higher levelsof outshopping activity[11,14,22,25-27].Furthermore, the availability of other, moreattractive, shopping alternatives outside one’sprimary shopping area has also been shown tolead to an increased occurrence of outshop-ping[12,18,25].

It appears that the relative attractiveness ofa consumer’s non-local shopping area vis-à-vis his/her local shopping area, however,may not be the sole reason for outshopping.For instance, Darden and Perreault[15] and

5

Need for uniqueness: shopping mall preference and choice activity

David J. Burns and Homer B. Warren

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management

Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

Blakney and Sekely[11] suggest that outshop-ping may also be undertaken to satisfy non-purchasing motivations. One such non-pur-chasing motivation may be a need for unique-ness[28].

Need for uniqueness

Although conformity behaviour has com-monly been the focus of research in market-ing[29-31], significantly less attention hasbeen given to non-conforming behaviour, asin this instance[32]. Researchers in psychol-ogy suggest that such non-conformingbehaviour is often the external manifestationof an individual’s need for uniqueness, or anindividual’s need for personal differentia-tion[e.g. 33]. They suggest that for someindividuals (those with higher needs foruniqueness), choosing what may appear tobe an “non-rational” choice may be anavenue through which their uniqueness canbe established.

The need for uniqueness is the need of anindividual to express his/her uniqueness fromother individuals – to be “different” and not“just another face in the crowd”[33,34]. Thistrait varies in magnitude across individu-als[35]. The external expression of an individ-ual’s need for uniqueness, which is the out-come of a social comparison process[36],depends on his/her self-perceived degree ofuniqueness relative to others. Through thissocial comparison process, individuals com-pare themselves with others (groups or indi-viduals) providing themselves with a frame ofreference within which future decision-making behaviour can occur[37]. Thisprocess consists of comparing one’s presentstate to some ideal state defined by the indi-vidual, dependent on the strength of his/herneed for uniqueness. An individual’s self-perceived degree of uniqueness representsthat present state – how closely that individualperceives that he/she resembles others at thepresent time. This value can be plotted on a“continuum of uniqueness”, with theextremes representing total similarity andtotal dissimilarity (uniqueness). The individ-ual’s ideal state can be plotted on the samecontinuum. The ideal state of individuals withstrong needs for uniqueness will lie closer tothe total uniqueness extreme and, likewise,the ideal state of individuals with weak needsfor uniqueness will lie closer to the total simi-larity extreme of the continuum. The magni-

tude and direction of the discrepancy existingbetween the perceived actual state and idealstate directly affects an individual — the largerthe discrepancy, the less satisfied the individ-ual is[34,38,39]. The presence of a discrepan-cy of sufficient magnitude prompts an indi-vidual to seek various methods to remedy thatsituation, as has been demonstrated innumerous empirical works (e.g. [40-45]). Forinstance, if an individual perceives insufficientpersonal uniqueness, he/she will be promptedto pursue activities which may have the poten-tial to rectify this undesirable situation.

Consumer activity has been observed to beone channel through which an individual canexpress a need for uniqueness within oursociety. For instance, Snyder andFromkin[33, p. 107] suggested that “thewidely observed tendency to augment andhoard material possessions may represent oursearch for separate identities”. Furthermore,Burns and Krampf[45] and Snyder[39]observed that individuals with high needs foruniqueness were more apt to adopt newproducts than were individuals with low needsfor uniqueness. They hypothesized that theinherent scarcity of such products wouldmake them more attractive to individuals withhigh needs for uniqueness, since the posses-sion of such products will likely be initiallylimited. This hypothesis is consistent with theobservations of Lynn[46] and Kehret-Wardand Yalch[47], who observed that individualsvalue scarcity differently – scarce productsprove to be superior tools for self-differentia-tion, since the possession of these productscannot be easily copied. Finally, Tepper[32]observed that individuals with stronger needsfor uniqueness are more likely to desire con-sumer choices which may be viewed as “non-traditional”.

Given these findings, it would appearlogical that choice of shopping destination,including choice of suburban regional shop-ping mall, could also act as a channel throughwhich the need for uniqueness can be mani-fested. In short, shopping at a regional shop-ping mall other than the one closest to one’splace of residence may be an avenue throughwhich one’s need for uniqueness can beexpressed. One’s need for uniqueness, there-fore, may be logically expected to be manifest-ed through outshopping activities whereshopping destination is explicitly chosen to bedifferent from the norm or what would appearto be the “rational” choice.

6




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

The study

The purpose of this study is to investigate theneed for uniqueness as one possible cause ofoutshopping activity as it relates to suburbanregional shopping mall preference and choice.It is hypothesized that individuals withstronger needs for uniqueness will be morelikely to favour a suburban regional shoppingmall other than the one nearest to their placeof residence and will choose to shop theremore frequently than will individuals withweaker needs for uniqueness:H1: Individuals with high needs for unique-

ness are less likely to view the regionalshopping mall located closest to theirresidences as their favourite regionalshopping mall than are individuals withlow needs for uniqueness.

H2: Individuals with high needs for unique-ness make a lesser percentage of theirshopping trips to the mall closest to theirplaces of residences than do individualswith low needs for uniqueness.

Methodology

SampleThe sample was drawn from undergraduatebusiness students attending a major com-muter university. The resulting sample of 327was obtained with a virtually 100 per centresponse rate (the questionnaires were distrib-uted and completed within a classroom set-ting).

The university is located in the centralbusiness district of a medium-sized Midwest-ern city. The shopping environment of thiscity includes two major (greater than onemillion sq. ft) suburban regional shoppingmalls located on opposite sides of the city.Each of these two shopping malls forms thehub of similar concentrations of retail activitywhich in turn represent two distinct tradingareas. The sample, therefore, had access totwo very similar primary concentrations ofretail activity, or trading areas, one closest totheir place of residence, and one located onthe other side of town. (The area’s centralbusiness district was not considered since itcontains minimal shopping opportunities.)

InstrumentThe questionnaire included instruments tomeasure respondents’ need for uniqueness,their suburban regional shopping mall

preference and choice activity, and to deter-mine the respondents’ home address.

Need for uniqueness and its three compo-nents or factors (lack of concern regardingothers’ reactions to one’s different ideas,actions, etc., a person’s desire not always tofollow (traditional) rules, and a person’swillingness to defend his or her beliefs pub-licly)[33], were measured using the need foruniqueness scale[35]. (The scale is displayedin Table I and the factor composition is dis-played in Table II.) Snyder and Fromkin[35]and Tepper[32] report favourable results fromextensive validity testing. The scale producesresults which approximate interval scaling andnormality. The distribution of the scores ofthe respondents on the Need for UniquenessScale (mean 100.96, SD 10.8) did not differsignificantly from that of the expected distrib-ution based on validation studies of theinstrument (mean 100)[33].

Information was also gathered regardingrespondents’ favourite suburban regionalshopping mall, the destinations and frequen-cies of trips to regional shopping malls overthe past three months, and the respondents’addresses. Respondents’ closest regionalshopping mall alternative was determined bythe relative proximities of the regional shop-ping malls to the respondents’ home address-es.

AnalysisThe first hypothesis was tested via discrimi-nant analysis. The dependent variable usedwas dichotomous, based on whether or notrespondents’ favourite shopping mall was alsothe closest regional shopping mall to theirplace of residence.The second hypothesis wastested via correlation analysis.

Findings

The results of the discriminant analysisproved not to be significant when based onthe overall measure of the need for unique-ness. When based on the individual factors ofthe need for uniqueness construct, a margin-ally significant (at the 0.1 level) relationship inthe direction consistent with that hypothe-sized was observed for the third need foruniqueness factor, a person’s willingness todefend his or her beliefs publicly. Therefore,marginal support for H1 was observed foronly one of the factors of the need for unique-ness construct.

7




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

The results of the correlation analysis (TableIII) were significant (at the 0.05 level) for theoverall measure of the need for uniqueness.Similar results were observed for the first twoneed for uniqueness factors: lack of concernregarding others’ reactions to one’s differentideas, actions, etc., and a person’s desire notalways to follow (traditional) rules. A signifi-cant relationship was not observed for thethird need for uniqueness factor. H2, there-fore, was supported.

Discussion

The results appear to indicate that individu-als’ need for uniqueness may affect theirchoice of suburban regional shopping mall,but the results also appear to indicate thatindividuals’ need for uniqueness may not

affect their mall preferences. Each of thesefindings will be discussed further.

The findings suggest that suburban region-al shopping mall choice behaviour may beaffected by individuals’ needs for uniqueness.Individuals with higher needs for uniquenesswere observed to be significantly more likelythan individuals with lower needs for unique-ness to shop at suburban regional shoppingmalls other than those located closest to theirplaces of residence. In other words, a higherpercentage of trips to suburban regionalshopping malls by individuals with higherneeds for uniqueness involved outshoppingthan for individuals with lower needs foruniqueness. This finding suggests that shop-ping at suburban regional shopping mallsother than the closest alternative (a form ofoutshopping) may be an avenue through

8




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

Table I Need for uniqueness instrument

1 When I am in a group of strangers, I am not reluctant to express my opinion publicly2 I find that criticism affects my self-esteem3 I sometimes hesitate to use my own ideas for fear they might be impractical4 I think that society should let reason lead it to new customs and throw aside old habits or mere tradi-

tions5 People frequently succeed in changing my mind6 I find it sometimes amusing to upset the dignity of teachers, judges, and cultured people7 I like wearing a uniform because it makes me proud to be a member of the organization it represents8 People have sometimes called me stuck-up9 Others’ disagreements make me uncomfortable

10 I do not always need to live by the rules and standards of society11 I am unable to express my feelings if they result in undesirable consequences12 Being a success in one’s career means making a contribution that no one else has made13 It bothers me if people think I am being too unconventional14 I always try to follow rules15 If I disagree with a superior on his or her views, I usually do not keep it to myself16 I speak up in meetings in order to oppose those who I feel are wrong17 Feeling different in a crowd of people makes me feel uncomfortable18 If I must die, let it be an unusual death rather than an ordinary death in bed19 I would rather be just like everyone else than be called a freak20 I must admit I find it hard to work under strict rules and regulations21 I would rather be known for always trying new ideas than for employing well-trusted methods22 It is better always to agree with the opinions of others than to be considered a disagreeable person23 I do not like to say unusual things to people24 I tend to express my opinions publicly, regardless of what others say25 As a rule, I strongly defend my own opinions26 I do not like to go my own way27 When I am with a group of people, I agree with their ideas so that no arguments will arise28 I tend to keep quiet in the presence of persons of higher rank, experience, etc.29 I have been quite independent and free from family rule30 Whenever I take part in group activities, I am somewhat of a nonconformist31 In most things in life, I believe in playing it safe rather than taking a gamble32 It is better to break rules than always to conform with an impersonal society

which the need for uniqueness may be mani-fested. Shopping at such other locations islikely to be contrary to customary normativebehaviour and, as such, is likely to set anindividual apart from others.

This relationship between the need foruniqueness and regional shopping mall choicebehaviour appears to be based on the first twofactors of the need for uniqueness – lack ofconcern regarding others’ reactions to one’sdifferent ideas, actions, etc., and a person’sdesire not always to follow (traditional) rules.

These two factors address a desire not to beconstrained by customary activities and a lackof concern over the opinions of others.

The evidence supporting H1, however, waslimited. Marginal supporting evidence wasobserved for only one of the factors of theneed for uniqueness construct. It appears thatindividuals’ need for uniqueness may haverelatively little effect on their choice offavourite regional shopping mall (whether thefavourite mall is closest to the place of resi-dence or whether it is a more distant alterna-tive).

The existence of data supporting H2, butnot H1 may suggest, at least as far as theeffects of the need for uniqueness are con-cerned, that whether the favourite mall is theone closest to the residence or not appears tohave little relationship to shopping activity. Anex post facto examination seems to provideconfirmatory evidence – no significant rela-tionship was observed between respondents’favourite mall and their shopping activity.This finding further suggests that shoppingmall choice may at times be based on factorsother than what may be regarded as “rational”reasons, even including the individual’s shop-ping mall preferences.

Interestingly, the marginally significantrelationship which was observed betweenfavourite shopping mall (nearest or not) andneed for uniqueness involved the sole factor ofthe uniqueness construct which was notfound to be related to the percentage of shop-ping trips to the individual’s local regionalshopping mall – a person’s willingness todefend his or her beliefs publicly. This findingtends to call into question the presumed

9




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

Table II Need for uniqueness factors

Need for uniqueness Need for uniquenessscale number factor

1 32 13 14 25 16 27 28 39 1

10 211 112 113 114 215 316 317 118 219 120 221 222 123 124 325 326 127 128 129 230 231 132 2Notes:Factor 1 = lack of concern regarding others’ reac-tions to one’s different ideas, actions, etc.Factor 2 = a person’s desire not always to follow(traditional) rulesFactor 3 = a person’s willingness to defend his or herbeliefs publicly

Table III Correlation results

Percentage of shopping tripsNeed for to regional shopping mallsuniqueness closest to place of residence

Overall –0.1197*Factor 1 –0.1306*Factor 2 –0.1158*Factor 3 0.0845Notes:*p < 0.05Factor 1 = lack of concern regarding others’ reac-tions to one’s different ideas, actions, etc.Factor 2 = a person’s desire not always to follow(traditional) rulesFactor 3 = a person’s willingness to defend his or herbeliefs publicly

relationship between attitude and behaviorwhich is commonly assumed in consumerresearch – no evidence was observed whichwould suggest the existence of a relationshipbetween mall preference and mall choicebehaviour. One possible explanation of thisfinding is that the choice of a favourite subur-ban regional shopping mall may involve amuch higher degree of involvement thansimply choosing to outshop at a non-localregional shopping mall. The findings suggestthe possibility that individuals may view thechoice of a favourite regional shopping mall asa choice which may have to be publiclydefended to a greater extent than the actualchoice of mall at which to shop. These issuesshould prove to be interesting areas of futureresearch.

LimitationsAlthough the findings of this effort areencouraging, a number of limitations exist.First, the limited nature of the sample, thoughan appropriate control for extraneous vari-ables, limits the generalizability of the resultsto other populations. Second, the measure ofrespondents’ shopping activity at regionalshopping malls was based on recall, the accu-racy of which has not been established. Third,the use of relative proximity of the regionalshopping malls to the respondents’ places ofresidence may not adequately account for theactual convenience of shopping at that partic-ular shopping mall. For some individuals, thepossibility may exist that the mall located onthe other side of town from their places ofresidence may actually be located closer totheir place of employment and, as a result,may actually prove to be more convenientlylocated. Finally, the distances betweenrespondents’ places of residence and theirclosest regional shopping mall were not con-trolled.

ImplicationsThe managerial implications of this line ofresearch are impressive. This study suggeststhat individuals’ choice of suburban regionalshopping mall may be affected by their needsfor uniqueness. The choice to shop at a subur-ban regional shopping mall other than the oneclosest to the individuals’ places of residencemay be an avenue through which the need foruniqueness may be expressed. Although themore distant shopping mall may not differ inany appreciable fashion, it is the fact that the

choice to visit the more distant shopping centreis abnormal, which makes this choice a possi-ble avenue for the expression of one’s need foruniqueness.

It appears, therefore, that an appeal to theuniqueness inherent in visiting a “non-local”mall may have the potential to be successful inreaching individuals with higher needs foruniqueness outside a suburban regional shop-ping mall’s ordinary trading area. In fact, theresults suggest that such an appeal may besuccessful even though the mall in questionoffers nearly identical products and storeofferings and/or if the mall is not viewed asoffering any better shopping opportunitiesthan the mall closest to the individual’s placesof residence.

Conclusion

In many instances, the practice of outshop-ping or, within the context of this study,choosing to visit suburban regional shoppingmalls other than those which are locatedclosest to individuals’ places of residence,does not appear to represent a logical activity.Outshopping involves a number of additionalcosts which can be avoided if one shops inone’s own trading area[15]. These costs,which include transportation costs and timecosts, can be expected to increase the riskinherent in outshopping. In spite of theseadditional costs, however, outshopping is avery common activity.

It appears that the choice of which subur-ban regional shopping mall to visit is notsolely the outcome of a “rational” process.Such choices appear to be affected by individ-uals’ underlying needs as well. The varyinglevels of need for uniqueness among individu-als – one such underlying need – should beexplicitly acknowledged by retailers andregional shopping malls whose businesses areaffected by outshopping behaviour.

References

1 McGoldrick, P.J. and Thompson, M.G., RegionalShopping Centres: Out-of-Town versus in-Town,Avebury, Aldershot, 1992.

2 The Economist,“Decline and mall”, The Economist,Vol. 324, 29 August 1992, p. A25.

3 Laing, J.R., “The new ghost towns: a vicious shakeouttakes its toll on shopping malls”, Barron’s, Vol. 72, 16 March 1992, pp. 8-9, 20, 22, 24, 26.

10




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

4 Sternlieb, G. and Hughes, J., Shopping Centers USA,State University of New Jersey Center for Urban PolicyResearch, 1981.

5 Rudnitsky, H., “Battle of the malls”, Forbes, Vol. 149,30 March 1992, pp. 46-7.

6 Pearson, B., “The times, they are a-changing”, Stores,Vol. 75, August 1993, pp. 73-4.

7 Turchiano, F., “The unmalling of America”, AmericanDemographics, Vol. 12, April 1990, pp. 37-9.

8 Burns, D.J. and Warren, H.B., “Consumers’ perceptionsof suburban regional shopping malls: an investigationbased on proximity and stated mall preference”, inTimmermans, H. (Ed.), Recent Advances in Retailingand Service Sciences, European Institute of Retailingand Services Sciences/Canadian Institute of Retailingand Services Sciences, Edmonton, 1994, pp. 15-16.

9 Lewison, D.M., Retailing, Macmillan, New York, NY,1994.

10 Anderson, C.H., Retailing: Concepts, Strategy andInformation, West, St Paul, MN, 1993, pp. 324-5.

11 Blakney, V.L. and Sekely, W., “Retail attributes:influences on shopping mode choice behavior”,Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 6, Spring 1994,pp. 101-8.

12 Papadopoulos, N.G., “Consumer outshoppingresearch: review and extension”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 56, Winter 1980, pp. 41-58.

13 Rieken, G. and Yavas, U., “A taxonomy of outbuyers: anew perspective”, International Journal of Retailing,Vol. 3 No. 1, 1988, pp. 5-15.

14 Guy, C.M., “Outshopping from small towns: a Britishcase study”, International Journal of Retail & Distribu-tion Management, Vol. 18, May/June 1990, pp. 3-14.

15 Darden, W.R. and Perreault, W.D., “Identifyinginterurban shoppers: multiproduct purchase patternsand segmentation profiles”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 13, February 1976, pp. 51-60.

16 Herrman, R.O. and Beik, L.L., “Shoppers’ movementsoutside their local retail area”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 32, October 1968, pp. 45-51.

17 Lumpkin, J.R., Hawes, J.M. and Darden, W.R., “Shop-ping patterns of the rural consumer: exploring therelationship between shopping orientation andoutshopping”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 14,February 1986, pp. 63-81.

18 Samli, A.C., Riecken, G. and Yavas, U., “Intermarketshopping behavior and the small community: prob-lems and prospects of a widespread phenomenon”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 11,Winter 1983, pp. 1-14.

19 Stone, G.P., “City shoppers and urban identification:observations on the social psychology of city life”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60, July 1954, pp. 36-45.

20 Thompson, J.R., “Characteristics and behavior ofoutshopping consumers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 47, Spring 1971, pp. 70-80.

21 Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.R., “Shopping orienta-tions and product usage rates”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 8, November 1971, pp. 505-8.

22 Reynolds, F.D. and Darden, W.R., “Intermarket patron-age: a psychographic study of consumer outshop-pers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, October 1972,pp. 50-4.

23 Hawes, J.M. and Lumpkin, J.R., “Understanding theoutshopper”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 12, Autumn 1984, pp. 200-18.

24 Samli, A.C., Retail Marketing Strategy: Planning,Implementation, and Control, Quorum Books, NewYork, NY, 1989.

25 Lillis, M.C. and Hawkins, D.I., “Retail expenditureflows in contiguous trade areas”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 50, Summer 1974, pp. 30-42.

26 Samli, A.C., “Some observations on the intermarketshopping behavior as it relates to the spatial dimen-sion”, in 1979 Educator’s Conference Proceedings,American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, 1979, pp. 408-10.

27 Samli, A.C. and Uhr, E.B., “The outshopping spectrum:key for analyzing intermarket leakages”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 50, Summer 1974, pp. 70-8, 105.

28 Burns, D.J. and Lanasa, J.M., “Outshopping: anexamination from a motivational perspective”,presented at the Association of Marketing Theory andPractice, Savannah, GA, 1995.

29 Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J., “Reference groupinfluence on product and brand decisions”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 9, September 1982, pp. 183-94.

30 Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E., “Mea-surement of consumer susceptibility to interpersonalinfluence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,March 1989, pp. 473-81.

31 Bearden, W.O. and Rose, R.L., “Attention to socialcomparison information: an individual differencefactor affecting consumer conformity”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 16, March 1990, pp. 461-71.

32 Tepper, K., “Need for uniqueness: an individualdifference factor affecting nonconformity in consumerresponses”, in Park, C.W. and Smith, D.C. (Eds),Marketing Theory and Applications, American Mar-keting Association, Chicago, IL, 1994, pp. 207-8.

33 Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L., Uniqueness: TheHuman Pursuit of Difference, Plenum Press, New York,NY, 1980.

34 Fromkin, H.L., “Feelings of interpersonal indistinctive-ness: an unpleasant affective state”, Journal ofExperimental Research in Personality, Vol. 6, Decem-ber 1972, pp. 178-82.

35 Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L., “Abnormality as apositive characteristic: the development and valida-tion of a scale measuring need for uniqueness”,Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 86, October1977, pp. 518-27.

36 Festinger, L., “A theory of social comparison process”,Human Relations, Vol. 7, May 1954, pp. 117-40.

37 Kelly, H.H., “Two functions of reference groups”, inSwanson, G.E., Newcomb, T.M. and Hartley, E.C. (Eds),Readings in Social Psychology, Holt, Rinehart &Winston, New York, NY, 1952, pp. 410-14.

11




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

38 Ganster, D., McCuddy, M. and Fromkin, H.L., “Similari-ty and undistinctiveness as determinants of favorableand unfavorable changes in self-esteem”, paperpresented at the Meeting of the Midwestern Psycho-logical Association, Chicago, IL, 1977.

39 Snyder, C.R., “Product scarcity by need for uniquenessinteraction: a consumer catch-22 carousel”, Basic andApplied Social Psychology, Vol. 13, March 1992, pp. 9-24.

40 Fromkin, H.L., “Effects of experimentally arousedfeelings of indistinctiveness upon valuation of scarceand novel experience”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 16, November 1970, pp. 521-9.

41 Fromkin, H.L., Brandt, J.M., Dipboye, R.L. and Pyle, M.,“Number of similar strangers and feelings of indistinc-tiveness as boundary conditions for the similarityattraction relationship: a bridge between differentsandboxes”, paper No. 478, Institute for Research inthe Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences,Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 1974.

42 Schlenker, B.R., “Self-consciousness and self-presen-tation: being autonomous versus appearingautonomous”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 59, October 1990, pp. 820-8.

43 Snyder, C.R. and Endelman, J.R., “Effects of degree ofinterpersonal similarity on physical distance and self-reported attraction: a comparison of uniqueness andreinforcement theory predictions”, Journal of Person-ality, Vol. 47, September 1979, pp. 492-505.

44 Whitney, K., “Establishing the social impact ofindividuation”, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 66, June 1994, pp. 1140-53.

45 Burns, D.J. and Krampf, R.F., “A semiotic approach toinnovative behavior”, in King, R. (Ed.), Developmentsin Marketing Science, Academy of Marketing Science,1991, pp. 32-5.

46 Lynn, M., “Scarcity effects on value: a quantitativereview of the commodity theory literature”, Psycholo-gy and Marketing, Vol. 8, Spring 1991, pp. 43-57.

47 Kehret-Ward, T. and Yalch, R., “To take or not to takethe only one: effects of changing the meaning of aproduct attribute on choice behavior”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 10, March 1984, pp. 410-16.

12




Volume 23 · Number 12 · 1995 · 4–12

On-line conferences inMarketing & Distribution

on http://www.mcb.co.uk

MCB is proud to introduce On-line conferencing facilities as part of an ongoing development of Internet Resources

for all MCB current subscribers. Each conference will last for approximately 3 months and the proceedings will

then be rigorously vetted by a team of academics in the field, to form the basis of a paper submitted for publica-

tion in the relevant journal.

Forthcoming conferences in your areaHeralding the Potentials of Marketing Intelligentsia • Electronic Markets

• Business Logistics and Electronic Data Interchange • International Marketing Issues • The Future of Banking Services

• Relationship Marketing: A New Philosophy for Marketing or a New Function

For further information on how to take part in a conference, or how to sponsor your own, log onto MCB’s home

page at URL http://www.mcb.co.uk, or contact Carol Oliver on:

Phone: +44 (0)1280 817222 Fax: +44 (0)1280 813297 Email: [email protected]

Regular hands-on workshops worldwide – the launch of CyberCafesFrom November 1st 1995, MCB is launching hands-on workshops specially designed for Managers. Their sole

purpose is to give Managers the opportunity to leapfrog the technical problems of getting connected and discover

the wealth of information provided on the Internet.

To find out more about CyberCafes contact Sandra Pass on:

Phone: +44 (0)1280 817222 Fax: +44 (0)1280 813297 Email: [email protected]

Step in…explore…Get Connected to MCB at http://www.mcb.co.uk

need for uniqueness: shopping mall preference and choice activity

Documents