Cross-Cultural Generalizability of a Scale for Profiling Consumers' Decision-Making Styles Author(s): SRINIVAS DURVASULA, STEVEN LYSONSKI and J. CRAIG ANDREWS Source: The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 1993), pp. 55-65 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23859557 Accessed: 27-10-2017 12:33 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected] Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Consumer Affairs This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 55 SRINIVAS DURVASULA, STEVEN LYSONSKI, AND J. CRAIG ANDREWS Cross-Cultural Generalizability of a Scale for Profiling Consumers' Decision-Making Styles Most studies that have developed and validated models and instru ments in consumer affairs research have used U.S. samples. As a result, their cross-cultural generalizability remains unknown. This study reports a cross-cultural examination of a scale for profiling con sumers' decision-making styles using a New Zealand sample. Exam ination of the scale's psychometric properties (i.e., dimensionality and reliability) offers general support for the scale's applicability to a dif ferent culture. Some differences were detected, however. The paper concludes with a discussion of these differences and the implications of the findings. Profiling consumers' decision-making styles has been the foc a multitude of consumer interest studies (e.g., Bettman 1979; S 1985; Thorelli, Becker, and Engeldow 1975; Westbrook and B 1985). Consumer affairs specialists use such profiles to under consumers' shopping behavior, while advertisers and market researchers use them to segment the consumers into various for product positioning. Until this point, most of the em research investigating consumer styles used U.S. samples for oping and validating the measuring instrument. However, su research may be inapplicable to other cultures, unless cross-cu psychometric properties of the measures (i.e., dimensionality reliability) are shown to exist (Douglas and Craig 1983; Hui and Triandis 1985). Further, if the psychometric properties of the mea sures of consumer decision-making styles vary widely across coun tries, conclusions based on the scale may actually be attributed to measure unreliability (Green and White 1976; Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987). As a result, evidence of the generalizability of con sumer styles research and related instruments to other cultures is needed. Srinivas Durvasula, Steven Lysonski, and J. Craig Andrews are Associate Professors, Marketing, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1993 0022-0078/0002-055 1.50/0 ® 1993 by The American Council on Consumer Interests This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 56 the journal of consumer affairs Therefore, this study examines th scale for profiling consumers' dec consistent with the stream of research that addresses the cross cultural generalizability of consumer behavior measurement scales and procedures (see Netemeyer, Durvasula, and Lichtenstein 1991). CONSUMERS' DECISION-MAKING STYLES Decision-making style refers to a mental orientation desc how a consumer makes choices. Extant research in this field has iden tified three approaches to characterize consumer styles: (a) The Con sumer Typology Approach (Darden and Ashton 1974; Moschis 1976); (b) The Psychographics/Lifestyles Approach (Lastovicka 1982; Wells 1974); and (c) The Consumer Characteristics Approach (Sproles 1985; Sproles and Kendall 1986; Sproles and Sproles 1990). Integral to all these approaches is the theme that despite an element of individuality in consumers' behavior, all consumers approach shopping with certain basic decision-making styles such as rational shopping, impulsiveness, and quality consciousness. The Consumer Characteristics Approach, however, is one of the most promising as it deals with the mental orientation of consumers in making decisions and, therefore, focuses on the cognitive and affective orientations in consumer decisionmaking. It is valuable to consumer affairs specialists because it provides a measurement sys tem for standardized testing of consumer decision-making styles for practical applications such as counseling consumers. The genesis of this approach was based on an exploratory study by Sproles (1985) that identified 50 items related to this mental orienta tion. Sproles and Kendall (1986) reworked this inventory and devel oped a more parsimonious scale with 40 items under the title, Con sumer Style Inventory (CSI). Note that many of the original 50 items are not directly comparable to the CSI; hence reference to Sproles' (1985) findings will not be made. In the CSI, factor analysis identi fied eight mental characteristics of consumer decisionmaking: (1) Perfectionism or high-quality consciousness; (2) Brand conscious ness; (3) Novelty-fashion consciousness; (4) Recreational, hedonistic shopping consciousness; (5) Price and "value for money" shopping consciousness; (6) Impulsiveness; (7) Confusion from over choice of brands, stores, and consumer information; and (8) Habitual, brand loyal orientation toward consumption. This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 57 Because the reliability and validity of the CSI using a sample of U.S. high school students, the ended validating the instrument across other pop the intent of this study is to validate the CSI inv Sproles and Kendall (1986) by examining its g another country. The study responds to the criticis empirical findings developed with U.S. data may no countries, and further research is required to d applicability (Albaum and Peterson 1984; Hui Lee and Green 1991). Specifically, this study exa properties of the CSI and compares the findings to Though highly exploratory in nature, the study mended methodology for testing the cross-natio measures (Berry 1980; Irvine and Carroll 1980; H 1985). Parenthetically, the study reported here i Hafstrom, Chae, and Chung (1992) which uses th (1985) and Sproles and Kendall (1986) to make co decision-making styles of U.S. young consumers they did not examine the psychometric properti METHOD Data to examine the CSI inventory were obtained from 210 graduate business students at a large university in New Zealan sample had a mean age of 20.2 years and was evenly divided b The students were from diverse backgrounds ranging from ur rural. The instrument contained 40 Likert-scaled items scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and the analysis employed statistical procedures identical to those used by Sproles and Kendall (1986). Unlike the home economics high school students used by Sproles and Kendall (1986) (81 percent of whom were female), the sample of undergraduate students used in this study permits a more rigorous test of the applicability of the scale. Similarity in findings between the two samples would support the robustness of the inven tory. Using a relatively more homogeneous group such as under graduates also minimizes random error that might occur by using a heterogeneous sample such as the general public (Calder, Tybout, and Phillips 1981). The analysis examined the psychometric properties of the CSI. First, the dimensionality of the consumer styles inventory was This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 58 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS TABLE 1 Consumer Style Characteristics: Eight-Factor Modela Loadings Loadings U.S. New Zealand Sample Sample Factor 1—Perfectionistic, High Quality Conscious Consumer 1. Getting very good quality is very important to me. .68 2. When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get .66 the very best or perfect choice. 3. In general, I usually try to buy the best overall .62 quality. 4. I make special effort to choose the very best quality .61 products. 5. I really don't give my purchases much thought or care. are very high. .72 .71 .81 -.54 -.14 .54 .66 6. My standards and expectations for products I buy 7. I shop quickly, buying the first product or brand I find that seems good enough. 8. A product doesn't have to be perfect, or the best, to satisfy me. .77 -.41 -.34 -.41 -.57 (6, .70)' (6, .42) Factor 2—Brand Conscious, "Price Equals Quality" Consumer 9. The well-known national brands are best for me. 10. The more expensive brands are usually my choice. 11. The higher the price of a product, the better its quality. 12. Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best products. 13. I prefer buying the best-selling brands. 14. The most advertised brands are usually very good choices. .63 .39 .61 .26 .59 .52 .57 .22 .54 .65 .48 .71 .75 .72 .70 .80 .64 .62 Factor 3—Novelty-Fashion Conscious Consumer 15. I usually have one or more outfits of the very newest style. 16. I keep my wardrobe up-to-date with the changing fashions. 17. Fashionable, attractive styling is very important to me. 18. To get variety, 1 shop different stores and choose different brands. .50 .33 .46 .18 Factor 4—Recreational, Hedonistic Consumer -.70 20. Shopping is not a pleasant activity to me. 21. Going shopping is one of the enjoyable activities of -.74 19. It's fun to buy something new and exciting. my life. 22. Shopping other stores wastes my time. 23. I enjoy shopping just for the fun of it. 24. I make my shopping trips fast. .70 .82 -.69 -.50 .66 .83 -.64 -.73 This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms (1, .44) SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 59 TABLE 1 (continued) Loadings U.S. New Zealand Sample Sample Factor 5—Price Conscious, "Value for Money" Consumer 25. I buy as much as possible at sale price. 26. The lower price products are usually my choice. 27. I look carefully to find the best value for the money. .66 .71 .56 .31 (1, -.59) .54 .56 .55 .61 .53 .72 Factor 6—Impulsive, Careless Consumer 28. I should plan my shopping more carefully than I do. 29. I am impulsive when purchasing. 30. Often I make careless purchases I later wish I had not. 31. I take the time to shop carefully for best buys. 32. I carefully watch how much I spend. .52 .63 -.51 -.48 -.43 -.54 Factor 7—Confused by Over-choice Consumer 33. There are so many brands to choose from that often I feel confused. 34. Sometimes it's hard to choose which stores to shop. 35. The more I learn about products, the harder it seems to choose the best. .68 .74 .61 .55 .53 .58 .44 .77 .70 .56 36. All the information I get on different products confuses me. Factor 8—Habitual, Brand-Loyal Consumer 37. I have favorite brands I buy over and over. 38. Once I find a product or brand I like, I stick with it. 39. I go to the same stores each time I shop. 40. I change brands I buy regularly. .60 .76 .58 .63 -.48 -.41 aIn the U.S. sample, the eight factors together explained a total of 46 percent of the variance. For the New Zealand sample, the variance explained estimate is 56 percent. Further, all the eigenvalues are greater than one. The variances explained by individual factors range from 3.2 percent to 14.7 percent. bValues in parentheses represent suggested factor and corresponding loading. assessed. This was done by examining the factor solution. Specifi cally, the amount of variance explained by the extracted factors (i.e., their eigenvalues) was noted. In addition, item-factor corre lations (i.e., factor loadings) and other indices of model adequacy were examined. To obtain the factor solution, a principal compo nents factor analysis was used with a varimax rotation. The purpose of factor analyzing the 40-item inventory was to determine if the factors identified by Sproles and Kendall (1986) were common to This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 60 the journal of consumer affairs the New Zealand sample. Second, t alpha coefficients to assess the scal fied and to make comparisons w findings. In cross-cultural researc the first step in determining the ge another culture (Irvine and Carrol RESULTS To compare New Zealand sample results with the U.S. sample results, an eight-factor solution was obtained for the New Zealand sample. Table 1 features factor loadings of the 40-item inventory for the New Zealand sample and those obtained for the U.S. sample by Sproles and Kendall (1986). Although the results for the New Zealand sample are not entirely equivalent to the U.S. sample, the similarities outweigh the differences. As shown in Table 1, the eight factor model appears adequate as it explained 56 percent of the varia tion for the New Zealand sample. This result compares favorably with the 46 percent reported for the U.S. group. Further, all eight factors have eigenvalues greater than one, which is a rule often used to judge model adequacy. Of the eight factors, three (factors 4, 7, and 8) had substantially the same pattern of factor loadings for the two samples. For these factors, the sign and magnitude of the factor loadings were found to be similar for both samples, indicating that the factors had equal valence. An examination of the loading pattern of all 40 items reveals that the magnitude of 32 out of 40 loadings (80 percent) is similar across both samples.1 'A confirmatory factor analysis, via LISREL VI (Joreskog and Sorbom 1984) was per formed to assess the fit of the eight-factor model as proposed by Sproles and Kendall (1986). Results showed that the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) for the model was .71. (A GFI of one indi cates perfect fit between the eight-factor model and the data, whereas zero indicates total lack of fit.) Further, the root mean squared residual was relatively small at 0.13, when considering there were still 740 degrees of freedom left after estimating all the parameters. Finally, a chi squared to degrees-of-freedom ratio of three, two, or less has been advocated as an acceptable level of fit for confirmatory models (Carmines and Mclver 1981). For the New Zealand sam ple, this ratio was 2.49, again indicating an acceptable level of fit for the model. These results support the findings of Sproles and Kendall (1986). This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 61 Although there were some differences in the loadings, these were not major. In the New the 40 items loaded on factors other than those found for the U.S. sample. Items 5 and 7, for example, showed higher loadings (0.70 and 0.42, respectively) on factor 6 labeled "impulsive and careless consumer." Intuitively, these items ("don't give purchases much thought" and "I shop quickly") seem to represent impulsiveness (factor 6) rather than high quality consciousness (factor 1) which is confirmed by the results. Similarly, items 10 ("more expensive brands are my choice") and 26 ("lower price products are my choice") had higher loadings on factor 1 than on the factors identi fied by Sproles and Kendall (1986). For New Zealand, these items seem to represent price cues to quality and, therefore, are appropri ate measures of factor 1 (i.e., high quality consciousness). Finally, items 9,12,18, and 19 exhibit relatively low loadings ( < 0.4; the same criterion was used for the U.S. sample), indicating that they are rela tively poor measures of the corresponding factors. Among these, item 18 had an equally high loading (0.33) on factor 6. This repre sents factorial complexity and suggests that this item is not uniquely associated with any one factor. In contrast, item 8, which cross loaded on both factors 1 and 2 in the U.S. sample, exhibited a high loading only on factor 1 for the New Zealand sample. Such items are considered not to tap any single construct and, therefore, could be deleted in further scale purification processes (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Table 2 shows the internal consistency (i.e., Cronbach alpha) esti TABLE 2 Reliability Coefficients for Eight Consumer Style Characteristics Cronbach Cronbach Alpha Alpha for Subscales for Subscales Consumer Style Characteristics U.S. New Zealand Sample Sample 1. Perfectionistic .74 .75 2. Brand Conscious .75 .59 3. Novelty-Fashion Conscious 4. Recreational Shopping Conscious .74 .70 .76 .82 5. Price-Value Conscious .48 .50 6. Impulsive 7. Confused by Over-choice 8. Habitual, Brand-Loyal .48 .71 .55 .66 .53 .58 This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 62 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS mates of scale reliability. For comparison used to compute reliability of individual were also used to compute reliability esti sample. The alpha estimates are generally Given that an alpha of .70 or better is de scale (Nunnally 1978), the scales represen "Novelty-Fashion Conscious," and "Re scious" factors are stable and internally ples. Support for internal consistency ex "Impulsive" factor only for the New Z measure of "Confused by Over-Choice" a for the New Zealand sample, its value of below this. The "Brand Conscious" scale e alpha only in the U.S. sample, suggesting be affected by cultural differences. Hence, "Confused by Over-Choice" factor requi The scales representing "Habitual, Bra "Price-Value Conscious Consumer" requir they lack acceptable levels of reliabilit Zealand samples. DISCUSSION This study reflects the concern about the generalizability of sc instruments to other cultures or countries. Researchers hav gested that most measures developed in consumer behavior a dated using U.S. samples and, therefore, might apply only t United States (Green and White 1976). Perhaps for this r researchers have started to investigate cross-cultural dimensi consumer behavior constructs (e.g., Andrews, Lysonski, and vasula 1991; Lysonski and Pollay 1990; Netemeyer, Durvasula Lichtenstein 1991). As the global marketplace becomes more grated and consumer specialists develop an international developing useful scales to profile consumer decision-making in other cultures becomes important. Hence investigation of scales is needed. The CSI was chosen for investigation because it can be a useful technique to alert consumers to their mental orientation toward shopping. Being informed may help consumers become more effec tive shoppers. Besides this approach, there appears to be none This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 63 specifically designed to serve consumer interest p and Kendall (1986) recommended that a person tory be given a Profile of Consumer Style (PCS), report an individual's shopping characteristics. for this instrument in New Zealand. For example cards becomes more prevalent in New Zealand, miring themselves in serious debt by their lack such credit. Use of the CSI could raise their consciousness about their approach to shopping and need for credit purchases. Obviously, if the CSI is to be used in other cultures or countries, establishing its applicability or generalizability is essential. The retail environment in New Zealand is in sharp contrast to the United States. For example, stores close at 5:30 p.m. except for one night each week when they are open until 9:00 p.m. Stores are also closed on Sundays and Saturday afternoons. With only 3.3 million people, competition among retailers is not as intense nor are there as many competitors as one finds in the U.S. market. Hence, consumers have less choice. Furthermore, discretionary and disposable incomes are lower compared to the United States. Brand consciousness may be at a different state of development compared to the United States. In fact, a recent study by Andrews, Lysonski, and Durvasula (1991) reported that there were greater brand (i.e., user) related thoughts about advertising in general generated by subjects in the United States versus other countries, including New Zealand. Despite these structural differences, the decision-making styles are expected to have universal applicability. Much like personality traits, decision making styles are expected to be largely independent of the culture and descriptive of a personal orientation (Sproles and Kendall 1986). This exploratory study examines the usefulness of the consumer style inventory (CSI), developed and applied in the United States, to New Zealand—a culture located 8,000 miles away. The sample of New Zealand subjects differs from the U.S. sample for two reasons: (1) the New Zealand sample was comprised of college students with an average age of 20 years versus high school students used in the U.S. sample, and (2) the New Zealand sample was more balanced in terms of male/female representation as opposed to the U.S. sample, 80 per cent of which was female. The differences in the samples provide for a stronger test of cross-cultural generalizability of the inventory. Overall the New Zealand results compare favorably to those of the United States and provide general support for this inventory. How This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 64 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS ever, not all the results were equivalent. F played a different pattern of loadings com with four of the items loading on differen scales ("Impulsive" and "Brand Conscious") appear to be culture specific as they exhibit an acceptable reliability level for one sample or the other, but not for both. Further, two other scales ("Price Value Conscious" and "Habitual, Brand-Loyal") require refine ment, no matter where they are applied. Insight into the refinement of the "Price-Value Conscious" factor can be derived from the research by Sproles (1985), where five additional items with suitable loadings were considered to measure this factor. Though a few dis crepancies in results do exist between the U.S. and New Zealand sam ples, it is likely that sample differences coupled with the different retail environment in New Zealand might account for the variation in the findings. In sum, searching for a Rosetta Stone that can explain consumers' decision-making styles that span population groups and cultures may be possible, but only with additional effort. A caveat, therefore, is warranted: consumer affairs specialists should not assume that instruments validated in the United States are immediately applicable to other countries. Perhaps, a more parsimonious version of the inventory with fewer scale dimensions that exhibits greater internal consistency could be developed and validated via confirmatory factor analysis. Researchers are encouraged to develop a more robust decision-making style inventory to account for the variation in find ings as reported in this study. REFERENCES Albaum, Gerald and Robert A. Peterson (1984), "Empirical Research in International ing 1976-1982," Journal of International Business Studies, 15 (Spring/Summer): 161 Andrews J. Craig, Steven Lysonski, and Srinivas Durvasula (1991), "Understandin Cultural Student Perceptions of Advertising in General: Implications for Adve Educators and Practitioners," Journal of Advertising, 20(June): 15-28. Berry, John W. (1980), "Introduction to Methodology," in The Handbook of Cross-C Psychology, Vol. 2, Harry C. Triandis and John W. Berry (eds.), Boston, MA: All Bacon, Inc.: 1-29. Bettman, James R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, R MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips and Alice Tybout (1981), "Designing Research fo cation," Journal of Consumer Research, 8(September): 197-207. Carmines, Edward and John Mclver (1981), "Analyzing Models with Unobservable V Analysis of Covariance Structures," in Social Measurement: Current Issues, G. B stedt and E. Borgatta (eds.), Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications: 65-115. This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms SUMMER 1993 VOLUME 27, NUMBER 1 65 Darden, William R. and Dub Ashton (1974), "Psychograp ence Groups," Journal of Retailing, 50(Winter): 99-112 Douglas, Susan and C. Samuel Craig (1983), International Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Gerbing, David W. and James C. Anderson (1988), "An U opment Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Asses Research, 25(May): 186-192. Green, Robert T. and Phillip D. White (1976), "Method National Consumer Research," Journal of Internation Winter): 81-87. Hafstrom, Jeanne L., Jung Sook Chae, and Young Sook C Making Styles: Comparison Between United States and Journal of Consumer Affairs, 26(1): 114-122. Hui, C. Harry and Harry C. Triandis (1985), "Measurement Review and Comparison of Strategies," Journal of Cros 131-152. Irvine, Sid H. and William K. Carroll (1980), "Testing and Assessment Across Cultures: Issues in Methodology and Theory," in The Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 2, Harry C. Triandis and John W. Berry (eds.), Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.: 127-180. Joreskog, Karl and Dag Sorbom (1984), LISREL: Analysis of Linear Structural Relationships by the Method of Maximum Likelihood, Version VI, Chicago: National Education Resources. Lastovicka, John L. (1982), "On the Validation of Lifestyle Traits: A Review and Illustra tion," Journal of Marketing Research, 19(February): 126-138. Lee, Choi and Robert T. Green (1991), "Cross-Cultural Examination of the Fishbein Behav ioral Intentions Model," Journal of International Business Studies, 22: 289-305. Lysonski, Steven and Richard W. Pollay (1990), "Advertising Sexism is Forgiven, But Not Forgotten: Historical and Cross-Cultural Differences in Criticism and Purchase Boycott Intentions," International Journal of Advertising, 9: 319-331. Moschis, George P. (1976), "Shopping Orientations and Consumer Uses of Information," Journal of Retailing, 52(Summer): 61-70, 93. Netemeyer, Richard G., Srinivas Durvasula, and Donald R. Lichtenstein (1991), "A Cross National Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE," Journal of Marketing Research, 28(August): 320-327. Nunnally, Jum (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill. Parameswaran, Ravi and Attila Yaprak (1987), "A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures," Journal of International Business Studies, 18(Spring):35-49. Sproles, Elizabeth Kendall and George B. Sproles (1990), "Consumer Decision-Making Styles as a Function of Individual Learning Styles," The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24 (Summer): 134-147. Sproles, George B. (1985), "From Perfectionism to Fadism: Measuring Consumers' Decision Making Styles," Proceedings, American Council on Consumer Interests, Karen P. Schnittgrund (ed.), Columbia, MO: ACCI: 79-85. Sproles, George B. and Elizabeth L. Kendall (1986), "A Methodology for Profiling Con sumers' Decision-Making Styles," The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(Winter): 267-279. Thorelli, Hans B., Helmut Becker, and Jack Engeldow (1975), The Information Seekers: An International Study of Consumer Information and Advertising Image, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Wells, William D. (editor) (1974), Life Style and Psychographics, Chicago: American Market ing Association. Westbrook, Robert A. and William C. Black (1985), "A Motivation-Based Shopper Typol ogy," The Journal of Retailing, 61(Spring): 78-103. This content downloaded from 137.207.120.173 on Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:33:15 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
1/--страниц