Research Article: 2023 Vol: 27 Issue: 3S
Shashank Mehra, SBM Navi Mumbai, NMIMS Deemed to be University, Mumbai
Bharath Supra, SBM Navi Mumbai, NMIMS Deemed to be University, Mumbai
Meru Gupta, MIT ADT University, Pune
Citation Information: Mehra, S., Supra, B., & Gupta, M. (2023). Consumers’ View On Shopping Centers: A Comparison Of Mall Versus Flea Markets In India. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 27(S3), 1-13.
Purpose: This article examines the perspectives of consumers about two retail purchasing destinations: flea markets and shopping malls.This research examines, contrasts, and compares the shopping attributes of utilitarian value, hedonic value, facility convenience, playfulness, and efficiency value to establish which elements, have the most impact on store satisfaction for each shopping destination. Design/methodology/approach: Data was collected from 302 consumers: with experience in both the markets. Factor analysis measured consumers’ perception for Malls and Flea market with respect to a number of variables mapped similarly for both the markets. Stepwise regression analysis and paired t test were employed to investigate the nature and significance of the observed differences. Findings: Customer perception of satisfaction on various attributes varies across the market type. For both the market type Utilitarian value, facility convenience, playfulness and efficiency value significantly influenced satisfaction; however, hedonic value is insignificant for flea market and significant for mall market. Stepwise regression indicated that each market attribute contributed differently to market satisfaction for mall and flea market. A paired t-test reveals a statistically significant difference between malls and flea markets on all criteria. Originality/value: The patronage of retail marketplaces is contingent on customer satisfaction; both malls and flea markets compete to attract customers, Both the markets co-exist but comparison of mall versus flea market is scarce and unique and very limited work has been done in this area.
Flea Market, Utilitarian Value, Hedonic Value; Efficiency Value, Customer Satisfaction.
Flea Market and Malls are the two diverse traditional and modern destinations of retail shopping respectively. The Indian retail industry is in transformation stage; and is considered to be one of the most vibrant and fastest emerging sectors in India. According to India Brand Equity Foundation (September, 2018), retail industry in India is estimated to grow to US$ 1.2 trillion by 2020 from US$ 680 billion in 2017. As per the data and estimates, India is considered to be the fifth most sought-after retail destination globally. In terms of per capita retail store availability, the country is among the highest in the world.
Retail transformation has taken place in multiple ways and directions. The paper, however, focuses on two retail shopping destinations: Flea Market and Malls the traditional and the modern respectively. The important impetuses to transformation in the industry are - shift in demographic profile of the consumers, rapid economic growth, and growing disposable income, changed lifestyle of middle-class consumers, urbanization, changed consumer tastes and preferences. Besides, diversification in retail formats has taken place due to the continuously changing nature of business models developed by retailers, who construct, modify and cast off these formats in response to changes in the business environment Reynolds et al. (2007).
As shopping centres play a crucial role in the marketing distribution system, some experts have also questioned the future of shopping centers Finn & Louviere (1996). Hence, the paper tries to find out the major objective of the research is to find out and predict the choice criteria of consumer for mall market and flea market.
Flea Market
Flea Market has existed for a very long time, all over the world. Ha (2014) defined flea market as a “building or open space where traders sell a variety of products or services from open stalls, of which the transactions are informal and tend to be cash heavy”. He further continued that these typically contain an element of local flavour which generally includes hand crafted and antique items, while often neglecting mass produced goods. The fact that flea markets often consist of independent and locally owned businesses which are run by entrepreneurs themselves, differentiates flea markets from other retail activity Ha (2014).
Cross & Morales (2007) considered flea markets to be a part of the informal economy, in contrast to formal retail spaces such as shopping malls.
The researchers discovered that the experience of buying at a flea market: Variety of products, thrill of searching interesting stuffs, bargaining, the possibility of negotiating, lower price, socializing, interaction; otherwise not offered in a regular mall Belk et al. (1988); Sherman et al. (1985) adds to customers’ shopping excitement and carries weightage.
The new shopping destination- Shopping malls are a new phenomenon, whereas, flea markets with a variety of stores catering to the needs of customers are part and parcel of socio-economic, ethnic and cultural engagement of the local community and have existed in developing country like India for many years.
De Villiers et al. (2018) found location of flea market; Petrescu & Bhatli (2013) discovered low prices, possibility of bargains and need for socializing and communication play key role in creating a pleasant market experience and purchase intention for customers. For consumers retailing and buying from flea market is a parallel leisure a shift from routine shopping Powe (2006).
Shopping Mall
“Shopping mall is a group of retail business planned, developed, owned and managed as a unit”, Kotler & Armstrong (2002). The malls are attractive locations meant for the purpose of social interactions and entertainment and are based on the ‘principle of cumulative attraction’ Nelson (1958). Malls, initially, meant to offer a wider selection of stores and products to customers at a single site Bloch et al. (1994) are more frequently visited now, for more eye-catching and a wide array of stores El-Adly (2007) and for getting all the facilities at single location. Wakefield & Baker (1998) recognized different patterns of the shopping malls environment: appearance, enjoyment, aesthetics, high levels of purchasing, escape from boredom, physical design, variety, and socializing have been recognized by Bloch et al. (1994); Geuens et al. (2001) while Hu & Jasper (2007) identified five major factors i.e. choice, crowds, convenience, parking, ambiance and hedonic shopping orientation. With reference to India, Pookulangara & Knight (2013) considered shopping malls as the pacesetter in the growth of organized retail in India. Jhamb & Kiran (2012) believe that most of the shopping malls in India are developed to offer different advantages of shopping to patrons at one place.
Objective
The objective of this study is to measure impact of certain attributes of market choice on customer satisfaction with mall market and flea market and to determine if customer perception differs on customer satisfaction by these market attributes for the market types under consideration.
Utilitarian Value
Utilitarian value is defined as “an overall assessment (i.e., judgment) of functional benefits and sacrifices” Overby et al. (2006) more focussed towards the gains received from the shopping experience and functional product benefits Tauber (1972). Bettman (1979) found that the Indian shoppers want to make their shopping experience more cost-effective by saving their time, efforts and money. Customers perceive value when they feel contented after getting a branded product at discounted rates without putting much effort into shopping Babin & Darden (1996). Peñaloza et al. (2015) found that among all the levels except lower socioeconomic levels, utilitarian value dominated the reasons.
H1a: Utilitarian value is positively related to consumer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market
H1b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Utilitarian dimension
Hedonic Value
There are several customers who view shopping experience as hedonic i.e. fun Jones et al. (2006). “The hedonic values are more personal and subjective than utilitarian value, resulting in fun, fantasy, multisensory and emotional aspects of shopping experience with the products”. For some hedonic shoppers, shopping malls are considered as a place of materialism Singh D (2018); Gu & Hung (2009) leisure and entertainment (Bloch et al., 1994; Deb, 2012) because of themed environments, events and contests, food courts, gaming zone, music, aroma, seating space, and overall store atmospherics Chandon et al. (2000); Deb (2012); for others, purchases from shopping mall is related to increased status in the society Deb (2012).
H2a: Hedonic value is positively related to consumer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market
H2b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Hedonic dimension
Facility Convenience
Shoppers might discard their shopping or withdraw their patronage due to way finding in Venue and crowding Michon et al. (2005). Shoppers are excluding cluttered aisles, packed racks and crowded walkways Eroglu & Machleit (1990), and this adversely influence search of desired products, possession of the products and transaction conveniences Seiders et al. (2000).
Other distinctive convenience patronage features are parking facility, easy entry into and exit from the mall and proper navigation facility Dogu & Erkip (2000); Haytko & Baker (2004).
H3a: Facility Convenience is positively related to consumer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market
H3b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Facility Convenience
Playfulness
Playfulness refers to active engagement in shopping for pleasure, intrinsic enjoyment and an escape from routine dull consumption life Huizinga (1955); Unger & Kernan (1983); Keng et al. (2007). “Perceived playfulness, is an inner, initiative and self-oriented experience” Holbrook (1994) and acts as an elevating ability working outside of prompt material interests Day (1981).The playful shopping value represents the potential pleasure and poignant worth of shopping Bellenger et al. (1976). As per Holbrook (1994) “perceived playfulness, which is created by customers themselves, is an inner, initiative and self-oriented experience.
H4a: Playfulness is positively related to consumer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market
H4b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Playfulness dimension
Efficiency Value
According to Keng et al. (2007) the efficiency value reflects the functional aspects of shopping and investment in economic, temporal, behavioral and psychological resources results in a high return while shopping. The consumer may experience efficiency return in terms of economic utility the perception of affordable quality Thaler (1985); Grewal & Monroe (1998) as well as value derived from the effectiveness of an exchange encounter Holbrook (1994; Zeithaml (1988).
H5a: Efficiency value is positively related to consumer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market
H5b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Efficiency Value
Customer Satisfaction
“Customer satisfaction is identified by a response (cognitive or affective) that pertains to a particular focus (i.e. a purchase experience and/or the associated product) and occurs at a certain time (i.e. post-purchase, post-consumption)” Giese & Cote’s (2000). It influences attitude, repurchase, and word-of-mouth communication Sivadas & Baker-Prewitt (2000) leads to customer loyalty Oliver (1997) and greater customer retention Day (1994); and finally influences firm’s profit Anderson et al. (1994).
H6b: There is significant difference between mall market and flea market with respect to Customer Satisfaction
To study and determine the consumer choice criteria for Mall market and flea market, a structured survey was established. After extensive literature review well-established constructs were used to study the choice dimensions of consumers’ for both the type of retail market. These constructs are well established for mall markets in most of the developed countries and developing countries; however, some of the constructs are tested for flea markets too but not that extensively. Structured undisguised questionnaire were prepared to test the consumer perception and motive for purchasing from these two kinds of market. The questionnaire consists of items for mall vis-à-vis flea market and consumer perception and motives been measured on 5 point agreement scale.
The survey was pretested among group of consumers who are familiar with both mall market and flea market. At home survey method was used in NCR (National capital region of Delhi).
The researchers first asked the respondent, if they have shopped at a shopping mall, and provided list of famous shopping malls in NCR. Respondents picked the name(s) of the famous shopping market where they purchased required items. The participants were then asked about specific questions regarding demographic and choice criteria for their purchasing with respect to the constructs of utilitarian value, hedonic value, facility convenience, playfulness, and efficiency value and customer satisfaction. Next, researchers asked the participants, if they had bought at flea market, and if so, they were asked to name the famous flea markets in Delhi-NCR from where they have done their shopping. The same questions related to customer behaviour were asked for flea market too.
Respondents were asked to give their responses on theses 21 items on a five point Likert scale (5: Strongly Agree, 1: Strongly Disagree). The experience of customers been adjudged with the structured questionnaire with respect to their perception and motives for choice criteria of shopping experience from mall and flea market.
Only those respondents were picked who purchased products at least twice from both types of markets in last six months. Market type was checked to ensure the market selected, fit with the description of the corresponding market type where possible (Table 1).
| Table 1 List Of Mall Market And Flea Market Patronized By The Respondents |
|
| Mall Market | Flea Market |
| Ansal Mall | Janpath & Tibetan Market, CP |
| Pacific Mall | Dilli Haat, INA |
| EDM Mall | Sarojini Nagar Market |
| Select Citywalk | Karol Bagh Market |
| DLF Emporio | Central Market, Lajpat Nagar |
| Ambience Mall | Chandni Chowk |
| The Great India Palace | Palika Bazaar |
| Ansal Plaza | GK Market |
| Metro Walk Mall | Khan Market |
| Great India Place Mall, Noida | |
| DLF Mall of India, Noida | |
Questionnaires were given to 500 respondents. About 105 respondents purchased products only from one type of market and 93 questionnaires were incomplete to analyse. Only 302 questionnaires were usable for mall and flea market with regard to consumer shopping experience (Table 2).
The result of the demographic classification is explained below Table 2.
| Table 2 Demographic Classification Of The Respondents |
||
|---|---|---|
| Demographic | Frequency | Percentage |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 136 | 45.0 |
| Female | 166 | 55.0 |
| Total | 302 | 100.0 |
| Age | ||
| 15-25 years | 94 | 31.1 |
| 26-35 years | 113 | 37.4 |
| 36-45 years | 20 | 6.6 |
| 46-55 years | 55 | 18.2 |
| Over 56 years | 20 | 6.6 |
| Total | 302 | 100.0 |
| Occupation | ||
| Student | 80 | 26.5 |
| Government Job | 21 | 7.0 |
| Business | 56 | 18.5 |
| Self Employed | 145 | 48.0 |
| Total | 302 | 100.0 |
| Annual Income | ||
| Less than Rs 3,00,000 | 82 | 27.2 |
| 3,00,001-5,00,000 | 143 | 47.4 |
| 5,00,001-7,00,000 | 44 | 14.6 |
| Above 7,00,001 | 33 | 10.9 |
| Total | 302 | 100.0 |
We have taken 21 questions on consumer perception on market selection with regard to both mall market and flea market. Utilitarian, hedonic, facility convenience, playfulness and efficiency values were factor analyzed using principle component analysis with Kaiser Normalization and varimax rotation for both mall market and flea market. The factor analysis results as shown in Table 3, extracted six factors with 21 items.
Each factor retrieved has three to six items per factor; and coefficient α ranged from 0.823 to 0.918 for both mall market and flea market. All the coefficient alpha values are above the well- established 0.70 minimum recommended value Nunnally (1994).
| Table 3 Scale Reliability And Factor Loadings Of Each Item For Mall Market And Flea Market |
||
|---|---|---|
| Questions | Mall Market | Flea Market |
| Utilitarian | (α=.915) | (α=.947) |
| I get the competitive prices of the products | .874 | .899 |
| large variety of stores | .880 | .906 |
| I'm satisfied with the merchandise quality of the products | .853 | .913 |
| availability of wide product selection | .838 | .907 |
| Eigen Value | 2.485 | 3.120 |
| Hedonic | (α=.918) | (α=.964) |
| Market is having entertainment facilities | .867 | .927 |
| Market is having eating places | .839 | .915 |
| Market is having special events/exhibitions and | .831 | .931 |
| It is fun place to spend time | .864 | .936 |
| It is "In place" to shop | .784 | .903 |
| Eigen Value | 3.949 | 4.029 |
| Facility Convenience | (α=.950) | (α=.971) |
| It has a good parking facility | .896 | .896 |
| I'm satisfied with the security | .872 | .903 |
| Ease of access in and out of the market place | .893 | .923 |
| Limited congestion in walkways/crowding | .882 | .866 |
| Free traffic flow in and out of the market | .878 | .918 |
| It is good place for shopping with children | .858 | .927 |
| Eigen Value | 7.877 | 9.538 |
| Playfulness | (α=.851) | (α=.916) |
| Shopping at market place makes me cheerful | .880 | .837 |
| I feel happy when I shop at this market place | .908 | .861 |
| Shopping at MARKET PLACE makes me forget my | .824 | .855 |
| Eigen Value | 2.270 | 2.080 |
| Efficiency Value | (α=.808) | (α=.858) |
| Shopping from MARKET PLACE makes my life easier | .818 | .820 |
| Shopping at MARKET PLACE fits my schedule | .767 | .815 |
| The product assortment at MARKET PLACE fits my | .806 | .832 |
| Eigen Value | 1.396 | 1.319 |
| Satisfaction | (α=.904) | (α=.917) |
| Compared to other markets, I am very satisfied with this | .700 | .568 |
| Based on all my experiences with this marekt, I am very | .784 | .676 |
| In general, I am satisfied with this market | .788 | .716 |
| Eigen Value | 1.201 | 1.002 |
The same factor structure was present for both the market type i.e. mall market and flea markets as shown in Table 3. Table 3 represents Cronbach’s alpha, factor loadings of each item.
Scale Reliability and factor loadings
Regression Analysis
Stepwise multiple regression analysis was applied to test the hypothesis H1a to H5a and to measure customer satisfaction on five predictor constructs on customer satisfaction for both mall market and flea market (Table 4).
| Table 4 Step Wise Regression For Mall Market And Flea Market |
|||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mall Market | |||||||||||||||||
| Model/dependent variable | R | R2 | Adj. R2 | SE of estimate | Sum of Squares | df | Mean square | F | Sig. | ||||||||
| Regression | .731a | .534 | .526 | 1.446 | 711.140 | 5 | 142.228 | 68.007 | .000b | ||||||||
| Residual | 621.137 | 297 | 2.091 | ||||||||||||||
| Total | 1332.277 | 302 | |||||||||||||||
| Flea Market | |||||||||||||||||
| Regression | .825a | .681 | .676 | 1.83014 | 2123.244 | 5 | 424.649 | 126.783 | .000b | ||||||||
| Residual | 994.776 | 297 | 3.349 | ||||||||||||||
| Total | 3118.020 | 302 | |||||||||||||||
Standardized and Unstandardized coefficients are shown in Table 5
| Table 5 Standardized And Unstandardized Coefficients |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Order entered |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
T | Sig. | ||
| Β | Std. Error | β | |||||
| (Constant) | 1.326 | .629 | 2.108 | .036 | |||
| Hedonic value _MM | 1 | .149 | .021 | .314 | 7.221 | .000 | |
| Efficiency value _MM | 2 | .288 | .048 | .277 | 6.028 | .000 | |
| Facility convenience _MM | 3 | .100 | .016 | .267 | 6.395 | .000 | |
| Utilitarian value _MM | 4 | .108 | .026 | .188 | 4.184 | .000 | |
| Playfulness _MM | 5 | .089 | .035 | .103 | 2.559 | .011 | |
| R2=.534,adj. R2=.526,Sig.<05 | |||||||
| (Constant) | -1.997 | .590 | -3.387 | .001 | |||
| Playfulness _FM | 1 | .489 | .045 | .434 | 10.941 | .000 | |
| Utilitarian value_FM | 2 | .206 | .026 | .280 | 7.936 | .000 | |
| Efficiency value _FM | 3 | .333 | .055 | .230 | 6.023 | .000 | |
| Facility convenience _FM | 4 | .087 | .018 | .180 | 4.836 | .000 | |
| R2=.677, adj. R2=.673.,Sig.<05 | |||||||
MM-Mall Market, FM-Flea Market.
Stepwise regression method evaluates the contribution of each explanatory variable on pre- specified criteria before it is to be added in the regression equation. This method demonstrates which explanatory or predictor variable (construct) is having maximum impact on the dependent variable.
Based on the objectives of the study and used measurement scale, and the earlier work of retail format choice researchers Shim & Kotsiopulos (1992 a,b) multiple regression analysis been used to measure customer satisfaction through various predictors for market attributes. Step wise multiple regression analysis explains and describes the significant predictors of market choice attributes (including description on each explanatory variables direction and effect size) for both Mall and flea markets types.
According to Shim & Kotsiopulos (1992a) each market attribute (factor) is the sum of the various items, and each factor is used as a predictor in the analysis.
For the mall and flea markets, step wise regression models were significant, with distinct predictors appeared at each step as per the importance and direction based on the type of market. To check the multicollinearity of the predictors, all the values are having VIF (Variance Inflation factor) less than 5 and all the tolerance values were more than 0.10 Hair et al. (2010) for both the models.
The final regression equations as presented in Table 4 display similarities and differences for market types (Mall and Flea). The same five constructs loaded into both models, but in a different order, explaining that utilitarian, hedonic, facility convenience, playfulness and efficacy values, all influence customer satisfaction, the result indicates hedonic value does not fit for Flea market and the factor is insignificant. The result of step wise regression indicates that each predictor contributes differently to customer satisfaction for market type (Mall and Flea).
The regression model for Mall market was significant (F=68.007, p <0.05, R2= 0.534 and adjusted R2=0.0.526) (Table 4) with hedonic value (std. β= 0.314, p <0.05), efficiency value (std. β= 0.277, p <0.05), facility convenience (std. β= 0.267, p <0.05), Utility value (std. β= 0.188, p <0.05), and playfulness (std. β= 0.103, p <0.05) as significant predictors. All five constructs contributed positively to customer satisfaction with mall market.
The regression model for flea market was significant (F=126.783, p <0.05, R2= 0.0.681 and adjusted R2=0.676) (Table 4) with playfulness (std. β=0.434, p <0.05), utility value (std. β= 0.280, p <0.05), Efficiency value (std. β= 0.230, p <0.05), facility convenience (std. β=0.180, p <0.05) as significant predictor. Four constructs out of five contributed positively to customer satisfaction with flea market. Hedonic value is not significant predictor for flea market.
Researcher concludes that for mall market H1a, H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a has been supported. For Flea market H2a, H3a, H4a, H5a has been supported and H1a not supported.
Comparison of Customer perceptions of market features for mall and flea market explained. As shown in table 5, the item-wise mean ratings and composite score of Utilitarian value features of flea market are significantly higher than those of mall market. For all other factors viz. hedonic value, facility convenience, efficiency value and satisfaction wise mean rating and composite score of the mall market are better than flea market. All hypothesis H1b,H2b, H3b, H4b, H5b, H6b been supported.
The regressions weights highlight the shopping attributes’ importance from consumers’ point of view for mall market and for flea market; and depict that customer perception on various attributes vary across the market type.
First, respondents feel that on Utilitarian dimension Flea market is better than the Mall market; as they provide competitive prices, large variety of store, wide product selection and good merchandise quality of the products. Our research confirms the results discussed by Gao & Simonson (2015) that “the more products a retail outlet offers, the more consumer segments will be attracted”; and Flea market offers a wide range of variety. The research also supports that product assortment and market experience positively influence consumer’s purchase intention and market loyalty for flea market Venter De Villiers, V et al. (2018).
Secondly, customers believe that hedonic dimension of mall market is ahead of flea markets. Our findings are in line with the study of Michon et al. (2008); Chang et al. (2004); they found that “mall environment to have a stronger influence on the hedonic experience of fashions leaders”. The results indicate consumers’ preference for mall environment in comparison to flea market for hedonic dimension.
Thirdly, the research shows that facility convenience is rated higher for mall markets in comparison to flea market.
Fourth, Results indicate that Flea markets are perceived to be better than mall markets as customers feel that it keeps them cheerful, happy and helps them forget their troubles. The reason associated with this criterion is similar with the work of Rajagopal (2009).
Fifth, The results are consistent with Holbrook (1994); Zeithaml (1988); Baker et al (2002) that shopping mall market offers shopper friendly environment for consumers on efficiency value and with Keng et al (2007) that perceived efficiency value indicates better competitive advantage for the provider who can deliver availability, cost, speed and convenience to customers.
The flea market should incorporate more hedonistic elements and seek to improve the safety of the walkways, as well as the flow of traffic. It is also important that they focus on the facility convenience.
Mall market should look at not only on the ambience and recreational shopping requirements but also efficiency-related requirements of the customers. Additionally, they should work on utilitarian dimension and playfulness as well.
The sample size is confined to Delhi and NCR, the reason being, it is the market place where a large number of shopping malls and flea markets co-exist. However, the NCR-Delhi is not the representative population of the whole country.
The other limitation is in selection of five possible attributes that are influencing both mall markets and flea markets. Several other attributes which can influence both the markets such as location, trading area analysis and many more have not been considered With respect to empirical research studies some limitations are associated with methodology, data collection, sampling and generalizability issues also exist.
The research used cross sectional method, while for this type of study, longitudinal study which determines the pattern switching behaviour of the consumers, can also be possible.
Future researchers can do more exhaustive literature review and add more attributes which can influence the satisfaction level and market choice attributes. Longitudinal study can be conducted to understand the pattern of switching behaviour of the customers. The wider sample size can lead to more generalized conclusion.
Despite paradigm shift in Urbanization, socio-demographic movement, consumer’s lifestyle and the resulting growth of organized shopping malls in big cities in India; the unorganized and cluttered flea markets are able to attract a large number of customers and offer latest fashion at low price. The entry and development of malls initially, seemed a threat to flea market but , the consumers have accepted the coexistence of shopping malls and flea markets in urban areas for different reasons, requirements and attributes. The result of the study clearly distinguishes customers’ perceptions of the market features of Mall market and Flea market which can help mall promoters and flea marketers to reorient and devise suitable strategies to attract a greater number of consumers towards their stores.
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D.R. (1994). Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability: Findings from Sweden.Journal of marketing,58(3), 53-66.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Babin, B.J., & Darden, W.R. (1996). Good and bad shopping vibes: Spending and patronage satisfaction.Journal of business research,35(3), 201-206.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G.B. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions.Journal of marketing,66(2), 120-141.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Belk, R.W., Sherry Jr, J.F., & Wallendorf, M. (1988). A naturalistic inquiry into buyer and seller behavior at a swap meet.Journal of Consumer Research,14(4), 449-470.
Bellenger, D.N., Steinberg, E., & Stanton, W.W. (1976). Congruence of store image and self image-as it relates to store loyalty.Journal of retailing,52(1), 17-32.
Bettman, J.R. (1979).Information processing theory of consumer choice. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., & Dawson, S.A. (1994). The shopping mall as consumer habitat.Journal of retailing,70(1), 23-42.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness.Journal of marketing,64(4), 65-81.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Chang, E., Burns, L.D., & Francis, S.K. (2004). Gender differences in the dimensional structure of apparel shopping satisfaction among Korean consumers: The role of hedonic shopping value.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,22(4), 185-199.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Cross, J., & Morales, A. (Eds.). (2007).Street entrepreneurs: People, place, & politics in local and global perspective. Routledge.
Day, G.S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations.Journal of marketing,58(4), 37-52.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
De Villiers, M.V. Chinomona, R and Chuchu, T. (2018). The influence of store environment on brand attitude, brand experience and purchase intention.South African Journal of Business Management,49(1), 1-8.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Deb, M. (2012). Evaluation of customer's mall preferences in India using fuzzy AHP approach. Journal of Advances in Management Research.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Dogu, U., & Erkip, F. (2000). Spatial factors affecting wayfinding and orientation: A case study in a shopping mall.Environment and behavior,32(6), 731-755.
El-Adly, M.I. (2007). Shopping malls attractiveness: A segmentation approach.International journal of retail & distribution management,35(11), 936-950.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Eroglu, S.A., & Machleit, K.A. (1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences.Journal of retailing,66(2), 201.
Finn, A., & Louviere, J.J. (1996). Shopping center image, consideration, and choice: Anchor store contribution.Journal of business research,35(3), 241-251.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Gao, L., & Simonson, I. (2016). The positive effect of assortment size on purchase likelihood: The moderating influence of decision order.Journal of Consumer Psychology,26(4), 542-549.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Geuens, M., Brengman, M., & S’Jegers, R. (2001). An exploratory study of grocery shopping motivations.ACR European Advances.
Giese, J.L., & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction.Academy of marketing science review,1(1), 1-22.
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions.Journal of marketing,62(2), 46-59.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Gu, F.F., & Hung, K. (2009). Materialism among adolescents in China: A historical generation perspective.Journal of Asia Business Studies.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
H.I. Day. (2013). Advances in intrinsic motivation and aesthetics. Springer Science & Business Medi.
Ha, N.H. (2014).Buy, sell and chatter: A case analysis of a Lisbon Flea Market(Doctoral dissertation).
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. 7.
Haytko, D.L., & Baker, J. (2004). It’s all at the mall: Exploring adolescent girls’ experiences.Journal of retailing,80(1), 67-83.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Holbrook, M.B. (1994). The nature of customer value: an axiology of services in the consumption experience.Service quality: New directions in theory and practice,21(1), 21-71.
Hu, H., & Jasper, C.R. (2007). A qualitative study of mall shopping behaviors of mature consumers.Journal of Shopping Center Research,14(1), 17-38.
Huizinga, Johan (1955). Homo ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Jhamb, D., & Kiran, R. (2012). Emerging trends of organized retailing in India: a shared vision of consumers and retailers perspective.Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research,11(4), 481-490.
Jones, M.A., Reynolds, K.E., & Arnold, M.J. (2006). Hedonic and utilitarian shopping value: Investigating differential effects on retail outcomes.Journal of business research,59(9), 974-981.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
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.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2002). Principles of marketing. New Delhi: Pearson Education Asia.
Michon, R., Chebat, J.C., & Turley, L.W. (2005).Mall atmospherics: the interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior.Journal of business research,58(5), 576-583.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
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.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Nelson, R.L., (1958). The selection of retail locations. FW Dodge Corporation. Nunnally, J.C. (1994). Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-Hill Education, India.
Nunnally, J.C. (1994).Psychometric theory 3E. Tata Mc Graw-hill education.
Oliver, R.L. (1997), Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Overby, J.W., & Lee, E.J. (2006). The effects of utilitarian and hedonic online shopping value on consumer preference and intentions.Journal of Business research,59(10-11),1160-1166.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Peñaloza, V., Denegri, M., & Gerhard, F. (2015). Let's go to the fair? A study about the motivations to frequent flea markets.Pensamiento & Gestión, (38), 16-32.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Petrescu, M., & Bhatli, D. (2013). Consumer behavior in flea markets and marketing to the Bottom of the Pyramid.Journal of Management Research,13(1), 55-63.
Pookulangara, S., & Knight, D.K. (2013). Indian consumers’ mall patronage intentions: Impacts of shoppingmotivations,subjectivenorms,materialism,andself-efficacy.Journal of Global Fashion Marketing,4(1), 20-32.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Powe, N.A. (2006). Understanding urban attitudes towards country towns: considering their potential as visitor attractions.Journal of Retail & Leisure Property,5(4), 255-269.
Rajagopal, D. (2009). Growing shopping malls and behavior of urban shoppers.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Reynolds, J., Howard, E., Cuthbertson, C., & Hristov, L. (2007). Perspectives on retail format innovation: relating theory and practice.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.
Indexed at,Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Seiders, K., Berry, L.L., & Gresham, L.G. (2000). Attention, retailers! How convenient is your convenience strategy?.MIT Sloan Management Review,41(3), 79.
Sherman, E., McCrohan, K., & Smith, J.D. (1985). Informal retailing: an analysis of products, attitudes, and expectations.ACR North American Advances.
Shim, S., & Kotsiopulos, A. (1992). Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part I. Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources, and personal characteristics.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,10(2), 48-57.
Shim, S., & Kotsiopulos, A. (1992). Patronage behavior of apparel shopping: Part I. Shopping orientations, store attributes, information sources, and personal characteristics.Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,10(2), 48-57.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Sivadas, E., & Baker-Prewitt, J.L. (2000). An examination of the relationship between service quality, customer satisfaction, and store loyalty.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 28,73-82.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Singh, D.P. (2018). Integration of materialism with shopping motivations: motivations based profile of Indian mall shoppers.Journal of Asia Business Studies,12(4),381-401.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Tauber, E.M. (1972). Marketing notes and communications: Why do people shop? Journal of marketing, 36(4), 46-49.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Thaler, R.H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice, Markting Science. 4(3), 199-214.
Unger, L.S., & Kernan, J.B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of some determinants of the subjective experience.Journal of Consumer research,9(4), 381-392.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Venter de Villiers, M., Visnenza, A., & Phiri, N. (2018). Importance of location and product assortment on flea market loyalty.The Service Industries Journal,38(11-12), 650-668.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Wakefield, K.L., & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response.Journal of Retailing,74(4), 515-539.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
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.
Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref
Received: 19-Nov-2022, Manuscript No. AMSJ-22-12913; Editor assigned: 20-Nov-2022, PreQC No. AMSJ-22-12913(PQ); Reviewed: 21-Dec-2022, QC No. AMSJ-22-12913; Revised: 24-Jan-2023, Manuscript No. AMSJ-22-12913(R); Published: 08-Feb-2023