publication . Preprint . 2008

Store Format Choice in an Evolving Market . A TPB Approach

Singh, Kamaljit Anand; Sinha, Piyush Kumar;
Open Access
  • Published: 02 Dec 2008
Abstract
The store choice has been studied extensively in the literature, but store format choice has had limited research attention. The store choice modeling has been primarily done in the random utility theory framework, which however is a neo-economics based view of choice decision that ignores the psychological and behavioral aspects of this planned behavior. The store format choice for bulk grocery purchase despite being a rational context has not been conceptualized in the most accepted construct in attitude behavior, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Attitude-behavior linkage has been studied extensively in literature but there is still no consensus on the co...

Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., and Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and J.Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. [OpenAIRE]

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. [OpenAIRE]

Arnold, Stephen J.; Oum, Tae H.; Tigert, Douglas J. (1983), “Determinant Attributes in Retail Patronage: Seasonal, Temporal, Regional, and International Comparisons”, Journal of Marketing Research, May, Vol. 20 Issue 2, pp. 149 - 157.

Assael, Henry; Kamins, Michael A. (1989), “Effects of Appeal Type and Involvement on Product Disconfirmation: A Cognitive Response Approach Through Product Trial”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Summer, Vol. 17 Issue 3, pp. 197 - 207.

Axsom D, Yates S, Chaiken S (1987), “Audience response as a Heuristic Cue in Persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12.0% 75.0% 4.3% 17.0% 73.4% 6.4% 3.2% 20.8% 59.4% 8.3% 11.5% 16.8% 23.7% 17.3% 69.5% 34.2% 66.0% 7.4% 13.2% 7.2% [OpenAIRE]

Powered by OpenAIRE Open Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue