Espacios. Vol. 37 (Nº 24) Año 2016. Pág. 1

Hedonic Shopping Value: Approach Motivation (BAS), Avoidance Motivation (BIS), Retail Shopper Confusion and Motivational Orientation

Valor hedónico de compra: Enfoque por Motivación (BAS), Motivación por evitación (BIS), Confusión por compra al menor y orientación motivacional

Maryam MAHDAVI 1; Fatemehsadat MOUSAVIFARD 2; Abdolhossein AYOUBI 3

Recibido: 13/04/16 • Aprobado: 12/05/2016


1. Introduction

2. Methodology

3. Discussion

4. Findings

5. Results and Conclusions

6. Study limitations

7. Study Strengths and Implications



This study was performed by the aim of hedonic shopping value: Approach Motivation (BAS), Avoidance Motivation (BIS), Retail shopper confusion, and Motivational orientation. The examined statistical population was consisted of 332 managers of business and financial companies in Tehran province, Iran. Statistical analysis and structural equations model with AMOS showed that the presented model in this study is approved. The results showed that (BAS): Avoidance Motivation (BIS), Retail shopper confusion and Motivational orientation are some of effective issues on Hedonic Shopping Value.
Key Word: Approach Motivation (BAS), Avoidance Motivation (BIS), Retail shopper confusion, Hedonic Shopping Value, Motivational orientation


Este estudio fue realizado con el objetivo de definir el valor hedónico de compra: enfoque de motivación (BAS), motivación por evitación (BIS), confusión de la venta al por menor y orientación motivacional. La población estadística examinada consistió en 332 gerentes de negocios y empresas financieras en la provincia de Teherán, Irán. El análisis estadístico y el modelo de ecuaciones estructurales realizados con AMOS demostraron que se verifica el modelo presentado en este estudio. Los resultados demostraron que el enfoque de Motivación (BAS): motivación de evitación (BIS), confusión de comprador a detal y orientación motivacional son algunos de problemas detectados en el valor hedónico de compras.
Palabras clave: Enfoque de motivación (BAS), motivación de evitación (BIS), por menor orientación motivacional de confusión, valor de compra hedónica, shopper

1. Introduction

1.1. Conceptual framework: Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS):

The behavioral activation system reflects the sensitivity to rewards and positive stimuli, and facilitates movement toward positive goals. The behavioral inhibition system (BIS) reflects the sensitivity to punishment cues and negative stimuli, and guides behavior to avoid painful outcomes. Approach (BAS) and avoidance (BIS) motivations are classified here as cross-situation traits because they are fundamental motivational dispositions, linked to genetic code and early socialization, and influenced by cultural norms and values, indeed they are enduring dispositions to behave across all situational contexts (Carver and White 1994; see Arnold and Reynolds, 2012).

Both systems represent distinct structures in the nervous system; they vary between individuals in composition and strength, and produce a perceptual vigilance, emotional reactivity, and a behavioral predisposition toward positive/reward or negative/punishment stimuli respectively (Ibid).

The BIS and BAS are also closely related to the self regulation constructs of promotion and prevention focus, both of which have received substantial attention in marketing studies .

Also, BIS- and BAS-sensitivity involve motivational dispositions (Heimpel, Elliot, & Wood, 2006, Ilona van Beek et al, 2013).

1.2. Hedonic Shopping Motivations

Arnold and Reynolds (2003) investigated consumers' hedonic shopping motivations and identified adventure shopping, value shopping, social shopping, role shopping, and idea shopping motivations. Therefore, consumers shop to have fun and enjoyment through bargain hunting and socializing with family and friends, to get mental and sensory stimulation through browsing and appreciating store atmospherics, to improve personal well-being by relaxing and releasing stress, and to satisfy their curiosity about new trends and fashion ( Westbrook and Black, 1985; Arnold and Reynolds, 2003, Mejri, 2012  ).

Overall, these studies indicate shopping is also motivated by a range of psychosocial needs that go beyond acquisition of products and services.

1.3. Motivational orientation

Motivation is the intensity, persistence and direction of effort allocation. Utilitarian consumer behavior has been described as ergic, task related and rational. Often, utilitarian motivation means a product that is purchased in a deliberate and efficient manner .Otherwise, hedonic value is more subjective and personal than its utilitarian counterpart and results are more fun and play fullness. Hedonic value reflects the potential entertainment and emotional worth of shopping. To measure motivational orientation, we used the 10-item-scalefrom (See Valter Afonso Vieira and Claudio Vaz Torres, 2014).

While shopping value represents an outcome of a shopping experience, motivational orientation refers to anticipated benefits a shopping trip will provide. Two fundamental reasons drive shopping intentions: to acquire products (task motivational orientation) and to gain enjoyment and multisensory, emotional experiences during the shopping trip (recreational motivational orientation) (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006).

1.4. Hedonic Shopping Value

Extant research demonstrates the potential of a store environment to enhance (or diminish) shopping value. Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) reveal that mall characteristics (e.g., cleanliness, opening hours, parking facilities) influence perceived utilitarian and hedonic shopping values (Garaus et al , 2015).

Cognition, Emotion, Conation Variable: Retail shopper confusion is influenced by Motivational orientation variable and can affect Hedonic Shopping Value. In fact, Hedonic Shopping Value implicitly is influenced by Retail shopper confusion while Motivational orientation produces  an impression on the relationship between them (Garaus et al, 2015).

1.5. Retail shopper confusion

The current research therefore conceptualizes retail shopper confusion as a three-dimensional, temporary mental state consisting of the cognitive effort necessary to deal with confusion (cognition), emotions reflecting the discomfort associated with confusion (emotion), and restricted behavioral intentions (conation). Feelings express changes in these three mental sub-systems during the state of confusion (Clore et al., 2001). Cognitive feelings reflect the impairment in thought-related processes and mechanisms when experiencing confusion (e.g., reasoning, \encoding, storing and retrieving information; Mayer et al., 1997).Retail shopper confusion decreases utilitarian shopping value because confusing store environments inhibit the efficient achievement of the shopping goal. Confused shoppers also experience low hedonic shopping value because of the negative feelings associated with retail shopper confusion (Garaus et al, 2015).

2. Methodology

2.1. Statistical Population and Statistical Sample

Statistical population in this study is consisted of 2400 business and financial companies of Tehran province. Sampling was performed with available sampling method  achieved from managers of these companies. Since this study was a non-experimental survey research, the sample size was determined using the following formulas (Sarmad et al., 2006):

n0: sample size which is 2,400 here.
n: sample size
d2: it is the amount of error whereas the probability is considered 95%, the probability of error occurrence is placed at level of 0.05.
Z: it is the amount of normal variable corresponding to the confidence level of 1-α, which is equal to 1.96.
P: it is selection success rate; in fact it is the estimation of variable trait proportion using previous studies (victory is considered 0.5 in this study).
q=1-p: it is the failure rate in selection which is 0.5 regarding the P amount. In this case, the amount of variance reaches   its maximum, namely 0.25.

The above formulas were used since the population variance was unknown. According to calculations, 332 individuals were considered as the sample from 2,400 individuals of statistical population.

3. Discussion

The questionnaire consists of existing scales measuring the constructs of interest. All responses were measured on 5-point Likert scales (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The 13-item, three-dimensional retail shopper confusion scale from Garaus and Wagner (2013) assessed perceived confusion evoked by the store environments. For further analysis, three composite scores reflected the three dimensions cognition, emotion, and conation of retail shopper confusion. Three items from Ward et al. (1992) measured cognitive fit. A short version of the shopping value assessment tool from Babin et al. (1994) collected data for the hedonic and utilitarian shopping value constructs (see also Babin, Griffin, Borges, & Boles, 2013). Five items assessed hedonic value, and two items measured utilitarian value (slight modifications accounted for the hypothetical shopping scenario context). The questionnaire also included two items on the purpose of the shopping trip (task vs. recreational purposes) for the manipulation check of motivational orientation.

BIS- and BAS-activation were measured with Franken et al.'s (2005) Dutch translation of Carver and White's (1994) BIS/BAS scales. This questionnaire taps the BIS (7 items) and BAS (13 items). According to Carver and White (1994), the BAS-items cover three concepts: fun seeking, reward responsiveness, and drive. Since the distinction among these subscales lacks empirical evidence and relevance (Van der Linden et al., 2007), the overall BAS-scores were used. Items were scored on a 4-point scale (1 = ''I do not agree at all'', 4 = ''I totally agree'') (Ilona van Beek et al, 2013).

Pre-test was performed on 30 participants of statistical population, and Cronbach's alpha was used to obtain credit of the questionnaires. The amount of Cronbach's alpha coefficients was obtained according to Table 1, and since it was more than 0.70, it can be concluded that the questionnaires had high confidence.

Table 1.Cronbach's alpha coefficient


Variables name

Cronbach's alpha coefficient


Approach Motivation (BAS)

Avoidance Motivation(BIS)



Hedonic Shopping Motivations



Motivational orientation



Hedonic Shopping Value



Retail Shopper Confusion



Figure 1. The conceptual framework

The conceptual framework (see Fig. 1) of this study suggests that the variable Hedonic Shopping Value as a dependent variable is directly under influence of Retail shopper confusion and Hedonic Shopping Motivations.

4. Findings

Since, normality of variables distribution in regression is one of the most important pre-assumptions. Before examining the research hypothesis, normality hypothesis of distribution of obtained data related to each variable was investigated using non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirov test.  In all the performed tests in this study, α as much as 0.05 is  considered as the significance level of the test. The obtained results of Kolmogorov-Smirov test, which are written as follows, are summarized in Table 2:

H0 (Null Hypothesis): distribution of data is normal.

H1 (Alternative Hypothesis): distribution of data is not normal.

Table 2 . One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test













Normal Parametersa,b







Std. Deviation






Most Extreme Differences



















Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z






Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)






a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.

Since the obtained significance level for all variables is a number greater than 0.05, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis, thus normality hypothesis is approved for all the variables.

In this section, structural equations model or specifically structural model (path analysis) using AMOS is made benefit of. The normality of variables distribution in regression is one of the most important hypothesis and with respect to the obtained results from non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirov test (Table 2). This hypothesis is approved regarding all the variables. Figure 1 shows the obtained results of using structural equations model (path analysis). This chart shows estimation of standard coefficients of the model which are standardized coefficients (beta) in multiple regression analysis. Variables and factors in this model have been named as Figure 1:

Result (Default model)
Minimum was achieved
Chi-square = 261.065
Degrees of freedom = 5
Probability level = .000

Figure 2. Standard coefficients related to structural equations model (path analysis)

Standard coefficients are used for comparison of the effects of each model components. Whatever the absolute value of the coefficient is larger, it means the influence of the independent variable on dependent variable is greater.

Regarding direct effect of AMOS path analysis, t-statistic is used to assess the significance of the model coefficients. Since, the pre-assumed significance level is equal to 0.05; so  the obtained coefficients will be significant if the corresponding statistic amount is greater than 1.96 and/or smaller than -1.96. Whatever the absolute value of the statistic amount is more than 1.96, it will represent higher and more powerful impact of independent variables on dependent ones. As can be seen, all of the variables are significant.

Direct and indirect effects, as well as significance level are also listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Direct and indirect effects









































Table 4. some items































According to Table 3 and Table 4, some items are presented: regression weights, estimated amount, significance level as well as coefficient of variations obtained from estimated amount divided by standard deviation which indicates changes rate of each variable compared with changes of one unit of the dependent variables. Based on the significance level, there is a positive and significant relationship between investigated variables at significance level of 0.01.

According to Table 5, Chi-square test and RMSEA index are  applied as goodness index of the model fitting path analysis. The best suited index is the value rate of Chi-square statistic to its degree of freedom; namely. If this ratio is less than 3, the model shows better fitting. RMSEA index is the same as mean squared errors of the model. The index is made based on the model errors. The index limit is 0.8. If RMSEA value is below 0.8, it is acceptable and if the value is below 0.5, it is considered so desirable.

Table 5. Goodness Index of Model Fitting in Path Analysis

Since the value of RMSEA index (mean square errors of model) is less than 0.5, the model has a very good fitting. This indicates that adjusted relationships between variables are reasonable on theoretical basis of the research.

5. Results and Conclusions

This research develops and empirically tests a conceptual framework of the effects of Approach Motivation (BAS), Avoidance Motivation (BIS) and Retail shopper confusion on Hedonic Shopping Value with effect of Motivational orientation on Retail shopper confusion .

According to the obtained results, the proposed conceptual model is confirmed, and it has been shown that Approach Motivation (BAS) and Avoidance Motivation (BIS) directly and indirectly influence on Hedonic Shopping Value. Indirectly via Hedonic Shopping Motivations,  it can have greater impact on Hedonic Shopping Value. In fact, Hedonic Shopping Motivations increase  the impact of Approach Motivation (BAS) and Avoidance Motivation (BIS) on Hedonic Shopping Value.

On the other hand, investigation on effect of Motivational orientation on Retail shopper confusion was approved; meanwhile Retail shopper confusion showed positive and significant effect on Hedonic Shopping Value.

An investigation on performed studies such as Garaus et al (2015), van Beek et al (2013) and Davis and Hodges (2012), shows that each of them somehow confirms the results of this study, and support  it. To achieve the results of this research, it is important and necessary to respect principles such as enlightenment, holism and abundance, on the other hand to follow some practices:

  1. Consideration and precision of matters relating to implementation of Hedonic Shopping Value with in-service training courses, training workshops, offering behavioral patterns of chosen staff as booklets, brochures and etc.
  1. It is clear that consumer perceived shopping value is a complex construct because of the complexity of the shopping process itself. Increased quality of sales, as well as offering more efficient services, using behavioral psychology principles, considering styles and opinions of customers and clients.
  2. Providing of a suitable environment, localization of objectives and indicators in addition, activating a virtual world while increasing working motives for using Hedonic Shopping Motivations.

6. Study limitations

Although it was tried in this study to perform information and theoretical foundations with a great care, three main limitations of this study are as follows. First, the data were collected using self-reports, meaning that the relations between our study variables may have been overestimated due to common method bias .

Second, this is a descriptive-correlational study, thus its findings cannot produce a causal understanding; and the third limitation is that since the research has been done only in one province, generalization of its findings to other commercial organizations and companies should be done with caution.

7. Study Strengths and Implications

The greatest strength and innovation of this study is that it can offer variables including Retail shopper confusion, Hedonic Shopping Value, Hedonic Shopping Motivations, Approach Motivation (BAS) and Avoidance Motivation (BIS), simultaneously in a conceptual model based on theoretical foundations. In active commercial and financial companies, the model is successful. The examined model which is one of recent topics of global markets and novel for organizational managers is also quite consistent with behavioral psychological issues of customers.


Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A., Hejazi, E. (2007). Research methods in behavioral science, Tehran: Agah Publication.

Arnold , Mark J. Kristy E. Reynolds . (2012). Approach and Avoidance Motivation: Investigating Hedonic Consumption in a Retail Setting, Journal of Retailing, 88 (3, 2012) 399–411.

Babin, B. J., Darden,W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994).Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.

Babin, B. J., Griffin, M., Borges, A., & Boles, J. S. (2013). Negative emotions, value and relationships: Differences between women and men. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(5), 471–478.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.

Clore, G. L., Wyer, R. S., Dienes, B., Gasper, K., Gohm, C., & Isbell, L. (2001). Affective feelings as feedback: Some cognitive consequences. In L. L. Martin, & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A user's handbook (pp. 27–62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davis ,Lizhu and Nancy Hodges. (2014).Consumer shopping value :An investigation of shopping trip value ,in-store shopping value and retail format, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19 (2012) 229–239.

Franken, I. H. A., Muris, P., & Rassin, E. (2005). Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 25–30.

Garaus , Marion , Wagner, Udo and Claudia Kummer. (2015).Cognitive fit, retail shopper confusion, and shopping value: Empirical investigation, Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 1003–1011.

Garaus, M., & Wagner, U. (2013). Retail shopper confusion — An explanation for the avoidance behavior at the point-of-sale. In S. Botti, & A. Labroo (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, 41. (pp. 407–410). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Heimpel, S. A., Elliot, A. J., & Wood, J. V. (2006). Basic personality dispositions, self-esteem, and personal goals: An approach-avoidance analysis. Journal of Personality, 74, 1293–1320.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.

Ilona van Beek, Ilse C. Kranenburg, Toon W. Taris, Wilmar B. Schaufeli. (2013). BIS- and BAS-activation and study outcomes: A mediation study, Personality and Individual Differences, 55 , 474–479 .

Kaltcheva, V., & Weitz, B. A. (2006). When Should a Retailer Create an Exciting Store Environment? Journal of Marketing, 70, 107-118.

Mayer, J. D., Chabot, H. F., & Carlsmith, K. M. (1997). Conation, affect, and cognition in personality. In G. Matthews (Ed.), Advances in psychology: Cognitive science perspectives on personality and emotion (pp. 31–63). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Mejri , Mohamed 1, Mohsen Debabi2 & Khaled Nasraoui. (2012), Exploratory Analysis of the Shopping Orientation in the Tunisian Context International , Journal of Marketing Studies; 4, 5.

Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36, 46-59. /10.2307/1250426.

Valter Afonso Vieira , Claudio Vaz Torres . (2014). The effect of motivational orientation over arousal-shopping response elation ship, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21, 158–167.

Van der Linden, D., Beckers, D. G. J., & Taris, T. W. (2007). Reinforcement sensitivity theory at work: Punishment sensitivity as a dispositional source of job-related stress. European Journal of Psychology, 21, 889–909.

Ward, J. C., Bitner, M. J., & Barnes, J. (1992). Measuring the prototypicality and meaning of retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68(2), 194–220.

Westbrook, R., & W. C. Black. (1985). A Motivation-Based Shopper Typology. Journal of Retailing, 61, 78-103.

1. M.A. in Management, Management Department, instructor in Payame Noor University of Jahrom and in University of Applied Science, Corresponding Author . Email Address:
2. M.A., English Literature Department, Islamic Azad University, Arak, Iran, Address: Zafar2, Zafar St., Jahrom, Iran, Postal Code:7418847378, Tel:00989380680350, Fax:00987154226134,;
3. M.S.c, Biomedical Engineering Department, Amir Kabir University, Tehran, Iran , Address: 7 Andishe, Moallem Boulevard, Jahrom, Iran, Tel: 00989171912965, Email:,

Revista Espacios. ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 37 (Nº 24) Año 2016


[En caso de encontrar algún error en este website favor enviar email a webmaster]