Something Social in Mall

There's Something Social Happening at the Mall
Author(s): Richard A. Feinberg, Jennifer Meoli and Amy Rummel

Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sep., 1989), pp. 49-63
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092215
Accessed: 21-12-2016 13:54 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 support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and
Psychology
This content downloaded from 193.198.209.205 on Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:54:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 4, No. 1, Fall 1989
THERE'S SOMETHING SOCIAL

HAPPENING AT THE MALL
Richard A. Feinberg
Brent Sheffler
Purdue University
Jennifer Meoli
Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Amy Rummel
University of Otago, New Zealand
ABSTRACT: Part of the success of the retail mall was hypothesized to be the
result of the socially stimulating environment that the indoor mall provides. To
test this idea, three studies were completed. In the first, the composition of shop
pers attracted to a downtown shopping area and a regional mall were compared.
Results showed shopping at the mall was most likely to be either as singles or in
larger groups suggesting that people go to the mall because the mall supports
social interaction. In the second study, social behavior in a regional mall was
observed. The pattern of social interaction observed in the mall setting was com
pared to a farmers market and a supermarket. Social behavior in the mall was
found to be more similar to that of the social farmers market than the imperso
nal supermarket. In the third study, the image of the mall was found to be more
social than a comparable downtown area and the image of a mall store was more
social than the image of the same store located in a downtown business district.
The overall findings suggest that the mall attracts consumers because it may be
a magnet for social behavior and may reinforce consumer behavior by its
sociability.
According to popular lore, part of the success of the shopping mall

may stem from the social nature of this type of shopping environment,
(e.g., Isogai and Matsushima, 1972). According to an observer of contem
porary society, Erma Bombeck, shopping malls didn't just happen.
"First planners studied people who lived in the suburbs. They discov
ered they were people with virtually no social life and no stimuli. They
read, they watched television and for two weeks every year they went
on vacation. They needed a place to cruise without cars. The shopping
49
? 1989 Human Sciences Press
50
center was born" (Bombeck, 1985). When mall entrepreneur Victor
Gruen pioneered the development of the suburban mall, he intended the

concept to both serve the deficiency of local retailing and to provide a
community center where residents would converge for cultural activities
and for social interaction (Kowinski, 1985).
The research reported here is predicated on the assumption that at
least part of the success of the mall as a form of retailing may be the
result of the role the mall plays in fostering social interaction. Research
and analysis of the retail mall phenomenon has not emphasized the so
cial aspects of the mall environment, but has focused on overt variables
such as driving time, population densities, demographics, and traffic
patterns (e.g., Gentry and Burns, 1977).
THE SOCIAL NATURE OF THE MALL

There is evidence that the social atmosphere of the shopping mall
contributes to its popularity and profitability. Consumers have social
and psychological motives for shopping beyond acquiring necessary

purchases (Tauber, 1972). Typologies of consumers have described a
substantial segment of consumers who view shopping as a recreational

outing or a social occasion. These studies describe recreational-type con
sumers as more likely to shop with others and less likely to have a
specific purchase in mind when shopping (Bellenger & Korgaonkar,
1980; Bellenger, Robertson, & Greenberg, 1977; Westbrook & Black,
1985).
This area of research suggests that a positive atmosphere for social

interaction which the mall may provide may be significantly contribut
ing to the retail traffic the mall achieves. Specifically, compared to a
shopping area which does not support social interaction (e.g., a down
town district or a supermarket) the shopping mall may be a social envi
ronment.
The retail trade center has historically been the setting for cultural
and social events. In contemporary society, the shopping mall is the re
tail trade center. It is an arena which fosters community interaction and
exchange of information, a function previously served by the farmers
market, the church, or the pub. The mall provides a convenient location
and environment for community forum. Christmas carolling, high

school exhibits, boat shows, and senior citizen exercise programs are
examples of the social activities which are the domain of the shopping
mall. Compared to the downtown district or the supermarket, which are

nonsocial environments by design, the mall provides ample parking, a
large atrium with seating, and entertainment in an aesthetically pleas
ing, temperature controlled and a relatively crime free public space. In
RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL.
51
the book The Mall: An Attempted Escape From Everyday Life, Jacobs
(1985) argues that the mall has become "the only (or at least preferred)"
setting to pursue social interaction, especially for certain groups.
Like the farmers market of old, the mall is a place where social
interaction, while incidental to the primary function of the setting, is an
integral part of its activities. In describing the potential for shopping

centers to enhance community life, one of our foremost developers of
malls, Rouse (1962) stated, "It should be a lively meeting place as well
as a marketplace . . . there is no natural conflict between profits and
people, and the soundest economic base for a 'main street' is to make it
an indispensable servant of the community." In many communities
shaping the development of business and housing construction and be
coming the arena for public meetings was an inevitable and sometimes
unintentional responsibility incurred by mall management (Morris,
1969). Indeed, in planning mall designs, developers began to incorporate
community functions in addition to the planned retailing, acknowledg
ing that the mall is the new form of "downtown" (Brubaker, 1975). The
enviable success of the retail mall may be the result, in part, of it being
a reincarnation and modern version of the traditional marketplace.
HYPOTHESES
The goal of these three studies was to observe the nature and scope
of social interaction in a retail mall setting. In Study 1, inferences were
made from a simple count of the number of people arriving at a mall
and a downtown retail district. It was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1. Shoppers at a mall will be more likely to be in groups
than shoppers at a downtown business district.
In Study 2, using social ecological methods pioneered by Barker

(1968) the patterns of social behavior in a mall were described, mea
sured, and compared to social behavior in a farmers market and a super

market. It was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2. The proportion of social interaction in a shopping
mall will be more similar to the proportion of social interaction in a
farmers market than the proportion of social interaction in a super
market.
Study 3 investigated the social image of the mall and its affect on
the image of stores in the mall. It was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 3. The image of a shopping mall will be more social than
the comparable image of a downtown shopping area.
Hypothesis 3a. The image of a store in a shopping mall will be more
social than the image of the identical store located in a downtown area.
52
General Method
The present three part study was undertaken in the community.
The regional shopping center had three anchor stores surrounded by 68
smaller tenants and served a trading area of over 75,000 people when
the research was conducted.
The sole downtown business district in the same retail trading area
provided the comparison for Hypothesis 1 and 3 and 3a. Secondary data
was used to compare the mall with a farmers market and a supermarket
(Hypothesis 2).
STUDY ONE
The purpose of this study was to test Hypothesis 1, that the mall is
supportive of social behavior and is therefore a more socially active en
vironment than a downtown business center. The relative number of
individuals arriving alone and in groups at each of the retail settings
was used as an index of the ability of the location to attract socially
motivated shoppers. While arriving in a group does not guarantee that
the occasion is recreational and not solely motivated by economic need,
it does suggest a degree of focused social interaction (see Sommer, Her
rick, and Sommer 1981). It is expected that more traffic will be observed
at the mall, it being a regional shopping center with a far greater num
ber of stores than the downtown district. However, it is the relative per
centage of singles and groups observed shopping in each of these envi
ronments that is relevant to the goal of this study.
Method
Counts of individuals arriving alone and with others were made
simultaneously at the shopping mall and at the downtown business dis
trict. The times and days of observation were systematically selected for
a one week period. Evening counts were not taken because downtown
stores were closed. Mall entrances and downtown locations, where ob
servers were stationed, were randomly selected from those available.
Children were not counted although the number of adults were.
Results
The number and composition of the individuals arriving at the mall
and the downtown area during the one week observation period is pre
sented in Table 1. The nature of the group composition was dependent
on the retail setting in which it was observed. The proportion of shop
53
TABLE 1
Group Distribution at Mall and Downtown Locations
Group Size and Percent of Total
1 Person 2 People 3 or More Total

Setting
Mall 732 76% 141 15% 82 9% 955
Downtown Center 269 72% 94 25% 11 3% 374
pers arriving alone, in couples, or in groups of three or more w

cantly different in the mall than in the downtown area, x2 =
p < .05. Specifically, singles (76% of mall shoppers, 72% of dow
shoppers) and groups of three or more (9% ofmall shoppers, 3%
town shoppers) were more likely to go to the mall.
The finding that groups of three or more are three times more
to be found at the mall is consistent with the research hypot
vanced. In addition, we found it more probable that single in
would shop at the mall. This suggests that in addition to foste
social behavior of larger groups, the mall may serve as a mag
single individuals because of the potential for social contact.
It should be stressed that a count of shoppers is, at best, a c
speculative measure of social interaction. As a result, it is not
the count of the relative number of people provides an adequ
index or a measure of the attraction of a retail setting to soci
vated individuals. However, Sommer, Herrick, and Sommer (1
vide some ecological validity to this count method having used
fied it to be a measure of social behavior in their study of

markets and supermarkets. The count method observes some o
cial reality that might be involved in a setting and it does estab
shopping at a mall and at a downtown shopping district may
important social and psychological ways.
STUDY TWO
The behavior of unescorted individuals in the retail mal

was observed to determine the nature and scope of behavior in
For example, do individuals meet others and pair up or regrou
mall? Are salespeople a captive audience for singles seeking soc
action? To what extent do individuals participate in verbal exc
54
with others while shopping at the mall? By comparing the behavior of

consumers in the mall to behavior in a farmers market and a super
market, some insight may be gained about the functional role of the
mall to facilitate social interaction.
Method
Barker's ecological psychology techniques of measurement were ap
plied to measure behavior in the mall (Barker, 1968). Trained and prac
ticed researchers systematically recorded the behavior of 100 randomly
selected subjects from the time they entered the mall until they left.
Practice ratings showed observer agreement to be .90 or better prior to
the start of the study. These observations are nonreactive and unobtru
sive. The technique and measurement system which was used to assess
behavior in the mall setting was based on the successful use of these
methods for the purpose of studying consumer behavior in a super
market and farmers market environment (Sommer, Herrick, & Sommer,
1981).
Mall entrances from which shoppers were selected to be subjects
were randomly selected, as were the times of the day and the days of the
week that observations were made. Randomization was preferred over
selecting specific time frames because a cross section of consumers was
desired. It was not our intention to compare segments of consumers who
may frequent the mall in greater mass at certain time and who may
exhibit unique patterns of social behavior (e.g., teenagers in late after
noon, elderly in the a.m.).
Every third single consumer who entered the mall was selected dur
ing the observation periods. Observers began counting for subject selec
tion 10 minutes after completing their previous subject. Consumers ar
riving in groups and individuals who were determined to be mall
employees were excluded from the potential subject population.

The interaction recording system and procedures used were identi
cal to a system developed by Sommer, Herrick, & Sommer (1981). Be
havior was classified into three types:
1. Perfunctory?an acknowledgment of another person's presence
which did not necessarily require a verbal response? ?e.g.,

"Hello," "Excuse me," "Have a good day."
2. Informational?either asking a question or providing an an

swer-e.g., "Where is Penney's," "How much is this item?."
3. Social?a conversation between two or more people on any topic.
Results
Table 2 presents a descriptive breakdown of all behavior that was
observed in the mall. Sixty perfunctory, 137 informational and 68 social
55
TABLE 2
Total Number of Interactions
Perfunctory Informational Social Total
% of Interactions 60 (23%) 137 (52%) 68 (25%) 265

Interaction with
Customer 30 (50%) 5 (4%) 51 (75%) 87 (33%)
Interaction with
Employee 30 (50%) 132 (96%) 17 (25%) 182 (67%
interactions occurred. Social interaction accounted for 25% of all inter

action in the mall. Perfunctory interaction accounted for 23% of ob
served interaction and the predominant behavior, information interac
tion, accounted for 52% of observed interaction.
Type of Interaction and Time Spent in'Mall. The shoppers of this

particular mall spent on the average 22.98 minutes shopping in store
and 6.62 minutes walking around in pedestrian areas. Of greater inte
est for this particular study is the relationship between social behavio
and the pattern of time spent in mall. Table 3 presents the data relevan
to this question. Subjects were divided into high and low social shop
pers; social interaction above and below the median of number social
interactions observed. High social time is indicative of significant
longer time spent shopping in stores and more time spent walking i
the pedestrian walkway (p's < .05). The problem with this data is that
one cannot determine whether it is the social nature of the individu
which determines greater shopping time or the greater shopping tim
that determines the social interaction of the individual.
TABLE 3
Time in Mall
(in minutes)
Total Time Time Shopping Time Walking
High Social Shoppers
(n = 50)
Low Social Shoppers
(n = 50)
38.73 28.65 (74%) 10.08 (26%)

20.47 17.31 (85%) 3.16 (15%)
56
Is the Mall a Social Environment? One of the major difficulties in

the present study is the lack of reference/normative data. The objective
of the study was to assess the nature of social interaction in the retail
mall environment. The results show that 25% of the interaction in this
particular mall at this particular time of year in this particular commu
nity was social in nature. Is this a lot or is this relatively little? There is
no basis to make this determination. The methodology and behavioral
coding scheme of this study can be viewed as a means by which con

sumer behavior can be measured and classified in retail mall settings
anywhere. In this manner a normative base for consumer behavior in
the typical mall can be developed and then used as a reference for malls
whose goal might be to facilitate social interaction. Until this normative
base is developed, we will have to rely on secondary means of determin
ing the relative intensity of behavior in this particular study.
To this end a comparison of the data generated in this study was
compared to Sommer, Herrick and Sommer's (1981) study viewing social
interaction in the supermarket vs. the farmers market. This is a partic
ularly appropriate comparison. First, the methods and procedures of the
two studies were essentially identical. Second, the point of this study is
that the retail mall has become the modern day farmers market, a place
where the social activity of a community occurs. Table 4 presents the
comparison between the probabilities of the three types of interactions
(perfunctory, informational, and social) as they occurred in the Sommer,
Herrick and Sommer study and this study. Table 4 illustrates the sim
ilarity of the probability distributions of the three types of interactions
with other consumers in the retail mall and in the farmers market com
pared to a modern supermarket. Interaction in the retail mall closely
resembles that of interactions in the farmers market. A chi square com
pleted on these probabilities showed that the behaviors in the mall and
supermarket were dependent upon the shopping setting, x2 = 10.2,
p < .05, while the probabilities of these behaviors in the mall and
farmers market were independent, x2 = 2.7, p > .10. Indeed, the proba
bility that an individual will engage in social, informational, or perfunc
tory interaction in the mall is almost identical to that in the farmers
market. Social interaction is as likely to occur in the mall as it does at
the farmers market.
STUDY THREE
The purpose of this study was to test Hypotheses 3 and 3a, that the
mall has a greater social image and that image reflects the images of
individual stores in the mall. Consumer's images of a downtown shop
ping district, a shopping mall, a store in the mall, and the same store
57
TABLE 4
Comparison of Interaction Probabilities
Perfunctory Informational Social
Interactions Interactions Interactions
Number of With With With

Subjects Consumers Consumers C
Retail Mall 100 0.30 0.05 0.51
Farmer's
Market
(Sommer
et al.) 43 0.26 0.02 0.63
Supermarket
(Sommer
?tal.) 128 0.05 0.06 0.09
located in the downtown area were assessed. If

ronment, it should be perceived by consumers
ment than a downtown business center. More i
is perceived as a social environment, indivi
should be perceived as more social than the

downtown business district. That is, if the
ceived as more social than a downtown area
perceived as more social when located in the
downtown area.
sa
m
th
m
Method
Forty individuals arriving alone at a mall an

at a downtown location were randomly interce
ping at a shopping mall and at the downtown
was no attempt to control age or gender in the
After a start time, experimenters selected the
location alone. Every fourth person following t
vey was then done. Because of the greater num
a given time period at the mall, the subject
completed faster than the downtown location

subjects completed on any one day was control
each location was done. The times and days fo
domly selected from business hours during a o
58
were not used because downtown stores were closed. Mall entrances and
downtown locations, where the experimenter was stationed, were ran
domly selected from those available.
Subjects were asked to complete a short questionnaire. The ques
tionnaire asked them to indicate their feelings and beliefs about shop
ping. Mall shoppers were asked to indicate their feelings and beliefs
about either the mall (N = 20) or a particular store in the mall

(N = 20). Subjects were randomly chosen for condition. Downtown shop
pers were asked to indicate their feelings and beliefs about shopping
downtown (N = 20) or at a particular store in the downtown area
(N = 20). The particular store selected was a local store specializing in
"jeans." The downtown store had the same name as the mall store and
although not identical in size, was similar in merchandise and decor to
the store in the mall. There were 10 subjects who were not familiar with
the particular store when approached and asked to indicate their feel
ings about the store. They were replaced in the sample (6 in the down
town sample, 4 in the mall sample). To equate samples even those sub
jects not completing the image survey for the particular store were
asked if they were aware of the store.
The questionnaire consisted of 11 Likert type questions (5 point
scales) asking feelings about: courteous-discourteous salespeople, help
ful-unhelpful salespeople, well liked-disliked by friends, social-not so
cial, good place to shop with friends?good place to shop alone, friendly/
unfriendly place, reputable/disreputable store, clean-dirty, meet friends/

do not meet friends, high quality/low quality merchandise, good/poor at
mosphere.
Results
Is the mall perceived of as a more social shopping environment than
a downtown shopping district? The results indicate that the image of the
mall differs in both social and non-social ways from a downtown area.
Indeed, on each dimension the image of the mall was significantly more
positive than the image of the downtown business district. The mall was
perceived as having significantly more courteous salespeople, having

more helpful salespeople, having higher quality merchandise, having
more reputable stores, with a better atmosphere, and being a more in
teresting place to shop (see Table 5). As predicted, the mall was also
seen as a more social place to shop. The mall was significantly seen as
better liked by friends than downtown, a better place to meet friends, a

more social place, a more friendly place, and a better place to shop with
friends than the downtown shopping district. The mall was perceived as
a more social shopping environment.
59
TABLE 5
Image of Downtown Versus Mall
Mean Scores
For
Non-Social Dimensions Mall DT F(l,38) P
Courteous(5)-Discourteous Salesperson(l) 4.65 3.95 9.
Helpful(5)-Unhelpful Salesperson(l) 4.65 3.85 12.7
Clean(5)-Dirty(l) 4.95 4.35 7.00 <.05
High Quality Merchandise(5)
Low Quality Merchandised) 4.60 3.90 10.
Good Atmosphere(5)-Poor Atmosphere 4.70 3.90 1

Reputable Stores(5)
Disreputable Stores(l) 4.90 3.90 13.24 <.05
Social Dimensions
Social(5)-Nonsocial(l) 4.36 3.65 4.90 <.05
Good Place to Shop with Friends
Good Place to Shop Alone(l) 4.50 3.40 11.
Friendly Place(5)-Unfriendly Placed) 4.75 3.75 1

Well Liked by Friends(5)-Disliked
by Friends 4.55 3.85 6.77 <.01
Good Place to Meet Friends(5)-Not
Good Place to Meet Friends(l) 4.65 3.50 18.24 <.01
The social nature of the mall environment is more dramatically

demonstrated by analysis of the image of equivalent stores located in
the mall and downtown. It was hypothesized that since the stores had
similar merchandise, image of management and personnel store image
should remain relatively equal but since the image of the mall is more
social than downtown, the image of the mall store should be more social
than that of the downtown store.
The data presented in Table 6 shows that images of the mall store
and the downtown store were perceived as similar in nonsocial charac
teristics. The salespeople in both store locations were perceived to be
60
TABLE 6
Image of Store in Downtown Versus Store in Mall
Store Store
Non-Social Dimensions in Mall Downtown F(l,38)

Courteous(5)-Discourteous
Salesperson 4.45 4.70 1.39 <.24

Helpful(5)-Unhelpful Salesperson 4.5
Clean(5)-Dirty(l) 4.45 4.35 .15 <.70
High Quality(5)-Low Quality
Merchandised) 4.50 4.40 .53 <.47
Good Atmosphere(5)-Poor
Atmosphere(l) 4.45 4.50 .068 <.79
Reputable Stores
Disreputable Stored ) 4.80 4.40 3.8 <.06
Social Dimensions
Social(5)-Nonsocial(l) 4.20 2.75 21.62 <.05
Good Place to Shop with

Friend(5)-Good Place to Shop
Alone(l) 4.15 2.55 21.38 <.05
Friendly Place(5)-Unfriendly
Placed) 4.60 4.40 1.11 <.30
Well Liked by Friends(5)
Disliked by Friends 4.60 4.15 3.60 <.06
Good Place to Meet Friends(5)

Not Good Place to Meet
Friends(l) 4.45 2.60 37.72 <.05
equally helpful and equally courteous. The mer

to be of equal high quality. Both stores were p
lent^ good atmospheres, good reputations and
mall store was seen as more social than the s
town. The store located in the mall was perceiv
better place to meet friends, better liked by fr
better place to shop with friends than the stor
mall store and the downtown store were both
61
Thus, this is not the case that differences found in the perceived social
nature of the stores is a result of more broadly based differences of one
store from another. The fact is that since the stores were essentially the
same on more objective dimensions (merchandise, personnel) they were
perceived the same. Yet on less objective factors the store seems to take
on the characteristics of its location. Thus since the mall is a more social
environment, a store in the mall becomes more social.
CONCLUSION
The evidence from this research is that the mall is a social environ
ment. In many ways our findings border on the mundane. It empirically
observes what we knew to be the case anyhow. Or does it? The fact is
that few sound scientists are studying the mall. There is a need for con
sumer researchers to begin to investigate consumer phenomenon that
are ubiquitous. Now that we have verified the obvious what can we do
with this? There are three implications that need to be addressed.
First, our findings really are not all that obvious because if they
were malls would not be failing. The mall developers answer to failing
malls seems to be architectural redecoration not necessarily associated
with social behavior.

Second, given that malls may be social environments, a range of
research possibilities scream for investigation. One component of the
success of a mall to attract and retain consumers may lie in less objec
tive variables than population characteristics, densities, traffic patterns,
or retail store mix. While it is simplistic to assume that the social envi
ronment of the mall is the sole determinant of its success, as the mall
stores, prices, and convenience become more homogeneous, non-eco

nomic factors will become more salient. There is a social component to
mall shopping that may interact with many of the variables that have
been linked to a successful retail mall. The social nature of the mall
shopping environment also suggests the means by which less successful
shopping areas can be developed and revived. It might be that the re
birth of central business districts and older malls lies in the rejuvena
tion of their social significance.
Third, while it is established that social behavior in a retail mall, or
other retail setting, can be measured and warrants study, it is unclear
whether the social interaction observed in this mall is representative of
other retail malls. We studied the nature of social behavior in one Mid
west mall, in one week, at one time of the year. It is impossible to deter
mine how representative the behavior mix we found is to behavior in
other malls. However, it is intriguing to think that there might be vari
ations of behavior in malls across the country and these variations
62
might be related to differential success of malls. Thus it might be that

higher levels of social behavior are associated with greater profit per
square foot.
The use of the less common ecological psychology methodology of
Barker for studying consumer behavior presents both an opportunity
and a problem for us. On the one hand, this procedure appears, and is in
a lot of ways, less objective, more primitive, and simply less comfortable,
than the more familiar ways of measuring and studying behaviors of

interest. On the other hand, there is a movement toward a richer,
deeper understanding of consumer behavior that cannot be tapped using
the methodologies that are more familiar to us (see the papers on the
Consumer Odyssey: Belk, 1987; 1988). The approach used in this study
can be viewed as an example of a methodology that leads to a richness
and a depth that might not be achieved in other ways. The methodology
used should also be seen as the beginning, not the end result of research
that will lead to a deeper understanding of the consumer phenomenon.
More than the specific findings of the study, this research sharply
etches the point that while the social nature of the mall environment
has been recognized by trade experts, mall managers, and popular
writers, it has not captured the imagination of researchers. Investiga

tion of consumer behavior in retail mall settings has been neglected.
This research hopefully demonstrates that the mall is a fertile setting
for a sociological, psychological, and consumer study. Something so
ubiquitous and meaningful should not be ignored.
REFERENCES
Barker, Roger G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts & methods for studying the envi
ronment of human behavior. Stanford, C A: Stanford University Press.
Belk, R. (1987). The role of the odyssey in consumer research and consumer behavior. In
M. Wallendorf and P. Anderson (Eds.) Advances in Consumer Research, 14, Associa

tion for Consumer Research, 357-361.
Belk, R. (1988). Qualitative analysis of data from the consumer behavior odyssey: The role
of the computer and the role of the researchers. In L. Alwitt, (Ed) Proceedings of the
Division of Consumer Psychology, 7-12.
Bellenger, Danny N. and Korgaonkar, P. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper, Jour
nal of Retailing, 56 (3), 77-92.
Bellenger, Danny N. and Robertson, D., and Greenberg, B. (1977). Shopping center pa
tronage motives, Journal of Retailing, 53 (2), 29-39.
Bombeck, Erma (1985). Lost forever in a shopping mall, The Daily News, Sunday, Decem
ber 22, p. 16.
Brubaker, William C. (1975). Tomorrow's malls: Multi-use and better looking, Chain Store
Age, 51 (9), 33-34.
Carter, C. (1981). Why they shop some centers. Chain Store Age Executive, Sept., 57-61.
Gentry, James W. and Burns, A., (1977). How important are evaluative criteria in shop
ping center patronage?, Journal of Retailing, 53 (4), 73-86.
Isogai, Hiroshi and Matsushima, S. (1972). Market places of the world. This beautiful
world series, 35. Palo Alto, CA: Kodansha International.
RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL. 63
Jacobs, Jerry (1985). The mall: An attempted escape from everyday life, Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
Kowinski, William S. (1985). The mailing of America: An inside look at the great consumer
paradise. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Morris, J. (1969). Shopping centers: Main street moves to the mall. Management Review.
Rouse, James (1962). Must shopping centers be inhuman?, Architectural Forum, 116 (6),
105-119.
Sommer, Robert, and Herrick, J., and Sommer, T. (1981). The behavioral ecology of super
markets and farmers markets, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1 (1), 13-19.
Tauber, Edward M. (1972). Why do people shop?, Journal of Marketing, 36 (4), 47-49.
Westbrook, Robert A. and Black W., (1985). A motivation-based shopper typology, Journal
of Retailing, 61 (1), 79-103.

Something Social in Mall

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Something Social in Mall

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

There's Something Social Happening at the Mall

Author(s): Richard A. Feinberg, Jennifer Meoli and Amy Rummel

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 4, No. 1, Fall 1989

THERE'S SOMETHING SOCIAL

According to popular lore, part of the success of the shopping mall

porary society, Erma Bombeck, shopping malls didn't just happen.

? 1989 Human Sciences Press

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

center was born" (Bombeck, 1985). When mall entrepreneur Victor

Gruen pioneered the development of the suburban mall, he intended the

THE SOCIAL NATURE OF THE MALL

and psychological motives for shopping beyond acquiring necessary

substantial segment of consumers who view shopping as a recreational

This area of research suggests that a positive atmosphere for social

and environment for community forum. Christmas carolling, high

mall. Compared to the downtown district or the supermarket, which are

RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL.

integral part of its activities. In describing the potential for shopping

In Study 2, using social ecological methods pioneered by Barker

sured, and compared to social behavior in a farmers market and a super

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL.

1 Person 2 People 3 or More Total

pers arriving alone, in couples, or in groups of three or more w

fied it to be a measure of social behavior in their study of

The behavior of unescorted individuals in the retail mal

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

with others while shopping at the mall? By comparing the behavior of

Mall entrances from which shoppers were selected to be subjects

riving in groups and individuals who were determined to be mall

employees were excluded from the potential subject population.

1. Perfunctory?an acknowledgment of another person's presence

which did not necessarily require a verbal response? ?e.g.,

2. Informational?either asking a question or providing an an

3. Social?a conversation between two or more people on any topic.

RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL.

Perfunctory Informational Social Total

% of Interactions 60 (23%) 137 (52%) 68 (25%) 265

Customer 30 (50%) 5 (4%) 51 (75%) 87 (33%)

Employee 30 (50%) 132 (96%) 17 (25%) 182 (67%

interactions occurred. Social interaction accounted for 25% of all inter

Type of Interaction and Time Spent in'Mall. The shoppers of this

38.73 28.65 (74%) 10.08 (26%)

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Is the Mall a Social Environment? One of the major difficulties in

coding scheme of this study can be viewed as a means by which con

RICHARD A. FEINBERG ET AL.

Perfunctory Informational Social

Interactions Interactions Interactions

Number of With With With

et al.) 43 0.26 0.02 0.63

?tal.) 128 0.05 0.06 0.09

located in the downtown area were assessed. If

is perceived as a social environment, indivi

should be perceived as more social than the

Forty individuals arriving alone at a mall an

a given time period at the mall, the subject

completed faster than the downtown location

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Subjects were asked to complete a short questionnaire. The ques

about either the mall (N = 20) or a particular store in the mall

unfriendly place, reputable/disreputable store, clean-dirty, meet friends/

perceived as having significantly more courteous salespeople, having