Influence of Attachment Styles on the Experiential Values Frequentation of Stores ()
1. Introduction
These days, companies are investing heavily in relationship marketing. This is based on the premise that maintaining close, long-term relationships between customers and companies is a source of significant financial and non-financial value. Values are considered to be relative and changing, insofar as each person is the measure of what is valuable to him or her (Rivières & Mencarelli, 2012). This is the basis of value creation, which is fundamentally based on the company’s ability to cultivate its customer relationships. Based on this observation and according to the subjective approach, the value of a thing is based on its ability to satisfy people’s needs (their utility, and more specifically their marginal utility), thus placing value in the relationship that unites people with the object. Value plays an essential role both in attracting and retaining consumers, and in the consumption of a product. Rivière and Mencarelli (2012) have distinguished three types of value in marketing: the value appreciated before the acquisition of the good (purchase value), the value perceived during/after consumption, the use of the product (consumption value) and the value inherent in frequenting the point of sale (shopping value). The shopping value (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Babin and Babin, 2001; Mathwick, Malhora, & Rigdon, 2001) will be the focus of our attention because it is the subject in the context of retail distribution. From this perspective, value is derived from the experience of consuming and/or owning a product or service.
Experiential marketing placed a great deal of emphasis on scripting the experience as a tool for differentiation and on sensory (over)stimulation, expressed in an intense and, if possible, extraordinary way. In addition, experiential marketing echoed the growing demand among consumers for immersive and hedonic experiences (Carù & Cova, 2006). The aim of experiential marketing is to define a marketing approach that aims to develop experiential contexts to differentiate from others by delivering more value to the customer, while placing the customer at the heart of the marketing strategy. Experience is likely to be a driver of attachment. Attachment is a positive emotional bond between an individual and a specific place. For the individual, the place is an extension of the self. Through the repeated interaction over time between the individual and the place, attachment gives the place a particular value, distinct from its utilitarian value. Attachment to place is a construct; it evolves through the experiences the individual has with the place, and is linked to the fulfilment of the individual’s primary needs; it evolves through the experiences the individual has with the place (Debenedetti, 2005). The creation of feelings of affection, sympathy or keen interest that strongly bind to someone, an animal or something creates an attachment style. Attachment style refers to the way in which a person experiences their affective bonds in relationships. It’s a certain way of being in the world, being with others and being with oneself, emotionally. This contributes to the prospect’s adoption of attachment styles at the point of sale. Attachment styles can explain customers’ relationships with companies (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005) and are likely to influence how individuals perceive a partner in close interpersonal relationships. As a result, many managers aim to maintain their focus on value creation throughout interactions by focusing on the customer experience (Maubisson & Rivière, 2023). Insofar as attachment style is like a systematic pattern of expectations, emotions and relational behaviours resulting from a particular history of attachment experiences (Mende & Bolton, 2011).
In the same vein, the experiential approach to value has developed, leading to an appreciation of the concept that goes beyond a simple monetary index generally equated with price (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook, 2006; Zeithaml, 1988). This explains why experiential strategies have emerged to enable service providers to raise their profile and appeal by offering their customers highly hedonistic experiences (Filser, 1996), creating value and then generating higher profit margins than the sale of products or services alone (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). This is why, for the proponents of experiential marketing, offering experiences has become a major challenge and an essential strategic lever for companies, a genuine source of differentiation and positioning for all retail chains, whether in the real or virtual world.
As a result, value remains a central explanatory concept in Marketing. It is imperative for marketing managers to question the value of placing a constant emphasis on value creation by addressing attachment styles throughout their interactions and relationships with their customers. It is therefore necessary to know the attachment style of customers in order to obtain useful information for outlet managers (Gouteron, 2017).
The aim of this study is to analyse the influence of attachment styles on the experiential values of shop visits by consumers. In other words, to what extent do store attachment styles influence the experiential values of shops? The aim is to bring together the following streams of research: styles of attachment to points of sale with perceived values and experiential values of frequentation, which, although close, have only rarely crossed paths, whether on a theoretical or empirical level.
In order to better define the scope of this study, we will discuss attachment theories in marketing, show attachment styles as stimuli for experiential values in store frequentation, present the research methodology, and then analyse the results and discussions.
2. From Attachment Theory to Attachment Styles in Marketing
Attachment is a psychological variable which expresses a lasting and unalterable affective reaction (separation is painful) towards an object and which expresses a relationship of psychological closeness with it (Lacoeuilhe, 2000). In other words, it is a lasting affective and psychological relationship characterised by the concomitance of dependence, an emotional and affective bond formed by the consumer in relation to an object or a person (Cristau, 2001; Heilbrunn, 2001).
Attachment theory also describes the innate human need to form affective bonds (Bowlby, 1980). Although the psychological literature tends to focus on carers and romantic partners, marketers have shown that consumers also attach themselves to goods, brands, sports teams, service providers and business partners.
Attachment theory has identified two dimensions of attachment style based on the individual’s view of self and others, namely anxiety and avoidance, respectively, which are thought to influence the type of relationships one engages in and the potential for attachment formation in the interpersonal domain (Bartz & Lydon, 2004). Avoidance is the nature by which an individual expresses an excessive need for autonomy, fears dependence on other people, and distrusts others while distancing themselves from them emotionally and cognitively. However, psychologists traditionally associate the two dimensions of attachment styles (anxiety and avoidance) with negative and positive labels. Negative labels can be somewhat counterproductive for service researchers who generally focus on the positive aspects of client-company relationships (Feeney & Noller, 1990). It is important to consider both positive and negative labels in order to better understand and analyse the attachment styles that may drive the experiential values of store patronage.
3. Attachment Styles: Stimuli for Experiential Patronage Values
Experiential marketing is generally based on the theory of the experience economy. The economics of experience (Exponomy) is increasingly favoured. Although the concept originated in the business world in 1998, it has spread to tourism (Leighton, 2007), retail (Grewal et al., 2009; Verhoef et al., 2009), architecture, sports, branding (Brakus et al., 2009), entertainment and the arts (Petkus, 2004), urban planning, hospitality and other areas. Experiential marketing is linked to the theory of consumer behaviour. Consumer behaviour as a field is extended to three dominant specialties (sub-fields) such as consumer information process, consumer culture theory and behavioural decision theory (MacInnis & Folkes, 2010).
Value in experiential marketing resides not only in the object of consumption (products and services), and in the search for and processing of information about these objects, but also in the consumption experience. This being the case, value is seen as an interactive and relativistic (personal, comparative and situational) preference experience (Holbrook, 1999; Lemke et al., 2011). Adopting a more experiential perspective on consumer value. Use value results from an experience of consumption or possession (Aurier, Evrard, & N’Goala, 2004). Holbrook (1999) defines it as “a relative, comparative, personal preference characterising the experience of a subject interacting with an object”. This perspective places greater emphasis on the interactive and relative nature of value (Mencarelli, 2008). This approach has also led to the identification of the components of value in terms of their meanings for the consumer: instrumental, affective, symbolic, social, etc. (Aurier, Evrard, & N’Goala, 2004). From this perspective, value is not seen as a simple basis for purchase decisions, but rather as the consequence of cumulative experiences (Derbaix et al., 2010).
Research into attachment styles is rapidly emerging, with avoidance and anxiety predicting consumers’ patterns of engagement, involvement and satisfaction when using the products offered to them (Thomson et al. 2012). Each individual has an attachment style through thought traits, feelings and behavioural tendencies. This style is described by two dimensions, which are avoidance and anxiety. The avoidance dimension reflects a fear of personal intimacy, dependency and disclosure. Anxiety, on the other hand, relates to the fear of rejection and abandonment. Psychologists have shown that attachment styles predict a number of outcomes, such as self-esteem, reactions to separations and experiences of anger (Thomson et al. 2012). With research also showing that attachment styles predict the outcomes of consumer relationships (Paulssen, 2009; Swaminathan et al., 2009; Thomson & Johnson, 2002), it seems likely that attachment style can also explain how consumers react to the end of these relationships. We suggest that the fearful attachment style will be associated with the most distress over the loss of a brand relationship and that the secure type will be the least likely to experience distress. Attachment styles are likely to be a source of place value.
The valorisation of the act of visiting shops has attracted the interest of a number of research studies (Filser, 2002; Filser & Plichon, 2004). The concept of value has become increasingly important in marketing research due to the need to account for the consumer’s psychological state after the actual consumption and/or browsing activity. From this perspective, the role of sales staff becomes crucial, as they are responsible for serving customers well, answering all their questions and objections, getting closer to them, making them feel at ease and encouraging and enhancing their visit experience (Kalboussi & Ghali, 2015). This stipulates that styles are part of the chain of means-ends, which merge both consumer values and the evaluation of product characteristics in a behavioural study (Choi, 2017) in order to better understand their attachment to the point of sale. The central idea of the medium-end chain theory is that the consumer does not become attached to the point of sale solely because of their interest in the products, but also for various reasons such as the benefits, the experience and the value they place on this experience when they visit.
Although the essential function of the shop is to facilitate the acquisition of products, it at least retains an intrinsic value, and its frequentation remains a source of gratification for the customer which goes beyond the simple provision of products (Filser & Plichon, 2004). Zeithaml (1998) identifies four definitions of value: a low price “value is a low price”; the benefits derived from consuming the product “value is everything I look for in a product”; a relationship between what is given and the quality received in exchange “value is the quality I receive in return for the price I pay” and from an economic perspective, it is a balance between what is given and received in the general sense of the term, including dimensions such as time, effort or ease of use of the product “value is what I receive in return for what I give”.
According to Gouteron (2017), attachment styles can regulate the bond that unites an individual with a company, the consumer is likely to refuse this bond out of anxiety about a strong relationship or out of a need for solitude that leads them to flee the attachment. Marketing research suggests that not all consumers are predisposed to maintaining a close relationship with a company. Furthermore, the empirical studies that introduce attachment styles into a model for understanding the relationship between a customer and its brand are based on a psychological mechanism identical to that used in the interpersonal relations approach to the attachment styles of the individual at the point of store.
The playful, hedonic, individual motives for frequenting shops go beyond the motives for supplying products; by adopting the frequenting motive, the shopper creates an attachment to it. It is in this sense that attachment styles can also be explained by a feeling of randomness in the search for a product in a sales outlet, or of competition with other customers (the customer is not sure of what he will be able to find), or again the feeling of appropriation of the sales area can make shop frequentation tend towards an essentially playful activity likely to be valued.
As far as the aesthetics of the sales outlet are concerned, it is the way in which it is conceived (its architecture, decor, design, etc.) to be contemplated and must procure a sensation of beauty and develop a value in the eyes of the consumer. This is justified by the fact that aesthetic benefits relate to beauty and personal expression. Although the activity of frequenting a shop is an opportunity for a complex relationship between the shopper and the shop, we can say that as a place for displaying products, the point of sale becomes a source of stimulation by aesthetic value through the staging of the sales area (Hetzel, 2000). The sales area is thus a space for interaction between shoppers and products, conducive to a hedonistic and playful experience (Bonnin, 2000). Through this interaction, the individual develops a feeling of sympathy or a keen interest which binds him strongly to the point of sale. We can say that attachment styles have a significant influence on the aesthetic value that a person possesses in the way they experience their affective feelings with a point of sale.
Economic value, on the other hand, has the role of optimising the central value of the exchange, enabling shoppers to save time when visiting and buy the products that suit their needs by making a group purchase. Shoppers don’t spend enough time at the point of sale; frequentation is based on cost-benefit. Consequently, attachment styles have no influence on them.
All of the above has led us to formulate an initial main hypothesis, subdivided into three hypotheses that our empirical investigation should enable us to test, as follows:
Main hypothesis 1: Attachment styles have a significant influence on the entertainment and aesthetic values, as opposed to the economic value of going to the point of store.
H11: attachment styles have a significant influence on the ludic value of visiting a sales outlet.
H12: attachment styles have a significant influence on the aesthetic value of visiting a sales outlet.
H13: attachment styles have a non-significant influence on the economic value of visiting a sales outlet.
The application of experiential value to retailing was initiated by Babin and al. (1994). These authors consider shop-going behaviour as a source of recreational and hedonic pleasure. The hedonic value corresponds to the subjective aspect of the store experience. The search for pleasure alone remains an active and dynamic principle that extends from the body to a heightened awareness of the self, others and things. Often we have to suffer to achieve it, or reason itself has to intervene to maintain it. Hedonic behaviour is as much a conscious or unconscious constituent of the bond as the individual. Utilitarian value relates to the ‘finality’ of value, in the sense that an action, such as making a purchase, enables an objective to be achieved. Hedonic value relates to the gratification resulting from the experience (Babin & Krey, 2020). This leads us to consider that attachment styles can influence the hedonic value of frequentation. Insofar as the hedonic value is more subjective and personal. Shoppers favour the emotional, playful and more intangible aspects of patronage.
On the other hand, attachment styles have no effect on utilitarian value, because this value refers to shopping with a purpose: the product is bought to meet a specific need. Rationality and the perception of the tangible attributes of products and the point of sale dominate. The consumer’s objective at the point of sale is to seek out the perceived benefits and sacrifices made. This presupposes an individual’s ability to appreciate each attribute of the object in order to integrate it into an algebraic cost/benefit calculation (Filser & Plichon, 2004). Furthermore, utility value is rooted in an economic approach based on the principle of utility maximisation, where consumer behaviour is presented as a process of utility production through the allocation of temporal and financial resources. By transferring this economic thinking to marketing, utility value is defined as an overall assessment of the product’s utility based on the perception of what is received and what is given away (Zeithaml, 1988) or as the difference between perceived benefits and perceived costs (Day, 2002). From this perspective, value is the result of a confrontation between what is received and what is given; it is an evaluation of the exchange. This shows that place attachment styles are disavowed by the individual who adopts utilitarian value.
In this research, we postulate the existence of a link between attachment styles and experiential value. These theoretical considerations allow us to propose a main hypothesis, which will then be broken down into two sub-hypotheses:
Main hypothesis 2: attachment styles have a significant influence on the hedonic value, unlike the utilitarian value of going to the point of store.
H21: attachment styles have a significant influence on the hedonic value of visiting a sales outlet.
H22: attachment styles have a non-significant influence on the utilitarian value of visiting a sales outlet.
Now that the research concepts and hypotheses have been presented, we can explain the research methodology adopted and the related empirical tests. Figure 1 provides a better understanding of the research problem in the context of an emerging country.
Figure 1. Conceptual research model.
4. Research Methodology
The empirical study is based on a non-probabilistic sample of shoppers leaving shops. In order to have a good representation of individuals on a national scale, the quantitative study was carried out in shops in three towns in Cameroon (Yaoundé, Douala and Garoua). In each city, we chose a sales outlet with a surface area of at least 1200 m2, in order to have a good profile of shoppers due to the geographical and local location of the shops. The three supermarkets were chosen on the basis of the number of people/customers who frequent them. During the six-week survey, data was collected at the supermarket exits. It took place during normal business weeks, outside of any exceptional periods, in the 9 am to 5 pm time slot. At the end of their visit to the sales area, consumers were approached by interviewers and taken to a friendly stand, where they were invited and, if necessary, helped to complete a self-administered questionnaire. This protocol enabled respondents to take part in the survey under the best possible conditions. The interviewer is obliged to maintain a sample size of ten people. So, once the supervisor has chosen the first person for the survey, he will count ten people leaving the shop before addressing the eleventh person leaving, and so on until the end of the survey day. When the supervisor approaches a person and that person categorically refuses to be surveyed, the supervisor immediately addresses the next person in the order of exit from the shop. When the person agreed to be interviewed, one of the interviewers had to take them to an interview point which had been set up with the help of the shop managers for face-to-face administration. The aim is to vary the impression of crowds and time pressure, and to interview individuals who do not belong to the same socio-professional category. In addition, this method helps to ensure that the study population is homogeneously representative. In this respect, it should be pointed out that the managers of the shops in the towns concerned by our survey authorised us to set up two survey points in front of the shops, and each point had a table and two chairs, one for the interviewer and one for the respondent. The data were processed using SPSS software.
At the end of the face-to-face questionnaire administration, we obtained 321 completed questionnaires, 315 of which were found to be usable (i.e. 98.13% of usable questionnaires), the other 6 rejected being incompletely or incorrectly completed.
With regard to the quality of the measurement scales, we checked both their dimensionality and their internal consistency. From this point of view, the scale used to measure the hedonic and utilitarian values of the outlet, adapted from the measure proposed by Mencarelli (2008) and Babin and Attaway (2000), gives two dimensions which account for 67.305% of the variance explained. This two-dimensional scale is composed of 13 items. The scale used to measure the value of the in-store experience is the Mathwick and al. (2001) 19-item scale. According to the exploratory study conducted by Filser and Plichon (2004), the adaptation of this American scale to the French context produced satisfactory results. After Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the value of the excellence of the service was removed. The entertainment, aesthetic and economic values were retained from the other values of Mathwick and al. (2001). These three dimensions accounted for 76.845% of the total variance. The Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin (KMO) value is 0.530, which is average. Bartlett’s sphericity test gives a value of 456.178 at the 0.000 threshold at 15 degrees of freedom. This means that the item correlation matrix has a structure suitable for PCA. This purification of the measurement scale after processing corroborates the work of Gouteron (2017). The procedure for creating a scale for measuring attachment styles is inspired by Churchill’s paradigm updated by Roehirh (1994). The items produced from the two sources of information (mystery visits, qualitative interviews), classified according to the anxiety and avoidance dimensions, were collected using an iterative process of 4 analyses in order to progressively eliminate redundant statements (Gouteron, 2017). By means of Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation, purification was carried out by eliminating items whose commonality was low, as well as those explaining the two axes simultaneously. The confirmatory analysis led to a further reduction in the number of items on each dimension of attachment styles. Following Fraley and al.’s (2000) scale and Principal Component Analysis, 21 items were retained, i.e. 11 items for the avoidance dimension and 10 items for the anxiety dimension. After this analysis, the KMO value was 0.843, which is good. Bartlett’s chi-square test of sphericity gave a value of 2071.373 at the 0.000 significance level at 36 degrees of freedom. Explaining 70.39% of the total variance, the two components were retained because the results are satisfactory and the items all have a strong correlation with a single factor. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each item on a five-point Likert-type scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (Table 1).
5. Results and Discussion
In order to carry out the chi-square statistical tests in particular, the items of the factors of the dimensions of perceived value (“aesthetic value”, “entertainment value”, “economic value”) and experiential value (“hedonic value”, “utilitarian
Table 1. Exploratory PCA analysis of measures of perceived value, experiential value and attachment styles.
|
Labels |
loadings |
Communalities |
ACP |
Alpha of Cronbach |
Eigen values |
variances explained |
Perceived values |
Dimension 1: Aesthetic value |
|
|
1.809 |
76.845% |
0.623 |
The way this shop presents its products is attractive |
0.943 |
0.895 |
This shop is pleasant to look at |
0.941 |
0.888 |
Dimension 2: Ludic value |
|
|
1.457 |
0.864 |
When I’m in this shop, I feel like I’m somewhere else |
0.863 |
0.750 |
When I’m in this shop, I forget everything else |
0.827 |
0.715 |
Dimension 3: Economic value |
|
|
1.344 |
0.501 |
Buying from this shop saves me time |
0.826 |
0.702 |
Buying from this shop fits in well with my schedule |
0.789 |
0.662 |
Experiential values |
Dimension 1: Hédonic value |
|
|
5.110 |
67.305% |
0.910 |
Unlike other shops, I like the look of a place like this. |
0.830 |
0.795 |
Unlike other shops, this one is pleasant to look at. |
0.808 |
0.788 |
In this shop, I feel like I’ve been transported to another world. |
0.803 |
0.650 |
Unlike other shops, it’s a pleasure to be in a place like this. |
0.783 |
0.615 |
In this shop, I feel stimulated. |
0.729 |
0.602 |
In this shop, I feel excited. |
0.621 |
0.552 |
In this shop, I enjoy the rapport with the staff. |
0.618 |
0.509 |
Unlike other shops, this one encourages an exchange with the staff. |
0.610 |
0.634 |
In my opinion, this shop is ideal because it’s easy to get around. |
0.606 |
0.763 |
Dimension 2: Utility value |
|
|
4.313 |
0.915 |
In my opinion, this shop is ideal because it encourages contact between customers. |
0.931 |
0.670 |
I like this shop because it’s easy to find the products I need. |
0.893 |
0.662 |
I think this shop is ideal because it encourages discussions between customers. |
0.832 |
0.508 |
I think this shop is ideal because it allows me to meet new people. |
0.793 |
0.523 |
I think this shop is ideal because it’s easy for me to get in touch with the staff. |
0.609 |
0.510 |
Attachment styles |
Dimension 1: Avoiding |
|
|
9.341 |
70.390% |
0.970 |
I want to feel free to look at what I want |
0.983 |
0.967 |
I’m embarrassed if salespeople insist on selling too much |
0.981 |
0.962 |
I have a problem if salespeople ask me too many questions about my needs |
0.977 |
0.955 |
|
I avoid showing that I need help so that they leave me alone |
0.972 |
0.945 |
|
|
|
I’m uncomfortable when salespeople are constantly close to me |
0.970 |
0.942 |
I find it hard to show that I need information |
0.966 |
0.935 |
I avoid bothering salespeople too much with questions |
0.966 |
0.934 |
I appreciate being left alone to look before being advised |
0.962 |
0.925 |
I don’t want to give salespeople too many details about what I want |
0.956 |
0.913 |
I feel a bit nervous if the salespeople don’t let me think for myself |
0.952 |
0.906 |
It’s difficult for me to stand the presence of salespeople when I’m making my choice |
0.854 |
0.730 |
Dimension 2: Anxiety |
|
|
2.625 |
0.910 |
I feel I’m not being listened to |
0.972 |
0.979 |
I don’t feel like an important customer |
0.964 |
0.984 |
I feel I’m not being looked after |
0.892 |
0.983 |
I feel that people are not interested in me |
0.789 |
0.979 |
I feel that they are trying to get rid of me |
0.985 |
0.970 |
I’m afraid people will think my questions are stupid |
0.981 |
0.962 |
I don’t feel really considered |
0.979 |
0.958 |
I don’t feel fully respected |
0.961 |
0.923 |
I’m afraid people won’t pay attention to me |
0.899 |
0.810 |
I don’t feel helped, abandoned so to speak |
0.864 |
0.751 |
Source: Our data.
value”) were scored according to the average value of the sample. Individuals were grouped into “absence” and “presence”. Individuals with a value below or equal to the mean were classified as those with a negative “absence” attitude, and those with values above the mean as those with a positive “presence” attitude.
Table 2 shows the chi-square results of the cross-tabulations of “economic value” with the variables “average monthly income” and “socio-professional characteristics”. These values are 9.889 and 9.809 respectively, higher than the theoretical chi-square values, with probabilities of 0.020 and 0.044, significant at the 5% threshold. Subsequently, the results for the relationships between “hedonic value” and the variables “age” and “average monthly income” have successively calculated chi-squares of 8.309 and 11.101, since not only do they have probabilities below the 0.05 threshold, but also these chi-squared values are greater than the read chi-squared values. This confirms that these results are significant. Finally, the link between “utility value” and “gender” gives an empirical chi-square of 4.477, with a probability of 0.034 at 3 degrees of freedom, higher than the theoretical chi-square of 3.841. However, the calculation of the chi-square between “play value” and “new education” gave a result of 12.999 at 3 degrees of freedom, with a probability of 0.005, well below the 0.05 threshold.
With regard to the breakdown by gender, Table 3 shows that women are more inclined towards the hedonistic (mean 1.75; standard deviation 0.434), leisure (mean 1.91; standard deviation 0.293) and aesthetic (mean 1.88; standard deviation 0.326) values of frequenting shops, unlike men who are more inclined towards the economic value (mean 1.78; standard deviation 0.310) of frequenting shops.
Table 2. Relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and values frequentation.
Socio-Demographic Characteristics (SDC) and values frequentation |
Value of χ2 |
Degree of freedom |
Threshold of significance 5% |
Calculated |
read |
Economic value * SDC |
9.809 |
9.488 |
4 |
0.044 |
Economic value * Average monthly income |
9.889 |
7.815 |
3 |
0.020 |
Utility value * Sex |
4.477 |
3.841 |
1 |
0.034 |
Hedonic value * Age |
8.309 |
7.815 |
3 |
0.040 |
Hedonic value * Average monthly income |
11.101 |
7.815 |
3 |
0.011 |
Ludic value * Education levels |
12.999 |
7.815 |
3 |
0.005 |
Source: Our data.
Table 3. Proportion by gender according to attendance figures.
Frequentations
values |
Sex |
Medium |
N |
Standard deviation |
Standard error
of the mean |
Hedonic |
Male |
1.69 |
198 |
0.463 |
0.040 |
Female |
1.75 |
117 |
0.434 |
0.033 |
Ludic |
Male |
1.86 |
198 |
0.349 |
0.025 |
Female |
1.91 |
117 |
0.293 |
0.027 |
Avoiding |
Male |
1.82 |
198 |
0.387 |
0.027 |
Female |
1.88 |
117 |
0.326 |
0.030 |
Economic |
Male |
1.78 |
198 |
0.310 |
0.032 |
Female |
1.50 |
117 |
0.448 |
0.039 |
Source: Our data.
A single-factor analysis of variance was carried out for the desired relationship between attachment styles and playful, aesthetic and economic values, on the one hand, and the hedonic and utilitarian values of frequenting sales outlets, on the other. It should be noted that in the context of the survey, this analysis is considered to be an extension of the regression when the explanatory variable(s) is (are) categorical. From this perspective, one-factor analysis of variance is treated as a generalisation of the test of means to the case where it is no longer a question of comparing two means, but simultaneously p means corresponding to p modalities of an explanatory variable (or factor) (Carricano & Poujol, 2009). In order to carry out this statistical test, the items measuring attachment styles were scored. Individuals were grouped into “absence” and “presence” in order to obtain the explanatory variables or nominal treatments that could be translated into binary variables according to Evrard and al. (2003).
Table 4 shows that the analysis of variance (between attachment styles and play value) reveals a Fisher F of 32.628 with a probability of 0.000, significant at the 5% threshold. This confirms hypothesis H11: attachment styles have a significant influence on the entertainment value of store visits. For consumer attachment styles and the aesthetic value of frequentation, F has a value of 2.481 with a probability of 0.000 (probability less than 5%). This confirms hypothesis H12: according to which attachment styles have a significant influence on the aesthetic value of frequenting a sales outlet. This means that aesthetic value has an influence on styles of attachment to the outlet. Concerning the relationship between attachment styles and economic value, Fisher’s F has a value of 0.759 with a probability of 0.832, above the 5% significance level. This confirms the third
Table 4. One-way analysis of variance between attachment styles and frequentations values.
|
Sum of squares |
Dof |
Mean of squares |
F |
Significance |
Ludic value |
Inter-group |
230.917 |
34 |
6.792 |
23.628 |
0.000 |
Intra-group |
80.484 |
280 |
0.287 |
Total |
311.401 |
314 |
|
Avoiding value |
Inter-group |
70.538 |
34 |
2.075 |
2.481 |
0.000 |
Intra-group |
234.134 |
280 |
0.836 |
Total |
304.672 |
314 |
|
Economic value |
Inter-group |
27.568 |
34 |
0.811 |
0.759 |
0.832 |
Intra-group |
298.939 |
280 |
1.068 |
Total |
326.507 |
314 |
|
Hedonic value |
Inter-group |
7.091 |
1 |
7.091 |
6.805 |
0.010 |
Intra-group |
326.141 |
313 |
1.042 |
Total |
333.232 |
314 |
|
Utility value |
Inter-group |
3.360 |
1 |
3.360 |
3.150 |
0.077 |
Intra-group |
333.898 |
313 |
1.067 |
Total |
337.258 |
314 |
|
Dof = Degree of freedom.
Source: our data.
hypothesis H13: attachment styles have a non-significant influence on the economic value of store visits. Overall, it must be said that there are significant differences in terms of the variation in styles of attachment to the outlet and the averages of the entertainment, aesthetic and economic values. This being the case, the main research hypothesis 1 is verified, namely: “attachment styles have a significant influence on the entertainment and aesthetic values, unlike the economic value of frequenting a sales outlet”.
These results support previous work, insofar as attachment styles have an influence on entertainment and aesthetic values for the simple reason that the shop is a source of aesthetic and entertainment stimulation through the staging of the sales area and a space for interaction between shoppers and products conducive to a hedonistic and entertaining experience (Bonnin, 2000). This is why customers with low levels of anxiety and avoidance are potentially more loyal than others, while customers with high levels of avoidance are the least loyal (Mende & Bolton, 2011). This suggests that individuals with high economic value have a low propensity for anxiety and avoidance. This is why attachment styles do not influence the latter. Attachment styles are a regulating effect of the link linking an individual to a company (or its brand), the consumer being likely to refuse this link out of anxiety about a strong relationship or out of a need for solitude that leads him to flee the attachment, for example the consumer who adopts the economic value of frequentation. The empirical studies that introduce attachment styles into a model for understanding the relationship between a customer and the place they frequent are based on psychological mechanisms identical to those used in the approach to interpersonal relationships, based on the hypothesis that consumers’ behavioural responses to a purchasing context are dictated by a hyper-activation of their attachment system (Anxiety), or even by a defensive deactivation of the same system (Avoidance) (Mende & Bolton, 2011). Analysis of the variance between attachment styles and the hedonic value of frequentation reveals a Fisher F of 6.805; significant at a probability of 0.010. This allows us to accept hypothesis H21: attachment styles have a significant influence on the hedonic value of store visits. With regard to the relationship between attachment styles and utilitarian value, F has a value of 3.150 at the 0.077 threshold (above the 5% significance level), which verifies the second hypothesis H22: attachment styles have a non-significant influence on the utilitarian value of visiting a sales outlet. It must be stated that attachment styles have an influence on the hedonic value, but not on the utilitarian value of frequentation. The confirmation of these two sub-hypotheses leads us to confirm the main research hypothesis 2: “attachment styles significantly influence the hedonic value, unlike the utilitarian value of frequenting a sales outlet”.
This corroborates the work of Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) in that hedonic behaviour is motivated by the pleasure the consumer derives from being attached to the outlet, and the criteria for “success” are essentially aesthetic in nature. Hedonic motives are not similar to the task orientation of utilitarian motives, only the ‘task’ involved in hedonic fulfilment is like pleasure, amusement, fantasy and sensory stimulation (Babin et al., 1994). The hedonic dimension of value exists in a shopping value and experience context, so that attachment styles constitute the complete experience of frequenting the place (Diep & Sweeney, 2008), which is not the case for utilitarian value. Furthermore, anxious individuals are perpetually preoccupied with their self-worth and self-esteem, and are known to direct excessive attention to attachment figures using a defensive strategy known as hyperactivation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). For this reason, attachment styles have no influence on the utilitarian value of courtship.
6. Conclusion
On the basis of attachment theory, two main hypotheses were put forward concerning the relationship between attachment styles and experiential values. The first hypothesis, subdivided into three sub-hypotheses, concerns the link between attachment styles and play, aesthetic and economic values. The second main hypothesis, split into two sub-hypotheses, looked at the relationship between attachment styles and the hedonic and utilitarian values of frequentation. The analyses showed that attachment styles have a significant influence on playful, aesthetic and hedonistic values, unlike economic and utilitarian shopping values.
Companies have an interest in using attachment styles in relationship management, designed to target their most valuable customers and increase the effectiveness of their marketing actions, since they need to build relationships with customers who are most receptive to relationship marketing. They can use the results of attachment styles and experiential values to personalise relationship marketing activities, as many experts recommend. It is in the interest of managers to design relationship marketing programmes to recognise attachment styles at a corporate level and customise the way they implement social, structural or financial relationship programmes. Social relationship programmes focus on personalising the relationship by leveraging social engagements with customers. Managers can refine the way they target customers for these programmes by using attachment styles. For example, customers with high levels of attachment-avoidance could be targeted primarily with financial reward programmes.
As with any work, this research is not without its limitations. It would be relevant to focus on specialist shops offering much more experiential services (art and culture shops, Christmas displays, etc.). In the present work, the predictive power of attachment styles has not been used as a tool for segmenting the market (segmenting customers by avoiding anxious customers) and a typological analysis that could highlight the profile of each segment. This will be the subject of future research insofar as this axis of relationship marketing linked to attachment styles will constitute a predictive power of consumer behaviour. Although during data processing, attachment style items were scored in order to have nominal explanatory variables that could be translated into binary variables, future studies will highlight the avoidance and anxiety behaviours of attachment styles. In addition, a qualitative analysis will be carried out. Future studies will examine attachment styles, which may be particularly useful for understanding negative forms of consumer behaviour, since psychology has long examined attachment styles as predictors of anger, jealousy, violence and other negative domains. Relationship marketing research would benefit from studying attachment styles with these predictive behavioural elements.