DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS & SHOPPING EXPERIENCE: AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED

RETAIL STORES
Adil Zia 1 & Mohammad Khalid Azam2
1

Research scholar Dept. of Business Administration, AMU, Aligarh India

2
Prof. Dept. of Business Administration, AMU, Aligarh India

Adil Zia (Research Scholar), Dept. of Business Administration,

FMSR, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Contact E-mail: adilzia@live.com
2

Mohammed Khalid Azam (Prof.), Dept. of Business Administration,

FMSR, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
Contact E-mail:mkhalidazam@rediffmail.com

Biological Notes
1. Adil Zia had received MBA from Jamia Hamdard University New Delhi India. Presently he
is pursuing PhD at AMU, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh India. He has one year industry and three
years teaching experience along with two years of research work. His areas of interest
include Consumer Behavior and Marketing Management. Email: adil-zia@hotmail.com
2. Mohammad Khalid Azam had received PhD and MBA from Aligarh Muslim University UP
India. Presently he is Professor at AMU, Aligarh Uttar Pradesh India. He has 29 years
teaching experience along with 25 years of research work. His areas of interest include
Finance, retailing and Marketing Management. Email: mkhalidazam@rediffmail.com

DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS & SHOPPING EXPERIENCE: AN

EMPIRICAL STUDY OF ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED
RETAIL STORES
ABSTRACT
Conscientious attention should be given to Shopping experience as it is one of the key factors for
a retail business success. Thus, Shopping experience concept has been largely investigated by
academia and industry during past few decades. The innovations brought by retailers and
marketers in the practice of retailing have been providing new paradigms to Shopping
Experiences. This has also led to a body of knowledge that aims to understand orientation of
retail shoppers towards shopping with respect to shopping experiences in organized and
unorganized retail stores.
This paper is an attempt to analyze the differences in shopping experiences with Age, Gender
and Income in Organized and Unorganized retail Setup. This study is primary data based and a
questionnaire was administered on a sample of 1200 retail consumers out of which 710 filled
questionnaires were returned which shows a response rate of 59.16%. To find the differences
among these factors in organized and unorganized retail setup hypotheses were framed and
tested through t-test and ANOVA using statistical tools SPSS 16. Results of this study provide
retailers with useful information about the difference in shopping experiences among different
age groups, among different income groups and among genders. This study is across organized
and unorganized retailers.
Key Words: Consumer Loyalty, Organized retail, Unorganized retail, Demographic Factors
INTRODUCTION
In 2011 Indian economy has showed first stabilization signs after the economic crisis in 2009 and
2010, there is still significant decline in retailing in the year 2012. During crisis many people lost
their jobs and faced salary cuts, which significantly affected overall purchasing power. All
customers, including those who did not feel significant impact of recession, were forced to avoid
unnecessary purchases and to revise their spending and focus mainly on essential grocery
products. Some of them also choose other retail channels, those which offer lower price and
better discounts. Retailers were forced to adjust their strategies to customers with limited
purchasing power, in order to keep their customers. Supermarkets and hypermarkets continued to
diversify their private label products and offer as many temporary discounts as possible. For
instance, Vishal Mega Mall created new era in V- brand with reduced unit prices for products and
reliance came up with the brand called fresh.
Grocery retailers started to sell more non-grocery products, in order to attract more customers.
To attract more customers and keep their market share retailers also changed their advertising
and marketing techniques, for instance, created loyalty programs. Customers are expected to
restore their purchasing habits in long term; however, as middle income layer suffered the most
of recession, and it led to more distinct population polarization, thus, the gap between high and
middle income people is even more distinct, because middle income layer are seeking how to
economize, while high income layer did not cut their spending on luxury goods. That caused
2

another trend entrance of luxury globally known store brands, in contrast of low priced channels
appearance AT Kearney report (2012).
SHOPPING EXPERIENCE
The concept of shopping is one of the oldest activities that the human race has been performing
with high level of regularity and involvement. Over the years shoppers orientation towards this
routine activity has been changing. The innovations brought by retailers and marketers in the
practice of retailing have been providing new paradigms in the way shoppers have been disposed
towards their act of shopping. This has also led to a body of knowledge that aims to understand
the orientation of shoppers towards shopping.
This concept of shopping experience can be examined according to three different dimensions in
order to develop a holistic view of shopping experience. The shopping environment, the sociocultural context and the individual motivations are the three main elements of shopping
experience (Woodruffe, Eccles and Elliott, 2002). The Shopping environment refers to the
landscape of shopping, changing as it did from the first departmental store to present-day malls
to virtual shopping through the Internet. It has been found that shoppers behave differently
depending on the type of shopping situations (Sinha and Uniyal, 2005). A fairly extensive
amount of research examining individual shopping orientations indicates that orientations impact
shopping behavior including store choice based on several factors such as consumer
demographics and psychographics ( Hansen and Deutscher, 1977),
DEMOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS
For the study three main demographic variables have been considered. These are age, gender and
income level. The significant researches related to these dimensions have been discussed below.
AGE
Ghingold, M. A. U. Z. & Dahari, Z. (2007) studied the Malaysian shopping mall behavior. In
their study results showed that the students in the Malaysia mainly visited the mall for interior
looks, products of interest available in the malls, one stop shopping solution and able to socialize
with their friends. The study also revealed that the student or people with younger generation had
more inclination towards the shopping mall when compared to the older population.
Elder generations are less willing to experiment and desire to remain associated with the stores
they have been patronizing for long term (Ghosh, Tripathi, Kumar, 2010). As customer is getting
older tend to concentrate purchases on fewer shops (Baltas et al., 2010). Older customers may
visit fewer shops to make shopping easier - reduce physical and mental effort (Baltas et al.,
2010). Old customers have stabile shopping habits and they value assortment, layout and prices
(Baltas et al., 2010).
Kewlani and Singh (2012) consumers prefer shopping from Mall in comparison to small retailers
irrespective of age, gender, and income. Jhamb and Kiran (2012) tries to understand the
relationship between the choices of retail formats, based on products attributes, store attributes,
consumers demography and retail marketing strategies. Most important findings of the study
reveal that young consumers are more inclined to shop from modern retail formats as compared
3

to older ones. Jansone & Tudoran (2012) found a significant relationship between shopping
experience and age. He concluded that younger customers are more loyal to store.
Amaresha, M. & Dinakar, G. (2012) studied the purchasing behavior for the organized retail
outlets while giving more importance to Fast moving Consumer Goods. Finally he got the factors
such as expenditure, monthly income and age have a significant relationship with the organized
retail outlet.
GENDER
The role theory which argues that men may perceive household duties as less important,
including food purchasing, they may spend less time and effort for shopping, because they are
not engaged in shopping planning (Zeithaml, 1985).
Most researchers, who have studied shopping behavior, consider shopping a gendered activity.
South and Spitze (1994) and Flam and Axelrod (1990), have revealed that shopping is a womens
activity and they were the ones responsible for household shopping. Many other consumer
research studies about shopping have also had a greater part their respondents as women
(Dholakia, 1999).
Women tend to be significantly more loyal than men (Anic, 2006). Anic (2006) found that men
are less involved in shopping than women and men do not like to do shopping. Women tend to
spend more time in store, make more planned and unplanned purchases (Anic, 2006).
Kruger & Byker (2009) found that men and women experience and perform consumer shopping
differently, and in ways consistent with adaptations to the sexually dimorphic foraging strategies
utilized during recent human evolution. In his research he found that compared to men, women
relied more on object oriented navigation strategies and scored higher on skills and behaviors
associated with gathering, the degree to which shopping is seen as recreational, the degree to
which shopping is a social activity, and the tendency to see new locations as opportunities for
shopping. Men scored higher on skills and behaviors thought to be associated with hunting. Most
effect sizes were moderate or strong. These results suggest that shopping experiences and
behaviors are influenced by sexually divergent adaptations for gathering and hunting.
Melnyk (2009) gave a theory about Interdependence versus Independence which suggests that
women are more likely to be loyal customer than men, because women tend to be loyal to
individuals and organizations.
INCOME
The theory of limited resources, (Tate, 1961), argues that customers with limited income are
more willing to visit more than one shop in order to search for best value for money and this
reduces store loyalty (East, 1997). In this study results show that, customer store loyalty does not
depend on income and there are no significant differences between income groups with regard to
their store loyalty.
Customers tend to spend more, if they have more income (Anic, 2006). Previous studies suggest
that there is a relationship between loyalty and income level (Homburg and Giering, 2001),
4

however some studies did not find any link between loyalty and income (Anic, 2006; East,
Harris, Wilson and Lomax, 1995). Disloyal customers have middle or upper income level,
whereas customers with low income tend to do shopping in one store (Tate, 1961).
Evanschitzky (2006) found that link between satisfaction and loyalty is stronger for low income
customers than high income customers. Theoretical explanation for this can be found in
justification of the moderating effect of education (Evanschitzky, 2006) - people with high
income level have higher level of education (Farley, 1964). Thereby customers with low income
level rely on their satisfaction with particular store (Evanschitzky, 2006). But if satisfaction level
changes, loyalty level changes much stronger than for high income customer (Evanschitzky,
2006).
Customers income has a strong effect on choice decision (Zeithaml, 1985). Income is a
significant determinant of price importance, consumption possibilities and store choice decisions
(Baltas et al., 2010). High income level reduces necessity for searching better deals across
different retailers (Fox and Hoch, 2005).
Thenmozhi and Dhanapal (2011) identified the retail service quality factors and explore the
impact of Retail Service Quality on Customer satisfaction. The study reveals six retail service
quality factors namely Store Merchandise, Access, Personal Interaction, Problem solving, Policy
and Physical aspects. The findings of the study also confirm that Retail Service Quality factors
have a significant impact on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in unorganized retail
outlets.
Jhamb and Kiran (2012) tries to understand the relationship between the choices of retail
formats, based on products attributes, store attributes, consumers demography and retail
marketing strategies. The outcome of the study reveals that consumers choice for modern retail
formats vary as their income level increases.
Amaresha, M. & Dinakar, G. (2012) studied the purchasing behavior for the organized retail
outlets while giving more importance to Fast moving Consumer Goods. He explained the reason
why a consumer chooses to purchase certain products in the organized retail outlet. Factors such
as expenditure, monthly income and age have a significant relationship with the organized retail
outlet.
OBJECTIVE
In the light of above studies following objectives ware framed:
1. To understand differences of the shopping experience with Age in organized and
unorganized retail stores.
2. To understand differences of the shopping experience with Gender in organized and
unorganized retail stores.
3. To understand differences of the shopping experience with Income in organized and
unorganized retail stores.

METHODOLOGY
The sample population for the study is defined as active retail shoppers. Study is primary data
based and with a sample of 710 retail shoppers, 355 each from organized and unorganized retail
consumers were considered. Data was collected through mall intercept or shop intercept type
situation where personal interviews were conducted immediately after the completion of the
shopping or outside the stores. The instrument used was questionnaire with 48 questions which
employed a 5-point Likert scale (5-strongly agree, 1-strongly disagree). Retail shoppers were
selected for analysis because they offer a mix of merchandise and service while individual retail
shops were identified on convenience sampling basis. In all, 32 retail stores were selected from
Delhi and national capital region. The retail stores varied in their size from small to big stores
and were selected across industries such as kirana stores, paan biri shops, food, clothing,
consumer durables, books, music, etc.
HYPOTHESIS OF THE STUDY
Hypothesis considered for testing the significant differences in Demographic variables related to
the shopping experience for organized and unorganized retail setup are mentioned below.
H01
H02
H03
H04
H05
H06

There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with gender in organized

retail stores.
There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with age in organized retail
stores.
There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with different levels of
income in organized retail stores.
There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with gender in unorganized
retail stores.
There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with age for unorganized
retail stores.
There is no significant difference in Shopping Experiences with different levels of
income in unorganized retail stores.

FINDINGS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of the ANOVA and the T test applied to test the significant differences have been
summed up in the tables mentioned below.
ORGANIZED RETAIL
Following are the three dimensions analyzed under the organized retail setup.
AGE
One way ANOVA was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience vis a vie
age in organized retail environment. The results showed that no significant differences were
observed in shopping experiences with age in organized retail. These results does not matches
with the results obtained by (Anic, 2006) which says that younger consumers have different
expectations hence they like more in an organized retail setup. Ghosh, Tripathi, Kumar (2010)
6

found in their research that elder generations are less willing to experiment and desire to remain
associated with the stores they have been patronizing for long term. Baltas et al., (2010) reported
that as customer is getting older he/ she tend to concentrate purchases on fewer shops Older
customers may visit fewer shops to make shopping easier - reduce physical and mental effort.
Old customers have stabile shopping habits and they value assortment, layout and prices (Baltas
et al., 2010).
Table1: One way ANOVA for organized retail
S.No Hypothesis

Dimension

H071SE

age

H075SE

income

Groups

Mean

Less than 19
20 to 25
26 to 30
31 to 40
41 and above
Graduate
Postgraduate
less than 10,000
> 10,000 but < 20,000
> 20,000 but < 30,000
> 30,000 but < 40,000
40,000 and above

3
84
125
114
29
194
124
57
69
171
48
10

2.8765
3.1715
3.2996
3.2979
3.1481
3.2621
3.3005
3.1780
3.2362
3.3017
3.2184
3.1222

Std.
F value Sig. value Remarks
Deviation
.67213
.70359
.70438
.69299
.931
.446
Supported
.64318
.69764
.70260
.68287
.72753
.68334
.501
.735
Supported
.71444
.72389

The results of this research are contrary to the findings of Ghingold, M. A. U. Z. & Dahari, Z.
(2007) who studied the Malaysian shopping mall behavior. In their study showed that the
students in the Malaysia mainly visited the mall for interior looks, products of interest available
in the malls, one stop shopping solution and able to socialize with their friends. The study also
revealed that the student or people with younger generation had more inclination towards the
shopping mall when compared to a older population.
INCOME
One way ANOVA was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience vis a vie
Income in organized retail environment. The results showed that no significant differences were
observed in shopping experiences with income in organized retail. Homburg and Giering, (2001),
Anic (2006), East, Harris, Wilson and Lomax, (1995) reported a no relationship between income
and the way they interpret the shopping experience. However there are researches which reported
to have differences in middle or upper income level consumers where customers with low
income tend to do shopping in one store (Tate, 1961) and higher income level people tend to
shop in specific stores. Customers with low income level rely on their satisfaction with particular
store (Evanschitzky, 2006).

GENDER
Table 3: Independent Samples Test for Gender (Organized Retail)
S No Hypothesis Dimensions
1

H01

gender

Std.
t
Deviation
280 3.2433 .68934
75 3.2884 .72102
-.499
259 3.2884 .70372

Variable N
Male
Female
Married

Mean

Sig.
remarks
(2-tailed)
.618

Supported

Independent sample T-test was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience
vis a vie gender in organized retail environment. The results showed that no significant
differences were observed in shopping experiences with gender in organized retail. Similar
results were reported by Kruger & Byker (2009) that there is difference the way man and women
shop and search for the products. Kruger & Byker (2009) further supported the argument saying
that women are recreational, go for shopping for social gathering and an activity to see new
things, locations and places. Moreover South and Spitze (1994) and Flam and Axelrod (1990),
have revealed that shopping is a womens activity and they were the ones responsible for
household shopping. Many other consumer research studies about shopping have also had a
greater part their respondents as women (Dholakia, 1999) but the results of this research
indicated that no significant differences exists in shopping experience vis a vie gender in
organized retail environment. These results does not matches with the results obtained by
Bakewell and Mitchell,(2004) and (Melnyk, 2009) which says that male consumers may be
satisfied with an anonymous relationship with a store or chain, whereas female consumers
demand more personal relationships, further the female consumers are more loyal than males .
UNORGANIZED RETAIL
Following are the three dimensions analyzed under the Un-organized retail setup.
AGE
One way ANOVA was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience vis a vie
age in unorganized retail environment. The results showed that significant differences were
observed in shopping experiences with age in unorganized retail. These results matches with the
results obtained by (Anic, 2006) which says that younger consumers have different expectations
hence they like more in an organized retail setup. Ghosh, Tripathi, Kumar, 2010 found in their
research that Elder generations are less willing to experiment and desire to remain associated
with the stores they have been patronizing for long term. Baltas et al., (2010) reported that as
customer is getting older he/ she tend to concentrate purchases on fewer shops Older customers
may visit fewer shops to make shopping easier - reduce physical and mental effort. Old
customers have stabile shopping habits and they value assortment, layout and prices (Baltas et
al., 2010).

INCOME
One way ANOVA was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience vis a vie
Income in unorganized retail environment. The results showed that significant differences were
observed in shopping experiences with income in unorganized retail. Thus the results does not
confirms the results of Homburg and Giering, (2001), Anic (2006), East, Harris, Wilson and
Lomax, (1995) who reported a no relationship between income and the way they interpret the
shopping experience. However there are researches which reported to have differences in middle
or upper income level consumers where customers with low income tend to do shopping in one
store (Tate, 1961) and higher income level people tend to shop in specific stores. Customers with
low income level rely on their satisfaction with particular store (Evanschitzky, 2006).
Table 2: One way ANOVA for Unorganized retail
S.No Hypothesis

H081SE

H085SE

Dimension

age

income

Groups

Mean

Less than 19
20 to 25
26 to 30
31 to 40
40 and above
Graduate
Postgraduate
Up to 10,000
10,000 to 20,000
20,000 to 30,000
30,000 to 40,000
40,000 and above

45
36
179
74
21
246
79
79
104
103
14
55

2.2038
2.1512
2.2087
2.0857
2.3231
2.2134
2.0508
2.2728
2.1497
2.1894
1.8939
2.1811

Std.
F value Sig. value Remarks
Deviation
.35915
.32701
.37040
Not
.33116
2.581
.037
Supported
.29623
.37589
.26864
.34832
Not
.39675
.31619
3.924
.004
Supported
.24959
.34089

GENDER
Table 4: Independent Samples Test for Gender (Unorganized Retail)
S No Hypothesis Dimensions
1

H082SE

gender

Variable N
Male
Female
Married

Mean

Std.
t
Deviation

269 2.1715 .36859

86 2.2204 .31286
247 2.1405 .32869

Sig.
remarks
(2-tailed)

-1.107 .269

Supported

Independent sample T-test was applied to test the significant differences in shopping experience
vis a vie gender in unorganized retail environment. The results showed that no significant
differences were observed in shopping experiences with gender in organized retail. South and
Spitze (1994) and Flam and Axelrod (1990), have revealed that shopping is a womens activity
and they were the ones responsible for household shopping. Many other consumer research
studies about shopping have also had a greater part their respondents as women (Dholakia, 1999)
but the results of this research indicated that no significant differences exists in shopping
experience vis a vie gender in organized retail environment. These results does not matches with
9

the results obtained by Bakewell and Mitchell,(2004) and (Melnyk, 2009) which says that male
consumers may be satisfied with an anonymous relationship with a store or chain, whereas
female consumers demand more personal relationships.
CONCLUSIONS
It has been observed that significant differences in terms of Shopping Experiences do not exist
between demographic groups for all three dimensions under organized retail setup. Differences
does not exists because of the reason that in organized retail whatever shopping experience
consumers have is not influenced by age, gender and Income.
Moreover Table 1 show that there is no significant difference in the shopping experience with
age and income in organized retail stores. This is because of the reason that the consumers
irrespective of any age or income group perceive the organized retail stores similarly. Further
these findings may not be in line with the similar studies in the other countries because in India
organized retailing is a new phenomenon and it will take time for consumers to develop a age
specific opinion about organized stores. Presently all consumers are attracted towards the
organized stores and are astonished with its consumer friendliness.
No gender biasness in shopping experience has been observed in organized retail. This means the
shopping experience good or bad does not get affected by the consumer being male or female.
Which means that id the shopping experience is favorable then both mail as well as females both
will find it favorable where as if the shopping experience is unfavorable both male and female
will find it unfavorable.
It has been observed that significant differences in terms of Shopping Experiences exist between
demographic groups for Age and Income under unorganized retail and no significant difference
exists with gender (Table 2).
This is because of the fact that the young people are recently been exposed to organized stores
and now expect a better service from its retailers. Moreover the older generation is habitual of
shopping in unorganized retail and do not bother much. On the other hand when the income level
of consumers increases their expectations of better facilities also increases because of which the
shopping experiences changes with income.
No gender biasness in shopping experience has been observed in unorganized retail. This means
the shopping experience good or bad does not get affected by the consumer being male or female
in unorganized retail stores. Which means that if the shopping experience is favorable then both
mail as well as females both will find it favorable where as if the shopping experience is
unfavorable both male and female will find it unfavorable in unorganized retail stores.

REFERENCES
10

A. T. Kearney report (2012. http://www.atkearney.com/consumer-products-retail/global-retaildevelopment-index/full-report/-/asset_publisher/oPFrGkbIkz0Q/content/global-retaildevelopment-index/10192

Amaresha, M. & Dinakar, G. (2012). A Study on Buyers Behaviour in Organized Retail Outlet
with Special Reference to Fast Moving Consumer Goods in Bangalore City, India, European
Journal of Social Sciences, 34(4), 627-640.
Anic I.D., Radas S., Privredna kretanja i ekonomska politika. (2006). The Role of Satisfaction
and Demographic Factors in Building Store Loyalty,99,67-86.
Bakewell, C., Mitchell V.W. (2004), Male Consumer Decision Making Styles, International
Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 14 (2), 223240.
Baltas G., Argouslidis P.C., Skarmeas D. (2010), The Role of Customer Factors in Multiple
Store Patronage: A Cost-Benefit Approach, Journal of Retailing, 86(13), 37-50.
Dholakia R.R. (1999), Going Shopping: Key Determinants of Shopping Behaviours and
Motivations, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 27(4), 154-165.
Dholakia, R.R. (1999). Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behavior and motivations,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management Bradford, 27, 154165.
Dholakia, R.R., 1999 Going shopping: key determinants of shopping behavior and
motivations, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management Bradford, 27, 154
165.
East R., Harris P., Lomax W., Willson G., Perkins D.(1997). First-Store Loyalty to US and
British Supermarkets, Occasional Paper Series No 27., Vol.19.
East, Robert, Harris, Patricia, Willson, Gill and Wendy Lomax. (1995). Loyalty to supermarkets,
International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 5(1), 99-109.
Evanschitzky, H., Gopalkrishnan, R.I., Plassman, H., Niessing, J., Meffert, H. (2006). The
relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in service relationships, Journal of
Business Research, 59, 1207-1213.
Farley & John, U. (1964). Why Does Brand Loyalty Vary Over Products? Journal of
Marketing Research, 914.
Fox, J. & Hoch, S.J. (2005). Cherry-Picking, Journal of Marketing, 18, 46-62.
Fram, E.H. and Axelrod, J. (1990), The distressed shopper, American Demographics, 12, 44-5
Ghingold, M. A. U. Z. & Dahari, Z. (2007). Malaysian shopping mall behavior: an exploratory
study Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 19(4), 331-348.
Ghosh P., Tripathi V.,Kumar A., Journal of Retail & Leisure Property (2010). Customer
expectations of store attributes: A study of organized retail outlets in India. 9, 75 87.

11

Ghosh P., Tripathi V.,Kumar A., Journal of Retail & Leisure Property (2010), Customer
expectations of store attributes: A study of organized retail outlets in India, 9, 75 87.
Hansen, R. A. and Deutscher, T. (1977-1978). An Empirical Investigation of Attributes
Importance in Retail Store Selection, Journal of Retailing, 53, 59-72.
Homburg, Christian and Annette, Giering, 2001, Personal Characteristics as Moderators of the
Relationship between Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty an Empirical Analysis,
Psychology & Marketing, 18(1), 4366 .
Jansone, A. & Tudoran, A. A. (2012). Determinants of Store Loyalty: An Empirical
Investigation in the Latvian Grocery Market. Thesis Master of Science in Marketing.
Jhamba, K. & Kiran, R. (2012). Trendy shopping replacing traditional format preferences,
African Journal of Business Management, 6(11), 4196-4207.
Kewlani, S. & Singh, S. (2012). Small retailers or big shopping malls: will big fishes eat the
small? Radix International Journal of Research In Social Science, 1(2), 21-49.
Kruger, D.J., & Byker, D. (2009). Evolved foraging psychology underlies sex differences in
shopping experiences and behaviors. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, & Cultural Psychology, 3,
328-342.
Melnyk V., Stijn M.J. van Osselaer, Tammo H.A. Bijmolt (2009), Journal of Marketing, Are
Women More Loyal Customers than Men?, Gender Differences in Loyalty to Firms and
Individual Service Providers, 73, 8296.
Sinha P K and Uniyal D P, 2005, Dec-Jan Segmenting shoppers on behaviour International
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1), 35-48.
South, S.J. and Spitze, G. 1994. 'Housework in marital and nonmarital households'. American
Sociological Review 59, 327-347.
Tate, Russell S. (1961). The Supermarket Battle for Store Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, 25 (6),
8-13.
Thenmozhi, S. P. & Dhanapal, D. (2011). Unorganised Retailing in India A Study on Retail
Service Quality, European Journal of Social Sciences, 23(1), 71-78.
Witkowski, T. H. & Wolfinbarger, M. F. (2002). Comparative Service Quality: German and
AmericanRatings Across Service Settings, Journal of Business Research, 55(11), 875-881.
Zeithaml V.A. (1985). The New Demographics and Market Fragmentation, Journal of Merketing,
11, 64-75.

12