A case study on shopping malls attributes for young consumers

Prévia do material em texto

Young Consumers
A case study on shopping malls attributes for young consumers
Gülin Feryal Can, Feride Bahar Kurtulmusoglu, Kumru Didem Atalay,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gülin Feryal Can, Feride Bahar Kurtulmusoglu, Kumru Didem Atalay, (2016) "A case study on shopping malls attributes for
young consumers", Young Consumers, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.274-292, doi: 10.1108/YC-04-2016-00596
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-04-2016-00596
Downloaded on: 12 May 2017, At: 06:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 104 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 510 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Consumer based brand equity in the 21st century: an examination of the role of social media marketing", Young
Consumers, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 243-255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-03-2016-00590
(2016),"Up, close and intimate: qualitative inquiry into brand proximity amongst young adult consumers in emerging market",
Young Consumers, Vol. 17 Iss 3 pp. 256-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/YC-04-2016-00593
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478531 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
A case study on shopping malls
attributes for young consumers
Gülin Feryal Can, Feride Bahar Kurtulmusoglu and Kumru Didem Atalay
Gülin Feryal Can is
Assistant Professor at the
Department of Industrial
Engineering, Baskent
University, Ankara,
Turkey.
Feride Bahar Kurtulmusoglu
is Associate Professor at
the Department of
Business Administration,
Baskent University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Kumru Didem Atalay is
Associate Professor at
the Department of
Industrial Engineering,
Baskent University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to determine the mall criteria that are the most crucial for the youth market
by determining the winning brand in comparison to other offerings to understand what is required to
gain a competitive advantage and to differentiate a mall from its rivals.
Design/methodology/approach – This study chose the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability
Analysis-2 method to evaluate the mall preferences of young people. By using this method, the various
criteria were evaluated for more than one alternative to find the best solution. JSMA program was used
to analyze the data. The survey was administered using the mall intercept method to reduce sample
bias.
Findings – The study identifies that the criteria that have the highest impact on the mall preferences of
young people are the mall campaigns for loyal customers; the traffic in the mall locality and the mall’s
parking facilities; the mall’s facilities for disabled people; the quality of the mall locality; and the quality
of the people visiting the mall. The study reveals that a mall’s physical features, its facilities and the
criteria related to employees have a very low impact on the mall choices of young people. The study
further finds that the youth market has very low satisfaction levels for all of the identified criteria. This
study reveals that this macro accessibility criterion is less relevant for the youth market than for the
general population.
Originality/value – Despite the importance of this market, there is insufficient research on the
shopping behavior of young people. They have a considerable impact on the purchasing decisions of
their families, significant disposable income and constitute the future market for the sector. This study
uniquely enables the sequential ordering of customers’ decision-making criteria and determines the
effectiveness or impact of these criteria in the mall sector.
Keywords Young consumers, Preference, Mall, SMAA-2
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Malls are important retail centers (Gilboa et al., 2013) that play a key role in the retail
distribution system (Finn and Louviere, 1996). However, the dominant position that malls
once held in the retail sector has declined (Kim, 2002; LeHew et al., 2002), and there is now
considerable competition in the sector (Raajpoot et al. 2008). Despite the decreasing sales
levels that they are experiencing, the supply of malls is increasing faster than the demand
(LeHew and Fairhurst, 2000). The decreased dominance of malls in the retail sector can be
attributed to an increasing number of malls supplying the same products and the
appearance of alternative distribution channels such as the internet (DeLisle, 2005); the
decreased frequency of visits because of time pressure (Wakefield and Baker, 1998); and
increasingly selective consumer behavior (Howard, 1993).
Generally, customers find it difficult to differentiate between malls. This is a significant
problem for the sector (Barnes, 2005). The sector is in the mature stage of the product
lifecycle, and malls are looking for ways to differentiate themselves from each other
(Severin et al., 2001). Malls have developed differentiation strategies to operate in this
highly competitive market (Allard et al., 2009), including objectively analyzing the attitudes
Received 20 April 2016
Revised 12 July 2016
Accepted 15 July 2016
PAGE 274 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016, pp. 274-292, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1747-3616 DOI 10.1108/YC-04-2016-00596
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
of their consumers for several competing alternatives (Peterson and McGee, 2000) and
accounting for the consumers’ preferences when making a mall choice. The previous
studies in this area are limited (Howard, 1997; Ruiz et al., 2004) and assume that the
consumers are a homogeneous market. Suárez et al. (2004) called for the investigation of
the relative attitudes of different consumer markets with different characteristics. Relative
attitude is “the favorable attitude that is high compared to potential alternatives” (Dick and
Basu, 1994, p. 100). Researches demonstrate that the use of relative attitudes creates an
impactful relation than when they are implemented as an individual evaluation and
demonstrates the indication of repeat patronage more powerful than the individual
evaluation of the product.
Phillips and Sternthal (1977) claimed that the consumer’s age influences his or her
perception of environmental stimuli. Anselmsson (2006) stressed that different perceptions
could create different priority preferences for shopping centers. Young people acquire a
consumer status at a very early age (Pecora, 1998) and are increasingly frequent mall
patrons (Haytko and Baker, 2004). Youth visit malls more frequently than other age groups
(Quart, 2003; Massicotte et al., 2011); therefore, they have a considerable impact on the
purchasing decisions of their families and constitute the future market for the sector(Crutsinger et al., 2010). In addition, this group has significant disposable income and is
growing in number.
Meyer (2001) discusses the formation of brand preferences in the 15-25 age bracket,
according to the catch-them-young theory (Taylor and Cosenza, 2002). Traditional
marketing strategies are generally unsuccessful with young consumers (Bao and Shao,
2002; Neuborne and Kerwin, 1999). Palan and Mallalieu (2012) discussed the sources of
the relationship between retailers and teen shoppers and demonstrated that youth
frustration has arisen from being ignored. Similarly, Mallalieu (2000) report that teens feel
isolated in shopping centers. Also, in the past, retailers described the teenagers as
“inconvenient” because of the negative effect on security and operations (Andreoli, 1996;
Chain Store Age Executive, 1994). Gil et al. (2012) stress the importance of investigating
the youth market. However, despite the importance of this market, there is insufficient
research on the shopping behavior of young people (Gentina et al., 2014).
De˛bek (2015) mentions that the hierarchy of the criteria by which patrons evaluate mall
attractiveness remains ambiguous. Therefore, the criteria that the consumers consider to
be the most crucial and distinct must be determined, and the limited resources available to
mall managers must be used to provide the maximum benefit in exploiting these criteria (De
Juan, 2004).
This study aims to determine the mall criteria that are the most crucial for the youth market
by determining the winning brand in comparison to other offerings to understand what is
required to gain a competitive advantage and to differentiate a mall from its rivals. This
study chose the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis-2 (SMAA-2) method to
evaluate the relative attitudes of young people, because this method enables the
sequential ordering of the criteria, determines the effectiveness or impact of these criteria
and the relative measurement of brand attitudes which are more predictive than no relative
measures. Non-relative measures are inadequate to have reference to other brands in their
attitudes from “the lens of the customer” (Barnard and Ehrenberg, 1990; Olsen, 2002).
The results of this study would help mall managers to understand the preference criteria of
young consumers more accurately based on different probabilities and impacts. As the
priorities of youth may differ according to which mall they prefer, these probabilities shown
in this study can lead the managers take the customers’ point of view.
The SMAA-2 method was developed by Lahdelma and Salminen (2001) as a multicriteria
decision-making (MCDM) support tool for decision-making that is a more efficient and
effective tool compared to other MCDM methods. Because, by using this method, the
various criteria are evaluated and compared using more than one alternative to find the
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 275
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
best solution (Lahdelma and Salminen, 2001). The SMAA-2 method obtains the probability
related with any preference ranking of alternatives. The impact level of the criteria on the
rankings of the relevant alternatives can also be computed. To the best of authors’
knowledge, this study is the first one stating the priorities and the impact levels of the
attitudes that determine the preferred mall based upon this probability.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The second part relates to the
shopping mall literature. The third part consists of the method and data, and the fourth part
includes the findings. The results and discussion are evaluated in the fifth part. The last part
consists of the conclusion.
Review of literature
This section reviews the criteria identified in earlier studies that customers consider before
deciding on which shopping mall to visit.
When devising a suitable business strategy, a mall manager must know the most important
customer preferences to implement respective winning strategies (Reynolds et al., 2002).
Consumers’ choice of malls is based on their individual priorities (Finn and Louviere, 1996).
Haytko and Baker (2004) stated that most retail research focuses on shopping stores rather
than shopping malls. However, the current study identified 32 studies in the period
1977-2015 that focus on customer mall preferences. These studies address a range of
attributes that attract customers to malls, as summarized in Table I.
Wilhelm and Mottner (2005) and Altman and Low (1992) claimed that young consumers are
closely attached to the mall and have a connectedness with the mall. Kusumowidagdo
et al. (2012) reported that university students could perceive the sense of place of a mall
by identifying the physical and social features of the mall. In studying the mall preferences
of teenage girls, Haytko and Baker (2004) and Tabak et al. (2006) have identified three
common important attributes: atmosphere, accessibility and security. Earlier studies have
found that convenient location of malls is important to the youth market (Haytko and Baker,
2004; Tabak et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2011; Sari et al., 2011). Entertainment was also
found to be important, albeit to a lesser extent (Tabak et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2011).
Gentry and Burns (1978) discussed establishments, offer, parking and opening hours as
mall patronage attributes of university students. Jackson et al. (2011) reported that hygiene
factors, locational convenience and entertainment features are more effective for young
consumer attitudes’ toward mall attributes. Sari et al. (2011) described driving factors for
preference of shopping mall of university students as activity, emotional, cognitive, spatial,
facilities and physical dimensions. Vural et al. (2010) discussed retail environment, comfort
conditions, socializing in a secure environment, accessibility and leisure as mall
attractiveness factors for young Turkish customers. Taylor and Cosenza (2002) determined
the factors influencing the mall shopping behavior of older female teens as mall
composition and excitement. Mangleburg et al. (2004) claimed that attitudes toward
shopping malls are associated with teen’s satisfaction by shopping with friends. Breazeale
and Lueg, (2011) suggested a psychographic retail shopping typology of teenagers by
using levels of self-esteem, extraversion and interpersonal communication. Lueg et al.
(2006) compared the adolescents’ usage of the mall and the internet from a consumer
socialization perspective. Mallalieu and Palan (2006) evaluated the teenagers’ competence
in the shopping mall. Massicotte et al. (2011) compared the effect of mall atmosphere on
mall evaluation for adult and teenage shopper segments. Kim and Kim (2005) reported the
effects of ethnicity and gender on teens’ mall shopping motivations. Kang et al. (1996)
evaluated that the teen segment had stronger shopping motivations compared to others
age segments. Kusumowidagdo et al. (2015) described the push items that determine
relationships between youth and shopping centers. Dahan-Oliel et al. (2015) researched
the needs and expectations of adolescents with disabilities from the shopping mall and
determined the necessary changes for the participation of youth with disabilities within a
mall.
PAGE 276 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Ta
bl
e
I
Co
ns
um
er
m
a
ll
pr
ef
er
en
ce
s:
e
xt
an
ts
tu
di
es
S
tu
d
y
S
tu
d
y
d
im
en
si
on
/p
re
fe
re
nc
e
re
su
lts
R
es
ea
rc
h
m
et
ho
d
S
am
p
le
si
ze
B
ea
rd
en
(1
97
7)
M
al
la
ttr
ac
tiv
en
es
s
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:q
ua
lit
y,
se
le
ct
io
n,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
lo
ca
tio
n,
p
ar
ki
ng
an
d
sa
le
s
p
eo
p
le
A
N
O
V
A
95
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
B
el
le
ng
er
et
al
.(
19
77
)
M
al
lp
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
q
ua
lit
y
of
ce
nt
re
,
p
re
se
nc
e
of
re
la
te
d
se
rv
ic
es
,
va
rie
ty
un
d
er
on
e
ro
of
an
d
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
C
an
on
ic
al
an
al
ys
is
an
d
fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
50
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
H
au
se
r
an
d
K
op
p
el
m
an
(1
97
9)
M
al
lp
re
fe
re
nc
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
va
rie
ty
,
q
ua
lit
y,
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n,
va
lu
e
an
d
p
ar
ki
ng
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
P
rin
ci
p
al
co
m
p
on
en
ts
an
al
ys
is
an
d
M
N
L
m
od
el
50
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
H
ow
el
la
nd
R
og
er
s
(1
98
0)
M
al
lp
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
p
er
so
nn
el
,
fa
sh
io
n,
ad
ve
rt
is
in
g
an
d
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
C
on
fir
m
at
or
y
fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
M
C
I
m
od
el
26
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
N
ev
in
an
d
H
ou
st
on
(1
98
0)
M
al
la
ttr
ac
tio
n
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
b
en
efi
ts
of
fe
re
d
b
y
th
e
m
ar
ke
t
ar
ea
,
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
an
d
p
os
iti
on
in
g
P
rin
ci
p
al
co
m
p
on
en
ts
an
al
ys
is
an
d
M
C
I
m
od
el
82
7
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
W
ee
(1
98
6)
M
al
la
ttr
ac
tio
n
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
as
so
rt
m
en
t,
fa
ci
lit
ie
s,
m
ai
nt
en
an
ce
an
d
ef
fe
ct
iv
en
es
s
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
re
g
re
ss
io
n
48
2
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
S
to
ltm
an
et
al
.(
19
91
)
M
al
lp
re
fe
re
nc
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
as
so
rt
m
en
t,
le
is
ur
e,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
va
lu
e
fo
r
m
on
ey
,
va
rie
ty
,
sa
le
s,
fa
ci
lit
ie
s,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
an
d
p
ub
lic
re
la
tio
ns
S
te
p
-w
is
e
re
g
re
ss
io
n
28
9
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
M
cG
ol
d
ric
k
an
d
H
o
(1
99
2)
M
ai
n
p
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
le
is
ur
e
ex
p
er
ie
nc
e,
cl
ie
nt
se
rv
ic
e,
es
ta
b
lis
hm
en
ts
,
q
ua
lit
y
of
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
b
y
ca
r,
cr
ow
d
s,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
b
y
b
us
an
d
p
ric
es
P
rin
ci
p
al
co
m
p
on
en
ts
an
al
ys
is
an
d
m
ul
tip
le
re
g
re
ss
io
n
26
5
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Te
rb
la
nc
he
(1
99
9)
M
ai
n
p
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
fu
nc
tio
na
l,
re
cr
ea
tio
na
l,
so
ci
al
iz
in
g
an
d
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
S
tr
uc
tu
ra
le
q
ua
tio
n
m
od
el
in
g
36
5
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
D
en
ni
s
et
al
.(
20
01
)
M
ai
n
p
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
sh
op
s
im
p
or
ta
nc
e
m
ot
iv
at
io
n
an
d
se
rv
ic
e
im
p
or
ta
nc
e
m
ot
iv
at
io
n
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
28
7
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Fr
as
q
ue
te
ta
l.
(2
00
1)
M
al
lc
ho
ic
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
re
ta
il
of
fe
r,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
le
is
ur
e,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
an
d
ef
fic
ie
nc
y
M
N
L
m
od
el
40
2
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
S
ev
er
in
et
al
.(
20
01
)
M
al
lc
ho
ic
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
hi
g
h
q
ua
lit
y,
w
id
e
se
le
ct
io
n,
g
oo
d
se
rv
ic
e,
co
nv
en
ie
nt
lo
ca
tio
n,
lo
w
p
ric
es
,
hi
g
h
p
ric
es
,
la
te
st
fa
sh
io
ns
,
ni
ce
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
an
d
g
oo
d
sa
le
s
an
d
b
ar
g
ai
ns
U
nr
es
tr
ic
te
d
M
N
L
m
od
el
s
56
3
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Ib
ra
hi
m
an
d
W
ee
(2
00
2)
A
ttr
ib
ut
es
af
fe
ct
in
g
sh
op
p
in
g
ex
p
er
ie
nc
e:
th
e
tr
an
sp
or
t
as
p
ec
t,
re
ta
il
as
p
ec
t
an
d
p
er
so
na
la
sp
ec
t
A
N
O
V
A
an
d
t
te
st
30
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Le
he
w
et
al
.(
20
02
)
M
al
la
ttr
ac
tio
n
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
m
al
le
nv
iro
nm
en
t
an
d
va
lu
e
as
so
rt
m
en
t
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
m
ul
tip
le
re
g
re
ss
io
n
15
4
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Lé
o
an
d
P
hi
lip
p
e
(2
00
2)
C
om
m
er
ci
al
zo
ne
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
re
ta
il
m
ix
,
p
ric
in
g
,
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t,
an
d
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
Lo
g
is
tic
re
g
re
ss
io
n
19
37
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
H
ay
tk
o
an
d
B
ak
er
(2
00
4)
M
al
la
ttr
ib
ut
es
im
p
or
ta
nt
to
te
en
ag
e
g
irl
s:
re
ta
il
m
ix
,
co
m
fo
rt
,
sa
fe
ty
,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
an
d
at
m
os
p
he
re
Q
ua
lit
at
iv
e
st
ud
y
24
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
A
ns
el
m
ss
on
(2
00
6)
C
us
to
m
er
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n
cr
ite
ria
:
S
el
ec
tio
n,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e,
sa
le
s
p
eo
p
le
,
re
fr
es
hm
en
ts
,
lo
ca
tio
n,
p
ro
m
ot
io
na
la
ct
iv
iti
es
an
d
m
er
ch
an
d
is
in
g
p
ol
ic
y
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
re
g
re
ss
io
n
77
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
Ta
b
ak
et
al
.(
20
06
)
M
al
la
ttr
ib
ut
es
im
p
or
ta
nt
to
te
en
ag
e
g
irl
s:
M
er
ch
an
d
is
in
g
,
en
te
rt
ai
nm
en
t,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
lo
ca
tio
n
an
d
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
,
se
cu
rit
y
an
d
p
er
so
na
ls
er
vi
ce
C
on
te
nt
an
al
ys
is
56
g
irl
s
E
l-A
d
ly
(2
00
7)
M
al
lp
re
fe
re
nc
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
C
om
fo
rt
,
en
te
rt
ai
nm
en
t,
d
iv
er
si
ty
,
m
al
l
es
se
nc
e,
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
an
d
lu
xu
ry
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
40
4
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
(c
on
tin
ue
d
)
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 277
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Ta
bl
e
I
S
tu
d
y
S
tu
d
y
d
im
en
si
on
/p
re
fe
re
nc
e
re
su
lts
R
es
ea
rc
h
m
et
ho
d
S
am
p
le
si
ze
B
reaz
ea
le
an
d
Lu
eg
(2
01
1)
M
ea
su
re
s
of
te
en
ag
e
p
sy
ch
og
ra
p
hi
c
re
ta
il
sh
op
p
in
g
:
le
ve
ls
of
se
lf-
es
te
em
,
ex
tr
av
er
si
on
,
an
d
in
te
rp
er
so
na
lc
om
m
un
ic
at
io
n
C
lu
st
er
an
al
ys
is
an
d
fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
58
3
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
K
ha
re
(2
01
1)
M
ai
n
m
al
lp
at
ro
na
g
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
ae
st
he
tic
s,
es
ca
p
e,
flo
w
,
ex
p
lo
ra
tio
n,
ro
le
en
ac
tm
en
t,
so
ci
al
an
d
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
A
N
O
V
A
27
6
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
P
oo
va
lin
g
am
an
d
D
oc
ra
t
(2
01
1)
C
us
to
m
er
p
re
fe
re
nc
e
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
lo
ca
tio
n,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
,
d
is
ab
le
d
-
or
ie
nt
ed
fa
ci
lit
ie
s,
sh
op
d
es
ig
ns
an
d
ty
p
es
,
p
ric
e,
p
ro
d
uc
t
as
so
rt
m
en
t,
se
cu
rit
y
an
d
sa
fe
ty
,
b
an
ki
ng
fa
ci
lit
ie
s,
cl
ea
nl
in
es
s,
ch
ild
ca
re
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
an
d
en
te
rt
ai
nm
en
t
op
p
or
tu
ni
tie
s
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y
an
al
ys
is
an
d
co
rr
el
at
io
n
45
7
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
S
ar
ie
ta
l.
(2
01
1)
A
ttr
ib
ut
es
im
p
or
ta
nt
to
un
iv
er
si
ty
st
ud
en
ts
:
ac
tiv
ity
,
em
ot
io
na
lc
og
ni
tiv
e
sp
at
ia
l(
ne
ar
ho
m
e/
un
iv
er
si
ty
)
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
an
d
p
hy
si
ca
ld
im
en
si
on
s
Q
ua
lit
at
iv
e
st
ud
y
11
2
un
iv
er
si
ty
st
ud
en
ts
Ta
m
im
i(
20
11
)
M
al
lc
ho
ic
e
d
et
er
m
in
an
ts
:
ca
r
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
,
p
ar
ki
ng
,
in
d
oo
r
p
ed
es
tr
ia
n
ar
ea
s,
la
yo
ut
of
m
al
l,
va
cu
um
ar
ea
s,
sh
op
as
so
rt
m
en
ts
,
se
cu
rit
y,
p
ra
ye
r
ro
om
s,
d
ire
ct
io
ns
w
ith
in
m
al
l,
to
ile
ts
,
cu
st
om
er
se
rv
ic
e,
en
te
rt
ai
nm
en
t,
A
TM
s,
fo
od
co
ur
ts
an
d
co
ffe
e
sh
op
s
Q
ua
lit
at
iv
e
an
al
ys
is
–
D
e˛b
ek
(2
01
5)
M
al
la
ttr
ib
ut
es
im
p
ac
tin
g
on
cu
st
om
er
sa
tis
fa
ct
io
n:
ae
st
he
tic
s,
at
m
os
p
he
re
,
co
m
m
er
ce
,
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e,
la
yo
ut
,
le
is
ur
e,
sa
fe
ty
,
an
d
so
ci
al
p
os
iti
on
in
g
S
tr
uc
tu
ra
le
q
ua
tio
n
m
od
el
38
4
ad
ul
ts
Jo
sh
ie
ta
l.
(2
01
5)
W
in
ni
ng
m
al
la
ttr
ib
ut
es
:
sh
op
p
in
g
am
b
ie
nc
e,
la
yo
ut
of
st
or
e,
st
af
f
is
su
es
,
in
te
rn
al
st
or
e
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t,
so
ci
al
as
p
ec
ts
,
ac
ce
ss
ib
ili
ty
an
d
ex
te
rn
al
sh
op
p
in
g
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t
Fa
ct
or
an
al
ys
is
an
d
co
rr
el
at
io
n
12
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
M
ar
sh
a
(2
01
5)
C
om
p
et
iti
ve
su
rv
iv
al
at
tr
ib
ut
es
:
en
vi
ro
nm
en
t,
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e,
re
ta
ile
rs
,
se
rv
ic
e
an
d
re
w
ar
d
s
M
ul
tip
le
re
g
re
ss
io
n
15
0
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
La
rs
en
et
al
.(
20
15
)
M
al
lc
ho
ic
e
d
et
er
m
in
an
ts
:
p
er
ce
iv
ed
m
an
ag
em
en
t
ef
fic
ie
nc
y,
p
ro
d
uc
t
as
so
rt
m
en
t,
ce
nt
er
m
ai
nt
en
an
ce
an
d
cl
ea
nl
in
es
s
S
tr
uc
tu
ra
le
q
ua
tio
n
m
od
el
51
5
p
ar
tic
ip
an
ts
N
ot
es
:A
b
b
re
vi
at
io
ns
:
M
N
L
�
m
ul
tin
om
ia
ll
og
ic
;
M
C
I
�
m
ul
tip
lic
at
iv
e
co
m
p
et
iti
ve
in
te
ra
ct
io
n
PAGE 278 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Method and data
This study aims to investigate the mall preferences of Turkish university students. Such
students generally are in the 18-25-year age bracket (the late adolescence to young
adulthood phase). University students are important mall customers. According to Hurlock
(1996), this group reflects the behavioral traits of teenagers, because they tend to be
surrounded by their peers.
SMAA-2 method calculates the rank acceptability index, the central weight vector and the
confidence factor (Lahdelma and Salminen, 2001). The rank acceptability index indicates
the occurrence probability of an alternative in any order. The alternatives having the highest
acceptability for the best ranks are the best alternatives. The weight space corresponding
to the best ranks for an alternative can also be described by means of the best ranks
central weight vector. The best rank confidence factor is designed as the probability that
an alternative takes the first rank when the best ranks central weight vector is chosen.
(Lahdelma and Salminen, 2001).
Through SMAA-2, the customer’s preference is defined following a five-step procedure:
1. determine the alternatives to be compared and the criteria to be used in the
comparison;
2. select the decision makers (DMs) who will compare the alternatives and determine the
criteria values according to the alternatives;
3. determine the preference information by determining the relative criteria weight
according to the DMs;
4. determine the ranking of the alternatives using the rank acceptability index for each
alternative (based on the probability information); and
5. determine the central weight vector (the impact level of the criteria that affects the
rankings of the alternatives) and the confidence factor (the reliability scores of the
rankings) for each alternative.
The survey instrument which determines the crucial mall criteria consists of two parts. The
first part includes six questions on demographic factors and the mall visiting habits. The
second part includes 31 questions on the attitudes of consumers in relation to the four
malls. To identify the criteria, a focus group study is used as mentioned in Goss and
Leinbach (1996)’s study as a tool to generate questions to be tested in research. A focus
group appraisal was undertaken by researchers and mall managers to determine the mall
selection criteria. The mall managers can evaluate and improve the retail service
processes, whereas academics are experts in processing SMAA-2 and evaluating
consumer behavior. Previous research findings in mall literature are used to prepare a set
of questions of focus group. Four focus groups were formed. One trained moderator and
researchers asked passengers to define “the preferred mall features” in their own words.
The focus groups lasted 50-80 min, and an observer was also present to take notes on the
focus group sessions. Also, focus groups sessions were tape-recorded to be transcribed
later. Participants of the focus groups sessions completed a demographic questionnaire.
The analyses of comments were grouped and discussed untilconsensus among
researchers. The focus group analysis was conducted with the 25 young consumers (12
females and 13 males). In total, 70 per cent of the group was aged 18-21 and the others
were aged 22-25. A total of 31 criteria were defined for this case study (Table II).
Using the focus group results, a survey questionnaire was drafted. The survey
questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part included six questions on demographic
factors and mall visiting habits. The second part included questions on the 31 identified
attributes to measure the attitudes of the young consumers in relation to the four malls
included in the study. The responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale (where
1 indicates the least agree and 5 is the most agree).
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 279
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
A pilot study was carried out to test the questionnaire during mall opening hours over the
course of a single weekend. In total, 20 consumers (eight females and 12 males; 12 aged
18-21 years, and eight aged 22-25 years) reviewed the questionnaire to test for
correctness. The respondents were asked to comment on any problems that they had in
understanding the questionnaire, which was subsequently thoroughly revised.
The final mall evaluation questionnaire was distributed to 500 young consumers who then
completed it on a voluntary basis. The survey was administered using the mall intercept
method to reduce sample bias. The researchers were located at each main mall entrance
and changed their positions every 2 h. The survey was administrated for seven days during
peak hours between 6.00 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. on weekdays and between 12.00 a.m. and
6.00 p.m. on weekends. Every sixth young person at each entrance was approached by the
researchers, and was asked their age to ensure that they fell into the appropriate age
category; if so, then the researchers asked them to participate in the survey.
There was a 71 per cent response rate (355 valid responses). The survey sample size
determined that those responding to the questionnaire had a homogenous structure, with
a 0.8 probability (sample error 0.05, and significance level � � 0.05). The sample size was
found to be 245, accounting for an unknown population size. The sample size was
considered to be sufficient at the 95 per cent confidence level.
The respondents’ demographic data are shown in Table III. Overall, 83.7 per cent of the
sample aged 18-21 years, 49.6 per cent were male and 42 per cent had an undergraduate
degree. Additionally, 67.6 per cent spent at least 100 Turkish liras in the mall, and 75.5 per
cent visited a mall more than once a week. These characteristics demonstrate that the
sample included frequent shoppers.
Table II Criteria used by young people to select a shopping mall
Criteria no. Criteria
1 Mall cleanliness
2 Mall escalator and elevator facilities
3 Mall charm and decor
4 Mall interior design
5 Reliability of the employees in the mall
6 Mall music
7 Mall lighting
8 Mall size
9 Mall comfort
10 Politeness of mall employees
11 Mall recreational facilities
12 Mall promotional campaigns
13 Quality of the mall products
14 Mall security
15 Mall parking facilities
16 Mall color
17 Mall layout
18 Mall image
19 Quality of the people visiting the mall
20 Quality of other services in the mall (e.g. banks and hairdressers)
21 Mall cinema
22 Quality of the services provided by the food and beverage section of the mall
23 Adequate retail mix
24 Easy access from home and work
25 Mall stores adequately follow new trends
26 Adequacy of the brands (from your view) provided in the mall
27 Knowledge and experience of mall personnel
28 Traffic in mall locality
29 Quality of mall locality
30 Facilities provided for disabled people in the mall
31 Mall campaigns for loyal customers
PAGE 280 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
The questionnaire was investigated using a Cronbach’s � coefficient to check whether the
questions expressed a homogenous and internally consistent structure. The result was ��
0.992, indicating that the survey was reliable. The mean and standard deviation of the scale
were 290.40 and 42.12, respectively. The items’ mean and mean variance were 9.368 and
6.173, respectively. The range of the mean and variance for the 31 questions was 2.123
and 4.384, respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for the average measures
was 0.919. The average mean of the inter-item correlations was 0.28. The minimum and
maximum correlations were 0.018 and 0.801, respectively. The total item correlation varied
between 0.402 and 0.622. Non-negative values were observed between the correlations,
and all of the correlation coefficients were greater than 0.25. This result is sufficient as to not
disturb the additivity property of the scale. The difference between the measures was
statically significant (p � 0.00).
Factor analysis was performed on this sample to eliminate less important or statistically
non-significant young attitudes toward mall and to categorize important and statistically
significant young attitudes toward mall. The analysis factors were obtained using the
principal component analysis method. The suitability of the data set for factor analysis was
determined by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test, and a value of 0.865 indicated that the amount
of data was quite sufficient, and that the data set was suitable for factor analysis. The
Bartlett test for the correlation matrix (p � 0.00) showed that the correlation matrix was
statistically different than the unit matrix. For the factor rotation, the equamax technique was
selected from the orthogonal rotation techniques. To define the factor number, those with
an eigenvalue above 1 were considered to be significant. To determine whether the
difference between the mean of items was statistically significant, they were subjected to
Hotelling’s T2 test (p � 0.00). The factor analysis grouped the 31 questions into eight
factors: sensory characteristics and employee trustworthiness; perception of mall quality;
adequacy; physical features; accessibility and empathy; structural features; security and
convenience; and mall comfort and employee politeness (Table IV). Although factor
analysis was performed to categorize young attitudes toward mall, further analysis in this
study was based on items, not factors, considering the fact that each item should be taken
Table III Demographic characteristics and mall visiting habits: survey respondents
Category Frequency (n) (%)
Sex
Female 179 50.4
Male 176 49.6
Age
18-21 297 83.7
22-25 58 16.3
Marital Status
Married 13 3.7
Single 342 96.3
Education
High School 205 57.7
University 149 42
Post-graduate 1 0.3
Mall visit frequency
Once a week or more 268 75.5
Others 87 24.5
Number of malls visited
All four malls 338 95.2
Others 17 4.8
Amount of money spent in malls
At least 100 Turkish liras 240 67.6
Less than 100 Turkish liras 115 33.4
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 281
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Ta
bl
e
IV
Fa
ct
or
a
n
a
lys
is
re
su
lts
S
en
so
ry
ch
ar
ac
te
ris
tic
s
an
d
em
p
lo
ye
e
tr
us
tw
or
th
in
es
s
( �
�
0.
83
8)
P
er
ce
p
tio
n
of
m
al
lq
ua
lit
y
( �
�
0.
80
8)
A
d
eq
ua
cy
(�
�
0.
78
4)
P
hy
si
ca
l
fe
at
ur
es
( �
�
0.
77
3)
A
cc
es
si
b
ili
ty
an
d
em
p
at
hy
( �
�
0.
75
8)
S
tr
uc
tu
ra
l
fe
at
ur
es
( �
�
0.
73
8)
S
ec
ur
ityan
d
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
( �
�
0.
80
3)
M
al
lc
om
fo
rt
an
d
p
ol
ite
ne
ss
of
em
p
lo
ye
es
( �
�
0.
88
3)
V
ar
ia
nc
e
ex
p
la
in
ed
(%
)
S
en
so
ry
ch
ar
ac
te
ris
tic
s
an
d
em
p
lo
ye
e
tr
us
tw
or
th
in
es
s
9.
4
M
al
ls
iz
e
0.
78
7
M
al
lm
us
ic
0.
73
3
M
al
ll
ig
ht
in
g
0.
72
3
R
el
ia
b
ili
ty
of
th
e
em
p
lo
ye
es
in
th
e
m
al
l
0.
62
0
M
al
lr
ec
re
at
io
na
lf
ac
ili
tie
s
0.
40
6
P
er
ce
p
tio
n
of
m
al
lq
ua
lit
y
8.
6
Q
ua
lit
y
of
th
e
p
eo
p
le
vi
si
tin
g
th
e
m
al
l
0.
77
6
Q
ua
lit
y
of
th
e
se
rv
ic
es
p
ro
vi
d
ed
b
y
th
e
fo
od
an
d
b
ev
er
ag
e
se
ct
io
n
of
th
e
m
al
l
0.
65
8
Q
ua
lit
y
of
ot
he
r
se
rv
ic
es
in
th
e
m
al
l
(e
.g
.
b
an
ks
an
d
ha
ird
re
ss
er
s)
0.
60
6
M
al
lc
in
em
a
0.
54
9
M
al
li
m
ag
e
0.
47
9
A
d
eq
ua
cy
8.
5
M
al
ls
to
re
s
ad
eq
ua
te
ly
fo
llo
w
ne
w
tr
en
d
s
0.
71
1
A
d
eq
ua
te
re
ta
il
m
ix
0.
63
4
A
d
eq
ua
cy
of
th
e
b
ra
nd
s
(f
ro
m
yo
ur
vi
ew
)
p
ro
vi
d
ed
in
th
e
m
al
l
0.
58
5
K
no
w
le
d
g
e
an
d
ex
p
er
ie
nc
e
of
m
al
lp
er
so
nn
el
0.
56
4
Q
ua
lit
y
of
m
al
ll
oc
al
ity
0.
46
1
P
hy
si
ca
lf
ea
tu
re
s
8.
3
E
sc
al
at
or
an
d
el
ev
at
or
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
0.
74
1
M
al
li
nt
er
io
r
d
es
ig
n
0.
69
8
M
al
lc
ha
rm
an
d
d
ec
or
0.
68
2
M
al
lc
le
an
lin
es
s
0.
52
3
A
cc
es
si
b
ili
ty
an
d
em
p
at
hy
8.
3
M
al
lc
am
p
ai
g
ns
fo
r
lo
ya
lc
us
to
m
er
s
0.
81
8
Fa
ci
lit
ie
s
p
ro
vi
d
ed
fo
r
d
is
ab
le
d
p
eo
p
le
in
th
e
m
al
l
0.
72
6
Tr
af
fic
in
m
al
ll
oc
al
ity
0.
58
4
E
as
y
ac
ce
ss
fr
om
ho
m
e
an
d
w
or
k
0.
43
0
S
tr
uc
tu
ra
lf
ea
tu
re
s
8.
3
M
al
ll
ay
ou
t
0.
80
9
M
al
lc
ol
or
0.
72
8
M
al
lp
ar
ki
ng
fa
ci
lit
ie
s
0.
63
0
S
ec
ur
ity
an
d
co
nv
en
ie
nc
e
8.
2
M
al
lp
ro
m
ot
io
na
lc
am
p
ai
g
ns
0.
85
3
Q
ua
lit
y
of
th
e
m
al
lp
ro
d
uc
ts
0.
84
8
M
al
ls
ec
ur
ity
0.
68
6
M
al
lc
om
fo
rt
an
d
p
ol
ite
ne
ss
of
em
p
lo
ye
es
7.
9
M
al
lc
om
fo
rt
0.
79
2
P
ol
ite
ne
ss
of
m
al
le
m
p
lo
ye
es
0.
77
2
PAGE 282 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
into consideration to visualize the broader structure accurately with details, as Gryna (2001,
p. 336) mentions that “even with simple products, the number of customer requirements
and design requirements can become large, and then the number of relationships to
investigate becomes unwieldy”.
The reliability was measured using the split-half method that separates the scale into two
parts and examines the correlation between them. The alpha coefficient is given separately
for each part. The 31 questions in the survey were separated into two parts of 16 and 15
questions, and the reliability was calculated separately for each part. The reliability
measures were found to be 0.885 for the first part and 0.881 for the second part. The
closeness of the reliabilities for each part indicates that the questions are arranged in a
sequential manner.
Findings
This section demonstrates how SMAA-2 was used to identify the crucial mall preferences
of the youth market.
Determining the malls and the criteria
There is intense competition among the local shopping malls in the study location. The
malls selected in this study are the top four preferred retail centers, out of which over 30
operating in the study location. The four malls are representative of the general sectoral
profile in terms of tenant mix, size, services offered and customer profile. Each of the four
malls have over 100 stores, parking facilities, activity areas for children and adults, food
courts and other related services (e.g. banks). The malls themselves provide services,
such as parking valets and wireless internet access. The mall criteria are discussed in
survey instrument and data section.
Selecting the DMs and determining the criteria values
A group of 21 young consumers who were capable of comparing and ranking the malls
formed the DM group. The DM selection criteria were:
� visiting all four malls more than once every week; and
� spending at least 100 Turkish liras in each mall.
The selection criteria for the decision makers were based on earlier studies (Reynolds et al.,
2002; Gilboa and Vilnai-Yavetz, 2013) and were decided by the team of researchers and
mall managers.
To evaluate the four malls, the DM team conducted a brainstorming session on the visiting
habits of young customers. As shown in Table V, the lowest weighting score was given to
mall cleanliness (Criterion 1) and the highest to mall parking facilities (Criterion 31).
Determining the preference information
The preference information for the DMs was computed using the mean scores for the four
malls. Table V lists the criteria rankings toward the arithmetic means. In terms of preference
weightings, the most important criteria for DMs were mall campaigns directed toward loyal
customers, the traffic in the area surrounding the mall, the parking facilities, the services
provided for disabled people and the quality of the locality where the mall is located. The
least important criterion was mall cleanliness.
Determining the rank acceptability index for each alternative
The rank acceptability indexes are computed with JSMAA open source software, using
preference information and criteria values.
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 283
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
As seen from Table VI, the DMs preferred first alternatives are: Mall 2 (58 per cent
probability); Mall 3 (31 per cent probability); Mall 4 (6 per cent probability); and Mall 1 (4
per cent probability).
Determining the central weight vector and the confidence factor for each alternative
The confidence factor (reliability) and the central weight vector values are listed in
Table VII. The reliabilities of the mall rankings were 59 per cent (Mall 2), 31 per cent
(Mall 3), 7 per cent (Mall 4) and 5 per cent (Mall 1).
As seen in Table VII, the criteria that had the highest effects on Mall 5 being ranked first
were the mall campaigns for loyal customers (13 per cent), traffic in the locality (10 per
cent), parking facilities (8 per cent), facilities for disabled people (7 per cent), quality of
locality (6 per cent) and the quality of the people visiting the mall (6 per cent). The criteria
that had no effect on the consumer ranking were mall cleanliness, the presence of moving
stairs and escalators, the mall size and the quality of the products sold.
Results and discussion
All mall managers want a sustainable competitiveadvantage over their direct or indirect
rivals (Finn and Louviere, 1996). This advantage can be obtained by creating a
differentiated and distinct position in the minds of customers (Bloch et al., 1994; LeHew and
Fairhurst, 2000). To achieve this, mall managers must analyze and define the potential
market segments using various interdisciplinary methods and should provide services to
Table V Decision criteria values and orders of importance weightings
Criteria no. Criteria ranking by weight
Criteria values according to malls
Mall1 Mall2 Mall3 Mall4
CVa CV CV CV
1 31 1.52 2.14 1.71 1.76
2 30 2.38 2.10 1.81 2.14
3 22 1.71 2.52 1.81 2.29
4 10 1.86 1.86 1.90 2.10
5 9 1.90 2.38 2.10 1.90
6 8 2.43 2.57 2.52 2.29
7 27 1.86 1.86 2.00 2.10
8 28 2.14 1.95 2.24 1.95
9 11 1.90 2.67 2.24 2.24
10 14 2.14 2.43 2.14 1.76
11 17 2.29 2.71 2.19 2.52
12 15 2.14 2.14 2.10 2.00
13 29 1.81 1.81 1.95 2.24
14 25 1.90 2.33 1.81 1.86
15 3 2.52 2.90 2.33 2.29
16 13 2.62 2.29 2.43 1.95
17 12 2.43 2.76 2.62 2.62
18 26 2.10 2.43 1.95 2.14
19 6 1.86 2.57 2.48 2.24
20 21 2.38 2.43 2.19 1.71
21 7 1.76 2.29 2.10 1.90
22 20 1.81 1.90 2.00 2.05
23 24 1.86 2.38 1.86 1.71
24 16 2.10 1.81 1.95 2.05
25 23 1.86 2.57 1.81 1.95
26 19 1.76 2.05 1.81 2.05
27 18 1.76 2.33 1.76 2.24
28 2 2.71 2.48 2.52 2.38
29 5 2.10 2.19 2.24 2.00
30 4 2.48 2.43 2.10 2.14
31 1 2.48 2.62 2.48 2.48
Note: aCV � criteria value
PAGE 284 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
their customers that emphasize on their superior elements (LeHew and Fairhurst, 2000).
The study reveals that a mall’s physical features, its facilities and the criteria related to
employees have a very low impact on the mall choices of young people. The study further
finds that the youth market has very low satisfaction levels for all of the identified criteria.
Therefore, if a mall wishes to attract the thriving youth market, it is critical that it meets their
needs and expectations and increases their satisfaction levels.
This study reveals that mall cleanliness, the presence of moving stairs and escalators, mall
size and the quality of the products sold have no impact on the mall selection of young
people. This is in contrast with the findings of Bloch et al. (1994), Severin et al. (2001) and
Nicholls et al. (2002), who reported that cleanliness and mall size have a very significant
impact on the mall selection of young people. Belk (1975), Wee (1986) and Haytko and
Baker (2004) emphasized on the importance of physical facilities, such as moving stairs
and elevators, on the choice of malls. Bellenger et al. (1977), Frasquet et al. (2001), Wong
et al. (2001), Severin et al. (2001), and Haytko and Baker (2004) reported on the positive
effect that product quality has on mall selection.
This study finds that the most important criterion for young people in their mall choice is the
campaigns that the malls run for their loyal customers. Anselmsson (2006), Wong et al.
(2012) and Marsha (2015) also found that this criterion affects customer satisfaction.
Additionally, Andreoli (1996) revealed that young consumers expect rewards for shopping
activities. Shopping centers should develop rewards and loyalty programs to satisfy the
youth market, such as discounts and gift vouchers (Bridson et al., 2008; Zakaria et al.,
2014). These strategies also generate positive word-of-mouth (Zeithaml et al., 1996; Chew
and Wirtz, 2001; Bridson et al., 2008).
This study determines that the traffic in the locality surrounding the mall is one of the most
important criteria in mall selection. This is in common with the findings of Belk (1975),
McGoldrick and Ho (1992), Wakefield and Baker (1998), Severin et al. (2001), Ibrahim and
Wee (2002) and Nicholls et al. (2002). This study further finds that the quality of the mall
locality is important to young consumers. The importance of this criterion is reported by
Bearden (1977), Bellenger et al. (1977), Nevin and Houston (1980), McGoldrick and Ho
Table VI Rank acceptability indexes of malls
Malls Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4
Mall1 0.04 0.13 0.31 0.52
a
Mall2 0.58
a 0.28 0.11 0.03
Mall3 0.31 0.41
a 0.20 0.09
Mall4 0.06 0.19 0.38
a 0.36
Note: aMall rankings that are most likely to be preferred by consumers
Table VII Central weight vectors and confidence factors of malls
Malls
Central weight vectors
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16
Mall1 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.03
Mall2 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.03
Mall3 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.03
Mall4 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.03
C17 C18 C19 C20 C21 C22 C23 C24 C25 C26 C27 C28 C29 C30 C31 CF
Mall1 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.05
Mall2 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.59
Mall3 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.31
Mall4 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.14 0.07
Note: Ci � i th criterion
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 285
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
(1992), Wakefield and Baker (1998), Severin et al. (2001), Anselmsson (2006), Tabak et al.
(2006) and Sari et al. (2011). This study also finds that parking facilities are important; this
result accords with the findings of Bearden (1977), Hauser and Koppelman (1979) and
McGoldrick and Ho (1992).
Such results show that the accessibility and location of the mall crucially influences the mall
selection of young people. However, Gentry and Burns (1978), Barnes and Peters (1982)
and Marjanen (1995) reported that these criteria are more important for older consumers
than younger consumers. Sit et al. (2003) classified accessibility into two categories: macro
and micro accessibilities. Macro accessibility relates to local road conditions and the
proximity of the mall to the customer, whereas micro accessibility relates to parking
facilities. The study results reflect Sit et al.’s (2003) accessibility categories, with the youth
market ranking micro accessibility (parking) in 3rd position and macro accessibility (easy
access) in 16th position. Loudon and Della Bitta (1993), Dennis et al. (2001) and Ahmed
et al. (2007) all considered that a convenient location is the winning factor for shopping
malls. This study reveals that this macro accessibility criterion is less relevant for the youth
market than for the general population.
The results show that the youth market ranks the facilities that malls provide for disabled
people as the fourth most important criterion influencing their mall choices. This ranking
indicates that the youth market is sensitive to the needs of disabled people. Accordingly,
a focus by mall managers on strategies improving access for disabled people could be an
attractive point for the youth market, in addition to attracting disabled people. Similarly,
Rousseau and Venter (2014) mentioned that mall managers emphasize on the needs and
expectations of their disabled customers. Poovalingam and Docrat (2011) claim that a
disabled-friendly shopping center could create a competitive and comparative advantage
factor for mall patronage. Kaufman-Scarborough (2000) presented a path for catering to
disabled customers’ needs in the retail sector. Shopping centers should differentiate their
services according to the needs and expectations of their disabled customers (Baker et al.,
2002; Meyers et al., 2002). The needs of disabled people should be taken into
consideration in improving the physical infrastructure of a mall.The quality of the people visiting the mall was ranked sixth in this study. Dennis et al. (2001)
also discuss this factor’s effect on mall patronage. Tabak et al. (2006) reported the mall
clientele (in other words, a select crowd) as an important factor in the mall selection
process of adolescent girls. De˛bek (2015) also emphasized on this factor as the social
positioning of shopping malls. The youth market sees the mall as a setting for social activity
(Taylor and Cosenza, 2002; Haytko and Baker, 2004; Zollo, 2004; Durakbas¸a and
Cindog˘lu, 2005). Therefore, as Massicotte et al. (2011) mentioned, the social aspects of a
mall are very important for young consumers. Sirgy et al. (1991) and Massicotte et al. (2011)
also cited self-congruity as an indicator in the evaluation of shopping malls, mainly for
young consumers compared with adult shoppers.
To be successful in the youth market, malls should improve their services according to the
needs and expectations of this market using different approaches to those of their rivals.
The results of this study could help malls managers who want to target the youth market.
The criteria emphasized in the study reveal the priority values that mall managers should
consider. A shopping mall cannot target only one segment, but creating different sections
in the shopping mall for various segments could represent an effective solution.
Future studies may be directed to investigate the mall shoppers according to the
demographic, behavioral and physiographic dimensions generalizing for other research
settings as mentioned by Payne and Williams (2005). Self-selected sample imposes limits
to the generality; however, the possibility of comparison with other studies findings could
increase the generality (Sivadas et al., 1998). Mixed research methods have been
implemented in this study to promote the generalizability as cited by Polit and Beck (2010).
Also, the procedure of collecting and analyzing the data has been performed by the
PAGE 286 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
researchers themselves to improve the capacity of generalization as reported by Polit and
Beck (2010).
Certain studies highlight the cultural differences between mall customers (Frasquet et al.,
2001). For instance, Nicholls et al. (2002) showed that Chilean consumers focus on
purchasing factors, whereas US consumers focus on amusement factors. Regardless of
the mall sector’s level of development, it is part of a global trend incorporating local
differences (Erkip, 2005). Therefore, the study should be repeated in cross-cultural and
sub-cultural dimensions.
The findings show that the SMAA-2 method can be used effectively in consumer-based
studies, in addition to the production and logistical studies in which it is generally used. The
method determines the ranking of criteria according to young consumers’ preferences and
the effectiveness or impact of these criteria. This finding shows that interdisciplinary studies
can, and should, be applied in related areas.
Conclusion
This study determines the most crucial criteria that the youth market considers when
selecting which shopping mall to visit. Based on the SMAA-2 method, the study presents
a framework for mall managers to differentiate their mall from their rivals and to gain a
sustainable competitive advantage. This study uniquely enables the sequential ordering of
customers’ decision-making criteria and determines the effectiveness or impact of these
criteria in the mall sector. The study’s findings are vital to various stakeholders, including
mall managers, mall tenants, retailers and investors in the mall sector.
References
Ahmed, Z.U., Ghingold, M. and Dahari, Z. (2007), “Malaysian shopping mall behavior: an exploratory
study”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 331-348.
Allard, T., Babin, B.J. and Chebat, J.C. (2009), “When income matters: customers evaluation of
shopping malls’ hedonic and utilitarian orientations”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 40-49.
Altman, I. and Low, S.M. (1992), Place Attachment, Plenum Publishing Corp, New York, NY.
Andreoli, T. (1996), “Message to retail industry: teens should be seen and heard”, Discount Store
News, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 30-32.
Anselmsson, J. (2006), “Sources of customer satisfaction with shopping malls: a comparative study of
different customer segments”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 115-138.
Baker, S.M., Stephens, D.L. and Hill, R.P. (2002), “How can retailers enhance accessibility: giving
consumers with visual impairments a voice in the marketplace”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 9, pp. 227-239.
Bao, Y. and Shao, A.T. (2002), “Nonconformity advertising to teens”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 56-65.
Barnard, N.R. and Ehrenberg, A.S. (1990), “Robust measures of consumer brand beliefs”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 477-484.
Barnes, N.G. (2005), “The restructuring of the retail business in the US: the fall of the shopping mall”,
Business Forum, Vol. 27 No. 1.
Barnes, N.G. and Peters, M.P. (1982), “Modes of retail distribution-views of the elderly”, Akron
Business and Economic Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 26-31.
Bearden, W.O. (1977), “Determinant attributes of store patronage-downtown versus outlying shopping
centers”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 2, p. 15.
Belk, R. (1975), Consumer Behavior, The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and
Consumer Studies.
Bellenger, D.N., Robertson, D.H. and Greenberg, B.A. (1977), “Shopping center patronage motives”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 29-38.
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 287
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M. and Dawson, S.A. (1994), “The shopping mall as consumer habitat”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 23-42.
Breazeale, M. and Lueg, J.E. (2011), “Retail shopping typology of American teens”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 64, pp. 565-571.
Bridson, K., Evans, J. and Hickman, M. (2008), “Assessing the relationship between loyalty program
attributes, store satisfaction and store loyalty”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 15
No. 5, pp. 364-374.
Chain Store Age Executive (1994), “The survey says: teen-agers want to shop ’till they drop”, Chain
Store Age, Vol. 70 No. 11, pp. 91-96.
Chew, P. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “The effects of incentives, satisfaction, tie strength, and deal proneness
on word-of-mouth behavior”, Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, p. 335.
Crutsinger, C., Knight, D. and Kim, H. (2010), “Teens’ consumer interaction styles: the impact of
assertive and aggressive behavior on attitudes towards marketing practices”, International Journal of
Consumer Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 196-203.
Dahan-Oliel, N., Shikako-Thomas, K., Mazer, B. and Majnemer, A. (2015), “Adolescents with
disabilities participate in the shopping mall: facilitators and barriers framed according to the ICF”.
Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 38 No. 21, pp. 1-11.
De Juan, M.D. (2004), “Why do people choose the shopping malls? The attraction theory revisited: a
Spanish case”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 71-96.
Dêbek, M. (2015), “What drives shopping mall attractiveness?”, Polish Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 67-118.
DeLisle, J.R. (2005), “US shopping center classifications: challenges and opportunities”, Research
Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 96-101.
Dennis, C., Marsland, D. and Cockett, W.A. (2001), “The mystery of consumer behavior: market
segmentationand shoppers’ choices of shopping centers”, International Journal of New Product
Development and Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 221-237.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Durakbas¸a, A. and Cindog˘lu, D. (2005), “Tezgah U¨stü Kars¸ılas¸malar: Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Alıs¸veris¸
Deneyimi”, in Kandiyoti, D. and Saktanber, A. (Eds), Kültür Fragmanları: Türkiye’de Gündelik Hayat,
Metis Yayınları, I˙stanbul.
Erkip, F. (2005), “The rise of the shopping mall in Turkey: the use and appeal of a mall in Ankara”,
Cities, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
Finn, A. and Louviere, J.J. (1996), “Shopping center image, consideration, and choice: anchor store
contribution”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 241-251.
Frasquet, M., Gil, I. and Molla, A. (2001), “Shopping-center selection modeling: a segmentation
approach”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 3-38.
Gentina, E., Butori, R., Rose, G.M. and Bakir, A. (2014), “How national culture impacts teenage
shopping behavior: comparing French and American consumers”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 464-470.
Gentry, J.W. and Burns, A.C. (1978), “How important are evaluative criteria in shopping center
patronage”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 53 No. 4, p. 73.
Gil, L.A., Kwon, K.N., Good, L.K. and Johnson, L.W. (2012), “Impact of self on attitudes toward luxury
brands among teens”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1425-1433.
Gilboa, S. and Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (2013), “Shop until you drop? An exploratory analysis of mall
experiences”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Nos 1/2, pp. 239-259.
Goss, J.D. and Leinbach, T.R. (1996), “Focus groups as alternative research practice: experience with
transmigrants in Indonesia”, Area, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 115-123.
Gryna, F.M. (2001), Quality Planning and Analysis: From Product Development Through Use,
McGraw-Hill Science Engineering.
PAGE 288 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Hauser, J.R. and Koppelman, F.S. (1979), “Alternative perceptual mapping techniques: relative
accuracy and usefulness”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 495-506.
Haytko, D.L. and Baker, J. (2004), “It’s all at the mall: exploring adolescent girls’ experiences”, Journal
of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 67-83.
Howard, E. (1993), “Assessing the impact of shopping-centre development: the Meadowhall case”,
Journal of Property Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 97-119.
Howard, E. (1997), “The management of shopping centres: conflict or collaboration?”, The
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 263-285.
Howell, R. and Rogers, J.D. (1980), “Research into shopping mall choice behavior”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 671-681.
Hurlock, E. (1996), Psikologi Perkembangan, Suatu Pendekatan Sepanjang Rentang Kehidupan,
Erlangga, Jakarta.
Ibrahim, M. and Wee, N. (2002), “The importance of entertainment in the shopping center
experience: evidence from Singapore”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 239-254.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L. and Brantley, A. (2011), “Mall attributes and shopping value: differences by
gender and generational cohort”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 1-9.
Joshi, B.H., Waghela, R. and Patel, K.T. (2015), “An analysis of shoppers satisfaction level with
shopping experience in the shopping malls”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and
Studies, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 8-18.
Kang, J., Kim, Y.K. and Tuan, W. (1996), “Motivational factors of mall shoppers: effects of ethnicity and
age”, Journal of Shopping Center Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 7-31.
Kaufman-Scarborough, C. (2000), “Reasonable access for mobility-disabled persons is more than
widening the door”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 4, pp. 479-508.
Khare, A. (2011), “Mall shopping behavior of Indian small town consumers”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 110-118.
Kim, E.Y. and Kim, Y.K. (2005), “The effects of ethnicity and gender on teens’ mall shopping
motivations”, Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 65-77.
Kim, Y.K. (2002), “Consumer value: an application to mall and Internet shopping”, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 595-602.
Kusumowidagdo, A., Rembulan, C.L. and Agus Sachari, A. (2015), “Sense of place among
adolescents: factors influencing the place attachment on shopping malls”, Makara Hubs-Asia, Vol. 19
No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Lahdelma, R. and Salminen, P. (2001), “SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for
group decision making”, Operations Research, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 444-454.
Larsen, V., Shelton, R. and Wright, N.D. (2015), “Shopping center attitudes: an empirical test of
predictive attributes”, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 93-102.
LeHew, M.L., Burgess, B. and Wesley, S. (2002), “Expanding the loyalty concept to include preference
for a shopping mall”, The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 12
No. 3, pp. 225-236.
LeHew, M.L. and Fairhurst, A.E. (2000), “US shopping mall attributes: an exploratory investigation of
their relationship to retail productivity”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 261-279.
Léo, P.Y. and Philippe, J. (2002), “Retail centres: location and consumer’s satisfaction”, Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 122-146.
Loudon, D.L. and Della Bitta, A.J. (1993), Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Applications,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lueg, J.E., Ponder, N., Beatty, S.E. and Capella, M.L. (2006), “Teenagers’ use of alternative
shopping channels: a consumer socialization perspective”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 82 No. 2,
pp. 137-153.
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 289
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
McGoldrick, P.J. and Ho, S.S. (1992), “International positioning: Japanese department stores in Hong
Kong”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 Nos 8/9, pp. 61-73.
Mallalieu, L. (2000), “My mother told me you’d better shop around: exploring the shopping
experiences of teenagers”, Association for Consumer Research Conference, Salt Lake City, UT,
pp. 12-15.
Mallalieu, L. and Palan, K.M. (2006), “How good a shopper am I? Conceptualizing teenage girls’
perceived shopping competence”, Academy of Marketing Sciences Review, Vol. 5, pp. 1-28.
Mangleburg, T.F., Doney, P.M. and Bristol, T. (2004), “Shopping with friends and teens’ susceptibility
to peer influence”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 101-116.
Marjanen, H. (1995), “Longitudinal study on consumer spatial shopping behavior with special
reference to out-of-town shopping: experiences from Turku, Finland”, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 163-174.
Marsha, A. (2015), “The impact of Plaza Indonesia Shopping Mall’s attributes toward customers’
satisfaction”, iBuss Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 49-57.
Massicotte, M.C., Michon, R., Chebat, J.C., Sirgy, M.J. and Borges, A. (2011), “Effects of mall
atmosphere on mall evaluation: teenage versus adult shoppers”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 18, pp. 74-80.
Meyer, P. (2001), “Brands need to understand mindset of echo-boomers in order to survive”, Kids
Marketing Report, Vol. 1, p. 14.
Meyers, A.R., Anderson, J.J., Miller, D.R., Shipp, K. and Hoenig, H. (2002), “Barriers, facilitators,and
access for wheelchair users: substantive and methodological lessons from a pilot study of
environmental effects”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 1435-1446.
Neuborne, E. and Kerwin, K. (1999), “Generation”, Business Week, pp. 46-50.
Nevin, J.R. and Houston, M.J. (1980), “Image as a component of attraction to interurban shopping
areas”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 77-93.
Nicholls, J.A.F., Li, F., Kranendonk, C.J. and Roslow, S. (2002), “The seven year itch? Mall shoppers
across time”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 149-165.
Olsen, S.O. (2002), “Comparative evaluation and the relationship between quality, satisfaction, and
repurchase loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 240-249.
Palan, K.M. and Mallalieu, L. (2012), “A troubled relationship: an exploration of mall retailers and teen
shoppers’ thoughts, behaviors, and coping strategies as they interact with each other”, Young
Consumers, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 242-254.
Payne, G. and Williams, M. (2005), “Generalization in qualitative research”, Sociology, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 295-314.
Pecora, N.O. (1998), The Business of Children’s Entertainment, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Peterson, M. and McGee, J.E. (2000), “Survivors of ‘W-day’: an assessment of the impact of Wal-Mart’s
invasion of small town retailing communities”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 28 Nos 4/5, pp. 170-180.
Phillips, L. and Sternthal, B. (1977), “Age differences in information processing: a prospective on the
aged consumer”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 444-457.
Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2010), “Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and
strategies”, International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 47 No. 11, pp. 1451-1458.
Poovalingam, K. and Docrat, S. (2011), “Consumer decision-making in the selection of shopping
centres around Durban”, Management, Informatics and Research Design, pp. 215.
Quart, A. (2003), Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers, Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Raajpoot, N.A., Sharma, A. and Chebat, J.C. (2008), “The role of gender and work status in shopping
center patronage”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 8, pp. 825-833.
Reynolds, K.E., Ganesh, J. and Luckett, M. (2002), “Traditional malls vs. factory outlets: comparing
shopper typologies and implications for retail strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 9,
pp. 687-696.
PAGE 290 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Rousseau, G.G. and Venter, D.J.L. (2014), “Mall shopping preferences and patronage of mature
shoppers”, SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, Vol. 40 No. 1, p.
1175.
Ruiz, J.P., Chebat, J.C. and Hansen, P. (2004), “Another trip to the mall: a segmentation study of
customers based on their activities”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 6,
pp. 333-350.
Sari, A.A., Kusuma, H.E. and Tedjo, B. (2011), “A strategic planning for a college student-segment
shopping mall”, International Research Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 157-169.
Severin, V., Louviere, J.J. and Finn, A. (2001), “The stability of retail shopping choices over time and
across countries”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 185-202.
Sirgy, M.J., Johar, J.S., Samli, A.C. and Claiborne, C.B. (1991), “Self-congruity versus functional
congruity: predictors of consumer behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 363-375.
Sit, J., Merrilees, B. and Birch, D. (2003), “Entertainment-seeking shopping centre patrons: the
missing segments”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 80-94.
Sivadas, E., Grewal, R. and Kellaris, J. (1998), “The internet as a micro marketing tool: targeting
consumers through preferences revealed in music newsgroup usage”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 179-186.
Stoltman, J.J., Gentry, J.W. and Anglin, K.A. (1991), “Shopping choices: the case of mall choice”,
NA-Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18, pp. 21-28.
Suárez, A., del Bosque, I.R., Rodrı=guez-Poo, J.M. and Moral, I. (2004), “Accounting for heterogeneity
in shopping centre choice models”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 119-129.
Tabak, B.I., Ozgen, O. and Aykol, B. (2006), “High school girls’ shopping mall experiences,
perceptions and expectations: a qualitative study”, EGE University Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 110-113.
Tamimi, A. (2011), Analysis of Retail Management Strategies, The American University of Sharjah,
Deira City Centre.
Taylor, S.L. and Cosenza, R.M. (2002), “Profiling later aged female teens: mall shopping behavior and
clothing choice”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 393-408.
Terblanche, N.S. (1999), “The perceived benefits derived from visits to a super-regional shopping
centre: an exploratory study”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 141-147.
Vural, T., Arslan, F., Senkali, Sezer, S. and Isigicok, E. (2010), “Magnetism of shopping malls on young
Turkish consumer”, Young Consumer, Vol. 21, pp. 22-28.
Wakefield, K.L. and Baker, J. (1998), “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping
response”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 515-539.
Wee, C.H. (1986), “Shopping area image: its factor analytic structure and relationships with shopping
trips and expenditure behavior”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 13, pp. 48-52.
Wilhelm, W.B. and Mottner, S. (2005), “Teens and shopping mall preferences: a conjoint analysis
approach to understanding the generational shift toward an experience economy”, Journal of
Shopping Center Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-52.
Wong, C.B., Ng, H.C., Wong, K.K. and Wong, M.H. (2012), “The relationship between shopping mall
attributes, customer satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth: China visitors in Hong Kong”, Global
Journal of Management and Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 49-62.
Wong, G.K.M., Lu, Y. and Yuan, L.L. (2001), “SCATTR: an instrument for measuring shopping
centre attractiveness”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 76-86.
Zakaria, I., Rahman, B.A., Othman, A.K., Yunus, N.A.M., Dzulkipli, M.R. and Osman, M.A.F. (2014),
“The relationship between loyalty program, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in retail
industry: a case study”, Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 129, pp. 23-30.
VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016 YOUNG CONSUMERS PAGE 291
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by
 U
SP
 A
t 0
6:
59
 1
2 
M
ay
 2
01
7 
(P
T)
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. and Parsuraman, A. (1996), “The behavioral consequences of service
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 31-46.
Zollo, P. (2004), “When marketing to teens, trends live fast, die young”, Crain’s Chicago Business,
Vol. 2, p. 14.
Further reading
El-Adly, I.M. (2007), “Shopping malls attractiveness: a segmentation approach”, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 936-950.
Lahdelma, R., Makkonen, S. and Salminen, P. (2009), “Two ways to handle dependent uncertainties in
multicriteria decision problems”, Omega, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 79-92.
Corresponding author
Gülin Feryal Can can be contacted at: gfcan@baskent.edu.tr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
PAGE 292 YOUNG CONSUMERS VOL. 17 NO. 3 2016
D
ow
nl
oa
de
d 
by