Figure 1 –Structural relationships model
Similarly, Oliver (1997) pointed out that consumption events are capable of satisfying needs at functional and
psychological levels. In this case, the most tangible product attributes, because they are bivalent, contribute to consumers’
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Since they feed cognitive processes with information, these attributes must be closely related
to the evaluations of utilitarian shopping value. On the other hand, the most abstract and superior product features, because
they are monovalent, contribute affective and psychological elements to consumers’ satisfaction. Therefore, the monovalent
attributes of products must be closely related to the evaluations of hedonic shopping value
It is therefore obvious that value perceptions in a shopping experience are important components of satisfaction
judgments. Actually, a number of studies show connections between hedonic and utilitarian shopping values and
satisfaction (Babin; Darden & Griffin, 1994; Babin et al., 2005; Jones, Reynolds & Arnold, 2006). Naturally, the following
propositions ensue:
P1.
The hedonic shopping value will have a positive influence on satisfaction.
P2.
The utilitarian shopping value will have a positive influence on satisfaction.
6
P
01
a P
03
Satisfactio
n
Hedonic Value
Utilitarian
Value
Word of mouth
Repurchase
Intention
P
04
a P
9
P
10
P
13
a
P
22
Ideal
Stimulation
Level
Retailing
Variables
P
11
a P
12
Shopping
Values
Effort
Convention