The moderating influence of socio-demographic factors on the relationship

between consumer psychographics and the attitude towards private

label brands
PAURAV SHUKLA
1
*, MADHUMITA BANERJEE
2
and PHANI TEJ ADIDAM
3
1
Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University, 40 Fashion Street, Spitalelds, London, E1 6PX, UK
2
Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 0RQ, UK
3
College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, USA
ABSTRACT
This study examines the moderating inuence of socio-demographic variables (gender, age, education, income and family size) on the relation-
ship between psychographic measures (general deal proneness, price-related deal proneness, end-of-aisle display proneness, impulsiveness,
smart-shopper self-perceptions and brand loyalty) and consumers attitude towards private label brands. The proposed hypotheses are tested
by collecting data at three different British supermarkets and assessed using structural equation modelling. The study reveals ndings contrary
to the prevailing views about consumer psychographics and socio-demographics, including the following: (i) the signicance of deal proneness
among high-income consumers; (ii) the end-of-aisle display proneness among older, high-income and highly educated consumers; and (c) the
relationship between impulsiveness and brand attitude among low-income and less-educated consumers. The study also provides multiple
insights relating to psycho-demographic targeting and display strategies. Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Consumer attitudes towards private label brands have
changed tremendously in recent years (Steenkamp and
Dekimpe, 1997; Ailawadi and Harlam, 2004; Ailawadi
et al., 2008). As private label brands account for an increas-
ing percentage of a consumers shopping basket, several
scholars and marketers have attempted to understand and
explain consumers behaviour towards private label brands
(Ailawadi et al., 2008; Rubio and Yage, 2009; Martos-
Partal, 2012). Extant academic research on private label
brands has attempted to prole the private label brand
consumers on a variety of psychographic variables. These
include studies focusing on price and value consciousness
(Burton et al., 1998; Batra and Sinha, 2000; Ailawadi et al.,
2001), quality perceptions (Hoch and Banerji, 1993; Richard-
son et al., 1996), brand and store loyalty (Burton et al., 1998;
Areni et al., 1999; Ailawadi et al., 2008), deal proneness
(Burton et al., 1998; Ailawadi et al., 2001), search and risk
assessment and product involvement (Batra and Sinha, 2000;
Kwon et al., 2008). Although psychographics are undeniably
important, in terms of business practice, many consumer
product and service companies primarily, or even completely,
focus on socio-demographics (McDonald and Dunbar, 1998).
Socio-demographics are important to managers because they
are one of the most readily available and accessible data and
can also be applied to segmentation issues with relative ease
in comparison with other segmentation variables (Myers,
1967; Diamantopoulos et al., 2003). Unfortunately, despite
the importance of socio-demographic factors in overall mana-
gerial decision-making (Baltas, 2003), most academic studies
appear to offer an ambiguous value to socio-demographic
characteristics for segmenting and targeting private label brand
consumers (Kalyanam and Putler, 1997).
Although researchers have noted the importance of socio-
demographic characteristics (Burton et al., 1998; Batra and
Sinha, 2000), the concept only gets a eeting mention in the
overall methodology, analysis and interpretation. This phe-
nomenon of ignoring socio-demographic variables is puzzling
given that one would expect socio-demographic variables such
as income, family size and education to have some inuence on
consumer purchase decisions. Moreover, researchers have
observed that the possible moderating inuence of socio-
demographics is either ignored or examined in an ad hoc nature
in the extant research on private label brands (Richardson et al.,
1996; Burton et al., 1998).
This paper investigates the relationships between psycho-
graphic variables
1
and socio-demographic variables
2
for prol-
ing private label brand consumers. The reasons for analysing
the interrelationship between the roles played by psychograph-
ics and socio-demographics in proling private label
consumers include the following. First, in recent years, with a
few exceptions (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Baltas and Argouslidis,
2007; Ailawadi et al., 2008), many studies have failed to assess
the impact of socio-demographic variables. The idea that
consumers differ in the efforts they put into shopping is not
new (Newman and Staelin, 1972). Researchers agree that
consumers in different stages of the family life cycle make
different shopping decisions on the basis of their socio-
demographics. Such differences are important to marketers
because they inuence consumers reactions to marketing
strategies (Slama and Tashchian, 1985). Second, prior studies
1
General and price-related deal proneness, end-of-aisle display proneness,
impulsiveness, smart-shopper self-perceptions and brand loyalty
2
Gender, age, education, income and family size
* Correspondence to: Paurav Shukla, Professor of Luxury Brand Marketing,
Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian University,
40 Fashion Street, Spitalelds, London E1 6PX, UK.
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
Published online 17 October 2013 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.1441
have not examined how psychographics and socio-
demographics interact in consumer decision-making processes
(Hyman et al., 2010). Third, the vast majority of studies
focusing on private label brands are US based. This is parti-
cularly of concern as many other countries have a signicantly
developed market for private labels. For example, the UK is
considered to be the most developed market for private label
brands, and the market share of private labels is estimated to
be 42.3 per cent (Grifths, 2009). Consumer culture re-
searchers suggest that country-specic factors are signicantly
inuential in developing the socio-demographic make-up of
consumers and their purchase behaviour (Redding, 1990;
Shukla, 2010). Therefore, results based only on US consumers
may not hold in other settings.
Taken collectively, the preceding observations provide a
strong argument in favour of taking a fresh look at the
moderating inuence of socio-demographics on the relation-
ship between the psychographic variables and the attitudes
towards private label brands. Such a research effort will help
develop a better proling of private label consumers.
Specically, in this paper, following an extensive review of
the literature, hypotheses are developed concerning the links
between six psychographic measures (i.e. general deal
proneness, price-related deal proneness, end-of-aisle display
proneness, impulsiveness, smart-shopper self-perceptions
and brand loyalty) and the role of socio-demographic vari-
ables (i.e. gender, age, education, income and family size).
The proposed hypotheses are subsequently tested on a
sample of UK consumers, and the direct effects model as well
as the moderating inuence of socio-demographic variables are
assessed through the use of structural equation modelling.
In addressing the aforementioned issues, this paper makes
the following contributions to the theory and practice of
retailing. First, the paper provides a more comprehensive
understanding of the moderating inuence of socio-
demographic variables on the relationship between consumer
psychographics and their attitude towards private label brands.
Second, it also highlights the added utility of socio-
demographics for proling private label consumers. Third, it
complements previous work that has examined the psycho-
graphic constructs of deal proneness (Burton et al., 1998),
impulsiveness, smart-shopper self-perceptions and brand
loyalty (Ailawadi et al., 2001; Garretson et al., 2002). Fourth,
although the impact of promotions and price deals on private
label brands has been studied intensively (Ailawadi et al.,
2001; Garretson et al., 2002; DelVecchio, 2005), there has
been limited research attention to the end-of-aisle display
proneness. Our study takes the initiative to explore this
phenomenon. The results of this study uncover the role of
end-of-aisle display proneness in inuencing consumer atti-
tudes by reducing search cost, effort and time and appealing
to consumers of different socio-demographic segments. In
doing so, the study captures the emerging retailing practices
relating to the strategic use of end-of-aisle display proneness
to attract customers towards private label brands. On the
basis of the ndings, retailers can use the basics of
segmentation and positioning linked with psychography-
based and demography-based variables to develop effec-
tive retailing strategies.
The paper is organised as follows. First, we present our
conceptual framework and hypotheses to measure the
attitude towards private label brands. Next, we present the
research methodology employed for the study. Thereafter,
we use structural equation modelling and multigroup conr-
matory factor analysis to examine the relationship between
the constructs and present the research results. We conclude
with a summary of the research ndings and the theoretical
and managerial implications of this research study.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS
DEVELOPMENT
Successful global retailers such as Wal-Mart and Tesco are
increasingly using psychographic and socio-demographic
data to create subsegments of private label brands (Mukund,
2003; Kapner, 2009; Levins, 2009). Some examples include
Wal-Marts Sams Choice (and Members Mark) and Tesco
Finest aimed at the up-market consumer segment as well as
Wal-Mart Great Value and Tesco Value aimed at the low-
end market. Retailers seem to be adopting a two-pronged
strategy, whereby, on one hand, the increasing sophistication
of variety, quality and packaging of their up-market private
label brand tries to compete with national brands and reach
the more economically afuent customer and, on the other
hand, the value range of private label brands reaches out to
the socio-economically constrained consumer segment.
Baltas (2003) suggested that differences in consumer
perceptions regarding product attributes of manufacturer
and store brands lead to heterogeneous preferences and con-
sumption rates. According to Baltas and Argouslidis (2007),
this interpersonal heterogeneity in private label brand
demand may partially be explained by socio-demographic
variables. With the growing importance of private label
brands in the consumer basket and the increasing quality
and variety of private label brands, we examine whether
consumers belonging to different socio-demographic groups
show similarities and differences in their attitude towards
private label brands. If they do, then the classical segmenta-
tion, targeting and positioning strategies used by retailers
and manufacturers need to take into account the relevant
consumer socio-demographic segments, whereas, if they do
not, we need to revisit the increasing marketing budgets
allocated to sustain the private label growth by the retailers
(Kumar and Steenkamp, 2007) and the competition by
national brands to ght such private label brands.
We provide an overview of our conceptual framework in
Figure 1. Our framework (Figure 1) proposes general deal
proneness, price-related deal proneness, end-of-aisle display
proneness, impulsiveness, smart-shopper self-perceptions
and brand loyalty to have a direct inuence on the attitude
towards private label brands. We also measure the direct
inuence of socio-demographics on the attitude towards
private label brands. The key focus of our model is to inves-
tigate the moderating inuence of socio-demographic factors
mentioned earlier. Using extant research, we hypothesise the
directional relationship between the psychographic variables
and the attitude towards private label brands. However, as we
424 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
have noted previously, most prior research is fairly ambi-
guous about the moderating effects of socio-demographics
on the relationship between the psychographic variables
and the attitude towards private label brands (Richardson
et al., 1996; Ailawadi et al., 2001). As a result, it is difcult
to specify the directional hypotheses as to which socio-
demographic variable will moderate which other psycho-
graphic variable. Given the integrative nature of our research,
we discuss the evidence to date and include these variables in
our empirical model, exploring these moderated relation-
ships, even when extant research does not enable us to state
unambiguous, directional hypotheses.
The role of psychographics
Extant research has examined the impact of psychographics
on private label brand attitude (Richardson et al., 1996;
Burton et al., 1998; Batra and Sinha, 2000; Ailawadi et al.,
2001, 2008). In a similar vein, we examine the role of six
psychographics on inuencing private label brand attitude:
general deal proneness, price-related deal proneness, end-
of-aisle display proneness, impulsiveness, smart-shopper
self-perceptions and brand loyalty. The deal proneness
constructs are chosen because it is believed that there is a
relationship between private label brand attitude and
consumers derived utility from acting on promotional deals
(Burton et al., 1998). Price-related deal proneness is particu-
larly chosen as a construct separate from general deal prone-
ness, specically to test the increasing reliance by retailers on
price deals for promoting private label brands. Market
analysts have also observed the increasing innovativeness
in shelf-space management and the role played by end-of-
aisle displays. However, the role of this specic non-price-
related deal display proneness is sparsely studied. It has been
observed by researchers that todays time-poor consumers
are frequently acting impulsively in the retail environment
(Inman et al., 2009). Therefore, it will be interesting to
observe the role played by impulsiveness on the attitude
towards private label brands. In contrast to increasing
store-level impulsiveness, researchers also observe that
nowadays many consumers extensively use price comparison
websites before purchasing products (Kamakura and Moon,
2009). With private label brands consistently emphasising
their quality similarity with national brands, it may affect
the smart-shopper self-perceptions of those consumers who
are oriented towards private label brands, as these consumers
are provided with an advantageous purchase opportunity for a
lower price. Chan Choi and Coughlan (2006) reported
waning loyalty among consumers towards national brands.
On the other hand, Ailawadi et al. (2008) and Kumar and
Steenkamp (2007) demonstrated that consumers are reluctant
to switch from private label to national brands easily.
Therefore, brand loyalty towards national brands becomes
an important psychographic variable in forming attitude
towards private label brands.
General deal proneness
With the growing acceptance of private label brands among
consumers, retailers have also increased the promotional
activities for private label brands. This activity further
increases the deal-prone behaviour of consumers and thereby
assists retailers in taking greater margins against national
brands. Consumer deal proneness is considered to be the
responsiveness to promotions and deals (Blattberg and
Neslin, 1990). Deal-prone behaviour is perceived to be going
beyond the lowest price and seeking transactional utility
when the price paid is below the consumers internal refer-
ence price (Thaler, 1985). Deal proneness is observed across
a range of consumers belonging to various socio-economic
backgrounds (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Burton et al.,
1998). DelVecchio (2005) observed that deal-prone con-
sumers give increasing attention to the overall transaction
utility in their buying process in addition to the acquisition
utility. Given that private label brands are generally made
available through various deals, the consumers may use the
transactional utility to guide their purchase intentions. Thus,
we hypothesise the following.
Psychographics
General deal proneness
Price related deal proneness
End-of-aisle displays
Impulsiveness
Smart-shopper self perceptions
Brand loyalty
Attitude towards
private label
brands
Socio-demographics
Gender
Age
Education
Income
Family Size
Direct relationship
Interrelationships
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 425
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
H1: General deal proneness has a signicant positive in-
uence on consumer attitude towards private label brands.
Price-related deal proneness
From the prior research of Price et al. (1988), Shimp and
Kavas (1984) and Lichtenstein et al. (1995), we distinguish
between general deal proneness and other forms of deal
proneness that are price and non-price related. Deals that
are primarily dependent on price include coupons, rebates
and money-off vouchers or labels. The underlying argument
that is offered to support this categorisation of deal proneness
is that consumers are likely to respond differently to different
kinds of deals (Price et al., 1988; DelVecchio, 2005), which
may be price or non-price related. Burton et al. (1998) found
in their research that of all the deal types, deal proneness and
private label attitude were most strongly related to price-
based deals. Similar evidence was also put forward by Lee
and Ariely (2005), where, by using experiments, the authors
found that conditional coupons were more effective in
inuencing consumers spending. With retailers increasing
in-store expenditure on price-based deals (Chandon et al.,
2009), we posit the following.
H2: Price-related deal proneness has a signicant positive
inuence on consumer attitude towards private label
brands.
End-of-aisle display proneness
Consumer deal proneness to a number of non-price-related
deals have been discussed in the literature and include
contests and sweepstakes, free gift with purchase and end-
of-aisle displays (Blattberg and Neslin, 1990; Lichtenstein
et al., 1995). Although the different forms of non-price-
related deals remain popular, industry analysts have observed
and remarked that with an increasing ght for shelf space
between national and private label brands (Abelson, 2010;
Delise, 2010), the end-of-aisle display has gained promi-
nence for promoting the private label brands. However,
research on the impact of end-of-aisle display proneness on
consumer purchase intentions is scarce. In this regard, we
propose the following.
H3: End-of-aisle display proneness has a signicant posi-
tive inuence on consumer attitude towards private label
brands.
Impulsiveness and smart-shopper self-perceptions
Baumeister (2002) dened impulsive purchases as those
occurring without consideration of prior goals and plans
and also as a behavioural response to stimuli. Burton et al.
(1998) suggested that impulsiveness is low when the effort
and thoughtfulness required in decision-making (i.e. transac-
tion utility) are high. With private label brands competing
with national brands on the dimensions of price, quality
and packaging among others, the overall transactional utility
involved in buying them will reduce substantially. This could
lead to higher impulsive behaviour when buying private label
brands. Burton et al. (1998) argued that thoughtful or smart
shoppers may be less inuenced by advertising campaigns
and refrain from making impulsive purchase decisions.
Smart-shopping perceptions satisfy the ego state of the
consumer (Chandon et al., 2000) and the feel-good factor
of having sought out a good buy. These consumers make
careful selection and purchase decision by comparing
national and private label brands for their price and quality
(Walker, 1991). From their research ndings, Garretson
et al. (2002) suggested that compared with private label
brands, national brands are more likely to be appealing to
smart shoppers because of price savings. Hence, we have
the following hypotheses.
H4: Impulsiveness has a signicant positive inuence on
consumer attitude towards private label brands.
H5: Smart-shopper self-perception has a signicant posi-
tive inuence on consumer attitude towards private label
brands.
Brand loyalty
Prior research by Burton et al. (1998) found that as private
label brands become attractive to consumers, the consumers
loyalty towards national brands decreases. Because private
label brands are seen to be offering good value for money
when compared with national brands, Garretson et al.
(2002) suggested that value-conscious consumers would be
inclined to switch from national brands. Furthermore,
research on loyalty towards store brands also suggests that
medium users of private labels contribute more towards
retailer margins as opposed to heavy and light users
(Ailawadi and Harlam, 2004) and a higher share of private
label is positively linked to behaviour loyalty (Ailawadi
et al., 2008). Therefore, we hypothesise the following.
H6: Consumer attitude towards private label brands is
negatively inuenced by loyalty to national brands.
THE DIRECT AND MODERATING ROLES OF
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Because private label brands are generally perceived to be
less expensive than national brands, private label brands
should logically appeal to consumers belonging to distinct
socio-demographic groups. However, the results relating to
the role played by socio-demographics in inuencing attitude
towards private brand brands are decidedly mixed. For exam-
ple, Frank and Boyd (1965) and Bettman (1974) found a
very small effect of socio-demographics on consumers atti-
tude towards private label brands. However, Coe (1971)
and Murphy (1978) observed a highly signicant inuence
of socio-demographics. Other studies focusing on the US
market, including those by Richardson et al. (1996), Burton
et al. (1998) and Ailawadi et al. (2001, 2008), noted the
signicant role played by socio-demographic variables.
The inuence of socio-demographics in post-1990s
literature based on the US ndings may be due to the
improved quality and acceptance of private label brands in
426 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
the marketplace. However, focusing on the European market,
Burt (2000) observed that socio-demographics are not signif-
icantly inuential on purchase decisions of private label
brands. Moreover, Baltas and Argouslidis (2007) found that
socio-demographics such as spending per trip, monthly
expenditure, gender, family size and age were not highly
signicant on the purchase of private label brands. Thus,
the mixed ndings on socio-demographic variables warrant
further attention, given the changing economic conditions
with implications for consumer spending. Moreover, the
inclusion of socio-demographics in the research study may
reveal if the relationships found in earlier studies have
changed over time. Therefore, in our study, we examine the
role played by the socio-demographic variables of gender,
age, education, income and family size in inuencing the
attitude towards private label brands.
Gender
Compared with men, women are more involved in purchas-
ing activities (Homburg and Giering, 2001; Baltas, 2003).
Ailawadi et al. (2001) observed that women value self-
expression and exploration more in comparison with men.
Similarly, Sherman et al. (2001) noted that with regard to
the shopping environment, women are more deal prone, have
a higher sense of adventure and have more market
knowledge. Therefore, we expect women to be more deal
prone, more impulsive and smarter in their purchase deci-
sions. Although women are more involved in purchasing,
men attempt to spend less time in retail settings, and
therefore, we expect them to be more prone to the end-of-
aisle displays and be more impulsive. As women are more
exploration oriented in their shopping, we expect them to
be less loyal to brands.
Age
We believe that older consumers, because of their greater
shopping experience, employ more sophisticated choice
processes (Sherman et al., 2001) than younger consumers
who may rely on simple heuristics in their purchase decisions
(Richardson et al., 1996). In this regard, it is reasonable to
expect that older consumers will be less prone to deals and
less impulsive than younger consumers. The added experi-
ence may also reect in their being smarter in their choice-
making process. Ailawadi et al. (2001) suggested that older
consumers may be less likely to seek variety or be pressured
for time than their younger counterparts. Therefore, we
expect older consumers to be more brand loyal and less
prone to end-of-aisle displays.
Education
Richardson et al. (1996) proposed that a higher level of
education leads to less private label brand proneness. How-
ever, Burton et al. (1998) found contrasting results wherein
consumers with a higher level of education demonstrate a
higher level of private label brand proneness. Researchers
observed that highly educated consumers may be better at
discriminating between national and private label brands
(Richardson et al., 1996; Ailawadi et al., 2001). Similarly,
Richardson et al. (1996) suggested that higher education
may act as a surrogate measure of income. In this regard,
we expect higher-income consumers to be less deal prone,
more prone to buy from end-of-aisle displays, less impulsive,
smarter in their purchase and more brand loyal.
Income
Richardson et al. (1996) explored the role of family size, age,
income and education on socio-demographics. They
observed that higher-income consumers demonstrate lower
private label brand proneness. This is also observed in earlier
research wherein Frank and Boyd (1965) noted that lower-
income consumers have a greater incentive to purchase store
brands because of the nancial pressures. In this regard, we
expect that lower-income consumers will show higher levels
of general and price deal proneness and make more product
comparisons than higher-income consumers. Lee (2007)
observed that high-income consumers generally tend to be
convenience oriented and therefore will tend to go through
the purchasing stages more quickly. We expect such high-
income consumers to show higher preference towards end-
of-aisle displays and be more impulsive. Hoch (1996) and
Sivakumar and Raj (1997) noted that high-income
consumers tend to be more brand loyal than low-income
consumers.
Family size
Frank and Boyd (1965) found a positive relationship
between family size and private label brand proneness.
Regardless of income or education, the greater the size of
the family, the fewer the resources that are available to make
ends meet (Richardson et al., 1996). Hence, it is reasonable
to expect that consumers with a larger family size will be
increasingly deal prone. We also posit that these consumers
will be more discerning in their purchase behaviour and
therefore display the following characteristics in comparison
with consumers with smaller family size: (i) smarter shopper;
(ii) less impulsive; and (iii) less brand loyal.
The preceding discussion has presented the exploratory
relationships between the psychographic and socio-
demographic variables and provides the basis for the struc-
tural model, detailed later.
STRUCTURAL MODEL
We rst specify Model 1, in which attitude towards private
label brands is inuenced by the six psychographic variables.
Next, we add the ve socio-demographic variables identied
in Figure 1 and obtain a new model specifying whether
socio-demographics have only a direct effect on attitude
towards private label brands, only an indirect effect via
psychographics or both direct and moderating effects. In
Model 2, we obtain the direct effects of socio-demographics
by adding these variables to Model 1. After incorporating the
direct effects of socio-demographics, we focus on the
moderating effects of socio-demographics by specifying
equations for each psychographic as a function of the
socio-demographics. In this regard, we create Model 3,
which is obtained by dividing the sample at the median value
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 427
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
for each construct as suggested by Grewal et al. (1998).
Because of model complexity, a single indicant for the
multi-item scale for each psychographics was created by
averaging across the items (Bagozzi and Heatherton, 1994;
Cadogan et al., 2006). This strategy of single-item indicator
interaction terms has also been recommended by Jreskog
and Yang (1996) and Ping (1995). The single indicators were
rst mean-centred as suggested by Jaccard and Wan (1996).
DATA COLLECTION
The involvement of actual consumers from multiple
supermarkets provides a more realistic assessment of the
actual purchase behaviour in comparison with prior studies
that used a single supermarket store (Burton et al., 1998) or
major retail malls that may not cater to private label brands
(Batra and Sinha, 2000). Therefore, more than 700 con-
sumers were contacted at three supermarkets (namely, Tesco,
Asda [Wal-Mart] and Sainsbury) in the south-east of the UK
with a nal usable sample of 296 (response rate =42.28%).
The respondents leaving the supermarket were approached
and asked to participate in the study, thus creating a richer
context for the study. The data were collected over a 3-week
period with the survey team rotating the location of inter-
views, the times of the day and the days of the week to make
the nal sample more aligned to the population of shoppers.
Looking at the respondent prole, we see that 61.6 per cent
of all respondents were female and the median age range was
2630 years. Approximately half of the respondents (50.8%)
were residing in multiple-member households, with a median
family size of three to ve people in the family.
To measure and validate the hypothesised direct and
moderated relationships, the data for this study were gathered
through a self-administered structured questionnaire survey
following earlier studies (Burton et al., 1998; Ailawadi
et al., 2001). The scales used to measure the latent constructs
are shown in Table 1. General deal, price-related deal and
end-of-aisle display proneness scales were adopted from
Burton et al. (1998) and Chandon et al. (2000). The scale
Table 1. Measurement scale items
Scale items Item reliability CR AVE
General deal proneness 0.86 0.80
Beyond the money I save, buying brands on deal makes me feel happy. 0.75
When I buy a brand that is offering a special promotion, I feel that is a good buy. 0.76
I feel like a successful shopper when I buy products that offer special promotion 0.92
Price deals 0.80 0.71
I am more likely to buy private label brands that are on sale. 0.80
When I buy a brand that is on sale, I feel that I am getting a good deal. 0.85
One should try to buy the brand that is on sale. 0.63
Non-price dealsend-of-aisle display proneness 0.86 0.77
I am more likely to buy brands that are displayed at the end of the aisle. 0.70
End-of-aisle displays have inuenced me to buy brands I normally would not buy. 0.74
I feel compelled to respond to end-of-aisle displays. 0.75
Beyond the money I save, buying from end-of-aisle displays gives me a sense of joy. 0.78
I believe that one can save a lot of money buying from end-of-aisle displays. 0.73
Impulsiveness 0.88 0.81
When I try a product in this category I do this spontaneously and evaluate
quality later after the purchase.
0.58
I often make an unplanned purchase when the urge strikes me
regarding private label products.
0.78
I often nd myself buying products on impulse in the store. 0.85
When I go shopping, I buy things I had not intended to purchase (). 0.81
I avoid buying things that are not on my shopping list (). 0.79
Smart-shopper self-perceptions 0.91 0.89
Making smart purchases makes me feel good about myself. 0.84
When I shop smartly, I feel like a winner. 0.92
I get a real sense of joy when I make wise purchases. 0.89
Brand loyalty 0.79 0.62
I generally buy the same brands I have always bought. 0.64
Once I have made a choice on which brand to purchase, I am likely to continue
to purchase it without considering other brands.
0.63
I am willing to make an effort to search for my favourite brand. 0.60
Even though certain products are available in a number of different brands,
I always tend to buy the same brand.
0.71
If I like a brand, I rarely switch from it just to try something different. 0.69
Attitude towards private label brands 0.77 0.64
Buying private label brands makes me feel good. 0.66
I love it when private label brands are available for the product category I purchase. 0.73
When I buy a private label brand, I always feel that I am getting a good deal. 0.79
Note: AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability.
428 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
items for impulsiveness, smart-shopper self-perceptions and
brand loyalty were generated from Ailawadi et al. (2001),
Burton et al. (1998) and Garretson et al. (2002). The items
for the attitude towards private label brands scale were
adopted from Batra and Sinha (2000). All variables of the
questionnaire were close-ended 7-point scales with strongly
disagree to strongly agree as anchors.
RESULTS
Measurement properties of the scales
The items used to measure the latent constructs in the model
show values above the recommended level for both compos-
ite reliability and average variance extracted (Bagozzi and
Yi, 1988). For all the scales, the factor loadings were high
and signicant (p <0.001), satisfying the criteria for conver-
gent validity. Discriminant validity was assessed using the
test developed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). This test
suggests that a scale possesses discriminant validity if the
average variance extracted by the underlying latent variable
is greater than the shared variance (i.e. the squared correlation)
of a latent variable with other latent variables. As shown in
Table 2, this criterion was met by all of the variables in the
study as no correlation exceeds the square root of the average
variance extracted. The composite reliability (Table 2) was
found to be above 0.7 across the constructs, exceeding the
recommended threshold value, which also provides strong
evidence of discriminant validity. The totality of these tests
provides strong evidence for reliability and validity of the
construct measures.
Comparison of competing models
In Tables 3 and 4, we summarise the t of Models 1 and 2
and the socio-demographic variables as seen in Table 3; by
moving from Models 1 to 2, the non-normed t index
reduced. However, the chi-squared difference is signicant
as well as the root mean square error of approximation, and
consistent Akaike information criterion values also show
signicant improvement. Furthermore, no deterioration in
comparative t index was observed. This suggests that
Model 2 with direct effects of socio-demographics provides
a better t overall.
In order to simultaneously test the hypothesised socio-
demography-based relationships for each variable, Singhs
(1995) strategy for testing model equivalence across samples
was employed. The modelling itself was undertaken using a
maximum likelihood estimation procedure. As recommen-
ded by Singh (1995), a fully unrestricted model, where the
factor loadings were constrained equally across the samples
but the path coefcients were allowed to vary, was then esti-
mated. Thereafter, a fully restricted model was estimated
with each path coefcient constrained across the samples.
In every model, the t statistics improved when moving from
a restricted to unrestricted model. Three of the ve socio-
demographic variables (i.e. age, education and income)
demonstrated a signicant difference between the restricted
and unrestricted model chi-squares.
Test of hypotheses
The proposed model was analysed via the maximum
likelihood estimator of LISREL8.70 by using the covariance
matrix of the measured variables as an input. The path
coefcient (Table 5) shows the structure of direct relation-
ships hypothesised in this study. General deal proneness
had its predicted positive effect on attitude towards private
label brands (H1: = 0.28, t = 2.46), providing support to
Hypothesis 1. However, contrary to our prediction, price
deals did not have a signicant impact on attitude towards
private label brands (H2: = 0.12, t = 0.92). As
hypothesised, a strong and signicantly positive relationship
between end-of-aisle display proneness and attitude towards
private label brands was observed (H3: =0.73, t =6.30).
As proposed in Hypothesis 4, impulsiveness has a signif-
icant positive impact on the attitude towards private label
brands (H4: = 0.34, t =2.57). However, for Hypothesis 5,
the smart-shopper self-perception construct was found to be
a weak nonsignicant predictor for the attitude towards
private label brands (H5: = 0.01, t = 0.09). For
Hypothesis 6, it was interesting to note that contrary to our
belief, brand loyalty had a signicant positive impact on
the attitude towards private label brands (H6: = 0.32,
t =2.37). Although Model 2 shows improvement in overall
t statistics, none of the socio-demographic variables demon-
strate a direct inuence on the attitude towards private label
Table 2. Correlation matrix
GD PD ED IM SS BL
GD 0.90
PD 0.57 0.84
ED 0.45 0.55 0.88
IM 0.04 0.32 0.30 0.90
SS 0.21 0.10 0.06 0.25 0.94
BL 0.01 0.09 0.03 0.09 0.39 0.79
Note: GD, general deal proneness; PD, price-related deal proneness; ED,
end-of-aisle display proneness (non-price-related deal proneness); IM,
impulsiveness; SS, smart-shopper self-perceptions; BL, brand loyalty.
Values in italics in the main diagonal are square root of average variance
extracted of the latent variable.
Table 3. Fit of alternative model specications

2
(df) RMSEA NNFI CFI CAIC
Model 1 Only psychographic variables 238.06 (163) 0.040 0.97 0.98 693.01
Model 2 Psychographic and direct effects of
socio-demographic variables
320.57 (233) 0.036 0.96 0.97 1110.04
Note: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; NNFI, non-normed t index; CFI, comparative t index; CAIC, consistent Akaike information
criterion.
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 429
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
brands. This nding is in line with that of Ailawadi et al.
(2001) who reported no direct inuence of socio-
demographics.
The moderating inuence of socio-demographic variables
Earlier research studies on private label brands suggest that
socio-demographic variables may impact the relationship
between the antecedents identied in this study and the
attitude towards private label brands (Burton et al., 1998;
Batra and Sinha, 2000; Ailawadi and Harlam, 2004;
Ailawadi et al., 2008). To measure the impact of socio-
demographic variables (i.e. gender, age, marital status, edu-
cation, income and family size), the sample was divided at
the median value for each construct as suggested by Grewal
et al. (1998). Table 6 provides details for the path coefcient
analysis for each socio-demographic variable.
Results in Table 6 show that the relationship between
general deal proneness and the attitude towards private label
brands is signicant among the younger consumers ( = 0.51;
t = 2.85) as well as the low-education group ( =0.78;
t = 3.13). Interestingly, however, consumers with high
income also demonstrate a stronger positive relationship
between general deal proneness and attitude towards private
label brands ( = 0.24; t = 2.24).
Contrary to existing belief, the relationship between price-
related deal proneness and the attitude towards private label
brands was found nonsignicant in almost all cases. The only
exception to this was in the low-education group ( =0.67;
t = 2.82) where the relationship was found to be signi-
cantly negative.
The relationship between end-of-aisle display proneness
and attitude towards private label brands was found to be
signicant in all cases. It was observed that older consumers
were more inuenced by the end-of-aisle display proneness
( = 0.85; t = 4.25) than younger consumers ( =0.42;
t = 2.97). The high-income group also showed a signicantly
stronger inclination towards end-of-aisle display proneness
( = 0.77; t = 5.75) than low-income consumers ( =0.87;
Table 4. Fit measures for the socio-demographic variable models

2
df RMSEA NNFI CFI
2
/df
Gender (group size: female = 182; male =114)
Unrestricted 666.94 507 0.047 0.94 0.95 1.315464
Restricted 673.55 514 0.045 0.94 0.95 1.310409
Age
a
(group size: low= 168; high = 129)
Unrestricted 748.04 436 0.06 0.92 0.94 1.715688
Restricted 763 443 0.07 0.90 0.92 1.722348
Education
a
(group size: low= 198; high = 98)
Unrestricted 670.44 510 0.048 0.93 0.94 1.314588
Restricted 691.55 517 0.047 0.93 0.94 1.337621
Income
a
(group size: low= 176; high =120)
Unrestricted 751.82 438 0.073 0.87 0.9 1.716484
Restricted 826.97 445 0.078 0.86 0.89 1.85836
75.15 7
Family size (group size: low= 90; high = 206)
Unrestricted 827.05 440 0.07 0.88 0.91 1.879659
Restricted 834.38 447 0.077 0.87 0.9 1.866622
Note: RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; NNFI, non-normed t index; CFI, comparative t index.
a
Moderator constructs having signicant difference between the unrestricted and restricted models. These constructs are then used for further analysis of the path
coefcients.
Table 5. Path coefcients
Path coefcients Estimates T-values
General deal proneness attitude towards PLB 0.28 2.46*
Price deals proneness attitude towards PLB 0.12 0.92
End-of-aisle display proneness attitude towards PLB 0.73 6.30*
Impulsiveness attitude towards PLB 0.34 2.57*
Shopper self-perceptions attitude towards PLB 0.01 0.09
Brand loyalty attitude towards PLB 0.32 2.37*
Income attitude towards PLB 0.03 0.78
Family size attitude towards PLB 0.13 1.04
Education attitude towards PLB 0.02 0.02
Gender attitude towards PLB 0.03 0.23
Age attitude towards PLB 0.06 0.88
Note: PLB, private label brands.
*Signicant at p <0.01.
430 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
t = 2.78). Similarly, the higher-education group was also
more inuenced by the end-of-aisle display proneness
( = 0.58; t = 3.67) than the low-education group ( =0.64;
t = 3.20).
It was observed that the relationship between impul-
siveness and the attitude towards private label brands was
signicantly stronger among younger consumers ( =0.38;
t = 2.33), low-income consumers ( =0.06; t = 3.70) and
low-education consumers ( = 0.37; t = 1.94).
The relationship between smart-shopper self-perceptions
and the attitude towards private label brands was found to
be signicantly more negative among the older consumers
( = 0.52; t = 3.33), high-income group ( =0.28;
t = 2.70) and high-education group ( =0.39; t = 3.10).
The relationship was found to be signicantly negative
among younger consumers ( =0.28; t = 1.99).
Surprising results were observed with regard to the
relationship between brand loyalty and the attitude towards
private label brands. It was observed that the relationship
was stronger among older consumers ( = 0.87; t = 4.56),
high-income consumers ( = 0.52; t = 4.61) and high-
education consumers ( = 0.82; t = 3.98). The relationship
was also found to be signicant among the younger
consumers ( = 0.51; t =3.07).
DISCUSSION
Summary of ndings
This study incorporated the psychographic constructs of
general deal proneness, price-related deal proneness, end-
of-aisle display proneness, impulsiveness, smart-shopper
self-perceptions and brand loyalty and identied their direct
impact on consumers attitude towards private label brands.
The study also examined the interrelationship between the
psychographic variables and socio-demographic variables
of age, gender, education, income and family size, which
have been conceptualised but rarely tested empirically with
the changing dynamics in the private label retail scenario.
The ndings of this research study make the following
theoretical contribution to the literature on private label
brands. With regard to general deal proneness, our study
reveals the attractiveness of deals for high-income
consumers. This nding is contrary to prevailing views about
consumer demographics and deal proneness in extant
research (Richardson et al., 1996) and actually reects the
current market trends (Nielsen, 2010). Our study makes an
important contribution to the literature by highlighting the
changing relationship between the afuent consumer groups
and their attitude towards private label brands. Therefore, the
study corroborates the arguments suggested by Delise
(2010), George (2009) and Lamey et al. (2007) about the
growing acceptance of private label brands across a wide
spectrum of consumer socio-demographic segments.
With regard to non-price-related deals, given the growing
competition for shelf space between private label and
national brands, visual prominence achieved through end-
of-aisle display in contemporary retailing practice is becom-
ing increasingly important (Delise, 2010). However, in
academic research, this phenomenon has received negligible
attention. Ailawadi et al. (2001) posited that display prone-
ness may induce more brand switching. We concur with this
nding wherein end-of-aisle display proneness is seen as one
of the strongest predictors of attitude towards private label
brands. The research ndings in our study also reveal the
signicance of end-of-aisle display proneness across the
demographic characteristics of age, income and education.
Older consumers, higher-income consumers and higher-
education consumers appeared to be responding favourably
to the end-of-aisle display proneness. The use of end-of-aisle
displays for brand promotion signals to consumers the
reduced search cost, effort and time and the special attention
being given by retailers to these brands. With the increasing
sophistication in packaging of private label brands (George,
2009), these products appear to be gaining more of the vital
shelf space for display in the coveted end of aisles. This
phenomenon, in turn, is appealing to older customers as it
reduces their effort to search for their favourite brands. The
end-of-aisle displays also appeal to the cash-rich but time-
poor, higher-income consumers as the end-of-aisle display
proneness adds to their convenience by reducing the search
time. Our research highlights the signicant and positive
relationship between end-of-aisle display proneness and the
attitude towards private label brands, moderated by the socio-
demographic variables. In doing so, our research contributes
by expanding the literature on psychographic variables
Table 6. Path coefcients for the moderator variables
Age Education Income
High Low High Low High Low
Estimate T-value Estimate T-value Estimate T-value Estimate T-value Estimate T-value Estimate T-value
GDATT 0.19 0.66 0.51 2.85* 0.31 1.54 0.78 3.13* 0.24 2.24* 0.16 1.92
PDATT 0.08 0.13 0.24 1.11 0.06 0.32 0.67 2.82* 0.12 1.09 0.17 0.18
EDATT 0.85 4.25* 0.42 2.97* 0.58 3.67* 0.64 3.20* 0.77 5.75* 0.87 2.78*
IMATT 0.20 1.43 0.38 2.33* 0.09 0.59 0.37 1.94 0.07 1.49 0.06 3.70*
SSATT 0.52 3.33* 0.28 1.99* 0.39 3.10* 0.04 0.24 0.28 2.70* 0.14 0.15
BLATT 0.87 4.56* 0.51 3.07* 0.82 3.98* 0.28 1.34 0.52 4.61* 0.28 1.40
Note: GD, general deal proneness; PD, price-related deal proneness; ED, end-of-aisle display proneness (non-price-related deal proneness); IM, impulsiveness;
SS, smart-shopper self-perceptions; BL, brand loyalty; ATT, attitude towards private label brands.
*Relationship signicant at the p <0.01 level.
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 431
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
inuencing the attitude towards private label brands by identi-
fying the importance of end-of-aisle display proneness.
Our study found a strong relationship between impulsive-
ness and the attitude towards private label brands among
young consumers and consumers with low income and low
education. Our ndings are consistent with other research
studies conducted in a nonretailing context. Wilska (2003)
reported a link between impulsiveness and consumption
among young consumers for mobile phone usage. With
respect to low-income consumers, Levy (1966) found them
to be more impulsive. This is also reected in the temporal
discounting theory (Green et al., 1996) where lower-income
and low-education consumers demonstrated a greater degree
of temporal discounting, suggesting that they make more-
impulsive decisions. In our study, we nd support with
Levys (1966) assertions. This may well be the reection of
current economic contraction post-2008, whereby consumers
with limited disposable income focus on the present subjec-
tive value rather than future gains.
In their research study, Burton et al. (1998) found a posi-
tive relationship between smart-shopper self-perceptions and
the attitude towards private label brands. Our ndings
suggest that smart shoppers are less impulsive, thereby also
empirically supporting the ndings of Burton et al. (1998).
From the socio-demographic perspective, we nd that older
consumers are more savvy shoppers. The high-income and
high-education shoppers perceive themselves to be smart
shoppers as opposed to low-income and low-education shop-
pers. This conclusion is also in line with the impulsiveness
behaviour where low-income and low-education consumers
are found to be highly impulsive compare with high-income
and high-education consumers.
Contrary to the prevailing literature (Burton et al., 1998)
and our own hypothesis, we found surprising results indicat-
ing that loyalty to national brands does not have a signicant
negative inuence on consumers attitude towards private
label brands. This phenomenon demonstrates the changing
nature of the consumer shopping basket wherein the loyalty
is towards what provides the best value for money.
Therefore, it appears imperative to the retailers and owners
of national brands to ensure value brand offerings that better
suit consumers changing shopping preferences. This reali-
sation can be observed in the retail market on both retailer
and manufacturer fronts. For example, Waitrose in the UK,
which predominantly targets the high-income and high-
education group, has launched the Waitrose Essentials range,
highlighting the quality of its private label products without a
hefty price tag. Other examples include the launch of
Targets up & up brand in the USA. On the manufacturer
front, multinationals such as P&G are restrategising a further
expansion of their value-tier brands (Birchall, 2009).
With regard to socio-demographic groups, a signicantly
strong relationship between brand loyalty and the attitude
towards the private label brands was observed among old
and young consumers and consumers with high income and
high education. Perhaps this is a reection of the current
economic conditions where consumers are seeking value
and shedding their social risk inhibitions in the selection of
private label brands. This phenomenon is in stark contrast
to ndings of earlier research (Batra and Sinha, 2000). The
use of private label brands appears to be more of a badge of
honour in volatile economic conditions, as consumers are
consciously moving away from status-seeking conspicuous
consumption of branded goods (Delise, 2010). The research
ndings also corroborate results discussed earlier with regards
to impulsiveness wherein low-income and low-education con-
sumer groups were found to be highly impulsive and the same
groups are also found to be least loyal to private label brands.
Prior studies highlight the signicant direct inuence of
socio-demographic factors on the attitude towards private
label brands (Richardson et al., 1996; Baltas, 2003; Baltas
and Argouslidis, 2007). However, the results of this study
show a nonsignicant direct effect. Although it is surprising,
it is certainly not unique. For example, in their meta-analysis
of private label brand literature, Szymanski and Busch
(1987) suggested that socio-demographic variables have a
weak relationship in explaining private label brand prone-
ness. Moreover, Ailawadi et al. (2001) observed that the
impact of demographics is funnelled through psycho-
graphics. Our study has also shown a strong moderating
impact of socio-demographic factors such as age, income
and education on consumers deal proneness, end-of-aisle
display proneness, impulsiveness and smart-shopper self-
perceptions. This phenomenon may well be the reection
of the changing attitude towards private label brands, as the
consumers, irrespective of their socio-demographic status
appear to be putting the private label brands at par with
national brands.
Managerial implications
Our research ndings present some important managerial
implications. Private label brands are evolving and morphing
into more sophisticated versions, and at the same time,
consumer perceptions of quality are changing. What can be
the possible strategic implications arising for retailer and
manufacturer brands? Our research ndings indicate a non-
signicant inuence of price-related deal proneness and
consumers attitude towards private label brands. Therefore,
the retailers need to go beyond price and move up the value
chain. Although it is important to highlight price, the focus is
required to be on quality. Consumers have increasingly
accepted private label brands, and the success of private label
brands is based on improved quality offerings and not just
being low-price alternatives. Thus, retailers need to sustain
this advantage they have gained over national brands. At
the same time, retailers need to be mindful of the general deal
proneness of consumers.
A second area of focus is about display strategies. Our
research ndings clearly indicate that the end-of-aisle display
proneness is important. Given the competitiveness in gaining
vital shelf space between private label and national brands,
the positive and signicant relationship between end-of-aisle
display proneness and the attitude towards private label
brands bodes well for retailers. In our study, the older
customers were positively inclined towards end-of-aisle
displays as it facilitates easy access and reduced search
efforts. In the markets of USA and Europe, with a rapidly
ageing population, this issue requires particular attention by
432 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
retailers. Our research ndings also highlight the appeal of
end-of-aisle display proneness to consumers belonging to
higher-income and higher-education groups because of the
convenience associated with reduced search time. Such a
scenario presents the retailers with an opportunity to gain the
attention of this vital customer group by displaying their best-
selling products as well as providing visual prominence for
the launch of newproducts. Additionally, our research ndings
indicate a positive relationship between brand loyalty and
attitude towards private label brands among high-income and
high-education consumer groups. Collectively, both sets of
research ndings indicate the enormous opportunity available
to retailers to further gain the share of wallet (SOW) for these
consumer groups through the appropriate and strategic use of
end-of-aisle display proneness for the private label brands.
A third and important strategic implication emerging from
our research ndings is centred on psycho-demographic
targeting. Our study has examined the interrelationship
between psychographic and socio-demographic factors on
the attitude towards private label brands. Our conceptual
model took into consideration socio-demographic factors such
as gender, age, education, income and family size. We found
support for three factors, namely, age, income and education,
as having a signicant inuence on the relationship between
psychographics and attitude towards private label brands. On
the basis of our ndings, we identify that retailers can use the
basics of segmentation and positioning linked with psycho-
demography-based targeting to develop effective retailing
strategies. With regard to older and afuent customers, there
is an opportunity for retailers to rethink their private label
strategy by creating brands aimed at this consumer group and
appeal to the consumers psychographics. By doing so,
retailers can target not only the SOW but also the share of life-
style. Similarly, for younger consumers and consumers with
low education and low income, retailers can focus on general
deal proneness. As revealed by our research ndings, the youn-
ger and low-income and low-education consumers appeared to
be more impulsive. Retailers can use this consumer insight to
develop relevant deals that can appeal to the impulsiveness of
these customer groups. By using the demography-based
approach to identifying consumer groups, retailers can develop
appropriate deals and product offerings relevant to those
consumer groups across the different retail outlet locations.
On the basis of our research ndings, it appears that there is
more than one way to increase the SOW. By adopting a psycho-
demography-based targeting and positioning approach, retailers
can create opportunities to gain a greater SOW from consumers
of different age, income and education groups, as identied earlier.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
DIRECTIONS
This study, like any other, has limitations that offer avenues for
further research. Although we studied the impact of socio-
demographics as a moderator, other consumer-level modera-
tors such as quality variations, price quality perceptions, price
fairness, internal reference price, price and brand sensitivity
and prior consumer knowledge should be included in future
models. Such variables would improve our overall understand-
ing as to how consumer-level moderators inuence the private
label attitude and purchase behaviour. Moreover, it will be
interesting to observe the impact of other contextual factors
such as type of store, type of discount offered, retail atmospher-
ics, location and culture as moderators. As the data were
collected in a single-country setting, the UK, the study is prone
to country-specic consumer attitudes. Future research will
also benet from re-examining the constructs employed in this
study in a cross-national and cross-cultural context.
The study results have highlighted some interesting
counter-intuitive direct relationships between psychograph-
ics and the attitude towards private label brands. With
increasing penetration of private label brands in the con-
sumer shopping basket and changing consumer perceptions
relating to private label brands, these counter-intuitive nd-
ings need to be further investigated. Additionally, we believe
that economic conditions may have played their part in con-
sumer responses. This is because data were collected when
the UK was in the middle of a severe recession. A longitudi-
nal study comparing consumer responses in recessionary and
nonrecessionary periods will be a fruitful avenue for further
research. Additionally, a study comparing the attitudinal
differences among the private label and national brand
consumers on the aforementioned socio-demographic and
psychographic variables will bring further insights.
The results of this study have generated useful insights
into the moderated relationships. For example, older con-
sumers and high-income consumers seem to be more prone
to end-of-aisle display than their younger and lower-income
counterparts. A comparative study focusing on the inuence
of search and time effort on these consumers attitude
towards private label brands moderated by end-of-aisle
display proneness via experimental methodology is likely
to deliver further insights. Another experiment comparing
the premium-tiered versus value-tiered private label brand
consumers can offer within-segment and between-segment
differences among consumers and their value association
with these brands. Additionally, a study comparing the attitu-
dinal differences among the private label and national brand
consumers on the aforementioned socio-demographic and
psychographic variables will generate further insights.
In this study, we have focused on purchase intentions.
Future studies can focus on purchase decisions using panel
or scanner data as well as postpurchase evaluations. Such
studies may discover further insights into changing consumer
behaviour and increase the overall generalisability of the
constructs. Another emerging avenue would be to undertake
a cross-comparative study of private label brands serving
different consumer segments. Such research will highlight
how consumers differentiate between various private label
brands in terms of quality.
CONCLUSION
The increasing acceptance of private label brands demands
further attention. Our study provides substantive theoretical
contributions and managerial implications on private label
brands. Conceptually, we build on and extend the previous
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 433
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
work undertaken on the constructs of deal proneness, impul-
siveness, brand loyalty and smart-shopper self-perceptions.
Focusing on the emerging prominence of end-of-aisle
display proneness, we measure the inuence of such practices
on the consumer attitude towards private label brands. We also
examine the interrelationship between psychographic and
socio-demographic variables. Our work makes a substantive
contribution by identifying the key role played by end-of-aisle
display proneness in targeting consumers as well as the strong
moderating impact of socio-demographic variables on
consumers deal proneness, end-of-aisle display proneness,
impulsiveness and smart-shopper self-perceptions. Mana-
gerially, we suggest the cautious use of price deals, vital
importance of display strategies targeted at specic customer
groups and that retailers stand to gain much through psycho-
demography-based targeting strategies. This work takes an
important step in identifying and capturing the changes in
consumers attitudes towards private label brands, brought
about by the changing nature of competition between retailers
and manufacturers of national brands. We hope that this study
will provide further impetus for research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers
and Dr. Magdalena Nenycz-Thiel, Editor-in-Chief of JCB
for their detailed and insightful comments. They would also
like to thank Prof. Kevin Ibeh for his helpful comments on
a prior version of this manuscript.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Paurav Shukla is a Professor of Luxury Brand Marketing at the
Glasgow School for Business and Society, Glasgow Caledonian
University London campus, UK. He possesses a wide range of in-
dustry and academic experience from middle to senior levels across
various industries. He has been involved with various European
Union (EU)-funded research projects involving nations from the
EU and Asia. He has published widely in the area of consumption
experiences in a cross-national context, luxury marketing and
branding in journals including Journal of Business Research, Psy-
chology & Marketing, Journal of World Business, International
Marketing Review and Journal of Consumer Behaviour, among
others.
Madhumita Banerjee is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Depart-
ment of Marketing, University of Strathclyde. Her research interests
are in the areas of service marketing and consumption experiences.
Her work has been published in Industrial Marketing Management,
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing and Journal of Rela-
tionship Marketing and Advances in Consumer Research among
others. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.
Phani Tej Adidam is the Executive Management Education Profes-
sor at the University of Nebraska Omaha. He is also the director of
International Initiatives. His research interests include marketing
strategy, decision condence, competitive intelligence, customer re-
lationship management, demographics of health insurance econom-
ics and sales management. His work has been published in the
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal
of Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal of Business and Indus-
trial Marketing, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, International
Management Review and Advances in Consumer Research among
others.
REFERENCES
Abelson J. 2010. Seeking savings, some ditch brand loyalty.
Retrieved 30 January 2010, from http://www.boston.com/
news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/29/
shoppers_are_ditching_name_brands_for_store_brands
Ailawadi KL, Harlam B. 2004. An empirical analysis of the
determinants of retail margins: the role of store-brand share.
Journal of Marketing 68(1): 147165.
Ailawadi KL, Neslin SA, Gedenk K. 2001. Pursuing the value-
conscious consumer: store brands versus national brand
promotions. Journal of Marketing 65(January): 7189.
Ailawadi KL, Pauwels K, Steenkamp J-BEM. 2008. Private-label
use and store loyalty. Journal of Marketing 72(6): 1930.
Areni CS, Duhan DF, Kiecker P. 1999. Point-of-purchase displays,
product organization, and brand purchase likelihoods. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science 27(4): 428441.
Bagozzi RP, Heatherton TF. 1994. A general approach to
representing multifaceted personality constructs: application to
state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling 1(1): 3567.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation
models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16(1): 7494.
Baltas G. 2003. A combined segmentation and demand model for
store brands. European Journal of Marketing 37(10): 14991513.
Baltas G, Argouslidis, PC. 2007. Consumer characteristics and
demand for store brands. International Journal of Retail &
Distribution Management 35(5): 328341.
Batra R, Sinha I. 2000. Consumer-level factors moderating the success
of private label brands. Journal of Retailing 76(2): 175191.
Baumeister RF. 2002. Yielding to temptation: self-control failure,
impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Research 28(4): 670676.
Bettman JR. 1974. Toward a statistics for consumer decision net
models. Journal of Consumer Research 1(June): 7180.
Birchall J. 2009. Dollar pressures weigh on P&G London. Retrieved
26 February 2010, from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50561c80-
81c9-11de-9c5e-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Blattberg RC, Neslin SA. 1990. Sales Promotion: Concepts,
Methods, and Strategies. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Burton S, Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Garretson JA. 1998. A
scale for measuring attitude toward private label products and an
examination of its psychological and behavioral correlates.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(4): 293306.
Burt S. 2000. The strategic role of retail brands in British grocery
retailing. European Journal of Marketing 34(8): 875890.
Cadogan JW, Cui CC, Morgan RE, Story VM. 2006. Factors facil-
itating and impeding the development of export market-oriented
behavior: a study of Hong Kong manufacturing exporters.
Industrial Marketing Management 35(5): 634647.
Chan Choi S, Coughlan AT. 2006. Private label positioning: quality
versus feature differentiation from the national brand. Journal of
Retailing 82(2): 7993.
Chandon P, Wansink B, Laurent G. 2000. A benet congruency
framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Market-
ing 64(4): 6581.
Chandon P, Hutchinson JW, Bradlow ET, Young SH. 2009. Does
in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of
shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of
purchase. Journal of Marketing 73(6): 117.
Coe BD. 1971. Private versus national preference among lower and
middle-income consumers. Journal of Retailing 4(2): 6172.
Delise J. 2010. Chase your customer, not your competition: why
private label reigns supreme? Retrieved 25 January 2010, from
http://www.shelmpact.com/archive/2010/01/
chase_your_customer_not_your_c.php
DelVecchio D. 2005. Deal-prone consumers response to promo-
tion: the effects of relative and absolute promotion value.
Psychology and Marketing 22(5): 373391.
434 P. Shukla et al.
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb
Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM.
2003. Can socio-demographics still play a role in proling green
consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investi-
gation. Journal of Business Research 56(6): 465480.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research 18(1): 3950.
Frank RE, Boyd HJW. 1965. Are private-brand-prone grocery
customers really different? Journal of Advertising Research
5(4): 2735.
Garretson JA, Fisher D, Burton S. 2002. Antecedents of private
label attitude and national brand promotion attitude: similarities
and differences. Journal of Retailing 78(2): 9199.
George J. 2009. Private brandsa new balance of power? Packag-
ing World Magazine Retrieved 30 January 2010, from http://
www.packworld.com/article-28839
Green L, Myerson J, Lichtman D, Rosen S, Fry A. 1996. Temporal
discounting in choice between delayed rewards: the role of age
and income. Psychology and Aging 11(1): 7984.
Grewal D, Krishnan R, Baker J, Borin N. 1998. The effect of store
name, brand name and price discounts on consumers evaluations
and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing 74(3): 331352.
Grifths J. 2009. Supermarket Own Labels 2009 (4th edn). Key-
Note: London, UK.
Hoch SJ. 1996. How should national brands think about private
labels? Sloan Management Review 37: 89102.
Hoch SJ, Banerji S. 1993. When do private labels succeed? Sloan
Management Review 34(4): 5768.
Homburg C, Giering A. 2001. Personal characteristics as moderators
of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyaltyan
empirical analysis. Psychology and Marketing 18(1): 4366.
Hyman MR, Kopf DA, Dongdae L. 2010. Review of literature
future research suggestions: private label brands: benets, suc-
cess factors and future research. Journal of Brand Management
17(5): 368389.
Inman JJ, Winer RS, Ferraro R. 2009. The interplay among category
characteristics, customer characteristics, and customer activities on
in-store decision making. Journal of Marketing 73(5): 1929.
Jaccard J, Wan CK. 1996. LISREL Approaches to Interaction
Effects in Multiple Regression. Sage Publications: London.
Jreskog KG, Yang F. 1996. Nonlinear structural equation models:
the KennyJudd model with interaction effects. In Marcoulides
GA, Schumacker RE (eds). Advanced Structural Equation
Modelling: Issues and Techniques. Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates: Mahwah, New Jersey; 5788.
Kalyanam K, Putler DS. 1997. Incorporating demographic variables
in brand choice models: an indivisible alternatives framework.
Marketing Science 16(2): 166181.
Kamakura WA, Moon S. 2009. Quality-adjusted price comparison
of non-homogeneous products across Internet retailers. Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing 26(3): 189196.
Kapner S. 2009. Wal-Marts new private label look. Retrieved 18
February 2010, from http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/16/news/
companies/wal-mart_great_value_relaunch.fortune/index.htm
Kumar N, Steenkamp J-BEM. 2007. Private Label Strategy: How to Meet
the Store BrandChallenge. HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA.
Kwon KN, Lee MH, Kwon YJ. 2008. The effect of perceived
product characteristics on private brand purchases. Journal of
Consumer Marketing 25(2): 105114.
Lamey L, Deleersnyder B, Dekimpe MG, Steenkamp J-BEM. 2007.
How business cycle contributes to private label success: evidence
fromthe United States and Europe. Journal of Marketing 71: 115.
Lee BCY. 2007. Consumer attitude toward virtual stores and its corre-
lates. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 14(3): 182191.
Lee L, Ariely D. 2005. Shopping goals, goal concreteness, and condi-
tional promotions. Journal of Consumer Research 33(June): 6070.
Levins H. 2009. Wal-Mart CMO defends private label brand expan-
sion. Retrieved 22 February 2010, from http://adage.com/video/
article?article_id=140685
Levy SJ. 1966. Social class and consumer behavior. In Newman JW
(ed.), On Knowing the Consumer. John Wiley: NewYork; 146160.
Lichtenstein DR, Netemeyer RG, Burton S. 1995. Assessing the
domain specicity of deal proneness: a eld study. Journal of
Consumer Research 22(3): 314326.
Martos-Partal M. 2012. Innovation and the market share of private
labels. Journal of Marketing Management 28(56): 695715.
McDonald M, Dunbar I. 1998. Market SegmentationHow To Do
It, How To Prot from It. Macmillan: London.
Mukund A. 2003. Tesco: The Customer Relationship Management
Champion. European Case Clearing House: Cardiff; 16.
Murphy PE. 1978. The effect of social class on brand and price conscious-
ness for supermarket products. Journal of Retailing 54(2): 3342.
Myers JG. 1967. Determinants of private brand attitude. Journal of
Marketing Research 4(1): 7381.
Newman JW, Staelin R. 1972. Prepurchase information seeking for
new cars and major household appliances. Journal of Marketing
Research 9(3): 249257.
Nielsen CT. 2010. Private label CPG dollar, unit sales grow.
Retrieved 20 February 2010, from http://www.marketingcharts.
com/topics/branding/private-label-cpg-dollar-unit-sales-grow-12065/
?utm_campaign=rssfeedutm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink
Ping RAJ. 1995. A parsimonious estimating technique for interac-
tion and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing
Research 32(3): 336347.
Price LL, Feick LF, Guskey-Federouch A. 1988. Couponing behav-
iors of the market maven: prole of a super couponer. Advances
in Consumer Research 15(1): 354359.
Redding SG. 1990. The Spirit of Chinese Capitalism. Walter de
Gruyter: New York.
Richardson PS, Jain AK, Dick AS. 1996. Household store brand
proneness: a framework. Journal of Retailing 72(2): 159185.
Rubio N, Yage MJ. 2009. Alternative panel models to evaluate the
store brand market share: evidence from the Spanish market.
European Journal of Marketing 43(1/2): 110138.
Sherman E, Schiffman LG, Mathur A. 2001. The inuence of
gender on the new age elderlys consumption orientation.
Psychology and Marketing 18(10): 10731089.
Shimp TA, Kavas A. 1984. The theory of reasoned action applied to
coupon usage. The Journal of Consumer Research 11(3): 795809.
Shukla P. 2010. Status consumption in cross-national context:
socio-psychological, brand and situational antecedents. Interna-
tional Marketing Review 27(1): 108129.
Singh J. 1995. Measurement issues in cross-national research.
Journal of International Business Studies 26(3): 597619.
Sivakumar K, Raj SP. 1997. Quality tier competition: how price
change inuences brand choice and category choice. Journal
of Marketing 61(3): 7184.
Slama ME, Tashchian A. 1985. Selected socioeconomic and demo-
graphic characteristics associated with purchasing involvement.
Journal of Marketing 49(1): 7282.
Steenkamp J-BEM, Dekimpe MG. 1997. The increasing power of
store brands: building loyalty and market share. Long Range
Planning 30(6): 917930.
Szymanski DM, Busch PS. 1987. Identifying the generics-prone
consumer: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research
24(4): 425431.
Thaler R. 1985. Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing
Science 4(3): 199214.
Walker C. 1991. Whats in a name. American Demographics
13(February): 54.
Wilska TA. 2003. Mobile phone use as part of young peoples con-
sumption styles. Journal of Consumer Policy 26(4): 441463.
Consumer attitude towards private label brands 435
Copyright 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Consumer Behav. 12: 423435 (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/cb