Znaczenie płci w procesie zakupu marek własnych sieci handlowych – analiza wielogrupowa

Q: Do women and men buy store brands for different reasons?

In 582 Polish shoppers, perceived risk weighed more on women’s intentions to buy a discount chain’s own brands, while price image counted for more with men (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).

Q: How can retailers reduce the risk consumers see in store brands?

A better store image (layout and service) and a favourable price image both lowered the perceived functional and financial risk of store brands (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).

Q: Is this article available in English?

The article is in Polish, with an English summary. This page summarises it in English, with the tables and scale items translated.

Schivinski, Bruno; Łukasik, Przemysław

doi:10.15611/pn.2014.337.16

Bruno Schivinski, Przemysław Łukasik

Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, no. 337, pages 162–173, 2014

Note: the original article was published in Polish, under the title Znaczenie płci w procesie zakupu marek własnych sieci handlowych – analiza wielogrupowa. This page presents it in English. The English title and summary are the publisher’s own; the tables and scale items were translated from Polish for this page. The citation below gives the original title followed by its English translation in square brackets.

Open access
582 Polish consumers
Biedronka store brands
Multigroup SEM
Women vs men
Article in Polish

Read the article

Keywords

store brands
private label brands
SEM
multigroup analysis
gender
perceived risk
functional risk
financial risk
store image
store brand price image
store brand purchase intention
measurement invariance
critical ratio of differences
AMOS
discount stores
Biedronka
Polish consumers
Poland

Women and men buy a discount chain’s own brands for partly different reasons. In a survey of 582 Polish shoppers about Biedronka’s store brands, perceived risk weighed more on women’s purchase intentions, while the brands’ low prices and value counted for more with men.

Key findings

A better store image lowers the risk shoppers see in store brands. For both women and men, store image (layout and service) reduced the perceived functional and financial risk of the chain’s store brands; the standardised effect was larger for women (−0.51) than for men (−0.40) (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).
Price image matters more to men. A favourable price image of store brands (low relative prices and perceived benefits) reduced perceived risk more for men (−0.44 vs −0.32) and raised purchase intention more for men (0.42 vs 0.32) than for women (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).
Perceived risk holds back purchase intention, especially for women. Store brand perceived risk lowered the intention to buy store brands in both groups, slightly more for women (−0.60) than for men (−0.55) (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).
The structural paths were not equivalent across gender. The measurement model was equivalent for women and men, but chi-square difference tests showed that each of the four structural paths differed between the groups (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).

At a glance

Design: Nationwide online survey (CAWI) of Polish consumers about the store brands of the Biedronka discount chain; one respondent per computer
Participants: 582 valid questionnaires from 652 respondents: 323 women and 259 men
Measures: 7-point Likert scales, translated by collaborative and iterative translation: store image (layout, service; 8 items), store brand perceived risk (functional, financial; 7 items), store brand price image (relative price level, perceived benefits; 7 items) and purchase intention (5 items)
Analysis: EFA, CFA and multigroup structural equation modelling in AMOS 21.0: partial invariance (chi-square difference) tests and critical ratio of differences tests between women and men
Language: The article is in Polish, with an English summary. The tables and items on this page are translated from Polish.

Figure 1. Conceptual model with the estimates for women and men

Redrawn from Figure 1 of the article (the conceptual model), with the standardised estimates from Table 3. Labels translated from Polish.

Tables

Table 1. Convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs

Construct	α	CR	PI	PB	RP	FIR	FUR	SR	LA
Store brand purchase intention (PI)	0.93	0.94	0.87
Perceived benefits of store brands (PB)	0.76	0.78	0.41	0.70
Relative price level of store brands (RP)	0.87	0.87	0.40	0.35	0.80
Financial risk (FIR)	0.91	0.76	−0.69	−0.29	−0.39	0.82
Functional risk (FUR)	0.90	0.90	−0.56	−0.16	−0.18	0.70	0.83
Service (SR)	0.90	0.91	0.29	0.22	0.28	−0.33	−0.27	0.84
Store layout (LA)	0.73	0.74	0.32	0.35	0.33	−0.34	−0.33	0.38	0.64

α = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability. Off-diagonal values are correlations between constructs; the square root of the AVE is on the diagonal (in italics). Values as printed.

Table 2. Fit statistics of the models in the invariance tests

Model	Compared with	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	p
1. Baseline model (no constraints)	–	1203.28	628	–	–	–
2A. Measurement model: all second-order factor loadings constrained, except PI2, PI4 and PI5	2A vs 1	1225.75	646	22.47	18	0.21
3A. Model 2A with all paths constrained	3A vs 1	1941.75	654	738.47	26	0.001
3B. Model 2A with the store image → perceived risk path constrained	3B vs 1	1322.68	648	119.40	20	0.001
3C. Model 2A with the price image → perceived risk path constrained	3C vs 1	1309.68	648	106.40	20	0.001
3D. Model 2A with the price image → purchase intention path constrained	3D vs 1	1235.23	648	31.95	20	0.044
3E. Model 2A with the perceived risk → purchase intention path constrained	3E vs 1	1295.91	648	92.63	20	0.001

Models 3A to 3E are not equivalent across gender by the Δχ² test. Values as printed (p printed as 0.001 where the text gives p < .001).

Table 3. Estimates of the structural (baseline) model for women and men

Path	Women: B	Women: β	Men: B	Men: β	z
Store image → perceived risk	−0.68**	−0.51	−0.65**	−0.40	0.10
Price image → perceived risk	−0.49**	−0.32	−0.57**	−0.44	−0.36
Price image → purchase intention	0.49**	0.32	0.55*	0.42	0.29
Perceived risk → purchase intention	−0.61**	−0.60	−0.54**	−0.55	0.55

B = unstandardised and β = standardised estimate. * p < .01; ** p < .001. z = critical ratio of differences between women and men. Values as printed.

Table A. Constructs and scale items (appendix)

Construct	Item	Loading (women)	t (women)	Loading (men)	t (men)
Store image: layout	[LA1] The furnishings of Biedronka stores are visually attractive.	0.49	6.76	0.69	8.16
Store image: layout	[LA2] The store layout is clear.	0.77	8.06	0.81	8.56
Store image: layout	[LA3] In Biedronka it is easy to find products on promotion.	0.51	7.00	0.54	6.88
Store image: layout	[LA4] It is easy to move around Biedronka stores.	0.61	–	0.61	–
Store image: service	[SR1] Biedronka staff are well informed.	0.79	18.79	0.71	13.64
Store image: service	[SR2] Biedronka staff are polite.	0.81	19.69	0.80	16.76
Store image: service	[SR3] Biedronka staff are helpful when there is a problem.	0.92	25.00	0.90	20.46
Store image: service	[SR4] Biedronka staff can be relied on.	0.89	–	0.90	–
Perceived risk: functional	[FR1] I have doubts about the quality of Biedronka’s store brands.*	0.83	16.45	0.88	13.42
Perceived risk: functional	[FR2] I suspect that the durability of this chain’s store brands is insufficient.*	0.86	17.07	0.87	13.32
Perceived risk: functional	[FR3] I have doubts about the ingredients used to make Biedronka’s store brands.*	0.84	16.53	0.85	13.05
Perceived risk: functional	[FR4] I have doubts about the truth of the information on the packaging of this chain’s store brands.*	0.78	–	0.71	–
Perceived risk: financial	[FR1] I think buying Biedronka’s store brands is a waste of money.*	0.88	19.34	0.91	19.67
Perceived risk: financial	[FR2] I worry that this chain’s store brands are not worth the money spent.*	0.92	20.45	0.89	18.98
Perceived risk: financial	[FR3] I think buying Biedronka’s store brands is not a wise way to spend money.*	0.82	–	0.86	–
Price image: relative price level	[RP1] In Biedronka I have found store brands at lower prices than those sold in other stores.	0.65	–	0.70	–
Price image: relative price level	[RP2] All of Biedronka’s store brands seem cheaper than those sold in other stores.	0.79	11.97	0.77	11.37
Price image: relative price level	[RP3] I think store brands in Biedronka are low-priced compared with other stores.	0.85	12.63	0.87	12.51
Price image: relative price level	[RP4] When I buy store brands in Biedronka, I spend less money than I would in another store.	0.84	12.49	0.88	12.63
Price image: perceived benefits	[PB1] Store brands tempted me to buy more products in Biedronka than I needed.	0.90	13.15	0.91	11.83
Price image: perceived benefits	[PB2] Store brands made me want to buy products in Biedronka that I had not planned to buy.	0.89	–	0.89	–
Price image: perceived benefits	[PB3] Thanks to store brands I bought products cheaper than I had planned.	0.39	6.78	0.38	6.03
Purchase intention	[PI1] The chance that I will consider buying Biedronka’s store brands is high.	0.81	–	0.80	–
Purchase intention	[PI2] Next time I will buy Biedronka’s store brands.	0.94	21.14	0.94	18.41
Purchase intention	[PI3] I will consider buying Biedronka’s store brands.	0.82	17.39	0.81	14.85
Purchase intention	[PI4] I will most probably buy Biedronka’s store brands.	0.92	20.65	0.94	18.55
Purchase intention	[PI5] I will definitely buy Biedronka’s store brands.	0.82	17.26	0.79	14.29

Standardised loadings; – = fixed parameter. * Reverse-scored. Item codes as printed (the functional and financial risk items share the codes FR1 to FR3). The appendix also gives R² for each dimension (women / men): layout 0.23 / 0.55, service 0.49 / 0.29, functional risk 0.57 / 0.54, financial risk 0.86 / 0.76, relative price level 0.48 / 0.23, perceived benefits 0.30 / 0.30, purchase intention 0.59 / 0.68. Items translated from Polish.

The question

Store brands are a growing share of European retail, yet little was known about how women and men differ when they buy them. We asked whether the effects of store image and store brand price image on store brand perceived risk, and of price image and perceived risk on purchase intention, differ between women and men.

Implications

Practical implications

For women, retailers should stress store attractiveness, a clear layout, easy navigation and customer service, and work to reduce the functional and financial risk of their own brands. For men, communication should stress the relative price advantage of store brands and the benefits of buying them.

Theoretical implications

The study tests a model of store image, price image, perceived risk and purchase intention for store brands across gender with multigroup SEM, combining chi-square difference tests with critical ratio of differences tests to describe the size of the differences.

Limitations and future research

Single retailer: all items referred to the store brands of the Biedronka discount chain.
Polish consumers only, surveyed online.
The critical ratios of the differences between women and men were small (|z| ≤ 0.55 in Table 3), so the differences in the size of the effects are descriptive.

Questions this paper answers

Do women and men buy store brands for different reasons?

In 582 Polish shoppers, perceived risk weighed more on women’s intentions to buy a discount chain’s own brands, while price image counted for more with men (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).

How can retailers reduce the risk consumers see in store brands?

A better store image (layout and service) and a favourable price image both lowered the perceived functional and financial risk of store brands (Schivinski & Łukasik, 2014).

Is this article available in English?

The article is in Polish, with an English summary. This page summarises it in English, with the tables and scale items translated.

Key concepts

Store brand: A brand owned and sold by a retail chain (also called a private label).
Store brand price image: Consumers’ view of store brand prices, here the relative price level and the perceived benefits of buying store brands (Diallo, 2012).
Multigroup analysis: Estimating the same structural equation model in several groups and testing whether its parameters are equal across them.

Open science and materials

Published version (in Polish) Free PDF in the Lower Silesian Digital Library
DOI Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu 337

Study materials

Scale items: All 27 items (translated from Polish) with the loadings for women and men are in Table A below (the article’s appendix).

How to cite

Schivinski, B., & Łukasik, P. (2014). Znaczenie płci w procesie zakupu marek własnych sieci handlowych – analiza wielogrupowa [The importance of gender in the process of purchasing store brands – a multigroup analysis]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 337, 162–173. https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2014.337.16

Related publications

All publications