Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

Combining channels to make smart purchases: The role of webrooming and T

showrooming
Carlos Flavián , Raquel Gurrea, Carlos Orús
⁎

University of Zaragoza, Department of Marketing, Zaragoza, Spain

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: In this study, the authors analyse the influence of specific combinations of online and physical channels
Webrooming (webrooming and showrooming) on the customer experience, specifically, on smart shopping perceptions and
Showrooming feelings. Taking into account that cross-channel consumers are driven by different motivations, the influence of
Time/effort savings shopping motivations is controlled. The results of an experiment in the fashion industry show that webroomers
Right purchase
have greater perceptions of time/effort savings and of making the right purchase, and greater smart shopping
Money savings
Smart shopping feelings
feelings, than showroomers. Furthermore, webrooming leads to higher personal attribution than showrooming,
meaning that consumers feel responsible and in control of their purchase outcomes. Personal attribution then
mediates the impact of webrooming on smart shopping feelings. Although companies may have difficulties in
tracking consumers’ use of online and offline channels, their enhanced control over the process may improve
their experience through smart shopping perceptions and feelings.

1. Introduction showroomers also penalise retailers that fail to provide smooth con-
nections across channels (e.g. a service failure in one channel can
Webrooming (searching for information online and then purchasing prevent consumers from using the other channel; Piercy, 2012) and
offline) (Flavián et al., 2016) and showrooming (gathering data and show increased return rates (Wollenburg et al., 2018).
examining products in physical stores and then purchasing online) On the other hand, webrooming and showrooming can provide
(Neslin et al., 2014) have become common practices in omnichannel multichannel retailers with important benefits. Consumers who use
consumer behaviour. In a recent report, Deloitte (2017) noted that 69% both online and offline channels in their purchasing processes con-
of consumers webroomed to research their purchases during Thanks- stitute the most valuable segment for retailers (Fernández et al., 2018).
giving period, whereas 46% went first to a store to examine items, then The combination of online and offline channels positively affects con-
went online to look for better prices and to make their purchases. sumer perceptions of service quality and attitudes towards retailers
These behaviours have both negative and positive implications for (Pantano and Viassone, 2015), and leads to favourable purchasing be-
retailers. On the one hand, webrooming and showrooming threaten haviours and customer experiences (Blom et al., 2017; Sit et al., 2018).
multichannel retailers in the form of free-riding behaviours, where It has been shown that consumers who use multiple channels purchase
consumers use one retailer's channel in their planning and preparation, more products, spend more, and pay higher prices than single-channel
then switch to another retailer's channel to make their purchases (Chiou consumers (Fernández et al., 2018; Lee and Kim, 2008; Van Baal and
et al., 2012; Chiu et al., 2011). Both showroomers and webroomers can Dach, 2005). However, webrooming and showrooming have multiple
free ride, but the implications for online stores are not so marked, be- drivers and determinants (e.g., Harris et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2007),
cause their costs are largely fixed (Van Baal and Dach, 2005), and and their effect on the competition between firms and firms’ profit-
consumers often use multiple online sources to search for product in- ability can depend on several factors, such as product features
formation. Webroomers and showroomers are not necessarily free ri- (Kushwaha and Shankar, 2013), search costs (Jing, 2018), and con-
ders (they might use the same retailer's online and offline channels; sumer characteristics (Kang, 2018; Pauwels et al., 2011). Beyond
Neslin and Shankar, 2009; Gensler et al., 2017), yet several authors transactional outcomes, the challenge in the omnichannel era, in which
have defined showrooming as an inherently free-riding behaviour channels are used interchangeably during the search and purchase
(Daunt and Harris, 2017; Jing, 2018; Sit et al., 2018). Webroomers and process, and even simultaneously in the same stage of the purchasing

⁎
Corresponding author. Postal mail address: Gran Vía, 2 Zip code, 50005, Zaragoza, Spain.
E-mail addresses: cflavian@unizar.es (C. Flavián), gurrea@unizar.es (R. Gurrea), corus@unizar.es (C. Orús).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101923
Received 25 January 2019; Received in revised form 18 July 2019; Accepted 15 August 2019
Available online 03 September 2019
0969-6989/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

process thanks to the proliferation of mobile devices, is to leverage the study is consistent with cross-channel shopping (e.g., Heitz-Spahn,
synergies between channels to deliver an integrated, seamless, unique 2013; Huré et al., 2017; Van Baal and Dach, 2005) and research
experience that retains consumers throughout the entire purchasing shopping (e.g., Konuş et al., 2008; Neslin and Shankar, 2009; Verhoef
process (Herhausen et al., 2015; Verhoef et al., 2015). Channel in- et al., 2007) streams and with previous conceptualisations of purchase
tegration, which encompasses decisions about how to combine chan- decision-making processes, where there is a two-stage choice phase:
nels to create cross-channel synergies, can contribute to sales growth choosing the product and making the purchase (Balasubramanian et al.,
(Cao and Li, 2015), is highly valued by consumers, and positively af- 2005; Peterson et al., 1997; Van Baal and Dach, 2005). Specifically, in
fects their satisfaction, loyalty, and positive word of mouth behaviour webrooming the consumer first looks for and finds on the Internet the
(Huré et al., 2017). product that probably best matches her/his needs; thereafter, (s)he goes
Little is known about the consequences of omnichannel behaviour to the physical store to confirm the product information and make the
for customer experience management (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; purchase (Flavián et al., 2016). In showrooming, consumers examine
Paccard, 2017). Previous studies have considered the influence of the desired product at the physical store and then go online to make the
channel synergies on consumer behaviour, yet few address how specific purchase (Kang, 2018).
channel combinations affect the customer experience (Li et al., 2018). Webrooming and showrooming are now common practice among
Understanding the consequences of webrooming and showrooming will omnichannel consumers. Although showrooming is a growing trend in
help researchers and practitioners to anticipate what consumers expect cross-channel shopping (Rejón-Guardia and Luna-Nevarez, 2017), most
when undertaking these behaviours and to design effective customer studies have acknowledged that the Internet is the preferred informa-
experiences (Lemon and Verhoef, 2016). With the aim of bridging this tion source and the physical store is the main purchase channel (e.g.,
gap, the authors analyse the impact of webrooming and showrooming Alba et al., 1997; Dholakia et al., 2005; Fernández et al., 2018; Verhoef
on smart shopping. In the present study, the authors examine smart et al., 2007; Yadav and Pavlou, 2014). Recent reports, indeed, have
shopping, specifically, on smart shopping perceptions and feelings. confirmed that webrooming is the dominant cross-channel behaviour
Smart shopping perceptions are associated with the minimisation of (eMarketer, 2014; Google Consumer Barometer, 2015; PushOn, 2018).
expenditure of time, money, or energy, and/or the maximisation of the According to eMarketer (2014), 72% of U.S. digital shoppers purchased
outputs obtained in the experience (Atkins and Kim, 2012). Smart a product after they examined it in a store, while 78% of shoppers
shopping feelings have been associated with the ego-related aspect of examined the product online then bought it in a store. In Europe, the
emotions (e.g., pride), and the excitement generated by achieving po- last Google Consumer Barometer (2015) showed that 10% of European
sitive shopping outcomes (e.g., taking advantage of a price promotion) online users researched products in physical stores before purchasing
(Schindler, 1989). In addition, taking into account that consumers are them online, and 33% engaged in webrooming. PushOn (2018) re-
driven to carry out omnichannel behaviours by different motivations vealed that UK consumers webroom more frequently than they show-
(Balasubramanian et al., 2005; Noble et al., 2005; Schröder and room.
Zaharia, 2008; Heitz-Spahn, 2013; Harris et al., 2018), the influence of The extant literature has generally adopted an economic perspective
shopping motivations on smart shopping perceptions and feelings about in its analysis of consumers’ choices and their use of multiple channels
webrooming and showrooming is controlled. in the purchase decision-making process. Consumers weigh up the costs
The findings have implications for customer experience theory and and benefits of channel use during the different stages of the purchasing
management. Feeling smart is a direct consequence of the enhanced process, and choose the channel combination that minimizes their in-
control over the shopping experience derived from combining online puts (e.g., time, effort, money, risk) and/or maximizes the outputs (e.g.,
and offline channels (Rodríguez-Torrico et al., 2017; Verhoef et al., making the right purchase, finding better deals, hedonic value) of their
2015), which has been shown to empower customers in their re- shopping activities (Alba et al., 1997; Gensler et al., 2012; Kaufman-
lationships with firms through increased negotiation capabilities Scarborough and Lindquist, 2002; Noble et al., 2005; Pauwels et al.,
(Verhoef et al., 2007). In the omnichannel era, consumers have been 2011; Ratchford et al., 2003; Singh et al., 2014; Verhoef et al., 2007).
proven to feel more in control and knowledgeable about purchases than Since the arrival of digital channels, many researchers have analysed
salespeople (Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016). Thus, smart shopping feel- the drivers of channel preference and channel choice for information
ings are more likely to arise in omnichannel shopping experiences, and search and purchase (e.g., Burke, 2002; Dholakia et al., 2005; Harris
these feelings can benefit multichannel retailers. In particular, smart et al., 2018; Herhausen et al., 2015; Jing, 2018; Keen et al., 2004;
shopping feelings impact on customer satisfaction and customer ex- Konuş et al., 2008; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016; Neslin et al., 2014;
perience (Mano and Elliott, 1997; Lemon and Verhoef, 2016), which Peterson et al., 1997; Singh and Swait, 2017; Wang et al., 2014;
determine loyal, long-term relationships between consumers and firms Wollenburg et al., 2018).
(Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013). In addition, smart shopping has been Some researchers who have examined the drivers of channel pre-
positively associated with utilitarian (e.g., usefulness) and hedonic ferences and informational needs have focused on the shopping moti-
(e.g., pleasantness) shopping values (Mano and Elliot, 1997; Burton vations, goals and schemas that led to different channel choices (e.g.,
et al., 1998; Chandon et al., 2000), attitude towards retailers (Manzur Balasubramanian et al., 2005; Burke, 2002; Pauwels et al., 2011; Piercy,
et al., 2011), behavioural intentions (e.g., purchase repetition) (Bicen 2012; Puccinelli et al., 2009). Goal-directed consumers, and those who
and Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998), positive word of mouth particularly demand convenience, combine channels to maximise
(Chung and Darke, 2006; Clark et al., 2008; Schindler, 1998), and shopping efficiency (Kang, 2018; Noble et al., 2005). The Internet saves
personal or self-related variables (e.g., happiness, self-confidence) these shoppers time and effort in searching for product information,
(Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013; Chandon et al., 2000; Clark et al., 2008; and the physical store offers immediate possession of the merchandise
Darke and Dahl, 2003). Thus, understanding how webrooming and (Heitz-Spahn, 2013; Kaufman-Scarborough and Lindquist, 2002). On
showrooming lead consumers to perceive themselves and feel like smart the other hand, consumers may visit physical stores to look at the al-
shoppers may be critical for developing strategies aimed at increasing ternatives and thereafter purchase the product online to avoid crowds
customer satisfaction with the purchase experience. or long queues (Gensler et al., 2017), thus achieving shopping effi-
ciency.
2. Theoretical development Important purchases, which carry high implicit risks, may motivate
exhaustive information searches and affect the use of cross-channel
2.1. Webrooming and showrooming shopping (Jang et al., 2017; Ratchford et al., 2003; Piercy, 2012).
Consumers obtain objective information online about product attributes
The definition of webrooming and showrooming used in the present and prices, which reduces purchase risk; thereafter, a visit to the

2
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

physical store provides them with the reassurance that they are making extended previous conceptualizations to include “consumers seeking to
the right choice (Flavián et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2014). This process minimise the expenditure of time, money, or energy to gain hedonic
can also be carried out in reverse: consumers gather information about and utilitarian value from the experience” (Atkins and Kim, 2012, p.
products through direct experiences at physical stores, find a suitable 370). Atkins and Kim (2012) showed that effort/time savings were
alternative that satisfies their needs, and then make the purchase on- associated with the degree to which consumers pursued practical and
line. Cross-channel shopping may also help price-oriented consumers efficient purchases, expending the least possible investment of time and
find better deals (Chatterjee, 2010; Konuş et al., 2008; Rapp et al., effort; right purchase perceptions can be defined in terms of the extent
2015). to which the product matched the consumer's needs and goals and
Few authors have analysed the impact of webrooming and show- provided good value for money; money savings referred to the con-
rooming at the experiential level. Some previous studies have examined sumer's perception of having paid a lower-than-expected price for a
the influence of channel synergies on consumer behaviour. Specifically, product. Several authors have shown that consumers feel smart not only
they found that using multiple channels during the shopping process because they achieve monetary savings (Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013;
produced complementarities. Specifically, Gensler et al. (2012) in- Mano and Elliot, 1997; Manzur et al., 2011; Schindler, 1998), but also
vestigated channel attributes (e.g., perceived convenience and risk), because they can achieve time and/or effort savings (convenience), or
experience effects (the probability of using one channel for repeated because they perceive that they are making the right purchase (Atkins
purchase occasions) and spill-over effects (the probability of using a and Kim, 2012; Atkins and Hyun, 2016).
channel for different stages of the purchase process) in the search, Smart shopping perceptions and feelings are likely to occur in cross-
purchase, and after-sales stage of the purchase process. They found that channel shopping settings. Previous cross-channel literature has sug-
specific channel attributes are important for particular stages (e.g., gested that consumers use multiple channels to affirm personal traits,
convenience was important in the purchase and after-sales stages, but such as thrift (the ability to acquire products inexpensively) and ex-
unimportant in the search stage), thus channels may complement each pertise (the ability to select the best product from a choice set with skill,
other during the purchase decision-making process. In a model asses- also referred to as self-efficacy) (Balasubramanian et al., 2005; Chiu
sing the use of information sources prior to the purchase of durable et al., 2011; van der Veen and van Ossenbruggen, 2015). Therefore,
goods, Singh et al. (2014) showed that the use of online sources was a cross-channel consumers may feel smart because they believe that
complement to, not a substitute for, visits to the physical store. Cross- “searching on one channel allows them to make better purchase deci-
channel shopping has been positively related to consumption (Lee and sions on another channel due to their own ‘smart’ search behaviour”
Kim, 2008; Pauwels et al., 2011), attitudes towards retailers (Kwon and (Verhoef et al., 2007, p. 132). However, this issue has not been ad-
Lennon, 2009; Pantano and Viassone, 2015), satisfaction (Flavián et al., dressed empirically (Balasubramanian et al., 2005; Voropanova, 2015);
2016; Herhausen et al., 2015), and loyalty (Piercy, 2012; Sopadjieva or, in general, previous authors have focused narrowly on the use of
et al., 2017). However, previous researchers have examined multiple channels to find low prices (Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013). The study of
channel usage in general, but neglected the specific impact of different smart shopping feelings is especially important in customer experience
channel combinations on the customer experience. The authors analyse management, given that smart shopping seeks to achieve utilitarian or
the question of cross-channel usage by considering the influence of hedonic experiences (Atkins and Kim, 2012).
webrooming and showrooming on consumers’ smart shopping percep-
tions and feelings.
2.3. Hypotheses
2.2. Smart shopping perceptions and feelings
Following previous studies that differentiate smart shopping beha-
viours and feelings (Gómez-Suárez et al., 2016), the authors proposed
Combining channels during the purchase process may lead con-
that webrooming and showrooming can lead to smart shopping per-
sumers to perceive themselves as, and feel like, smart shoppers.
ceptions (cognitive factor, related to behavioural actions) and feelings
Consumers are continuously exposed to promotions and price deals
(affective factor, related to the emotional outcomes of the customer
through offline and online channels, such as company catalogues,
experience). To this end, the three-dimensional structure of smart
websites and e-mail campaigns. The information explosion caused by
shopping perceptions (effort/time savings, right purchase, money sav-
the Internet has allowed consumers to make extensive and frequent
ings) developed by Atkins and Kim (2012) is applied. As regards per-
real-time online comparisons of offers and prices and to become
ceptions of time and/or effort savings, consumers conveniently use both
“smarter shoppers” (Audrain-Pontevia et al., 2013).
online and offline channels to search for information and make pur-
Smart shopping has been traditionally associated with non-mone-
chases. It has been shown that the Internet affords increased access to
tary consequences (e.g., satisfaction, pride, perceptions of fairness, af-
information (Fernández et al., 2018), which can have both positive and
firmation of personal values) of paying a low price for a product due to
negative effects on consumer search behaviour. Gensler et al. (2017)
a discount offer or sales promotion (Darke and Dahl, 2003; Mano and
recently found that saving time was an important reason why con-
Elliot, 1997; Schindler, 1998). From a utility perspective, transactional
sumers showroomed. The large amount of information available on the
value has been shown to emerge when the consumer paid less than his
Internet can overload consumers’ minds and, thereby, create confusion
or her internal reference price, and felt pleasure, pride or ‘like a winner’
and cause anxiety during the search process (Walsh and Mitchell,
(Burton et al., 1998; Manzur et al., 2011). Smart shopping feelings
2010). Thus, consumers may prefer to go the physical store to see and
arise, therefore, because consumers are willing to invest time and effort
touch what they want, and thereafter make the purchase online, where
in searching for and using promotion-related information to achieve
there are no queues. However, it has been proven that the
price savings (Mano and Elliot, 1997).
Internet allows consumers to make more efficient information searches
Recent studies have shown that smart shopping may be related to
than offline media, saving time and effort in the purchase process (e.g.,
outcomes other than taking advantage of a promotion or getting a low
Jang et al., 2017; Ratchford et al., 2003). In addition, the physical store
price. Smart shopping feelings are associated with both utilitarian and
provides immediate possession of the merchandise, which saves on
hedonic shopping benefits (Chandon et al., 2000). Atkins and Hyun
delivery time (Aragoncillo and Orús, 2018; Wollenburg et al., 2018).
(2016) showed that smart shopping involved consumer participation in
Therefore, perceptions of time/effort savings are expected to be higher
information gathering, planning, comparison shopping, and shopping
in webrooming than in showrooming:
enjoyment. Atkins and Kim (2012) followed an economic approach by
developing a three-dimensional structure of shopping benefits which H1. Webrooming experiences will have a stronger positive impact on
can evoke smart shopping feelings. Their definition of smart shopping consumers' perceptions of time/effort savings than showrooming.

3
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

Recent studies have shown that webroomers strive to reduce un- 1997; Schindler, 1998). This notion is based on attribution theory
certainty and feel confident that a product best matches their needs and (Weiner, 1986), which argues that positive emotional outcomes (e.g.,
shopping goals (Flavián et al., 2016; van der Veen and van pride and personal esteem) are more rewarding when they are attrib-
Ossenbruggen, 2015). It has been shown that webrooming searches uted to internal causes, such as one's own skill or effort (Darke and
enhance the consumer's knowledge of, and preferences for, the product Dahl, 2003). The locus of causality (internal versus external) and con-
(Daugherty et al., 2008; Keng et al., 2012), reduce information asym- trollability are key dimensions of personal attribution (Bicen and
metries,1 and enhance control over the purchase process (Burke, 2002; Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998). Thus, it is expected that web-
Heitz-Spahn, 2013). Schul and Mayo (2003) demonstrated that when roomers will have more smart shopping feelings than showroomers, and
consumers combined channels, they created individuated information that personal attribution will explain this effect:
that increased their perceived control over the process and their belief
H4. Webrooming experiences will have a stronger positive impact on
that they were making the right choice. On the other hand, show-
consumers' smart shopping feelings than showrooming.
roomers might be seeking low prices or convenience in their purchases
(Chiou et al., 2012; Rapp et al., 2015). Online purchases may result in H5. Personal attribution mediates the effect of webrooming (versus
delayed delivery or in receiving a product that does not meet with showrooming) on consumers' smart shopping feelings.
expectations, which may increase showroomers' uncertainty about
having made the right choice. Thus:
3. Method
H2. Webrooming experiences will have a stronger positive impact on
consumers' perceptions of making the right purchase than
3.1. Design and sample
showrooming.
Money savings refer to the classical benefits associated with smart In the present study, the authors employed an experimental design
shopping feelings (Burton et al., 1998; Mano and Elliott, 1997; using real consumers who were asked to evaluate webrooming versus
Schindler, 1998). Showrooming is expected to lead to higher percep- showrooming behaviours. Taking into account that cross-channel con-
tions of money savings than webrooming. Webrooming might allow sumers are driven by different shopping motivations (Harris et al.,
consumers to save money in their purchases, because the enhanced 2018; Noble et al., 2005; Schröder and Zaharia, 2008), and that the
product knowledge they acquire from online sources can help them three-dimensional structure developed by Atkins and Kim (2012)
negotiate more effectively with vendors (Jang et al., 2017). However, showed that smart shopping perceptions are influenced by consumers’
finding products cheaper online than offline has been shown to be the motivations, shopping motivations were manipulated and included in
primary reason for showrooming (Gensler et al., 2017; Rapp et al., the experiment as a control factor. As previously stated, cross-channel
2015; Rejón-Guardia and Luna-Nevarez, 2017). Showroomers are or- consumers combine online and offline channels to minimise the inputs
iented towards searching for the retailer who offers the best price and/or maximise the outputs of the purchase decision-making process
(Fernández et al., 2018). Therefore, perceptions of money savings (Alba et al., 1997; Gensler et al., 2012; Kaufman-Scarborough and
should be higher in showrooming experiences than in webrooming Lindquist, 2002; Noble et al., 2005; Pauwels et al., 2011; Ratchford
experiences: et al., 2003; Singh et al., 2014; Verhoef et al., 2007). The inputs are
related to the time, effort and money invested in the purchase, and the
H3. Showrooming experiences will have a stronger positive impact on
outputs can be making the right purchase or finding the best deal. This
consumers' perceptions of money savings than webrooming.
economic perspective was shared by Atkins and Kim (2012), as re-
Consumers carrying out webrooming are expected to have greater flected by perceptions of time/effort savings, right purchase, and
smart shopping feelings than consumers carrying out showrooming. In money savings, of smart shopping. However, cross-channel consumers
their study about the addition of informational websites to physical can also have other instrumental (e.g., information attainment, risk
retailers, Pauwels et al. (2011) found that “smart fans” were intensive avoidance) (Balasubramanian et al., 2005; Kang, 2018; Noble et al.,
information seekers who wanted to make the right purchases. In- 2005) and non-instrumental or hedonic motivations (e.g., enjoyment,
formational websites helped these consumers make smarter offline pleasure) (Harris et al., 2018; Schröder and Zaharia, 2008). The present
purchases. The Internet is the preferred information search channel due empirical study was focused on the utilitarian perspective of shopping
to the quantity of information available, and its transparency and (Babin et al., 1994; Chandon et al., 2000), and participants were ran-
convenience. As previously stated, previous authors have found that the domly assigned a specific shopping motivation. The aim was to ensure
Internet allows consumers to be more knowledgeable about the product environmental control to increase the internal validity of the experi-
and capable of negotiating more effectively with vendors (Jang et al., ment.
2017; Walsh and Mitchell, 2010). In addition, webroomers may per- The empirical study was carried out in one of the largest cities in
ceive more personal attribution about purchase outcomes than do Spain. Specialist retailers were contacted through their trade associa-
showroomers. Although showroomers may feel smarter when finding tions and asked to collaborate in the study. Only multichannel retailers
lower prices or saving time through an online purchase than in a pur- (using, at least, online and physical sales’ channels) were selected for
chase in a physical store (Gensler et al., 2017; Rapp et al., 2015), they participation. In addition, to ensure control over the experimental de-
are neither ultimately responsible for, nor have they control of, the final sign, a homogeneous set of product categories (from the fashion sector)
outcome of the purchase (e.g., the actual appearance of the product, was chosen. Fashion products are frequently purchased through both
when it arrives). The smart shopping literature has found that smart webrooming and showrooming (Google Consumer Barometer, 2015).
shopping feelings arise when consumers attribute the purchase outcome Nine multichannel retailers in the selected categories provided the
(e.g., getting the discount) to themselves, rather than to the situation, participants for the study from their customer databases. The partici-
the retailer, or chance (Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013; Mano and Elliott, pants were pre-screened to ensure that they had had previous online
shopping experience. A final valid sample of 210 customers was ob-
tained (66% female; mean age = 33.4; 42% had a university degree and
1
According to Boulding and Kirmani (1993), information asymmetries occur 98.1% had more than 5 years internet experience).
when sellers and buyers do not possess the same information during a market Following the smart shopping literature (Schindler, 1998), a set of
interaction. For example, sellers usually know the true quality of a product vignettes that described shopping situations under various circum-
before the sale, but buyers may not, especially when the product has experience stances was created. The aim was to recreate cross-channel shopping
properties. situations and control for a varied set of motivations that may lead to

4
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

Table 1
Channel preferences and usage frequencies.
Item Mean (SD) T test (sign.)

1. Channel preferences: Which channel is the most …

appropriate to search for product information? −0.89 (2.07) −6.253 (0.000)
attractive to search for product information? −1.20 (2.00) −8.666 (0.000)
satisfactory to search for product information? −0.99 (2.05) −7.003 (0.000)
most appropriate to purchase the product? 0.78 (1.78) 6.350 (0.000)
attractive to purchase the product? 0.41 (2.15) 2.759 (0.006)
satisfactory to purchase the product? 0.85 (1.88) 6.532 (0.000)
2. Channel usage: How often do you …
search for product information on the Internet? 5.07 (1.74) 17.208 (0.000)
search for product information in physical stores? 4.53 (1.81) 12.280 (0.000)
make the purchase on the Internet? 4.35 (1.93) 10.171 (0.000)
make the purchase in physical stores? 5.33 (1.45) 23.340 (0.000)
search for product information and make the purchase on the Internet? 4.54 (1.86) 12.045 (0.000)
search for product information and make the purchase at physical stores? 5.13 (1.59) 19.445 (0.000)
search for product information on the Internet and make the purchase at physical stores? 5.06 (1.75) 17.045 (0.000)
search for product information at physical stores and make the purchase on the Internet? 3.53 (1.99) 3.873 (0.000)

Note: reference value for the one sample t-test regarding channel preferences = 0; reference value for the one sample t-test regarding channel usage = 3.

smart shopping perceptions and feelings (Atkins and Kim, 2012). Spe- 4. Analysis and results
cifically, the study consisted of an experimental design with 2 (cross-
channel shopping: webrooming vs. Showrooming) x 3 (shopping mo- 4.1. Channel preferences and behaviours
tivation: right purchase vs. time and effort savings vs. money savings)
in a between-subjects factorial design. Each condition was adapted to Table 1 provides descriptive data regarding participant preference
the product type of the retailers to ensure that the participants faced a for online and physical channels. The participants’ average responses
realistic situation, that is, one that could easily arise within that par- were compared to the mid-point of the scale (indicating indifference) to
ticular business area. However, in all the vignettes, potential extraneous test whether their preferences for the online or physical channels were
variables, such as the protagonist's gender, the prices and sizes of dis- significant. The results of the analysis revealed a preference for the
counts, and time horizons (where applicable), were held constant. Thus, Internet to search for information and for the physical channel to make
a total of 9 × 2 x 3 = 54 vignettes was generated. purchases. This is in line with previous literature (e.g., Dholakia et al.,
2005; Fernández et al., 2018; Verhoef et al., 2007; Yadav and Pavlou,
3.2. Procedure and measurement 2014) and suggests that participants prefer webrooming over show-
rooming.
The procedure undertaken was as follows. First, in relation to fashion In addition, the data on the participants’ frequency of use of each
products, participants reported whether they preferred to use online or channel to search for information and purchase fashion products are
offline channels to search for information and make their purchases. also very illustrative (Table 1). Scores of 1 and 2 reflect very low fre-
Specifically, they indicated (from −3 = definitely the Internet, to quency (number 1 was anchored as “never”); answers significantly
+3 = definitely the physical store) which channel was the most (1) above 3 were deemed to have a medium-to-high degree of frequency.
appropriate, (2) attractive, and (3) satisfactory to search for product in- The results showed that the participants frequently used both channels
formation and to make the purchase (Verhoef et al., 2007). The partici- to search for information and make purchases. They also carried out
pants also reported their frequency of use of the Internet and physical webrooming and showrooming with a significant degree of frequency.
stores to search for information and make purchases, using 7-point scales Furthermore, pairwise tests made comparisons between both channels
(from 1 = I never use it, to 7 = I use it every time I make a purchase) for each specific behaviour. Four pairwise comparisons were made: (1)
(Google Consumer Barometer, 2015). These questions were asked to in- search for product information on the Internet versus physical stores;
troduce the participants to the context of the experiment and to confirm (2) making the purchase on the Internet versus the physical store; (3)
that webrooming is the dominant cross-channel shopping pattern. searching for product information and making the purchase on the
Second, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the six Internet versus the physical store; (4) searching for product information
conditions and they were asked to read about their particular vignette. on the Internet and making the purchase at physical stores (web-
The vignettes all started in the same way, that is, the protagonist in the rooming) versus searching for product information at physical stores
scenario had a shopping need. In the webrooming (or showrooming) and making the purchase on the Internet (showrooming). The Internet
conditions, the participants read about a shopping experience that was found to be more frequently used than the physical store to search
started with an online search (or a visit to a physical store) and ended for product information (t(209) = 2.994, p < 0.01), whereas the parti-
with a purchase at the physical store (online store). Appendix A pro- cipants used the physical store more often than the Internet to make
vides examples of the vignettes for the different conditions. their purchases (t(209) = −5.493, p < 0.001). For single-channel pur-
After carefully reading the vignette, the participants judged how the chases, the participants reported that they more frequently used the
protagonist would react to the shopping experience (Schindler, 1998). offline than the online channel (t(209) = −3.443, p < 0.001). Finally,
They answered, using 7-point Likert type scales, the three-dimensional the participants practiced significantly more webrooming than show-
smart shopping perceptions scale (time and effort savings, right pur- rooming (t(209) = 8.772, p < 0.001).
chase, money savings) of Atkins and Kim (2012). They also assessed
smart shopping feelings with three items adapted from previous studies 4.2. Scale validation
(Chandon et al., 2000; Mano and Elliot, 1997). In addition, the parti-
cipants reported their perceived responsibility for, and control over, the The scales were validated in a two-step process. First, their relia-
purchase outcomes, to capture their level of personal attribution (Bicen bility and dimensionality were analysed (see Appendix B). Regarding
and Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998). Appendix B provides the reliability, their Cronbach's alphas were calculated, using a cut-off
complete list of items used in the questionnaire. value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), as were their item-total correlations,

5
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

taking 0.3 as the threshold value (Norusis, 1993). The dimensionality of

the scales was examined through an Exploratory Factorial Analysis
based on principal components (Hair et al., 1999). The second valida-
tion step was a Confirmatory Factor Analysis using Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM) and EQS 6.3 software. The initial factor structure
showed that all item loadings were above the recommended 0.7
benchmark (Henseler et al., 2009), with the exception of one item of the
perceived time and effort savings scale (“the consumer has made a
convenient purchase”). This item was removed. The composite reli-
abilities were above 0.65 (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993), which supports
the internal consistency of the scales. The Average Variance Extracted
(AVE) was higher than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), thus assuring
convergent validity. Finally, discriminant validity was supported, as the
square root of the AVE was higher than the shared variance of the inter-
construct correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

4.3. Hypotheses testing

Fig. 1. Interaction effects on right purchase perceptions (estimated means).

The hypotheses were tested through analyses of variance (ANOVAs).
Table 2 gives the descriptive statistics and the main results. The analysis
revealed a marginally significant effect of the shopping experience on The questionnaire asked participants about the extent to which the
perceptions of time/effort savings, with webrooming producing higher protagonist in the vignette was responsible for, and in control of, the
perceptions than showrooming. This result indicates marginal support for purchase outcome. The participants who read the webrooming vign-
H1. The type of shopping motivation had also a significant impact on ettes attributed more responsibility to the consumer (M = 5.54,
these perceptions (Table 2). The post-hoc Tukey test revealed that the sd = 1.26) than those in the showrooming condition (M = 4.84,
right purchase motivation produced significantly lower perceptions of sd = 1.56; F(2, 209) = 12.787, p < 0.001). The same was true with
time/effort savings than the other motivations. The interaction between perceived control of the purchase (webrooming: M = 5.35, sd = 1.19;
the two treatments was not significant (p = 0.383). showrooming: M = 4.97, sd = 1.46; F(2, 209) = 4.065, p < 0.05). No
As posited by H2, the participants’ perceptions of making the right other effects were significant (ps > 0.173). The two items were aver-
purchase were higher for webrooming than for showrooming (see aged to obtain a measure of personal attribution (Bicen and
Table 2). Interestingly, interaction with the shopping motivation was Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998). Following Eisinga et al. (2013)
marginally significant (F(2, 209) = 2.778, p = 0.065). Fig. 1 shows that recommendations, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was used to check
webrooming produced higher perceptions of making the right purchase the reliability of the scale (ρ = 0.712, p < 0.001).
than showrooming, except when the motivation was to achieve a low The PROCESS macro v33 for SPSS (Hayes, 2018) was used to test
price for the product; in these vignettes, showrooming produced H5. The mediation model included the shopping experience (web-
slightly higher perceptions of making the right purchase than web- rooming versus showrooming) as the independent factor, smart shop-
rooming, although the difference was not significant (p = 0.692). ping feelings as the dependent variable, and personal attribution as the
Overall, these results support H2. mediator. The shopping experience had a direct effect on personal at-
Perceptions of money savings were similar in showrooming and tribution (b = 0.543, se = 0.167, t(209) = 3.240, p < 0.01). When
webrooming (Table 2). H3 must, thus, be rejected. The type of shopping personal attribution was included in the regression on smart shopping
motivation had a significant influence, and the post-hoc analysis feelings, the effect of the shopping experience disappeared (b = 0.176,
showed that money savings perceptions were highest when the moti- se = 0.144, t(208) = 1.225, p = 0.220), and personal attribution was
vation was to achieve a low price for the product, and lowest when the shown to have a significant effect (b = 0.273, se = 0.058,
motivation was to save time/effort. The interaction term was not sig- t(208) = 4.699, p < 0.001). The bootstrap results (samples = 5000) for
nificant (p = 0.923). Finally, the results of the ANOVA supported H4, the indirect effect revealed mediation for personal attribution, given
given that smart shopping feelings were higher for participants who that the zero value was not included in the 95% confidence interval
read the webrooming vignettes than for those who read the show- (effect = 0.148, bootSE = 0.054, confidence interval: [0.052–0.265]).
rooming vignettes (Table 2). The type of shopping motivation also had These results support H5.
a significant effect; saving time and/or effort in the purchase produced
lower smart shopping feelings than the other motivations. The inter-
action was not significant (p = 0.454).

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and ANOVA results for main effects.
Time/Effort savings Right purchase Money savings Smart shopping feelings

M (SD) F(2, 209) M (SD) F(2, 209) M (SD) F(2, 209) M (SD) F(2, 209)

Shopping Experience
Webrooming 5.09 (1.48) 3.302* 6.25 (0.95) 4.560** 4.80 (1.40) 0.432 6.26 (1.01) 4.951**
Showrooming 4.72 (1.59) 5.95 (1.14) 4.68 (1.49) 5.94 (1.12)
Shopping motivation
Time-Effort savings 5.35 (1.32) 10.213*** 6.08 (1.11) 0.224 4.06 (1.40) 28.509*** 5.83 (1.09) 4.443**
Right purchase 4.26 (1.52) 6.06 (1.05) 4.57 (1.32) 6.17 (1.02)
Money savings 5.04 (1.61) 6.17 (1.01) 5.66 (1.11) 6.34 (1.06)

Note: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

6
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

5. Discussion the order in which they use them (Kang, 2018; Sopadjieva et al., 2017).
Finally, webrooming had a more positive impact than showrooming
The results of the descriptive analysis of participants' preferences on smart shopping feelings. The specialised authors on smart shopping
and channel use revealed that the Internet was clearly the dominant have argued that personal attribution is an important antecedent of
search channel, whereas the physical store remained the preferred these feelings (Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998). Feeling
medium to make purchases. These results are in line with previous personally responsible and in control of a situation makes consumers
studies (Alba et al., 1997; Verhoef et al., 2007; Yadav and Pavlou, feel smart about their purchases. The findings of the present study re-
2014). The great amount of data available, from many different vealed that webrooming participants perceived higher personal attri-
sources, the ease of making comparisons, and the convenience with bution than showrooming participants, and personal attribution medi-
which the information can be accessed and processed, are important ated the impact of webrooming on smart shopping feelings. Acquiring
advantages of the Internet, compared to the physical store, for re- very full knowledge of a product online, and then touching it in the
searching product information. While e-commerce figures rise every store and taking it home, made consumers feel smarter with their
year (Statista, 2018), and consumers' distrust of online shopping is purchases than the reverse channel combination. Moreover, when
expected to decrease as they become more experienced and familiar consumers sought efficiency in their purchases, their smart shopping
with the Internet (Frambach et al., 2007), consumers still see the feelings were lower than with other shopping motivations. As Gensler
physical store as more attractive, appropriate, and satisfactory for et al. (2012) noted, convenience appears to have no significant role in
completing the purchasing process. The specialised literature has ac- terms of customer experience and synergetic effects between channels.
knowledged the important advantages of physical stores in terms of
service, assistance and immediate possession (Aragoncillo and Orús, 6. Conclusions
2018; Verhoef et al., 2007). These preferences were reflected in the
participants’ behaviours. Furthermore, regarding cross-channel shop- Webrooming and showrooming are prevalent patterns among om-
ping patterns, webrooming was more frequently undertaken than nichannel consumers. The proliferation of touchpoints (i.e. any direct
showrooming. or indirect contact between a customer and a brand or firm, including
The results of the experiment showed that perceptions of time/effort retailers; Verhoef et al., 2015) and the reduced control of the experi-
savings were higher for webrooming than for showrooming, although ence require firms to integrate channels seamlessly to retain customers
the effect was only marginally significant. Recently, it was shown that through the purchase decision-making process. Although there is much
consumers may be motivated to showroom because of its convenience literature about consumers’ channel preferences and choices, and pre-
(Gensler et al., 2017). Kang (2018) found that convenience seeking was vious researchers have acknowledged that using multiple channels
not associated with showrooming or webrooming. The results of the provides companies with more positive than negative outcomes, little is
present study did not contradict those of Gensler et al. (2017), but known about how specific channel combinations affect customer ex-
suggested that webrooming can lead to greater perceptions of time/ periences at the individual level. The authors contribute to the litera-
effort savings than showrooming. For fashion item purchases, which ture by examining the impact of webrooming and showrooming on
have a strong experiential component, it seems that consumers per- smart shopping perceptions and feelings. The transfer of control from
ceived that they were more efficient when webrooming than show- companies to consumers in their purchase decision-making processes
rooming. Nevertheless, shopping motivations appeared to determine creates the conditions for smart shopping. Smart shopping feelings have
these perceptions more than the type of experience. When consumers a strong influence on consumer satisfaction, which is the first step in
were motivated to make the right purchase, they might not consider establishing long-term customer/company relationships.
saving time and/or effort in the experience (i.e. minimizing inputs) but In the present study, the authors showed that webrooming led
might instead focus more on maximizing the output of the purchase. consumers to perceive that they were saving time and/or effort and
The webrooming participants reported higher perceptions of having making the right choices to a greater extent than showrooming. In
made the right purchase than the showrooming participants. addition, webrooming led consumers to attribute the purchase out-
Webroomers are motivated to make the best purchase possible, and comes to themselves, which increased their smart shopping feelings.
they search for information intensively to be confident in their deci- Furthermore, consumers who searched for bargains were not affected
sions (Flavián et al., 2016). Online searches enhance the consumer's by the channel combination in their perceptions of money savings, but
knowledge and power in their interaction with retailers (Walsh and showrooming made them perceive that they were making the right
Mitchell, 2010). The physical channel provides them reassurance and purchase more than did webrooming.
immediate possession. Thus, webrooming induced consumers to per-
ceive that they were making better purchases than showrooming ex- 6.1. Managerial implications
periences, where they may have less control over the final outcome of
the purchase. However, shopping motivation moderated the effect of The results have interesting implications for retailers. Delivering
the type of experience. In webrooming, the perceptions of having made convenience in cross-channel and omnichannel experiences has been a
the right purchase were higher when the motivation was to make the mantra for multichannel customer management (Parry, 2016), and it
right purchase than for the other motivations; in showrooming, these definitely helps consumers make efficient purchases. However, the
perceptions were highest when the motivation was to save money. This findings of the present study show that convenience may not be critical
result revealed that consumers are driven by different motivations for managing customer experiences. Appealing to the consumer's in-
when webrooming and showrooming. telligence, or diligence, during the decision-making process, and in-
Contrary to the authors’ expectations and previous studies (e.g., creasing his/her feelings of self-competence or sense of themselves as
ComScore, 2012; Gensler et al., 2017), showrooming did not produce capable and in control of the experience (Gensler et al., 2012), may be
higher perceptions of money savings than webrooming. Although past more effective. Although companies may have difficulties in tracking
studies have found that paying a low price is a key factor in show- consumers' use of online and offline channels (Verhoef et al., 2015),
rooming, the authors directly compared webrooming and showrooming their enhanced control over the process may improve their customer
and found no significant differences. Instead, shopping motivations experience through smart shopping perceptions and feelings. Web-
appeared to determine perceptions of money savings. Thus, omni- rooming consumers tend to attribute purchase outcomes to themselves;
channel consumers with specific shopping motivations (e.g., saving in-store reassurances (e.g., allowing customers to freely handle the
money) may combine channels in their purchase decision-making merchandise, compliant behaviours from salespersons) can help con-
processes to achieve their goals, regardless of the channels they use or sumers to perceive that they are making the right purchase and feel like

7
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

smart shoppers. Online retailers might create communication strategies interactions across virtual and physical channels during the information
to challenge the showroomers' mastery in making clever purchases, and search stage of the process. Future studies might, thus, investigate the
offer them the possibility of continuously tracking their orders to in- online-offline channel combination not only as a unidirectional se-
crease their perceived control over the purchase process. quence (from online to offline, or from offline to online) but examine
Information integrity across channels is seen to be valuable. also the effects of varied channel combinations. For example, con-
Offering good product information online and good in-store physical sumers may search for product information online, go the physical store
interactions may help retailers integrate their channels more efficiently. to test the product, and then make the purchase online (Research,
A recent report stated that “by providing customers with desired in- Testing and Buying (RTB)) (Fernández et al., 2018). Mobile technolo-
formation, [retailers can] keep them in their retail ecosystem—not gies allow consumers to use several channels simultaneously in the
pushing them away with inconsistent, incompatible, inhospitable or same stage of the purchasing process, turning cross-channel experiences
incomplete experiences” (Accenture, 2015, p. 4). The new omnichannel into omnichanneling (Verhoef et al., 2015). Consumers may search for
environment blurs the natural boundaries between online and offline information online (e.g., prices, additional product information, re-
channels (Juaneda-Ayensa et al., 2016; Kang, 2018) and managers need views) while they are in-store and interacting physically with a plethora
to ensure that information provided in-store and online is consistent (Sit of stimuli. The incorporation of social media, geolocation technologies,
et al., 2018). Managers must also take into account that cross-channel and mobile commerce (SoLoMo) allows consumers to find store loca-
consumers may have different shopping goals, so their behaviour may tions, receive location-based promotions and coupons, and compare
be guided by different cognitive and affective variables. prices in real time, which may have an effect on webrooming and
showrooming practices (Kang, 2018). Further analyses should consider
6.2. Limitations and future research lines how omnichannel environments affect the generation of smart shop-
ping perceptions and feelings, and lead to optimal customer experi-
This study has limitations that offer opportunities for future re- ences.
search lines. First, the authors focused on fashion items. Although this
product category is frequently purchased through webrooming and Acknowledgments
showrooming, future studies should consider the potential moderating
effect of product characteristics in the proposed relationships. This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Second, the analysis of cross-channel shopping was based on the Competitiveness under Grant ECO2016-76768-R; European Social Fund
purchase decision-making process with a choice phase divided into two and the Government of Aragon under Grant S20_17 R; and Fundación
parts. However, real-world experiences may involve several Ibercaja and Universidad de Zaragoza under Grant JIUZ-2018-SOC-14.

Appendix A. Shopping Vignettes Used in the Experiment

The design of the vignettes was adapted to the commercial offer of each of the nine specialist multichannel retailers that collaborated in the
recruitment of the participants. The following are examples of a retailer specializing in designer t-shirts. Other vignettes included jeans and running
shoes. Note that the original vignettes were in a language that supports the gender-neutral article.

Webrooming – time/effort savings

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex wants to make the purchase in the quickest time possible. Alex stars
searching for information on the Internet, where (s)he can look for different models, designs, colours … After researching several websites, Alex
picks a t-shirt for the party, but if the order is made online, the product will not arrive in time. So Alex decides to check the product's availability at
(NAME OF THE STORE)'s website. Indeed, the product is available so Alex goes to the store and makes the purchase. The purchase is a success. Alex
has saved time and gets the product as soon as possible.

Webrooming – right purchase

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex cares about this type of purchase, and spends time searching for
information to make the best purchase possible. Alex stars searching for information on the Internet, where (s)he can look for different models,
designs, colours … After researching several websites, Alex picks the t-shirt for the party, but (s)he decides to go to a physical store to make sure that
the product matches (her)his needs. Alex goes to (NAME OF THE STORE) where (s)he can touch and try on the product. The purchase is a success.
Alex has got the t-shirt that (s)he wanted.

Webrooming – money savings

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex loves bargain hunting, and spends time trying to find the best deal and
pay a low price for the product. Alex stars searching for information on the Internet, where (s)he can look for different models, designs, colours …
After researching several websites, Alex picks the t-shirt for the party, but (s)he knows that at (NAME OF THE STORE) (s)he can get an offer or
special discount, given that the store usually offers discounts for regular customers like him/her. Alex goes to (NAME OF THE STORE), and indeed,
(s)he gets a price 20% lower than the one (s)he found online. The purchase is a success. Alex has got a great deal for the t-shirt.

Showrooming – time/effort savings

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex wants to make the purchase in the quickest time possible. One day, while
going home from work, Alex shops around. After looking for different models, designs, colours …, in different shops, Alex picks the t-shirt for the
party. However, the store is very crowded and there is a long queue to make the purchase. So (s)he decides to check the (NAME OF THE STORE)'s
website and make the order online. Alex will receive the t-shirt at home in two days. The purchase is a success. Alex has got the product on time and
has saved time in the store, avoiding the long queue.

8
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

Showrooming – right purchase

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex cares about this type of purchase, and spends time searching for
information to make the best purchase possible. One afternoon, Alex goes shopping around and stars searching for different models, designs, colours
… After researching several shops, Alex picks one t-shirt for the party, but (s)he cannot make up her/his mind about it. Alex thinks that (s)he may
have not found the best option, so (s)he decides to search for information on the Internet. Indeed, (s)he finds the t-shirt (s)he wants in the (NAME OF
THE STORE)'s website, where (s)he eventually makes the order. The purchase is a success. The fit and colour are perfect; Alex has got the t-shirt that
(s)he wanted.

Showrooming – money savings

Alex needs a new t-shirt to go to a party with friends next weekend. Alex loves bargain hunting, and spends time trying to find the best deal and
pay a low price for the product. One afternoon, Alex goes shopping around and stars searching for different models, designs, colours … After
researching several shops, Alex picks the t-shirt for the party, but (s)he decides to search for the product online to find a lower price for the product.
Indeed, at (NAME OF THE STORE)'s website, Alex gets a price 20% lower than the one in the physical store. The purchase is a success. Alex has got a
great deal for the t-shirt.
A pre-test was carried out to check the suitability of the vignettes. Specifically, there were 102 participants (45% female; median age = between
26 and 32 years old; 58% had a university degree and 98% had more than 5 years Internet experience), recruited through a market research agency
(Prolific: https://prolific.ac/). The participants were randomly assigned to one of the six vignettes. After reading the vignette, the participant
assessed the realism and believability of the purchase experience by addressing the following three items (Bagozzi et al., 2016): (1) the purchase
experience in the vignette is realistic; (2) the purchase experience in the vignette is credible; (3) it is likely that I could encounter a situation similar
to that described in the vignette. The three items showed good indices of reliability (α = 0.889) and dimensionality (KMO = 0.713; explained
variance = 81.895%), so they were averaged to create a single measure of the realism of the vignettes.
Table A1 displays the descriptive statistics of the different vignettes. First, the results of a sample t-test confirmed that the vignettes were highly
realistic, given that the mean value was significantly higher than the mid-point of the scale (4) (t(102) = 13.193, p < 0.001). In addition, the
ANOVA results showed non-significant differences between conditions (webrooming/showrooming: p = 0.667; motivation: p = 0.319; interaction:
p = 0.652). These results confirm the suitability of the vignettes.

Table A1
Descriptive statistics pre-test vignettes

M (SD) N

Webrooming Time/effort savings 6.10 (0.82) 17

Right purchase 5.81 (1.41) 20
Money savings 5.33 (1.27) 15
Total webrooming 5.73 (1.22) 52
Showrooming Time/effort savings 6.10 (0.82) 16
Right purchase 5.81 (1.41) 16
Money savings 5.33 (1.27) 18
Total showrooming 5.73 (1.22) 50
Total Time/effort savings 5.89 (1.11) 33
Right purchase 5.76 (1.36) 36
Money savings 5.41 (1.38) 33
TOTAL 5.69 (1.29) 102

Appendix B. Measurement Instruments

Please, indicate your level of agreement (from 1 = completely disagree, to 7 = completely agree) with the following statements about the
purchase vignette that you have just read.

Smart shopping perceptions of time and effort savings (adapted from Atkins and Kim, 2012)
Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.785
Dimensionality: Only one eigen-value > 1; KMO = 0.689; Explained Variance = 69.986%
Making this purchase has been convenient for Alex* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Making this purchase has not been a hassle for Alex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex has not spent extra effort on this purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex has been able to make this purchase quickly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Smart shopping perceptions of making the right purchase (adapted from Atkins and Kim, 2012)
Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.843
Dimensionality: Only one eigen-value > 1; KMO = 0.705; Explained Variance = 76.167%
The purchase has been exactly what Alex was looking for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This purchase perfectly fit Alex needs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex has got a good quality product from this purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Smart shopping perceptions of money savings (adapted from Atkins and Kim, 2012)
Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.799
Dimensionality: Only one eigen-value > 1; KMO = 0.641; Explained Variance = 71.779%
Alex has got a lower price on this purchase than normal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex has got a reasonable price on this purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex has got a good deal on this purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Smart shopping feelings (adapted from Chandon et al., 2000; Mano and Elliott, 1997)

9
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

Reliability: Cronbach's α = 0.883

Dimensionality: Only one eigen-value > 1; KMO = 0.734; Explained Variance = 81.070%
Alex feels good about the purchase that has been made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex feels that (s)he has made a smart purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Alex feels pride about the purchase that has been made 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Control and Responsibility (adapted from Bicen and Madhavaram, 2013; Schindler, 1998)
To what extent do you think that the final outcome of this purchase is Alex's own responsibility?
Not responsible at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely responsible
To what extent that do you think the final outcome of this purchase is under Alex's control?
Not controllable at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely controllable
⁎
This item was removed as a result the validation process.

References Flavián, C., Gurrea, R., Orús, C., 2016. Choice confidence in the webrooming purchase
process: the impact of online positive reviews and the motivation to touch. J.
Consum. Behav. 15 (5), 459–476.
Accenture, 2015. Seamless retail research report 2015: maximizing mobile to increase Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
revenue. Available at: http://bit.ly/2fXC14K, Accessed date: 15 January 2019. variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18 (1), 39–50.
Alba, J.J.L., Weitz, B., Janiszawski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., Wood, S., 1997. Interactive Frambach, R.T., Roest, H.C., Krishnan, T.V., 2007. The impact of consumer Internet ex-
home shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in perience on channel preference and usage intentions across the different stages of the
electronic marketplaces. J. Mark. 61 (3), 38–53. buying process. J. Interact. Mark. 21 (2), 26–41.
Aragoncillo, L., Orús, C., 2018. Impulse buying behaviour: an online-offline comparative Gensler, S., Verhoef, P.C., Böhm, M., 2012. Understanding consumers' multichannel
and the impact of social media. Spanish J. Market. ESIC 22 (1), 42–62. choices across the different stages of the buying process. Mark. Lett. 23 (4),
Atkins, K.G., Hyun, S.Y.J., 2016. Smart shoppers' purchasing experiences: functions of 987–1003.
product type, gender, and generation. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 8 (2), 1–12. Gensler, S., Neslin, S.A., Verhoef, P.C., 2017. The showrooming phenomenon: it's more
Atkins, K.G., Kim, Y.K., 2012. Smart shopping: conceptualization and measurement. Int. than just about price. J. Interact. Mark. 38, 29–43.
J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 40 (5), 360–375. Gómez-Suárez, M., Quiñones, M., Yagüe, M.J., 2016. Cross-cultural validation of smart
Audrain-Pontevia, A.F., N'Goala, G., Poncin, I., 2013. A good deal online: the Impacts of shopping process and its influence on brand attitude. In: A Dvances in National Brand
acquisition and transaction value on E-satisfaction and E-loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. and Private Label Marketing. Springer International Publishing, pp. 153–161.
Serv. 20 (5), 445–452. Google Consumer Barometer, 2015. He smart shopper. Research and purchase behaviour
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and (ROPO). T. Available: https://goo.gl/vb5OYY, Accessed date: 15 January 2019.
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656. Hair, J.F.J.R., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1999. Multivariate Data
Bagozzi, R.P., Belanche, D., Casaló, L.V., Flavián, C., 2016. The role of anticipated Analysis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
emotions in purchase intentions. Psychol. Mark. 33 (8), 629–645. Harris, P., Riley, F.D.O., Hand, C., 2018. Understanding multichannel shopper journey
Balasubramanian, S., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., 2005. Consumers in a multichannel configuration: an application of goal theory. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 44, 108–117.
environment: product utility, process utility, and channel choice. J. Interact. Mark. Hayes, A.F., 2018. An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
19 (2), 12–30. Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, second ed. Guilford Press, New York.
Bicen, P., Madhavaram, S., 2013. Research on smart shopper feelings: an extension. J. Heitz-Spahn, S., 2013. Cross-channel free-riding consumer behaviour in a multichannel
Mark. Theory Pract. 21 (2), 221–234. environment: an investigation of shopping motives, sociodemographics and product
Blom, A., Lange, F., Hess Jr., R.L., 2017. Omnichannel-based promotions' effects on categories. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 20 (6), 570–578.
purchase behavior and brand image. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 39, 286–295. Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., Sinkovics, R., 2009. The use of partial least squares path
Boulding, W., Kirmani, A., 1993. A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling modeling in international marketing. Adv. Int. Market. 20, 277–319.
theory: do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? J. Consum. Res. 20 Herhausen, D., Binder, J., Schögel, M., Herrmann, A., 2015. Integrating bricks with clicks:
(1), 111–123. retailer-level and channel-level outcomes of online–offline channel integration. J.
Burke, R.R., 2002. Technology and the customer interface: what consumers want in the Retail. 91 (2), 309–325.
physical and virtual store. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 30 (4), 411–432. Huré, E., Picot-Coupey, K., Ackermann, C.L., 2017. Understanding omni-channel shop-
Burton, S., Lichtenstein, D.R., Netemeyer, R.G., Garretson, J.A., 1998. A scale for mea- ping value: a mixed-method study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 39, 314–330.
suring attitude toward private label products and an examination of its psychological Jang, S., Prasad, A., Ratchford, B.T., 2017. Consumer search of multiple information
and behavioural correlates. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 26 (4), 293–306. sources and its impact on consumer price satisfaction. J. Interact. Mark. 40, 24–40.
Cao, L., Li, L., 2015. The impact of cross-channel integration on retailers' sales growth. J. Jing, B., 2018. Showrooming and webrooming: information externalities between online
Retail. 91 (2), 198–216. and offline sellers. Mark. Sci. 37 (3), 469–483.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., Laurent, G., 2000. A benefit congruency framework of sales Jöreskog, K., Sörbom, D., 1993. LISREL 8 Structural Equation Modeling With the SIMPLIS
promotion effectiveness. J. Mark. 64 (4), 65–81. Command Language. Scientific Software International, Chicago, Illinois.
Chatterjee, P., 2010. Causes and consequences of ‘order online pick up in-store’ shopping Juaneda-Ayensa, E., Mosquera, A., Sierra Murillo, Y., 2016. Omnichannel customer be-
behaviour. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 431–448. havior: key drivers of technology acceptance and use and their effects on purchase
Chiou, J.S., Wu, L.Y., Chou, S.Y., 2012. You do the service but they take the order. J. Bus. intention. Front. Psychol. 7, 1117.
Res. 65 (7), 883–889. Kang, J.Y.M., 2018. Showrooming, webrooming, and user-generated content creation in
Chiu, H.C., Hsieh, Y.C., Roan, J., Tseng, K.J., Hsieh, J.K., 2011. The challenge for mul- the omnichannel era. J. Internet Commer. 1–25.
tichannel services: cross-channel free-riding behaviour. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. Kaufman-Scarborough, C., Lindquist, J.D., 2002. E-shopping in a multiple channel en-
10 (2), 268–277. vironment. J. Consum. Mark. 19 (4), 333–350.
Chung, C.M.Y., Darke, P.R., 2006. The consumer as advocate: self-relevance, culture, and Keen, C., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., Feinberg, R., 2004. E-tailers versus retailers. Which
word-of-mouth. Mark. Lett. 17 (4), 269–279. factors determine consumer preferences. J. Bus. Res. 57 (7), 685–695.
Clark, R.A., Goldsmith, R.E., Goldsmith, E.B., 2008. Market mavenism and consumer Keng, C.J., Liao, T.H., Yang, Y.I., 2012. The effects of sequential combinations of virtual
self‐confidence. J. Consum. Behav. 7 (3), 239–248. experience, direct experience, and indirect experience: the moderating roles of need
ComScore, 2012. The state of the U.S. online retail economy in Q3 2012. Available: for touch and product involvement. Electron. Commer. Res. 12, 177–199.
https://bit.ly/2L40Vw6, Accessed date: 11 May 2018. Konuş, U., Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., 2008. Multichannel shopper segments and their
Darke, P.R., Dahl, D.W., 2003. Fairness and discounts: the subjective value of a bargain. J. covariates. J. Retail. 84 (4), 398–413.
Consum. Psychol. 13 (3), 328–338. Kushwaha, T., Shankar, V., 2013. Are multichannel customers really more valuable? The
Daugherty, T., Li, H., Biocca, F., 2008. Consumer learning and the effects of virtual ex- moderating role of product category characteristics. J. Mark. 77 (4), 67–85.
perience relative to indirect and direct product experience. Psychol. Mark. 25, Kwon, W.S., Lennon, S.J., 2009. Reciprocal effects between multichannel retailers' offline
568–586. and online brand images. J. Retail. 85 (3), 376–390.
Daunt, K.L., Harris, L.C., 2017. Consumer showrooming: value co-destruction. J. Retail. Lee, H.H., Kim, J., 2008. The effects of shopping orientations on consumers' satisfaction
Consum. Serv. 38, 166–176. with product search and purchases in a multi-channel environment. J. Fash. Mark.
Deloitte, 2017. 2017 pre-Thanksgiving pulse survey. Available: https://bit.ly/2IOKEg6, Manag. 12 (2), 193–216.
Accessed date: 25 October 2018. Lemon, K.N., Verhoef, P.C., 2016. Understanding customer experience throughout the
Dholakia, R.R., Zhao, M., Dholakia, N., 2005. Multichannel retailing: a case study of early customer journey. J. Mark. 80 (6), 69–96.
evidence. J. Interact. Mark. 19 (2), 63–74. Li, Y., Liu, H., Lim, E.T., Goh, J.M., Yang, F., Lee, M.K., 2018. Customer's reaction to cross-
eMarketer, 2014. Retailers Look to Merge Offline and Online Shopping Experiences in channel integration in omnichannel retailing: the mediating roles of retailer un-
2014. Available at: https://bit.ly/2HdK3kZ, Accessed date: 25 July 2017. certainty, identity attractiveness, and switching costs. Decis. Support Syst. 109,
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., Pelzer, B., 2013. The reliability of a two-item scale: 50–60.
pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int. J. Public Health 58 (4), 637–642. Mano, H., Elliott, M.T., 1997. Smart shopping: the origins and consequences of price
Fernández, N.V., Pérez, M.J.S., Vázquez-Casielles, R., 2018. Webroomers versus show- savings. Adv. Consum. Res. 24, 504–510.
roomers: are they the same? J. Bus. Res. 92, 300–320. Manzur, E., Olavarrieta, S., Hidalgo, P., Farías, P., Uribe, R., 2011. Store brand and

10
C. Flavián, et al. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 52 (2020) 101923

national brand promotion attitudes antecedents. J. Bus. Res. 64, 286–291. Schröder, H., Zaharia, S., 2008. Linking multi-channel customer behaviour with shopping
Neslin, S.A., Shankar, V., 2009. Key issues in multichannel customer management: cur- motives: an empirical investigation of a German retailer. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 15
rent knowledge and future directions. J. Interact. Mark. 23, 70–81. (6), 452–468.
Neslin, S.A., Jerath, K., Bodapati, A., Bradlow, E.T., Deighton, J., Gensler, S., Lee, L., Schul, Y., Mayo, R., 2003. Searching for certainty in an uncertain world: the difficulty of
Montaguti, E., Telang, R., Venkatesan, R., Verhoef, P.C., Zhang, Z.J., 2014. The in- giving up the experiential for the rational mode of thinking. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 16,
terrelationships between brand and channel choice. Mark. Lett. 25 (3), 319–330. 93–106.
Noble, S.M., Griffith, D.A., Weinberger, M.G., 2005. Consumer derived utilitarian value Singh, S., Swait, J., 2017. Channels for search and purchase: does mobile Internet matter?
and channel utilization in a multi-channel retail context. J. Bus. Res. 58 (12), J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 39, 123–134.
1643–1651. Singh, S., Ratchford, B.T., Prasad, A., 2014. Offline and online search in used durables
Norusis, M.J., 1993. SPSS. Statistical Data Analysis. Spss Inc. markets. J. Retail. 90 (3), 301–320.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Sit, J.K., Hoang, A., Inversini, A., 2018. Showrooming and retail opportunities: a quali-
Paccard, E., 2017. Omnichannel vs Multichannel: are they so different? Available: tative investigation via a consumer-experience lens. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 40,
https://bit.ly/2wnDu8g, Accessed date: 20 March 2018. 163–174.
Pantano, E., Viassone, M., 2015. Engaging consumers on new integrated multichannel Sopadjieva, E., Dholakia, U., Benjamin, B., 2017. A study of 46,000 shoppers shows that
retail settings: challenges for retailers. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 25, 106–114. omnichannel retailing works. Harv. Bus. Rev. 3 Available at: https://bit.ly/2q3J3Zh,
Parry, T., 2016. Making omnichannel fulfillment a less daunting task. Multichannel mer- Accessed date: 2 March 2018.
chant, september 2016. Available at: http://bit.ly/2dgXBfE, Accessed date: 6 October Statista, 2018. Clothes and shoes e-commerce revenue in Spain from 2016 to 2022, by
2016 14, 18. segment (in million U.S. dollars). Available at: https://bit.ly/2IMCSDq, Accessed
Pauwels, K., Leeflang, P.S., Teerling, M.L., Huizingh, K.R., 2011. Does online information date: 8 May 2018.
drive offline revenues?: only for specific products and consumer segments!. J. Retail. Van Baal, S., Dach, C., 2005. Free riding and customer retention across retailers' channels.
87 (1), 1–17. J. Interact. Mark. 19 (2), 75–85.
Peterson, R.A., Balasubramanian, S., Bronnenberg, B.J., 1997. Exploring the implications Van der Veen, G., van Ossenbruggen, R., 2015. Mapping out the customer's journey:
of the Internet for consumer marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 25 (4), 329–346. customer search strategy as a basis for channel management. J. Mark. Channels 22
Piercy, N., 2012. Positive and negative cross-channel shopping behaviour. Market. Intell. (3), 202–213.
Plan. 30 (1), 83–104. Verhoef, P.C., Neslin, S.A., Vroomen, B., 2007. Multichannel customer management:
Puccinelli, N.M., Goodstein, R.C., Grewal, D., Robert Price, R., Raghubir, P., Stewart, D., understanding the research-shopper phenomenon. Int. J. Res. Mark. 24 (2), 129–148.
2009. Customer experience management in retailing: understanding the buying Verhoef, P.C., Kannan, P.K., Inman, J.J., 2015. From multi-channel retailing to omni-
process. J. Retail. 85, 15–30. channel retailing: introduction to the special issue on multi-channel retailing. J.
PushOn, 2018. Webrooming vs showrooming. Available: https://bit.ly/2IL1a0U, Retail. 91 (2), 174–181.
Accessed date: 8 December 2018. Voropanova, E., 2015. Conceptualizing smart shopping with a smartphone: implications
Rapp, A., Baker, T.L., Bachrach, D.G., Ogilvie, J., Beitelspacher, L.S., 2015. Perceived of the use of mobile devices for shopping productivity and value. Int. Rev. Retail
customer showrooming behaviour and the effect on retail salesperson self-efficacy Distrib. Consum. Res. 25, 529–550.
and performance. J. Retail. 91 (2), 358–369. Walsh, G., Mitchell, V.W., 2010. The effect of consumer confusion proneness on word of
Ratchford, B.T., Lee, M.S., Talukdar, D., 2003. The impact of the Internet on information mouth, trust, and customer satisfaction. Eur. J. Market. 44 (6), 838–859.
search for automobiles. J. Mark. Res. 40 (2), 193–209. Wang, Q., Yang, X., Song, P., Sia, C.L., 2014. Consumer segmentation analysis of multi-
Rejón-Guardia, F., Luna-Nevarez, C., 2017. “Showrooming” in consumer electronics re- channel and multistage consumption: a latent class MNL approach. J. Electron.
tailing: an empirical study. J. Internet Commer. 16 (2), 174–201. Commer. Res. 15 (4), 339–358.
Rodríguez-Torrico, P., Cabezudo, R.S.J., San-Martín, S., 2017. Tell me what they are like Weiner, B., 1986. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. Springer-Verlag,
and I will tell you where they buy. An analysis of omnichannel consumer behaviour. New York, NY.
Comput. Hum. Behav. 68, 465–471. Wollenburg, J., Holzapfel, A., Hübner, A., Kuhn, H., 2018. Configuring retail fulfillment
Schindler, R.M., 1989. The excitement of getting a bargain: some hypotheses concerning processes for omni-channel customer steering. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 22 (4),
the origins and effects of smart-shopper feelings. Adv. Consum. Res. 447–453 540–575.
Proceedings of the Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT. Yadav, M.S., Pavlou, P.A., 2014. Marketing in computer-mediated environments: research
Schindler, R.M., 1998. Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for obtaining a synthesis and new directions. J. Mark. 78 (1), 20–40.
discount: evidence for smart-shopper feelings. J. Consum. Psychol. 7 (4), 371–392.

11