Abstract
This study aims to identify the motivations explaining why customers are willing (or not) to engage in a shopping activity in which a digital screen is physically shared. While face-to-face interactions in the private sphere occur today around screens (Willman and Rainie 2013), “screen-sharing” practice between shop assistants and consumers constitutes a new phenomenon. The analysis of 20 semi-structured consumers’ interviews reveals three motivational dimensions of screen-sharing (utilitarian, social, and individual) in line with McClelland’s (1985) three big needs theory. Additionally, the findings underline that the perception of symmetric or asymmetric temporal relative availability of the partner impacts the intensities of the distinct motivational dimensions of the consumer to share a screen. These results lead to significant theoretical contributions about consumers’ willingness to experiment “phygital” hybrid experiences. By sharing a screen, they appear to anticipate the advantages of aggregating the real and virtual realm in a shared and simultaneous journey. The findings implicate that a screen-sharing activity with a shop assistant may satisfy customers’ needs when their relative perception of the shop assistant’s availability is in line with their dominant motive. This study constitutes a relevant contribution for retailers, regarding their stores’ digitalization and hybridization strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Observations in the private sphere (between friends or relatives) weren’t carried out in a systematic manner. The observations are based on random situations occurring with relatives or friends in their home. Likewise, screen-sharing situations in coffee shops, in the street, or in public transportation were watched when occurring. Notes were written and analyzed according to “positional codes” and “device codes” of sharing.
- 2.
The non-participative observations and mystery visits were carried around Paris in France.
- 3.
When all respondents succeed to recall a screen-sharing interaction with relatives or friends, only a little more than half remembered such an interaction with a shop assistant.
- 4.
The average interview duration and transcription length is 35 min and about 12 pages.
- 5.
The term of co-located use of screens (same place) is used in computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) studies while describing a collaborative use of the same screen in a synchronous dimension.
- 6.
Various additional contextual variables according to an adapted P.O.S. paradigm (i.e., relative partner’s competence, relative involvement toward the object, and touch point situation) impacting on the intensity of the motives to share a screen have been discussed in other articles (Roten and Vanheems 2017a,b,c,d).
- 7.
A connected store is a physical store in which digital connected devices are used.
- 8.
That is, when “one person’s emotion, cognition, or behavior, affects the emotion, cognition, or behavior of a partner”—Cook and Kenny (2005).
- 9.
That is, when each person is considered as both subject and object, interacting with multiple partners.
References
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Bandura, A. (2008). Toward an agentic theory of the self. In H. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Advances in self research, Vol. 3: Self-processes, learning, and enabling human potential (pp. 15–49). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Bardin, L. (1977). Content analysis. São Paulo: Livraria Martins Fontes.
Bateson, J. E., & Hui, M. K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 271–281.
Beatty, S. E., & Smith, S. M. (1987). External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 83–95.
Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 332–341.
Belghiti, S., Ochs, A, & Badot, O. (2016). L’expérience de magasinage phygitale: tentative de conceptualisation et investigation empirique-Proceedings of Marketing Digital conference.
Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 157–164.
Berrada, A. M.(2014). Achat en ligne en couple: à qui le dernier mot? Marketing trends congress.
Borges, A., Chebat, J. C., & Babin, B. J. (2010). Does a companion always enhance the shopping experience? Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 17(4), 294–299.
Brehm, J. W. (1989). Psychological reactance: Theory and applications. In T. K. Srull (Ed.), NA—advances in consumer research Volume 16 (pp. 72–75). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor–partner interdependence model: A model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(2), 101–109.
Cooper, L., & Summer, B. (1990). Getting started in quality, the first National Bank. In B. Leonard & A. Parasuraman (Eds.), Marketing services: Competing through quality. New York: The Free Press.
Durand-Mégret, B., Ezan, P., & Vanheems, R. (2013). Quand le cross-canal devient familial… l’adolescent: consommateur-collaborateur au sein de la famille. In Colla E. (éd.) Recherches sur la distribution. Management & Avenir, 52, 3–49.
Evrard, Y., Pras, B., Roux, E., Desmet, P., Dussaix, A. M., & Lilien, G. L. (2009). Market-Fondements et méthodes des recherches en marketing (No. hal-00490724).
Furse, D. H., Punj, G. N., & Stewart, D. W. (1984). A typology of individual search strategies among purchasers of new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 417–431.
Hall, E. T., Birdwhistell, R. L., Bock, B., Bohannan, P., Diebold Jr, A. R., Durbin, M., et al. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9(2/3), 83–108.
Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Motivation and development. Motivation and action, 384–443.
John, N. A. (2013). Sharing and web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society, 15(2), 167–182.
Kennedy, T. L., & Wellman, B. (2007). The networked household. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 645–670.
Kiecker, P., & Hartman, C. L. (1993). “Purchase pal use: Why buyers choose to shop with others.” In 1993 AMA winter educator’s conference’ proceedings, American Marketing Association, pp. 378–384.
Kiecker, P., & Hartman, C. L. (1994). Predicting buyers’ selection of interpersonal sources: The role of strong ties and weak ties. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 464–469.
Lemoine, J. F., & Alebertini, T. (2000). La prise en compte des variables situationnelles dans les politiques d’approvisionnement des distributeurs. In Convegno «Le tendenze del marketing in Europa». Venezia: Ca’ Foscari University.
Lim, J., & Beatty, S. E. (2011). Factors affecting couples’ decisions to jointly shop. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 774–781.
Luo, X. (2005). How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 288–294.
Lutz, R. J., & Kakkar, P. (1975). The psychological situation as a determinant of consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 439–454.
Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The social relations model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 199–225.
Marshall, P., Hornecker, E., Morris, R., Dalton, N. S., & Rogers, Y. (2008). When the fingers do the talking: A study of group participation with varying constraints to a tabletop interface. In Horizontal interactive human computer systems, 2008, p. 33–40.
Matzler, K., Faullant, R., Renzl, B., & Leiter, V. (2005). The relationship between personality traits (extraversion and neuroticism), emotions and customer self-satisfaction. Innovative Marketing, 1(2), 32–39.
McClelland, D. (1985). Human motivation. Anno: Cambridge University Press.
Oren, M. (2011). Human-computer interaction and sociological insight: A theoretical examination and experiment in building affinity in small groups, Iowa State University.
Park, C. W., Iyer, E. S., & Smith, D. C. (1989). The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: The role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 422–433.
Roten, Y. S., & Vanheems, R. (2017a). Understanding the willingness to share a screen: From consumer’s motivational disposition to perception of the partner’s involvement. In Proceedings of AFM 2017 Annual Congress.
Roten, Y. S., & Vanheems, R. (2017b). Screen sharing in a shopping process: Motivational disposition and perceived context incentives. In Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) 2017 World Congress.
Roten, Y. S., & Vanheems, R. (2017c). To share or not to share a screen: a question of connected atmosphere? In Proceedings of the 16th Digital Market. Congress, Paris 1-Sorbonne.
Roten, Y. S., & Vanheems, R. (2017d). To share or not to share a screen: a question of perceived competence? In Proceedings of Etienne Thil 2017-20th international conference—Roubaix (France).
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1976). Environmental variables in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1), 62–63.
Schneider, K., & Schmalt, H.-D. (2000). Motivation [motivation]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). UK: Sage.
Sharma, A., & Stafford, T. F. (2000). The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’ perceptions of salespeople and customer persuasion: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 183–191.
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Sokolowski, S., et al. (2000). Assessing achievement, affiliation and power all at once, the multi-motive grid. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74(1), 126–145.
Sommer, R., Wynes, M., & Brinkley, G. (1992). Social facilitation effects in shopping behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 24(3), 285–297.
Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? The Journal of Marketing, 36, 46–49.
Vanheems, R. (2013). La distribution à l’heure du multi-canal: une redéfinition du rôle du vendeur. Décisions Marketing, 43–59.
Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2013). If Romeo and Juliet had mobile phones. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 166–171.
Wood, J. T. (2015). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Scarborough: Nelson Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Academy of Marketing Science
About this paper
Cite this paper
Roten, Y.S., Vanheems, R. (2018). Sharing in Real and Virtual Spaces: A Motivational and Temporal Screen- Sharing Approach. In: Krey, N., Rossi, P. (eds) Boundary Blurred: A Seamless Customer Experience in Virtual and Real Spaces. AMSAC 2018. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99181-8_52
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99181-8_52
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99180-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99181-8
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)