Sharing in Real and Virtual Spaces: A Motivational and Temporal Screen- Sharing Approach

  • Yonathan Silvain RotenEmail author
  • Régine Vanheems
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)


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.


Screen-sharing Phygital retailing Joint-shopping Omni-channel Personal selling Connected stores Stores’ hybridization Shop-assistant availability Stores’ digitalization Collocated collaboration 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. Bardin, L. (1977). Content analysis. São Paulo: Livraria Martins Fontes.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatty, S. E., & Smith, S. M. (1987). External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beatty, S. E., & Talpade, S. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 332–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belghiti, S., Ochs, A, & Badot, O. (2016). L’expérience de magasinage phygitale: tentative de conceptualisation et investigation empirique-Proceedings of Marketing Digital conference.Google Scholar
  8. Belk, R. W. (1975). Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(3), 157–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berrada, A. M.(2014). Achat en ligne en couple: à qui le dernier mot? Marketing trends congress.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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).Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Motivation and development. Motivation and action, 384–443.Google Scholar
  19. John, N. A. (2013). Sharing and web 2.0: The emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society, 15(2), 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy, T. L., & Wellman, B. (2007). The networked household. Information, Communication & Society, 10(5), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Lim, J., & Beatty, S. E. (2011). Factors affecting couples’ decisions to jointly shop. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 774–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luo, X. (2005). How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 288–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lutz, R. J., & Kakkar, P. (1975). The psychological situation as a determinant of consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 439–454.Google Scholar
  27. Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The social relations model: An integrative method for personality research. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. McClelland, D. (1985). Human motivation. Anno: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Oren, M. (2011). Human-computer interaction and sociological insight: A theoretical examination and experiment in building affinity in small groups, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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).Google Scholar
  37. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1976). Environmental variables in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 3(1), 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schneider, K., & Schmalt, H.-D. (2000). Motivation [motivation]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  39. Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sommer, R., Wynes, M., & Brinkley, G. (1992). Social facilitation effects in shopping behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 24(3), 285–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? The Journal of Marketing, 36, 46–49.Google Scholar
  45. Vanheems, R. (2013). La distribution à l’heure du multi-canal: une redéfinition du rôle du vendeur. Décisions Marketing, 43–59.Google Scholar
  46. Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2013). If Romeo and Juliet had mobile phones. Mobile Media & Communication, 1(1), 166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wood, J. T. (2015). Interpersonal communication: Everyday encounters. Scarborough: Nelson Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Panthéon-Sorbonne Paris I UniversityParisFrance
  2. 2.IAE Jean Moulin Lyon 3 UniversityLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations