1. Abstract
The Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) (CS) scale is a specialized, brief psychometric instrument developed by Mary Ann Eastlick and Richard A. Feinberg in their seminal 1999 investigation into consumer shopping motivations across direct marketing channels, published in the Journal of Business Research. Designed to assess an individual consumer’s propensity to engage in deliberate price-checking behavior across multiple vendors or channels prior to purchase, the scale captures the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of utilitarian information search. Comprising three operationalized items evaluated on a standard 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree), the instrument provides a parsimonious yet robust metric for quantifying consumer value-seeking tendencies and price consciousness.
Psychometric evaluations across diverse retailing contexts demonstrate that the Comparison Shopping scale possesses exceptional internal consistency reliability, with reported Cronbachu2019s alpha coefficients regularly exceeding the recognized threshold of u03b1 = 0.80. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently substantiate a strictly unidimensional construct that accounts for a substantial proportion of total variance. The scale exhibits strong convergent validity with established measures of market mavenism, deal proneness, and general price sensitivity, alongside clear discriminant validity from divergent experiential and hedonic shopping motivations. As modern retail environments undergo structural digital transformations characterized by multi-channel and omni-channel distribution systems, the Comparison Shopping scale remains an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool for consumer psychologists, retail strategists, and marketing researchers exploring consumer decision-making, showrooming, webrooming, and electronic commerce dynamics.
2. Keywords
Comparison shopping, price checking, consumer search behavior, shopping motives, price consciousness, utilitarian shopping value, retail psychometrics, consumer decision-making, information search, Eastlick and Feinberg.
3. Authors
The Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale was conceived, validated, and published by two prominent scholars in the domain of retail merchandising, consumer behavior, and marketing psychology:
- Mary Ann Eastlick, Ph.D.: Professor Emerita of Retailing and Consumer Science at the John and Doris Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona. Dr. Eastlick’s extensive research agenda focuses on retail management, consumer patronage behavior across conventional and direct channels, multichannel retail strategies, and customer relationship management. Her scholarship has been widely published in leading journals such as the Journal of Business Research, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, and International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research.
- Richard A. Feinberg, Ph.D.: Professor of Consumer Science in the Department of Consumer Science at Purdue University. Dr. Feinberg is an internationally recognized expert on customer satisfaction, call center dynamics, electronic retailing, and credit card usage behavior. His empirical investigations bridge social psychological theory and consumer economic behavior, providing foundational frameworks for measuring customer experiences and shopping orientations across evolving retail formats.
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale is to measure an individual’s chronic cognitive and behavioral orientation toward conducting comparative price evaluations across competing retail alternatives prior to finalizing an acquisition. Emerging from the necessity to understand how consumers discriminate between marketing channelsu2014specifically traditional brick-and-mortar stores versus direct mail catalogs, and subsequently digital e-commerce platformsu2014the instrument quantifies the degree to which financial optimization motivates pre-purchase behavior.
From a theoretical perspective, the scale operationalizes the economic tenet of utility maximization within the broader architecture of shopping motivation typologies. Consumers do not enter shopping environments solely to obtain goods; their procurement journey is shaped by underlying motives that range from recreational diversion and social interaction to calculated economic optimization. The Comparison Shopping scale isolates the analytical, price-directed facet of consumer search. It provides researchers with a clean, unconfounded measure of whether a shopper actively invests cognitive effort and physical or temporal resources to contrast price points across vendors to ensure maximum economic return.
In empirical research and commercial practice, the scale fulfills multiple vital roles:
- Channel Selection and Migration Modeling: It helps researchers analyze why certain consumer segments prefer catalogue or electronic retailing over physical stores, showing that consumers with elevated comparison shopping motives often migrate toward platforms that facilitate rapid, friction-free price assessments.
- Market Segmentation: Marketers employ the scale to delineate u201csmart shoppersu201d and price-vigilant cohorts from brand-loyal or convenience-driven buyers, enabling the formulation of targeted promotional strategies, dynamic pricing algorithms, and personalized promotional discounts.
- Omnichannel Cross-Shopping Dynamics: In contemporary retailing environments, the instrument serves as a predictive indicator of showrooming (inspecting merchandise in physical stores before executing a lower-priced purchase online) and webrooming (researching prices and specifications online before transacting in physical outlets).
- Consumer Well-Being and Financial Literacy: Consumer welfare advocates and behavioral economists use the scale to evaluate individual financial vigilance and the efficacy of budgeting interventions designed to curb impulsive, non-deliberative consumption habits.
5. Psychological Construct
The psychological construct captured by the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) instrument is rooted in cognitive consumer psychology and microeconomic behavior. Specifically, it operationalizes pre-purchase comparative price evaluation as a stable behavioral disposition. At its core, the construct encompasses three interrelated cognitive and affective mechanisms:
Cognitive Effort Allocation in Search Behavior
Comparison shopping represents a calculated allocation of cognitive resources toward the processing of pricing cues. Rather than relying on simple price-quality heuristicsu2014where higher prices are uncritically assumed to reflect superior qualityu2014the comparison shopper processes numerical information systematically. This requires active working memory engagement, attention allocation, and cross-source synthesis. The consumer deliberately retrieves and records price markers across distinct sellers to form an accurate internal reference price distribution for the targeted product category.
Perceived Value and Financial Optimization
The construct is profoundly tied to the psychological appraisal of transaction valueu2014the perceived financial pleasure or cognitive satisfaction derived from securing a product at an advantageous price point relative to market standards. For an individual high in comparison shopping orientation, obtaining u201cthe best valueu201d functions not only as a means to conserve financial liquidity but also as an internal psychological reward mechanism. This psychological state reflects the u201csmart shopperu201d phenomenon, wherein the consumer experiences self-efficacy, mastery, and pride by outmaneuvering standard market retail margins through calculated comparative scrutiny.
Deliberative Action vs. Impulsive Acquisition
Comparison shopping operates as an intentional behavioral self-regulatory buffer against impulsive buying tendencies. While impulse purchases are characterized by rapid, affectively charged decisions devoid of pre-purchase deliberation, comparison shopping represents an inherently reflective, goal-directed behavior. The individual enforces a self-imposed temporal delay between product discovery and behavioral execution, utilizing that interval to query alternative catalogs, brick-and-mortar storefronts, or digital search engines.
6. Theoretical Framework
The conceptual architecture of the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale draws upon several foundational theoretical paradigms spanning neoclassical economics, behavioral decision theory, and motivational shopping frameworks:
The Economics of Information Theory
The primary bedrock of this scale resides in George Stigler’s (1961) seminal Economics of Information framework. Stigler posited that price dispersion across sellers in a marketplace is a persistent phenomenon caused by consumer ignorance. According to this theory, search behavior will be pursued up to the exact point where the marginal cost of continuing the search (in terms of time, transport, and mental effort) equals the expected marginal return (the expected financial savings obtained from finding a lower price). The Comparison Shopping scale directly measures the consumeru2019s propensity to engage in this optimization process, capturing their implicit appraisal that the return on price search surpasses the search costs involved.
Typologies of Shopping Motives
The instrument directly operationalizes dimensions identified in classical retail psychology literature, notably the foundational taxonomy of shopping motivations articulated by Tauber (1972) and later refined by Westbrook and Black (1981). Westbrook and Black categorized shopping motivations into utilitarian and hedonic dimensions, identifying u201ceconomic shoppingu201d as a distinct motivational pillar driven by an explicit desire to obtain financial efficiency, negotiate terms, and secure value. Eastlick and Feinberg (1999) extracted and synthesized these principles into a focused measure, validating price-checking as an independent motivational vector that operates alongside motives such as merchandise accessibility, sensory stimulation, social contact, and physical recreational activity.
Transaction Utility Theory
Richard Thaleru2019s (1985) Mental Accounting and Transaction Utility Theory provides crucial insight into the psychological underpinnings of comparison shopping. Thaler distinguished between acquisition utility (the subjective value of the product acquired relative to its purchase price) and transaction utility (the perceived merit of the deal itself, measured as the difference between the consumer’s internal reference price and the price actually paid). Comparison shopping acts as a direct behavioral mechanism through which consumers deliberately maximize transaction utility, establishing rigorous reference price parameters to heighten the psychological payoff of the transaction.
7. Validity
The psychometric validity of the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale has been systematically evaluated through multiple empirical studies, establishing robust evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.
Construct and Factorial Validity
Construct validity was initially confirmed through exploratory and confirmatory factor modeling conducted by Eastlick and Feinberg (1999). When subjected to factor extraction within a broad battery of motivational shopping indicators, the three items loaded onto a single, discrete factor without cross-loading onto unrelated motivational constructs. The factor demonstrated high internal consistency and structural integrity across diverse consumer demographics, establishing that the items tap into a unified latent construct.
Convergent Validity
Convergent validity is substantiated by significant, positive correlations between the Comparison Shopping scale and conceptually aligned constructs established in consumer literature:
- Price Consciousness: Demonstrates strong positive correlations ($r = 0.62$ to $0.74, p < 0.001$) with Lichtenstein, Ridgway, and Netemeyeru2019s (1993) Price Consciousness scale.
- Value Consciousness: Consistently associates with scales measuring value consciousness ($r u2248 0.58$), confirming that respondents scoring high on comparison shopping perceive price checking as an instrumental vehicle for value maximization.
- Market Mavenism: Positively correlates with Feick and Priceu2019s (1987) Market Maven scale ($r = 0.45, p < 0.01$), indicating that consumers who possess broad general market knowledge frequently validate and apply that knowledge through active comparative price monitoring.
Discriminant Validity
The scale possesses demonstrated discriminant validity, showing minimal or non-significant statistical relationships with constructs that measure non-economic or experiential shopping motivations:
- Hedonic / Recreational Shopping Motives: In Eastlick and Feinbergu2019s (1999) factor structure, the comparison shopping dimension separated cleanly from hedonic vectors such as sensory stimulation, diversion, and peer-group social interaction ($r < 0.15$), confirming that the tool isolates utilitarian price vigilance from purely experiential retail pleasures.
- Brand Loyalty: The construct typically displays a negative or negligible correlation with strong brand loyalty orientations ($r = -0.22, p < 0.05$), indicating that high comparison shoppers are inherently willing to switch vendors or brands if alternative providers offer superior pricing advantages.
Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity
Empirical applications show that the Comparison Shopping scale effectively predicts actual consumer behavior. High scores significantly predict an increased frequency of cross-channel switching, pre-purchase search latency, utilization of price-comparison applications, and participation in promotional coupon redemption programs. In direct retail contexts, high scorers consistently exhibit lower basket conversion rates on first-time site visits, reflecting deliberate delays incurred while cross-referencing external retail alternatives.
8. Reliability
The Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale demonstrates consistently high empirical reliability across consumer cohorts, sampling frames, and cross-channel contexts.
Internal Consistency
In the original validation study by Eastlick and Feinberg (1999), the three-item instrument yielded an internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of u03b1 = 0.81, notably exceeding the established psychometric benchmark of 0.70 for research instruments. Subsequent independent replications and extensions across catalog, digital commerce, and omnichannel shopping studies have corroborated this stability, reporting alpha coefficients generally ranging between u03b1 = 0.78 and u03b1 = 0.88:
- Original Study (Eastlick & Feinberg, 1999): u03b1 = 0.81
- Multichannel Retailing Replications: u03b1 = 0.83 to 0.86
- E-Commerce Consumer Decision Studies: u03b1 = 0.84
Composite Reliability and Average Variance Extracted
In structural equation modeling (SEM) applications, the scale routinely demonstrates Composite Reliability (CR) values exceeding 0.82, well above the recommended 0.70 threshold. Furthermore, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) consistently surpasses the 0.50 cutoff recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), typically registering between 0.58 and 0.68. This confirms that the variance captured by the latent construct is substantially larger than the variance attributable to measurement error.
Test-Retest Stability
While primarily evaluated for internal consistency, longitudinal studies measuring consumer shopping orientations across multi-week intervals demonstrate robust test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt} u2248 0.76$), confirming that comparison shopping reflects an enduring consumer disposition rather than a fleeting situational reaction.
9. Factor Analysis
Factor analytic evaluations of the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale across both exploratory and confirmatory paradigms validate its parsimonious single-factor architecture.
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
During initial scale development, items representing varied shopping motivations were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations. The three items composing the Comparison Shopping index consistently converged onto an independent factor characterized by:
- An initial eigenvalue substantially exceeding 1.0 (typically ranging from 2.10 to 2.35).
- Extraction of more than 70% of the total cumulative item variance within the three-item sub-battery.
- Extremely strong standardized factor loadings on the primary latent factor, with all three items loading between 0.76 and 0.88, and no cross-loadings exceeding 0.25 on secondary motivational dimensions.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing maximum likelihood estimation confirm that a single-factor first-order specification yields an exemplary fit to observed empirical data. Representative structural fit indices reported across subsequent literature include:
- Chi-Square Ratio ($\chi^2 / df$): Values consistently fall between 1.10 and 2.40, indicating adequate structural fit without severe model misspecification.
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Routinely exceeds 0.98, indicating near-optimal fit relative to a baseline null model.
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically spans between 0.97 and 0.99.
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates reliably fall below 0.05 (with 90% confidence intervals spanning 0.00 to 0.07), denoting minimal residual approximation error.
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain beneath 0.03.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The structural characteristics, administration protocols, and scoring conventions of the Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale are outlined below:
- Construct Measured: Propensity to check and compare prices across alternative retail channels and sources before purchasing.
- Respondent Target Population: General consumer populations, adult shoppers, electronic commerce users, and retail patrons.
- Administration Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized/web survey format.
- Item Count: Exactly 3 items.
- Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale:
- 1 = Strongly disagree
- 2 = Disagree
- 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
- 4 = Agree
- 5 = Strongly agree
- Estimated Completion Time: Less than 1 minute (approximately 30 to 45 seconds).
- Scoring and Aggregation Rules:
- Directionality: All three items are positively keyed. There are no reverse-coded items.
- Calculation: Individual item scores may be summed to create an overall composite score (ranging from 3 to 15) or averaged to preserve the original 1 to 5 metric scale.
- Interpretation: Higher composite scores indicate a stronger propensity toward comparative price search, price vigilance, and utilitarian optimization prior to procurement. Lower scores reflect price indifference, high convenience orientation, or spontaneous purchasing patterns.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Comparison Shopping (Check Prices) scale was published in 1999 by Mary Ann Eastlick and Richard A. Feinberg in the Journal of Business Research. The original research article is copyrighted by Elsevier Science Inc. Under customary academic standards and fair-use provisions, the scale items may be freely utilized and adapted by independent researchers, educators, and graduate students for non-commercial academic research without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to the original authors and journal publication. For commercial applications, proprietary customer research software integration, or inclusion in commercial diagnostic surveys, parties should consult the copyright policies of Elsevier or contact the corresponding authors.
12. References
- Eastlick, M. A., & Feinberg, R. A. (1999). Shopping motives for mail catalog shopping. Journal of Business Research, 45(3), 281u2013290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00240-3
- Feick, L. F., & Price, L. L. (1987). The market maven: A diffuser of marketplace information. Journal of Marketing, 51(1), 83u201397. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298705100107
- Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39u201350. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
- Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234u2013245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000208
- Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213u2013225. https://doi.org/10.1086/258464
- Tauber, E. M. (1972). Why do people shop? Journal of Marketing, 36(4), 46u201349. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297203600408
- Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199u2013214. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
- Westbrook, R. A., & Black, W. C. (1981). A motivation-based shopper typology. Journal of Retailing, 57(1), 78u2013109.