Home › Research › Risk factors
Primary and secondary store‐loyal customer perceptions of grocery retailers
V.‐W. Mitchell, R.H. Kiral. British Food Journal, 1998-09-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Gaining competitive advantage in retailing requires knowledge of the attributes consumers use to evaluate stores and an understanding of why these attributes are important. Although a number of store‐image studies have identified store attributes, evidence suggests that these attributes vary by store type and over time, but no work has considered the most crucial aspects to retailers, namely store loyalty. As no study has examined the links between store attributes and store loyalty, our knowledge remains largely speculative. This article explores this link using Kelly′s repertory grid methodology to assess the store images of three UK grocery retailers. Important differences were seen between primary store‐loyal customers’ perception of their store and secondary store‐loyal customers’ perception of that store. For example, primary‐loyal Tesco customers perceived quality, convenience and value factors in that order of importance, whilst primary‐loyal Kwik‐Save customers perceived quality, value and convenience factors when considering Tesco. Implications for retail positioning strategies and the development of store loyalty are discussed.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mitchell, V., & Kiral, R. (1998). Primary and secondary store‐loyal customer perceptions of grocery retailers. British Food Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709810242109
Vancouver
Mitchell V, Kiral R. Primary and secondary store‐loyal customer perceptions of grocery retailers. British Food Journal. 1998. doi:10.1108/00070709810242109.
BibTeX
@article{mitchell1998-3dcd14b8,
author = {Mitchell, V.‐W. and Kiral, R.H.},
title = {{Primary and secondary store‐loyal customer perceptions of grocery retailers}},
journal = {British Food Journal},
year = {1998},
doi = {10.1108/00070709810242109},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709810242109}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Although a number of store‐image studies have identified store attributes, evidence suggests that these attributes vary by store type and over time, but no work has considered the most crucial aspects to retailers, namely store loyalty.
Why it matters
This study used repertory grid methodology to compare store images among loyal customers of three UK grocery retailers. It has no relevance to treating, curing, or preventing Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 27/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on senior author's track record, so that was left out: it earned 26 of the 96 points we could judge it on, which is 27 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (British Food Journal) |
| Journal's citation record | 1 / 4 | British Food Journal: journal h-index 141 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1998 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 3 / 7 | Cited 38 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 1 / 5 | 1.3 citations a year over 30 year(s) since 1998 |
| Impact for its field and year | 0 / 6 | Cited 0.0× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 0 / 6 | No other study in this library cites it |
| Still being cited | 0 / 4 | Cited 0 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | OpenAlex's profile for last-listed author R.H. Kiral holds only 1 work(s), too few to judge a track record — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | University of Manchester: institution h-index 1,304 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 26 / 96 | Scored on 19 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 96 points we could judge it on is 27 out of 100. |
| Total | 27 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
May need a subscription OpenAlex found no free copy of the full text (checked 6 Feb 1020), so the publisher may charge for it.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also in Risk factors
356 studies in the library are filed under Risk factors with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Risk factors hub.