International Journal of Commerce and Finance, Vol. 6, Issue 1, 2020, 204-226 204 IMPACT OF MALL ATTRACTIVENESS ON MALL PATRONAGE INTENTION: THE MEDIATING EFFECT OF MALL PERSONALITY Özgür ÇENGEL, Istanbul Commerce University Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Abstract There are many shopping malls operating in recent years. In order to achieve success in a competitive environment, these shopping malls should attract consumers and show their mall personality to differentiate from competition. This can be possible by revealing the attractive features of the mall from the consumer perspective and understanding the consumer behavior. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between mall attractiveness, mall personality and mall patronage intention, as well as revealing the mall attractiveness and mall personality factors. In this context, data was collected with face-to-face survey method, from 414 people that visited the Trabzon Forum Mall. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used to analyze the survey responses from 414 shopping mall patrons. The findings indicate that shopping mall attractiveness has significant positive impact on mall patronage intention and mall personality has a full mediating effect between shopping mall attractiveness and mall patronage intention. Keywords: Shopping Mall Attractiveness, Mall Personality, Mall Patronage Intention, Structural Equation Modeling 1. Introduction The consumers living in the metropolitan cities experience shortage of time due to their hectic lifestyles even though they belong to the higher income group. Meeting the diverse needs of members of the family gets even more difficult in a limited period of time. Time factor compels the residents of a city to look for a central solution for varying degrees of family requirements (one of which is shopping among these needs) (Wong and Nair, 2018). In addition to the demands of conscious customers, intense competition has paved the way for diverse retail formats such as hypermarkets, supermarkets, discount stores and specialty stores. Modern shopping malls have emerged as striking retail formats for customers as they enabled them to spend their free time and benefit from the entertainment and shopping opportunities simultaneously. Hence, the change in the customer behaviour has given rise to a central shopping experience, which is a holistic experience entailing some qualities such as the pragmatic consumption of retailers as well as the simultaneous convenience, productivity, a wide range of product, and the atmosphere (Tandon et al., 2016). As of the end of 2019, the turnover of the shopping malls in Turkey is expected to be 160 billion Turkish Liras and the total anticipated number of visitors is 2.4 billion (AYD, 2019). According to the results of “The Analysis of Shopping Mall Potential in Turkey between 2017-2019" conducted by EVAgyd and Akademetre, it is suggested that the shopping malls are in search of innovativeness to be able to meet diverse needs and thus need to vary their architecture, offer diversity in terms of recreational activities and highlight the value attached to children. It is also emphasized that the shopping mall personality will lead to success (EVAgyd and Akademetre, 2017). In that regard, the attractiveness of shopping malls can be improved through having an ideal combination of such qualities (Tandon et al., 2016). There are various shopping malls in metropolitan cities and many of these shopping malls may usually be clustered in a single location. This can lead to a decreased number of customers visiting another shopping mall. The fact that the shopping malls located in the same area have similar parameters in terms of range of brands and products, pricing strategies and the tenant mix causes a crisis for the identity of shopping malls. It also leads to a decision making process entailing factors beyond the shopping action for customers when choosing to be the customers of a certain In te rn a ti o n a l Jo u rn a l o f C o m m e rc e a n d F in a n c e In te rn a ti o n a l Jo u rn a l o f C o m m e rc e a n d F in a n c e In te rn a ti o n a l Jo u rn a l o f C o m m e rc e a n d F in a n c e Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 205 shopping mall (Singh and Sahay, 2012). In this regard, taking advantage of recreational opportunities has become a marketing strategy for shopping malls to attract customers in addition to the shopping experience. Entertainment options could also be used as tools in diversifying the image (Sit et. al, 2003). Thus, identifying the expectations of customers visiting the shopping malls and the features that attract customers and offering a good shopping experience to customers are some key aspects of having a good portfolio of customers and gaining a competitive advantage for shopping malls The main purpose of this research is to reveal the effect of mall personality and mall attractiveness on mall patronage intention as well as identifying the factors attracting customers to shopping malls. This study is aimed at filling the gap in the literature arising from the limited studies conducted in Turkey with respect to mall attractiveness through making a connection between mall attractiveness, mall personality and mall patronage intention. 2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development 2.1. Mall Attractiveness A setting can be attractive to the extent that it has the potential of arousing positive emotions and a positive cognitive appraisal and it encourages people to approach and enter inside. Attractiveness, which is a perception, is achieved through the needs, demands and preferences of an individual (Debek, 2015). It is probable that the consumers move towards an environment that offers a wide range of goods and experiences with a good atmosphere, a high-level of social interaction and with no security concerns. The main suggestion here is that large and indoor shopping malls create primary living spaces for consumers. Consumers have been drawn to the shopping malls through a large shopping area and a wide range of products in a single location. The shopping malls have expanded further over the years offering service stores and entertainment opportunities. Nowadays, even the small shopping malls contain food courts, restaurants, hairdressers and cinema halls. Moreover, the indoor shopping malls are places that offer comfort for consumers away from the traffic and noise in the other shopping areas (Bloch, 1994). Previously, the distance (Brunner and Mason, 1968) and the size of shopping malls (Bucklin, 1967) were taken into consideration when choosing the shopping malls; however, nowadays, using a multidimensional approach for identifying the attractiveness of a shopping mall, namely the integration of image has become a significant point (Finn and Louviere, 1996; Frasquet et. al, 2001). Bloch (1994) claims that the consumers visiting the shopping malls exhibit diverse attitudes, and that the factors affecting their visits differ (while some consumers visit the shopping malls for leisure, others go to the malls for buying the products there). According to Debek (2015), mall attractiveness is a two-dimensional structure that reflects emotional-cognitive appraisal and the frequency of visits. Debek (2015) also suggests that mall attractiveness entails factors such as the atmosphere of the shopping mall, social positioning, entertainment potential, commerce, social density, noise, order, security and human resources. It is claimed that mall attractiveness is driven by mostly the atmosphere of the shopping mall and social positioning. In addition, a crowded and noisy setting is considered to improve the attractiveness of a shopping mall, which is a surprising fact (Debek, 2015). In order for the retailers to achieve success, they need to be attractive for their customers at all stages of buying; in other words, they need to be preferable and convenient. In this regard, the retail managers are supposed to convince their customers to back to their facilities, to spend more time and money (Teller, 2008). According to Teller (2008), while the atmosphere is a factor influencing the situational attractiveness of the tendency to stay / be in a shopping mall for customers, tenant mix and merchandise value are the factors that directly influence the general attractiveness. Thus, it is suggested that the retailers are supposed to offer a wide range of stores and product mix that facilitate and improve shopping effort of consumers (Teller, 2008). In a study conducted by Anselmsson (2006), the most important factor determining shopping malls customers’ satisfaction is selection (the match between the demands of the customers and the products in the mall). While the atmosphere is the second important factor, it was found that the frequency of visits did not have an impact. The atmosphere factor is specified as a motivating one for staying longer in a shopping mall and buying more. The third important determinant of satisfaction is the convenience factor entailing the working hours, parking, ease of movement and the skill of locating places in a shopping mall. The fourth important determinant of satisfaction is the performance of the sales staff and the fifth one is refreshments. Although location is a less effective factor of shopping malls customers’ satisfaction, it may be a Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU significant one in terms of visiting the shopping mall. In addition to these factors, promotional activities and merchandise policy are the least effective ones on satisfaction (Anselmsson, 2006). Gonzalez-Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez (2012) suggested in their studies that for Mexican shoppers, mall essence, popularity and promotional programs, personal service, recreational options, internal atmosphere, and external atmosphere are the factors of mall attractiveness. Mas-Ruiz (1999) identifies mall attractiveness through three factors in terms of the dimensions of image. These factors include variety and professionalism, parking and shopping environment (Mas- Ruiz, 1999). While El-Adly (2007) refers to comfort, entertainment, diversity, mall essence, convenience and luxury as factors of attractiveness from the perspective of a shopper, Sit et. al (2003) claims that six factors including micro- accessibility, personal service, amenities, ambulance, atmospherics and security constitute the factors of mall attractiveness. Arslan and Bakır (2009) suggest that the most important factors for customers in a shopping mall are moving stairways that facilitate a comfortable tour, being able to visit their favourite stores and mall hygiene, respectively (Arslan and Bakır, 2009). In their studies, Cengiz and Özden (2002) claim that marketing benefits (having different brands in one place, parking facilities, the quality of the shopping environment, the convenience of working hours, etc.), the qualities of the shopping malls (cleanliness, ease of access, options for cinemas, cafes and restaurants, etc.) and promotional activities in the shopping malls are effective in terms of forming attitudes towards shopping malls by consumers visiting the shopping malls (Cengiz and Özden, 2002). Mittal and Jhamb (2016) identify the factors of mall attractiveness, which results in shoppers’ patronage, as merchandising, variety and selection, milieu and facilities and convenience for shoppers in India (Mittal and Jhamb, 2016). In a study conducted in Malaysia by Wong and Nair (2018), it was suggested that mall attractiveness consists of six dimensions (child friendliness and safety, parking facilities, mall security/convenience, mall marketing activities, service offerings, convenience offered to ladies and elderly people) and child friendliness and safety as well as parking stand out as the most attractive factors that draw customers to the shopping malls. Therefore, mall patronage and the image of shopping malls are improved through differentiation of shopping malls and offering better services to the shoppers (Wong and Nair, 2018). In this regard, it is expected that mall attractiveness is going to have a positive effect on mall patronage. Moreover, it is probable that as the shopping environments possess ambiance, design and social factors, these factors may have an effect on the mall personality assumptions made by the consumers (d’astous and Levesque, 2003). Hence, it is expected that mall attractiveness may have a positive effect on mall personality. This leads to H1-H1a-H2 hypotheses: H1. Mall attractiveness will have a positive influence on mall patronage intention H1a. Mall attractiveness will have a positive influence on mall patronage intention through mall personality. H2. Mall attractiveness will have a direct positive influence on mall personality. 2.2. Mall Personality Martineau (1968) claims that there is a power that determines the customer group besides the functional qualities such as the location of the stores, price range and product range and that this power is defined as store personality or image. Martineau (1968) defines store personality as the image of stores in consumers’ minds partly by through functional qualities and partly by an aura of psychological attributes. The researcher also defines store personality rather by means of the image concept and refers to layout-architecture, symbols-colors, advertising and salesperson as the factors constituting the store image. However, d’astous and Levesque (2003) put forward that store personality and store image differ from one another rather than explaining store personality through store image. That is to say, while store image is a mental definition entailing all relevant dimensions of a store, store personality is, on the other hand, is limited to the mental dimensions that are compatible with a person’s qualities. Although product range is a vital aspect of store image, it is a not a personality trait as it cannot be attributed to a person (d’astous and Levesque, 2003). Das et.al (2012) defines the personality of department stores, which are general goods stores belonging to store-based retailers, as the attribution of personal qualities of a consumer to a department store (Das et. al., 2012a). In another study conducted by Das et. al (2012), it is suggested that personality of department stores is comprised of five dimensions, which are sophistication, empathy, dependability, vibrancy and authenticity. The dimensions of store personality plays a key role in establishing retail brand equity (Das et.al, 2012b). The studies suggest that store personality differs according to the types of retail (Das, 2012b; Das et. al, 2013; d’astous and Levesque, 2003). Besides, shopping malls are also retailers and they have similar shopping motives and Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 207 activities (acquiring products, recreation, social experiences, personal satisfaction, etc.) as other retail stores (Rahman et. al, 2016). Rahman et. al (2016) state that positive attitudes towards mall personality improves the shopping value, not just the shopping experience of fashion consumers. Hence, they claim that a high shopping value has a powerful impact on mall patronage intention (Rahman et. al, 2016). In this regard, mall personality is expected to have a positive effect on mall patronage intention. This leads to H3 hypothesis: H3. Mall personality will have a direct positive influence on mall patronage intention 3. Research Methodology and Data Collection 3.1. The Purpose and Scope of the Research The purpose of this study is to reveal the impact of mall attractiveness and personality on mall patronage intention as well as identifying the personality of shopping malls as a retail format and attractiveness factors. The limited number of studies that present the impact of mall personality and attractiveness on revisit intention reveals the significance of this study. In this regard, Trabzon Forum Shopping Mall (Trabzon Forum Alışveriş Merkezi), located in Trabzon which is the most developed district of TR90 region, has been examined as part of this research based on its retail sales, significant contribution to employment in the region and its visitor figures. 3.2. Limitations of the Research This current study has some limitations as all other research. The universe in this research consists of individuals who shop from the mall and convenience sampling was employed due to the limitations with respect to time and cost. Because of this, the results of the study cannot be generalized to the universe. A questionnaire was used as a data collection method and the questionnaire including questions about many dimensions such as mall personality and mall attractiveness is a long one. In order to eliminate the disadvantage caused by the length of the questionnaire, face-to-face questionnaires were conducted. 3.3.Research Sampling The universe of the research consists of individuals who shop from Trabzon Forum Shopping Mall and convenience sampling, which is one of the types of non-probability sampling, was employed due to the limitations with respect to time and cost. When the size of sample was determined, it was aimed at reaching an adequate number with at least fivefold of the number of variables (Hair et. al, 2010). Initially, a pretest was conducted with 45 individuals in order to ensure intelligibility to respondents and the questions that were not intelligible were rearranged. 414 completed questionnaires were included in the analysis. 3.4.Data Collection Method and Tool Research data was collected by means of a face-to-face questionnaire data collection method with shoppers in Trabzon Forum Shopping Mall between December 5, 2019 and January 4, 2020. 3.5.Research Variables This research was conducted through a questionnaire. This questionnaire was formed based on the literature related to mall attractiveness, mall personality and mall patronage intention in line with the purpose of the study. Close- ended questions were used in the questionnaire to be able to get fast responses from the participants. The questionnaire is composed of five general sections. The first section includes 6 items that are aimed at revealing some behavioural attributes of the participants about Trabzon Forum Shopping Mall. These items are related to the frequency of visits of the participants, when they visit the mall, what their purpose of visit is, how much time they spend in the mall and how they access to the mall. In the second section, mall personality items (34 items) that range from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and assessed on a five-point Likert scale are included. The third section consists of items related to mall attractiveness (49 items) on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “very good” to “very bad”. The fourth section includes 4 items on a five-point Likert scale about mall patronage intention that range Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. The final section of the questionnaire consists of items about the demographic characteristics of the participants (such as gender, age, marital status, residency, educational background, monthly personal income and employment status). The store personality scale developed by d’Astous and Levesque (2003) was used to measure mall personality. That scale consists of 34 items in five dimensions. These dimensions are enthusiasm, sophistication, unpleasantness, genuineness and solidity. The reason why the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003) was used in the present study to measure mall personality is that there are similarities between retail stores and shopping malls in terms of shopping motives and activities (tangible and intangible product acquisition, recreation, satisfaction and social experiences) (Rahman et. al, 2016, p.156). When the literature is reviewed (Wakefield and Baker, 1998; Frasquet et.al, 2001; Wong et. al, 2001; Sit et.al, 2003; El-Adly, 2007; Teller and Elms, 2010; Khare, 2011; Gonzalez-Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez, 2012; Mittal and Jhamb, 2016; Tandon et. al, 2016), in order to measure mall attractiveness, it is observed that the dimensions in the scales developed by Gonzalez-Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez (2012) and El-Adly (2007) align with each other and they are more comprehensive. Thus, these two scales were mainly employed in the study. Besides, the items that were included in the same dimensions in the literature but that were not integrated in the dimensions were also incorporated into the scale. As a result, mall attractiveness was measured using the 49 items integrated into 6 dimensions in the literature. These dimensions are mall essence, popularity and promotional programs, personal service, atmosphere, recreational options, comfort and convenience. In order to measure mall patronage intention, 4 items were employed from the study of Rahman et. al (2016). 4. Analysis and Discussion 4.1. Descriptive Statistics – Demographics The data collected from 414 participants reveal that women make up the majority of customers (%60.9) in the shopping mall. The individuals aged 18-24 years (%47.8) and aged 25-31 (%25.4) years are the two most significant age groups. Majority of the participants (%70.5) are single. While the students rank highest in terms of employment status (%39.4) in the sample, private sector employees follow them (%29.5). %33.8 of the participants have a monthly personal income less than 1000 TL, %21.7 of them have between 2001-3000 TL and %17.6 of them have between 1000-2000 TL. While %48.8 of the participants are high school graduates, %27.3 of them are university graduates. The majority of the customers of the mall reside in the district of Trabzon (%74.6); and there are also customers who reside in Rize (%25.1) and Ordu (%.0.2) districts and shop from the mall analyzed in the study. Detailed information about the demographic characteristics of the participants is presented in Table 1 below: Table.1: Demographic characteristics of sample (N=414) Variable Number of participants % of participants Sex Female 252 60.9% Male 162 39.1% Age 18-24 198 47.8% 25-31 105 25.4% 32-38 52 12.6% 39-45 41 9.9% 46 or older 18 4.3% Marital Status Single 292 70.5% Married 122 29.5% Education Illiterate 0 0.0% Literate 0 0.0% Primary education 24 5.8% High school 202 48.8% Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 209 College 14 3.4% Associate degree 36 8.7% Undergraduate 113 27.3% Graduate 25 6.0% Monthly personal income Lower than 1000 TL 140 33.8% 1000 TL to 2000 TL 73 17.6% 2001 TL to 3000 TL 90 21.7% 3001 TL to 4000 TL 50 12.1% 4001 TL to 5000 TL 31 7.5% 5000 TL and over 30 7.2% Employment Status Student 163 39.4% Private sector employee 122 29.5% Public employee 41 9.9% Housewife / stay at home 33 8.0% Retired 8 1.9% Self-employed 23 5.6% Unemployed 14 3.4% Others 10 2.4% 4.2. Descriptive Statistics – Mall Activities Majority of the participants (%69.3) visit the shopping mall at the weekends and %30.7 of them visit on weekdays. The participants access to the shopping mall by public transportation (%51.9), by their own vehicles (%40.3) or by another means of transportation or on foot (%7.7). %58.5 of the participants visit the shopping mall once or twice a month; % 25.4 of them visit three or four times a month; %10.4 of them visit 5 to 8 times a month and % 5.8 of them visit more than 8 times a month. %44.2 of them spend around 3 to 4 hours; %38.4 of them spend about 1 to 2 hours; %11.6 of them spend 5 hours or more and %5.8 of them spend less than 1 hour in the shopping mall. Figure.1: Activities of the Participants in the Mall Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU The participants were asked which activities they have when they visit the shopping mall and shopping was the most frequent activity in the responses. In this regard, %56 of the participants prefer the shopping mall for shopping primarily. %11.4 of them prefer strolling around, %10.6 of them prefer entertainment, %7 of them prefer to meet their families or friends and %6.3 of them prefer to eat in the mall as their primary purposes. 4.3. Reliability Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis In this research, the reliability analyses of mall attractiveness, mall personality and patronage intention scales were done. Cronbach’s alpha was used to analyze reliability. A frequently cited acceptable range of Cronbach's alpha is a value of 0.70 or above (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). This value is 0.955 for the mall attractiveness scale; 0.885 for the mall personality scale and 0.785 for patronage intention scale. Hence, each scale can be considered to have quite high reliability. In this study, exploratory factor analysis was conducted initially to identify the dimensions forming mall attractiveness and mall personality. The analysis was performed with a sample size of 414 participants by means of Varimax method on 87 items. As a result of the analysis, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Sampling Adequacy statistic was 0.918 and the value of the chi-square (χ2) of the Bartlett test result was found to be significant (χ2 = 21740.629; p = 0.000). In this regard, conducting a factor analysis was significant. As a result of the factor analysis, the items with values lower than 0.30 factor loading were removed from the analysis and the analysis was repeated each time (Hair et al., 2010). In terms of statistical significance, the factor loading should be 0.30 and for factor loading values greater than that the sample size should be 350 or over (Albayrak, 2006, p.151). In this study, 10 variables/items that had a factor loading lower than 0.30 were deleted as the sample size was 414 participants. As a result of the analysis, a sum of 77 variables were clustered under 14 dimensions that had an eigenvalue greater than 1 and that could be interpreted in accordance with the relevant literature. The statistical power of the model with the 14 dimensions was %63.225. In social sciences, measure of %60 or better are considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). Standard deviations and averages with respect to the variables of the research as well as the factor loadings of the variables are presented in Appendix 1. The number of variables related to the factors extracted, variance explained by every factor and the reliability coefficient of each factor as a result of the exploratory factor analysis are given in Table 2. Table.2: Factor Names, Number of Variables, Variance Explained by Every Factor, Reliability Coefficient Factor Name Number of variables Variance Explained Cronbach’s α Factor 1: Genuineness (GEN) 9 27.115 0.894 Factor 2: Personal Service (PS) 7 5.936 0.896 Factor 3: Mall Essence (ME) 7 4.337 0.896 Factor 4: Enthusiasm (ENT) 7 3.449 0.868 Factor 5: Recreational Options (RO) 7 3.319 0.868 Factor 6: Solidity (SOLI) 5 3.001 0.822 Factor 7: Internal Atmosphere (IA) 5 2.570 0.834 Factor 8: Convenience and Comfort (CC) 5 2.380 0.822 Factor 9: Atmosphere (ATM) 5 2.170 0.806 Factor 10: Popularity and Promotional Programs (PP) 4 2.078 0.848 Factor 11: External Atmosphere (EA) 4 1.957 0.737 Factor 12: Unpleasantness (UNP) 3 1.822 0.813 Factor 13: Patronage Intention (PI) 4 1.604 0.785 Factor 14: Sophistication (SOP) 5 1.484 0.715 Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 211 *Rotation Method: Varimax The explanations with respect to the factors in Table 2 are presented below. The first factor has 9 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Sincere (factor loading=0.740), Reliable (factor loading=0.735), and True (factor loading= 0.724). These variables are clustered under the Genuineness factor as it is presented in the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, the first factor is named as “Genuineness”. Factor 1 explains % 27.115 of the total variance. The second factor has 7 variables. The variables with the highest factor loading are Prompt service of staff (factor loading=0.806), Staff kindness (factor loading=0.799), Staff helpfulness (factor loading=0.7829). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in line with the literature. In this regard, high factor loadings are taken into consideration and this factor is named as “Personal Service” in accordance with the literature. Factor 2 explains the % 5.936 of the total variance. The third factor has 7 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Variety of stores (factor loading=0.803), Variety of brands (factor loading=0.796) and Fashionable brands offered (factor loading=0.753). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Mall Essence”. Factor 3 explains % 4.337 of the total variance. The fourth factor has 7 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Lively (factor loading =0.803), Dynamic (factor loading=0.726), and Enthusiastic (factor loading=0.706). These variables are clustered under the Enthusiasm factor as it is presented in the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Enthusiasm”. Factor 4 explains % 3.449 of the total variance. The fifth factor has 7 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Presence of entertainment programs (factor loading=0.681), Existence of fun spaces for kids (factor loading=0.681), Services offered in mall (factor loading=0.668), and Socialization opportunities (factor loading=0.632). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Recreational Options”. Factor 5 explains % 3.319 of the total variance. The sixth factor has 5 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Well-organized (factor loading=0.641), Leader (factor loading=0.639), and Thriving (factor loading=0.639). These variables are clustered under the Solidity factor as it is presented in the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, the sixth factor is named as “Solidity”. Factor 6 explains % 3.001 of the total variance. The seventh factor has 5 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are General layout (factor loading=0.728), Ease of circulation inside mall (factor loading=0.668), and General decoration (factor loading =0.663). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Internal Atmosphere”. Factor 7 explains % 2.570 of the total variance. The eighth factor has 5 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Adequate lifts (factor loading=0.750), Adequate escalators (factor loading=0.734), and Adequate directory sign boards (factor loading =0.640). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Convenience and Comfort”. Factor 8 explains % 2.380 of the total variance. The ninth factor has 5 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Clean restrooms (factor loading=0.704), Cleanness of the mall (factor loading=0.582), and Scent of mall (factor loading=0.569). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Atmosphere”. Factor 9 explains % 2.170 of the total variance. Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU The tenth factor has 4 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Organization of special events (factor loading=0.718), Advertising campaigns (factor loading=0.709), and Promotional campaigns/sales (factor loading=0.696). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Popularity and Promotional Programs”. Factor 10 explains % 2.078 of the total variance. The eleventh factor has 4 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Ease of reaching to the mall (factor loading=0.743) and Availability of parking (factor loading=0.675). These variables are clustered under a factor which is in accordance with the literature. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “External Atmosphere”. Factor 11 explains % 1.957 of the total variance. The twelfth factor has 3 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Outmoded (factor loading=0.831), and Conservative (factor loading=0.804). These variables are clustered under the Unpleasantness factor as it is presented in the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, the twelfth factor is named as “Unpleasantness”. Factor 12 explains % 1.822 of the total variance. The thirteenth factor has 4 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are I am a loyal cust omer of this mall (factor loading=0.735), and When I go shopping, this mall is my first choice (factor loading=0.725). These variables are clustered under the mall patronage intention factor in the study conducted by Rahman et al. (2016). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Patronage Intention”. Factor 13 explains % % 1.604 of the total variance. The fourteenth factor has 5 variables. The variables with the highest factor loadings are Upscale (factor loading=0.650), Stylish (factor loading=0.640), and Snobbish (factor loading=0.615). These variables are clustered under the Sophistication factor as it is presented in the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesqu e (2003). In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as. In this regard, considering the high factor loadings and the relevance to the literature, this factor is named as “Sophistication”. Factor 14 explains % 1.484 of the total variance. 4.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis In this study, after the values were identified with the explanatory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was performed to measure the consistency of the scales. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test whether sample data are consistent with the research design (Byrne, 2009). For making decisions with respect to reliable constructs, unidimensionality, convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity should be tested. Unidimensionality means that a set of variables have only one basic dimension. There are some stages in assessing unidimensionality (Janssens et al., 2008): 1. All variables are required to have a high loading on latent variables (> 0.50) and to be significant (Critical Ratio= C.R. = t-value > 1.96). The snobbish variable in the mall personality scale is low; yet it is not a lower value than 1.96 (0.298). When Standardized Regression Weights are reviewed, that variable was lower than a value of 0.50 (0.190) and therefore, this variable was then deleted from the model 2. The overall fit of the model should be reviewed. Some fit indices were used to test how well the model fit. These indices are chi-square- χ2, degrees of freedom-df, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) (Hair et al., 2010). CFI is one of the most reliable indices and RMSEA and SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual) are generally used to evaluate the overall fit of structural equation modeling – SEM (Janssens et al., 2008). The chi-square / degrees of freedom ratio was used to evaluate the goodness of fit. In this research, the value of χ2/ df is 2.095 and is indicative of acceptable model fit. The χ2/ df value should be within these ranges. Hu and Bentler (1999) stated that a good RMSEA value is maximum 0.06; Browne and Cudeck (1993) stated this value should approximate or be less than 0.05 to demonstrate a good fit and it represents a reasonable fit up to 0.08. In this research, RMSEA value is 0.052 and is indicative of a good model fit. The SRMR value is expected to be less than 0.08 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). This value here is 0.0544, which is indicative of a good fit. Comparative Fit Index – CFI values should range from 0 to 1 and values approximating 1.0 are indicative of good fit (Hooper et al., 2008). In this research, CFI value was 0.824. In Table 3, the relevant indices are presented. Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 213 Table.3: Goodness of Fit Indices Measurement Index Threshold Interpretation χ2/df 2.098 Between 2 and 5 Excellent RMSEA 0.052 < 0.06 Excellent CFI 0.824 > 0.90 Unreasonable SRMR 0.0544 < 0.08 Excellent Source: Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hooper et al., 2008; Janssens et al., 2008 While the χ2/df, RMSEA, SRMR values indicate satisfactory fit, CFI value does not meet the minimum criteria. When the Standardized Regression Weights are reviewed initially, the snobbish variable was deleted from the model as its value was less than 0.50 and the analysis was repeated. As a result of the analysis, the fit indices were χ2/df=2.101, RMSEA=0.052, SRMR=0.0545, and CFI=0.828. When the fit indices are analyzed, it is seen that χ2/df, RMSEA, SRMR values indicate a good fit and the CFI value was less than the acceptable level (CFI>0.90). In order to have a more appropriate relationship between the variables, proposed modifications were taken into consideration and covariances were used between these variables while the analysis was rerun continuously. The results achieved as a result of the proposed modifications are presented in Table 4 below. Table.4: Goodness of Fit Indices Measurement Index Threshold Interpretation χ2/df 1.990 Between 2 and 5 Excellent RMSEA 0.049 < 0.06 Excellent CFI 0.845 > 0.90 Close to Reasonable SRMR 0.0520 < 0.08 Excellent Source: Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hooper et al., 2008; Janssens et al., 2008 Though the values of the fit indices did not show a significant difference as a result of the proposed modifications, they improved to some extent. When the values of the fit index are reviewed, the χ2/df, RMSEA, SRMR values indicate perfect fit and the CFI value increased to 0.845; yet this value (CFI=0.845) is less than the acceptable level. The CFI value can be considered approximating to the acceptable level as it is more difficult to obtain the acceptable values in the indices when there are multiple variables. The confirmatory factor analysis – CFA of the mall personality, mall attractiveness and patronage intention scales is shown in Figure 2. Convergent Validity Convergent validity of a measurement model are explained by means of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). When CR and AVE values are reviewed for convergent validity), CR values should be higher than 0.70, and AVE values should be higher than 0.50. When Table 5 is analyzed, while the AVE values of some factors (Popularity and Promotional Programs, Mall Essence, Internal Atmosphere, Personal Service, Unpleasantness) are higher than 0.50, the AVE values of some other factors (Patronage Intention, Genuineness, Enthusiasm, Atmosphere, External Atmosphere, Convenience and Comfort, Recreational Options, Solidity, Sophistication) are less than 0.50; yet they approximate to values of 0.50. This might have happened due to the varieties in translation as the relevant scales were translated from foreign sources. Besides, as the scales used in this study have not been so extensively employed in the studies conducted in Turkey, these values can be considered acceptable. With regard to composite reliability, this value is higher than 0.70 for all latent variables and it ranges from 0.83 to 0.93. Therefore, the results indicate that the scales have convergent validity. Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU Figure.2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Scales Table.5: Convergent and Discriminant Validity Measures Factors CR AVE MSV ASV Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 215 Patronage Intention 0.839 0.457 0.455 0.173 Popularity and Promotional Programs 0.908 0.586 0.401 0.250 Mall Essence 0.934 0.545 0.405 0.245 Genuineness 0.931 0.476 0.540 0.258 Enthusiasm 0.919 0.496 0.488 0.223 Atmosphere 0.871 0.453 0.576 0.342 Internal Atmosphere 0.899 0.516 0.401 0.287 External Atmosphere 0.820 0.411 0.488 0.252 Convenience and Comfort 0.887 0.485 0.358 0.205 Personal Service 0.938 0.559 0.253 0.155 Recreational Options 0.918 0.488 0.271 0.219 Solidity 0.886 0.482 0.459 0.280 Unpleasantness 0.888 0.607 0.197 0.197 Sophistication 0.842 0.445 0.488 0.284 Discriminant Validity When the correlation between the constructs does not approximate to 1 or the chi-square test indicates that two constructs are not related to each other, discriminant validity is established (Janssens et al., 2008). Discriminant validity can be assessed through comparing Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Maximum Shared Variance (MSV) with each other (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). MSV values are expected to be lower than AVE values (Hair et al., 2010). When Table 5 is reviewed, majority of MSV values with respect to the factors are lower than AVE values. Average Shared Variance (ASV) values are also lower than MSV values. Hence, discriminant validity has been demonstrated. 4.5. Evaluating the Model Fit through Structural Equation Modeling -SEM In this study, AMOS 20 was used to test and confirm the research design and hypotheses. As a result of confirming the structural model used in this research, fit indices are presented in Table 6. This table shows goodness of fit index of the model without mediator variable. Table.6: Goodness of Fit Index for Model without Mediator Variable Measurement Index Threshold Interpretation χ2/df 4.138 Between 2 and 5 Reasonable RMSEA 0.087 < 0.08 Reasonable CFI 0.917 > 0.90 Reasonable SRMR 0.0538 < 0.08 Excellent Source: Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hooper et al., 2008; Janssens et al., 2008 When the structural model is reviewed, goodness of fit index values are within the acceptable range and the model shows good fit. Table.7: Regression Weights - Model without Mediator Variable Direction Estimate SE t-value p Hypothesis Mall Attractiveness --- > Patronage Intention 0.452 0.069 6.568 *** Accepted ***p<0.05 Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU When Table 7 is reviewed, mall attractiveness has a significant effect on patronage intention (C.R. or t-value is 6.568, p<0.05). In other words, the null hypothesis is rejected, and H1 (The mall attractiveness will have a positive influence on mall patronage intention) is accepted. Mall attractiveness has a positive influence on patronage intention (correlation=0.427). The table presenting the Standardized Regression Weights is given in Appendix 3. For a variable to be called a mediator variable, some requirements must be met. One of the requirements is that the mediator variable explained by the independent variable must be significant. Another requirement is that the independent variable explained by the mediator variable must be significant. The final requirement is that when the first two requirements are met, the relationship between the dependent and the independent variables becomes nonsignificant (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In this regard, the goodness of fit values of the model with a mediator variable are presented in Table 8 below. Table.8: Regression Weights - Model with Mediator Variable Measurement Index Threshold Interpretation χ2/df 3.457 Between 2 and 5 Reasonable RMSEA 0.077 < 0.08 Reasonable CFI 0.907 > 0.90 Reasonable SRMR 0.0534 < 0.08 Excellent Source: Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hooper et al., 2008; Janssens et al., 2008 When the model with the mediator variable is reviewed, goodness of fit index values are within the acceptable range and the model shows good fit. Table.9: Regression Weights - Model with Mediator Variable Direction Estimate SE t-value p Hypotheses Mall Attractiveness --- > Patronage Intention -0.174 0.099 -1.761 0.078 Rejected Mall Attractiveness --- > Mall Personality 0.866 0.083 10.461 *** Accepted Mall Personality --- > Patronage Intention 0.750 0.103 7.297 *** Accepted ***p<0.05 The results of the structural equation analysis are presented in Table 9 and Figure 3. When Table 9 is reviewed, mall attractiveness has an influence on the mediator variable (mall personality) (p<0.05). In this regard, H2 (Mall attractiveness will have a direct positive influence on mall personality) is accepted. In other words, mall attractiveness has a positive influence on mall personality (Correlation= 0.746). When Table 9 is reviewed, it is seen that mall personality has an influence on mall patronage intention (p<0.05) and H3 (Mall personality will have a direct positive influence on mall patronage intention) is accepted. In other words, mall personality has a positive influence on mall patronage intention (Correlation= 0.792). The change in the mediator variable, namely the change in mall personality must lead to a change in the dependent variable, that is patronage intention. When the mediator variable, which is mall personality, is added to the model, mall attractiveness has no effect on patronage intention. In this regard, it seems that mall personality has a mediator variable effect. In other words, H1a (mall attractiveness will have a positive influence on mall patronage intention through mall personality) is accepted. As mall attractiveness no longer has a significant effect on patronage intention after it is added to the model, it can be stated that mall personality fully mediates. In other words, when mall attractiveness and the mediator variable, which is mall personality, are added to the analysis, the independent variable has no significant effect on the dependent variable (patronage intention) (p>0.05). The table including the Standardized Regression Weights is presented in Appendix 4. Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 217 Figure.3: Full Structure Equation Modeling 5. Conclusion and Implications Shopping malls have become preferred choices of retail areas for consumers due to the fact that they can satisfy many of their needs from one area and that they can spend their leisure time in an enjoyable way and socialize. In addition to the factors in the literature that influence the preference for the shopping malls such as tenant management, facility management, popularity, convenience, security, service offerings, atmosphere, ease of access, productivity, retailer presentation and entertainment options (Frasquet et. al, 2001; Wong et. al, 2001; Sit et. al, 2003; Kiriri, 2009; Teller and Elms, 2010; Debek, 2015; Tandon et. al, 2016; Wong and Nair, 2018), it can be stated that shopping malls have the personality traits that a retail store has and that can draw the consumers. This research aimed at revealing the reasons why consumers prefer to be the customers of these planned shopping malls that have large-scale circulations in retail. In this regard, the purpose of this research was to find out the mall attractiveness and personality factors of the malls which are a retail format as well as the influence of mall attractiveness and personality on mall patronage intention. When the literature is reviewed, the body of work usually is focused on the relationship between mall attractiveness, customers’ preferences for shopping malls and mall patronage intention. However, this study, unlike the previous ones, focuses on the mediation effect of mall personality between mall attractiveness and mall patronage intention. Thus, it was aimed at reaching findings that could contribute both to the literature and shopping mall managers/marketers. In this research, initially an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to reveal the basic dimensions of mall patronage intention, mall attractiveness and mall personality and a confirmatory factor analysis was performed to confirm these dimensions. In this regard, a total of 87 items were incorporated into the exploratory factor analysis (49 items in the mall attractiveness scale, 34 items in mall personality scale and 4 items in patronage intention scale) and 77 items were obtained as a result of exploratory factor analysis. 6 items that were deleted from the analysis were from the mall attractiveness scale and 4 of them were from the mall personality scale. A total of 14 dimensions were retained that could be interpreted as a result of exploratory factor analysis. These dimensions were named Genuineness, Personal Service, Mall Essence, Enthusiasm, Recreational Options, Solidity, Internal Atmosphere, Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU Convenience and Comfort, Atmosphere, Popularity and Promotional Programs, External Atmosphere, Unpleasantness, Patronage Intention and Sophistication in accordance with the literature. Mall attractiveness scale is composed of 8 factors (Personal Service, Mall Essence, Recreational Options, Internal Atmosphere, Convenience and Comfort, Atmosphere, Popularity and Promotional Programs, External Atmosphere), mall personality scale has 5 factors (Genuineness, Enthusiasm, Solidity, Unpleasantness, Sophistication) and patronage intention has one factor. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the factors of each scale obtained as a result of exploratory factor analysis. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, the ‘snobbish’ item under the Sophistication factor was deleted from the analysis. 8 factors comprising the mall attractiveness scale and 5 factors comprising the mall personality scale and patronage intention factor were confirmed. All dimensions of the scales included in the analysis were shown to be reliable and convergent and discriminant validity were achieved. Two scales, on which this study was based, were used for finding out the significance of mall attractiveness with respect to the preference of shopping malls. One of these is the scale used in a research about the segmentation of Mexican consumers with regard to mall attractiveness. According to Gonzalez-Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez (2012), mall attractiveness is composed of dimensions such as mall essence, popularity and promotional programs, personal service, internal atmosphere, recreational options, and external atmosphere. The second scale is the one in the research of El-Adly (2007). According to El Adly (2007), mall attractiveness is composed of dimensions such as comfort, entertainment, diversity, mall essence, convenience, and luxury. Even though the dimensions are named differently in these two scales, similar items/variables are included. In this research, a total of 8 dimensions which are reliable and valid as a result of the confirmatory factor analysis were used and they are similar to the relevant literature and they are named in a similar way. For the mall attractiveness scale, the store personality scale of d’Astous and Levesque (2003) was employed. As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis that was performed, mall personality was confirmed to be measured with the same dimensions (5 dimensions), which was similar to the original scale. In order to measure the mall patronage scale, the study of Rahman et al. (2016) was used and that scale was confirmed. A model was proposed which was based on a theory relating three structures, which was another purpose of the study, and structural equation modeling was then used to test the model that was proposed. In the research model, the independent variable is mall attractiveness; the mediator variable is mall personality and the dependent variable is patronage intention. According to the results of the research, it was inferred that mall attractiveness has an influence on patronage intention. In this regard, the entertainment opportunities (characteristics such as recreational areas, playgrounds for children, services offered insides the shopping mall), inner atmosphere factors (characteristics such as general layout, ease of circulation inside the mall, decoration, lighting), attaching importance to the general atmosphere of the shopping mall (characteristics such as the cleanness of the shopping mall and temperature control) may encourage customers to have a tendency to visit the shopping mall more. Attaching importance to entertainment opportunities with respect to mall attractiveness for the shopping mall customers is a factor that mall management should take into consideration to ensure that customers spend more time in the shopping mall and visit more frequently. In other words, increasing the number of such entertainment areas and opportunities (a variety of restaurant, cinema and theater halls, playgrounds, etc.) may be helpful in terms of drawing more customers to the shopping malls. These findings suggest that there is a similarity between them and the six mall attractiveness factors in the study of Gonzalez-Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez (2012), which are mall essence, popularity and promotional programs, personal service, recreational options, internal atmosphere, and external atmosphere. Besides, Gonzalez- Hernandez and Orozco-Gomez (2012) stated in their studies that the factors of internal atmosphere and external atmosphere are the most useful ones in terms of positioning the shopping malls. In this regard, managers of shopping malls may identify and improve their marketing strategies by focusing on the factors that attract the customers. El-Adly (2007) identified six factors of mall attractiveness in terms of customer perspective, which are comfort, entertainment, diversity, mall essence, convenience, and luxury. These dimensions also show similarity to the dimensions identified in the findings of this research. When the consumers were asked why they preferred shopping malls, they stated that they attached most importance to shopping and then to strolling around and entertainment. Another result of the research is that mall personality mediates between mall attractiveness and mall patronage intention. When mall personality is added to the model, the relationship between mall attractiveness and mall patronage becomes nonsignificant. In this regard, it can be said that mall personality fully mediates. In other words, the perceptions of the individuals who participated in the research Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 219 are shaped through the factors of mall attractiveness. In this regard, the influence of mall attractiveness on mall patronage intention is demonstrated through revealing mall personality. The participants of this research perceive the shopping mall as solidity (thriving, imposing and so on) and genuineness (true, trustworthy and so on). In this regard, managers of shopping malls must take the personality traits perceived by their customers into consideration when they shape the identity of the malls and offer services. If the identity that the shopping mall wants to present overlaps with the traits that customers perceive, the shopping mall may sustain long-term relationships with the customers. This current study has some limitations as all other research. First of all, it is not possible to generalize the research results as the sampling was determined based on convenience sampling. It might be probable to generalize the results of the study by selecting one of the probability sampling methods in future studies. In addition, the factors of mall attractiveness and personality of one shopping mall was taken into consideration in this research, and several shopping malls may be compared with the relevant factors and thus, their positioning can be supported in terms of their image. In this research, the influence of mall attractiveness on patronage intention through personality mediation was analyzed; in future research, consumer may be segmented based on the factor of mall attractiveness and the personality traits can be revealed in each segment. Thus, the areas that overlap with the personality traits of the preferred shopping malls may be found out. References Albayrak, A.S., 2006, Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri, 1. Baskı, Asil Yayın Dağıtım. Anselmsson, J., 2006, “Sources of customer satisfaction with shopping malls: a comparative study of different customer segments”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 16 (1), pp.115-138. Arslan, M., and Bakır, N.O., 2009, “Tüketicilerin alışveriş merkezlerini tercih etme nedenleri ve sadakate etkisi üzerine bir araştırma”, Öneri, 8 (32), pp.39-49. AYD, 2019, https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ekonomi/avmler-yili-160-milyar-tl-ciro-ile-kapatacak-41407864, [16.03.2020]. Baron, R.M. And Kenny, D.A., 1986, “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of personality and social psychology, 51 (6), pp.1173- 182. Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., and Dawson, S.A., 1994, “The shopping mall as consumer habitat”, Journal of retailing, 70 (1), pp.23-42. Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R., 1993, Alternative ways of assessing model fit In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp.111-135. Brunner, J.A. and Mason, J.L., 1968, The influence of driving time upon shopping center preference. Journal of Marketing, 32 (2), pp.57-61. Byrne, B.M., 2010, Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming (multivariate applications series), New York: Taylor & Francis Group, Second Edition. Bucklin, L.P., 1967, “The concept of mass in intra-urban shopping”, Journal of Marketing, 31 (4), pp.37-42. Cengiz, E., and Ozden, B., 2002, “Perakendecilikte Buyuk Alisveris Merkezleri ve Tuketicilerin Buyuk Alisveris Merkezleri Ile Ilgili Tutumlarini Tespit Etmeye Yonelik Bir Arastirma”, Ege Academic Review, 2(1), pp.64-77. Das, G., Datta, B., and Guin, K.K., 2012a, “From brands in general to retail brands: A review and future agenda for brand personality measurement”, The Marketing Review, 12 (1), pp.91-106. Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU Das, G., Datta, B., and Guin, K.K., 2012b, “Impact of retailer personality on consumer-based retailer equity: An empirical study of retail brands”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24 (4), pp.619-639. Das, G., Guin, K.K. and Datta, B., 2013, “Impact of Store Personality Antecedents on Store Personality Dimensions: An Empirical Study of Department Retail Brands”, Global Business Review, 14 (3), pp.471-486. d'Astous, A., and Levesque, M., 2003, “A scale for measuring store personality”. Psychology & Marketing, 20 (5), pp.455-469. Dębek, M., 2015, “What drives shopping mall attractiveness?”, Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 13(1), pp.67- 118. El‐Adly, M.I., 2007, “Shopping malls attractiveness: a segmentation approach”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35 (11), pp.936-950. EVAgyd and Akademetre, 2017, “Türkiye AVM Potansiyeli Analizi 2017-2019”, http://www.evagyd.com/haberler/eva-gayrimenkul-ve-akademetre-2017-2019-avm-arastirmasinin-sonuclarini- acikladi/460/, [16.03.2020]. Finn, A. and Louviere, J.J., 1996, “Shopping center image, consideration, and choice: anchor store contribution”, Journal of business research, 35 (3), pp.241-251. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981, “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of marketing research, 18 (1), pp.39-50. Frasquet, M., Gil, I., and Molla, A., 2001, “Shopping-centre selection modelling: a segmentation approach”, The international review of retail, distribution and consumer research, 11 (1), s.23-38. González‐Hernández, E.M. and Orozco‐Gómez, M., 2012, “A segmentation study of Mexican consumers based on shopping centre attractiveness”. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 40 (10), pp.759-777. Hair, Jr, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E., 2010, Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th Edition, Prentice Hall. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M.R., 2008, “Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit”, Electronic journal of business research methods, 6 (1), pp.53-60. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M., 1999, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural equation modeling: a multidisciplinary journal, 6 (1), pp.1-55. Janssens, W., De Pelsmacker, P., Wijnen, K., and Van Kenhove, P., 2008, Marketing research with SPSS. Pearson Education. Khare, A., 2011, “Mall shopping behaviour of Indian small town consumers”, Journal of retailing and consumer services, 18 (1), pp.110-118. Kiriri, P., 2019, “Determinants of Shopping Mall Attractiveness: the Case of Shopping Malls in Nairobi, Kenya”, European Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 5 (1), pp.258-270. Martineau, P., 1958, “The Personality of the Retail Store”, Harvard Business Review, 36 (January/February), pp.47- 55. Mittal, A., and Jhamb, D., 2016, “Determinants of shopping mall attractiveness: The Indian context”. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37 (16), pp.386-90. Nunnally, J.C. ve Bernstein, I.H., 1994, Psychometric Theory, 3rd Edition, McGRAWHILL, Inc. Rahman, O., Wong, K.K.K., and Yu, H., 2016, “The effects of mall personality and fashion orientation on shopping value and mall patronage intension”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, pp.155-164. Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 221 Ruiz, F.J.M., 1999, “Image of suburban shopping malls and two‐stage versus uni‐equational modelling of the retail trade attraction”. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (5/6), pp.512-531. Singh, H., and Sahay, V., 2012, “Determinants of shopping experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management”, 40 (3), pp.235-248. Sit, J., Merrilees, B., and Birch, D., 2003, “Entertainment‐seeking shopping centre patrons: the missing segments”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31 (2), pp.80-94. Tandon, A., Gupta, A., and Tripathi, V., 2016, “Managing shopping experience through mall attractiveness dimensions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 28 (4), pp.634-649. Teller, C., 2008, “Shopping streets versus shopping malls–determinants of agglomeration format attractiveness from the consumers' point of view”. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18 (4), pp.381-403. Teller, C. and Elms, J., 2010, “Managing the attractiveness of evolved and created retail agglomerations formats”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 28 (1), pp.25-45. Wakefield, K.L. and Baker, J.,1998, “Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on shopping response”. Journal of retailing, 74(4), pp.515-539. Wong, G.K.M., Lu, Y., and Yuan, L.L., 2001, “SCATTR: an instrument for measuring shopping centre attractiveness”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 29 (2), pp.76-86. Wong, S.C., and Nair, P.B., 2018, “Mall Patronage: Dimensions of Attractiveness In Urban Context”, International Journal of Business & Society, 19(2), pp.281-294. Appendix.1: Mean, standard deviation and factor loading related to research variables Research Variables Mean Std. Deviation Factors / Factor Loading Mall Personality Items Welcoming 3.18 1,119 F4/0.629 Enthusiastic 3.18 1,005 F4/0.706 Lively 3.20 1,090 F4/0.803 Dynamic 3.33 1,093 F4/0.726 Friendly 3.05 1,037 F4/0.687 Congenial 3.14 1,057 F4/0.544 Daring 3.01 1.111 F4/0.427 Chic 3.46 1.007 F14/0.356 High Class* 3.56 1.027 Elegant * 3.22 1.059 Stylish 3.08 1.104 F14/0.640 Snobbish 2.72 1.181 F14/0.615 Upscale 3.09 1.120 F14/0.650 Selective 3.16 1.043 F14/0.560 Honest 3.28 1.064 F1/0.699 Reliable 3.51 1.041 F1/0.735 Sincere 3.37 1.025 F1/0.740 Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU True 3.49 1.029 F1/0.724 Genuine 3.33 1.059 F1/0.577 Trustworthy 3.26 1.087 F1/0.719 Conscientious 3.44 1.062 F1/0.516 Hardy 3.39 1.056 F1/0.454 Solid 3.31 1.037 F1/0.519 Reputable 3.43 1.032 F6/0.565 Thriving 3.52 0.996 F6/0.639 Leader 3.30 1.071 F6/0.639 Imposing 3.33 1.072 F6/0.598 Well-organized 3.36 1.098 F6/0.641 Annoying* 3.49 1.149 Irritating* 3.43 1.183 Loud* 2.78 1.238 Superficial 3.07 1.208 F12/0.763 Outmoded 3.39 1.140 F12/0.831 Conservative 3.34 1.208 F12/0.804 Patronage Intention Items I intend to revisit this mall 4.03 0.829 F13/0.570 I would certainly recommend this mall to my friends 3.71 1.041 F13/0.608 I am a loyal customer of this mall 3.31 1.136 F13/0.735 When I go shopping, this mall is my first choice 3.41 1.205 F13/0.725 Mall attractiveness Items Variety of brands 3.51 1.178 F3/0.796 Variety of stores 3.57 1.128 F3/0.803 Fashionable brands offered 3.61 1.060 F3/0.753 Availability of after sale services 3.33 1.062 F3/0.568 Prestigious brands offered 3.64 1.015 F3/0.735 Mall has all that I need 3.33 1.117 F3/0.643 Level of prices is appropriate to my income* 2.96 1.079 Quality of options in mall 3.49 0.951 F3/0.581 Organization of special events 3.09 1.046 F10/0.718 Advertising campaigns 3.13 1.013 F10/0.709 Promotional campaigns/sales 3.10 1.065 F10/0.696 Loyalty programs 2.96 1.022 F10/0.526 Popularity of mall* 3.82 0.941 Staff training 3.33 0.933 F2/0.632 Staff helpfulness 3.46 0.950 F2/0.782 Prompt service of staff 3.51 0.943 F2/0.806 Neat uniform of staff 3.72 0.832 F2/0.665 Staff kindness 3.50 0.986 F2/0.799 Staff friendliness 3.42 0.980 F2/0.755 Helpfulness of mall management 3.30 1.001 F2/0.607 Attitude of mall management* 3.34 0.990 General lighting 3.73 0.981 F7/0.502 Ease of circulation inside mall 3.54 1.086 F7/0.668 General decoration 3.52 1.010 F7/0.663 General layout 3.48 1.031 F7/0.728 Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 223 Cleanness of the mall 3.69 1.034 F9/0.582 External appearance of the mall 3.59 1.074 F7/0.501 Scent of mall 3.41 1.016 F9/0.569 Temperature control 3.79 0.889 F9/0.550 Clean restrooms 3.52 1.068 F9/0.704 The color of the mall interior 3.45 0.977 F9/0.558 Backround music* 3.25 1.112 General atmosphere of mall 3.46 0.973 F5/0.406 Food offered in food courts 3.55 1.028 F5/0.599 Variety of restaurants 3.40 1.084 F5/0.601 Existence of fun spaces for kids 3.37 1.103 F5/0.681 Presence of entertainment programs 3.72 1.006 F5/0.681 Services offered in mall 3.42 0.922 F5/0.668 Socialization opportunities 3.38 0.976 F5/0.632 Working hours in the mall* 3.42 1.044 Availability of parking 3.65 1.039 F11/0.675 Comfortable seats during shopping 3.36 1.186 F11/0.521 Ease of reaching to the mall (access to mall) 3.72 0.994 F11/0.743 Size of mall 3.61 0.960 F11/0.547 Security in the mall 3.53 1.022 F8/0.442 One-stop shopping 3.55 1.000 F8/0.500 Adequate escalators 3.28 1.152 F8/0.734 Adequate lifts 2.93 1.244 F8/0.750 Adequate directory sign boards 3.20 1.170 F8/0.640 *items removed from research Appendix.2: Standardized Regression Weights- Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Direction Estimate PI --- > PI3 0.618 PI --- > PI4 0.489 PI --- > PI2 0.850 PI --- > PI1 0.698 PP --- > MA12 0.723 PP --- > MA11 0.754 PP --- > MA10 0.821 PP --- > MA9 0.762 ME --- > MA4 0.648 ME --- > MA8 0.646 ME --- > MA6 0.661 ME --- > MA5 0.791 ME --- > MA3 0.831 ME --- > MA1 0.790 ME --- > MA2 0.779 GEN --- > MP17 0.728 GEN --- > MP16 0.619 GEN --- > MP18 0.764 Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU GEN --- > MP20 0.756 GEN --- > MP15 0.563 GEN --- > MP19 0.710 GEN --- > MP23 0.657 GEN --- > MP21 0.755 GEN --- > MP22 0.633 ENT --- > MP3 0.755 ENT --- > MP4 0.779 ENT --- > MP2 0.685 ENT --- > MP5 0.812 ENT --- > MP1 0.614 ENT --- > MP6 0.693 ENT --- > MP7 0.561 ATM --- > MA29 0.544 ATM --- > MA31 0.733 ATM --- > MA28 0.716 ATM --- > MA26 0.702 ATM --- > MA30 0.656 IA --- > MA27 0.648 IA --- > MA22 0.623 IA --- > MA24 0.833 IA --- > MA23 0.686 IA --- > MA25 0.782 EA --- > MA42 0.682 EA --- > MA44 0.656 EA --- > MA41 0.626 EA --- > MA43 0.599 CC --- > MA45 0.666 CC --- > MA46 0.615 CC --- > MA49 0.747 CC --- > MA47 0.722 CC --- > MA48 0.725 PS --- > MA20 0.689 PS --- > MA14 0.662 PS --- > MA17 0.676 PS --- > MA19 0.783 PS --- > MA15 0.764 PS --- > MA18 0.813 PS --- > MA16 0.829 RO --- > MA33 0.634 RO --- > MA34 0.697 RO --- > MA35 0.720 RO --- > MA39 0.686 RO --- > MA38 0.719 RO --- > MA36 0.748 RO --- > MA37 0.685 SOLI --- > MP28 0.618 SOLI --- > MP26 0.668 Impact of Mall Attractiveness on Mall Patronage Intention: The Mediating Effect of Mall Personality 225 SOLI --- > MP25 0.747 SOLI --- > MP27 0.722 SOLI --- > MP24 0.711 UNP --- > MP33 0.887 UNP --- > MP34 0.758 UNP --- > MP32 0.678 SOP --- > MP13 0.627 SOP --- > MP11 0.677 SOP --- > MP14 0.642 SOP --- > MP8 0.721 Appendix.3: Standardized Regression Weights- Model without Mediator Variable Direction Estimate Mall Attractiveness --- > Patronage Intention 0.427 Mall Attractiveness --- > EA 0.659 Mall Attractiveness --- > PP 0.676 Mall Attractiveness --- > ATM 0.735 Mall Attractiveness --- > CC 0.699 Mall Attractiveness --- > IA 0.754 Mall Attractiveness --- > RO 0.780 Mall Attractiveness --- > ME 0.633 Mall Attractiveness --- > PS 0.624 Patronage Intention --- > PI1 0.660 Patronage Intention --- > PI2 0.783 Patronage Intention --- > PI3 0.726 Patronage Intention --- > PI4 0.613 Appendix.4: Standardized Regression Weights- Model with Mediator Variable Direction Estimate Mall Attractiveness --- > Mall Personality 0.746 Mall Attractiveness --- > Patronage Intention -0.158 Mall Personality --- > Patronage Intention 0.792 Patronage Intention --- > PI1 0.676 Patronage Intention --- > PI2 0.813 Patronage Intention --- > PI3 0.692 Patronage Intention --- > PI4 0.586 Mall Personality --- > SOP 0.721 Mall Personality --- > UNP 0.382 Mall Personality --- > SOLI 0.766 Mall Personality --- > ENT 0.712 Mall Personality --- > GEN 0.751 Mall Attractiveness --- > EA 0.651 Mall Attractiveness --- > PP 0.681 Özgür ÇENGEL & Ilgın ÇAKIROĞLU Mall Attractiveness --- > ATM 0.735 Mall Attractiveness --- > CC 0.696 Mall Attractiveness --- > IA 0.750 Mall Attractiveness --- > RO 0.775 Mall Attractiveness --- > ME 0.647 Mall Attractiveness --- > PS 0.629