Duration: 10/01/1998 to 09/30/2003

Administrative Advisor(s):

NIFA Reps:

Non-Technical Summary

Statement of Issues and Justification

The vitality of rural communities depends on jobs to attract residents but also on accessibility to organizations that attend to family needs such as health care, education, and financial services. Rural consumers also need access to distributors of and information about consumer goods such as food, clothing, hardware, automobiles, and household furnishings and textiles. With a shrinking number of small retailers in rural and small town communities (Stone, 1989; 1995), consumers have fewer local options for acquiring goods and services. Lending added impetus to the decline of local retailers has been a trend for rural consumers to increasingly abandon local retailers for other means of access to products.

Rural consumers increasingly travel farther to shop in regional malls, outlet malls, and discount outlets (such as Wal-Mart and Kmart). The current rural marketplace situation also includes alternative shopping options that come directly to the consumer's home: mail order catalogs, TV shopping networks (Reda, 1995; Rousch, 1993), and personal computer with Internet access (Fox, 1996; Fram & Grady, 1995; Reda, 1995; "Special Report," 1996; "The New Competition," 1994). Internet shopping is currently developing and is expected to become commonplace over the next three (Bleeker, 1995) to ten years (Reda, 1995).

Little is known about how rural consumers incorporate alternative formats and technologies into their shopping habits and patterns. Are rural consumers using these formats and is their satisfaction with availability and access to goods influenced by their use of a variety of product access and information options? If rural consumers know more about alternative shopping modes, will they use them? And ultimately, does use of multiple modes of access to products and product information relate to satisfaction with rural life?

To fill this information gap and update previous findings, NCT-171 is proposing the formation of a new NC cooperative regional research project to study rural consumer shopping habits and attitudes toward multiple modes of access to food and fiber goods and information about those goods. The overall goals of the proposed data collection are (1) to obtain greater understanding of how rural consumers currently acquire food and fiber products and (2) to assess emerging attitudes toward and use of an array of developing product information sources and distribution modes.

The data collected for this project will be used for development of programs that familiarize rural consumers with the broad array of product information and acquisition resources and reduce barriers to their adoption. Programs may be offered through Extension offices or through community centers such as libraries and city halls. Assuring that consumers have satisfactory access to food and fiber goods will help to improve quality of rural consumer life. The findings will also be made available to rural retailers so that they can make effective use of multiple modes of access to consumers, thereby improving local retailers' ability to service consumers and remain viable in the rural marketplace. Organizations such as Agricultural Extension and the National Small Stores Institute may help to disseminate findings to rural retailers.

JUSTIFICATION:

The project is related to the social change and development and the economic development and policy objectives of CSREES. The project specifically addresses CSREES Objective 5.2-to increase the capacity of communities, families, and individuals to improve their own quality of life- -and Objective 5. I-to increase the capacity of communities and families to enhance their own economic well-being.

The significance of the project to agriculture, consumer concerns, and rural life is provided by our focus on rural and small town consumers and their purchase of and acquisition of information about food and fiber products (see Procedures for more specification; references to retailers throughout this proposal includes restaurants). Consumer data will be emphasized, with the end-goal objective to enhance quality of life for rural Americans. An understanding of consumer shopping patterns and emerging attitudes toward use of computer and TV shopping technologies will facilitate development of consumer counseling programs to help consumers access relevant product information and find convenient sources of food and fiber goods. The data will also help rural retailers adjust to the changing marketplace, thereby enhancing economic and community development in small town areas.

All consumers purchase food and fiber products, making the study relevant to all areas of the US as well as the North Central region. In addition, rural America is not a homogeneous place; non-metropolitan areas vary in population density, population growth or decline, information infrastructures, farm and non-farm concentration, and distance from metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). In 1993, 2,304 US counties were classified as nonmetropolitan by the US Census (Edmondson & Klein, 1997). Most of these counties are gaining population as compared to previous decades. From 1990 to 1996, nonmetropolitan counties gained 3 million people in comparison to a gain of only 1.3 million from 1980 to 1989 (Edmondson & Klein, 1997).

The largest population gains occurred in counties with retirement, recreation, or manufacturing as their economic base (Edmondson & Klein, 1997). Counties with federally- owned land, government facilities such as universities or prisons, or a nearby large city have also gained population. The majority of nonmetropolitan counties not growing or decreasing in population tend to be experiencing chronic poverty, have less than six people per square mile, and/or have farming as their economic base (Edmondson & Klein, 1997). We will study consumers in a variety of areas to understand diverse needs and situations among rural population segments.

The multi-state cooperation proposed for this research will study consumers from a variety of states and will bring a diverse interdisciplinary team to the project. Such a team is necessary because consumer acquisition of food and fiber products and information related to them is an interdisciplinary concern, with overlapping multi-faceted social, economic, communication, educational, agricultural, and business components. The assembled group of scientists provides the necessary expertise to complete this project.

Related, Current and Previous Work

This section begins with a brief history of rural life to put current characteristics of rural consumers into perspective. We review rural retailing research, as shopping patterns of rural consumers are indicated in that research. Current findings on Internet, TV, and catalog shopping are presented; these are alternative modes of product and information access that increasingly may play a role in rural consumer shopping behaviors. Finally, innovation and diffusion theory is discussed as one theoretical foundation for the proposed research.

Rural Change History

The literature linking communication technology and change in rural communities is extensive and has been developing for well over half a century (Caplow, 1982; Hoover, 1990; Lynd & Lynd, 1929; 1937; Ogburn & Gilfillan, 1933; Vidich & Bensman, 1968). As long ago as 1933, Kolb and de Bruner described how old forms of social and community organization had disappeared or undergone modification as new technologies entered rural life and social changes altered the very nature of rural communities. By 1920, Kolb and de Bruner note, rural people were in the minority for the first time in United States history. In addition to the shift from a rural to an urban nation, however, isolation was no longer considered a characteristic of rural life. With enhanced communication and transportation opportunities, rural villages became small centers of manufacturing and commerce.

The deveelopment of improved transportation technologies, diffusion of the telephone and emergence of the radio led not only to faster methods of communication but also to new topics for discussion and areas of interest (Kolb & de Bruner, 1933; Lynd & Lynd, 1929; Ogbum & Gilfillan, 1933). As the pace of life quickened, fad and fashion became possible and practical in rural communities. Ogbum and Gilfillan (1933) describe how, within the space of forty years, rural free delivery, highway improvements, motor vehicles, telephones, and radios helped to eliminate rural isolation. The Lynds documented social changes in the 1920s and 1930s as small town Americans adopted urban patterns and mores (Lynd & Lynd, 1929; 1937). By the mid- 1950s, television had diffused to many rural homes, bringing visual images of urban centers to accompany the aural impressions provided by radio. Following the increasing frequency of communication with urban centers, many rural communities began to look to cities for styles of dress, ways of speaking, manners and morals, and many aspects of rural culture were lost (Gallaher, 1961;Lubar, 1993; Lyons, 1914).

As great as the changes in the first half of the century had been, they were but a prelude to change in the second half. The development of the microchip and its application to home computers, the commercialization of the Internet, expansion of the direct marketing industry, the breakup of AT&T and a host of other factors have virtually obliterated rural/urban distinctions based on time or space constraints (Dordick & Wang, 1993; Lubar, 1993; MacKay, 1997; Wise, 1997). Computer networking and decision-making systems appear to be re-making the rural community once again (Benford, Bowers, & Fahlen, 1994; Cavallini, 1996; Fox, 1995; Messerschmitt, 1996; Ward, 1995).

Rural Retailing

Retailing in rural America continues to be affected by changes in technology. Changes in transportation technology, hard-surfaced roads, trucks and automobiles, increased rural consumer mobility, and altered rural shopping patterns encouraged the development of larger retail outlets located in centrally placed communities. The increased mobility made possible by improvements in transportation technology brought about a decreased local customer base, the demise of numerous rural businesses, and ultimately the stagnation or decline of downtown retailing in many small rural communities (Henderson, 1990; 1994).

The ESCOP Task Force on Agriculture and Community Viability (1987) outlined a research program that included the objective of identifying the impact of social and economic change in rural communities. During the same year Robert Friedman (1987), in his keynote address to the participants of the National Symposium for Rural Entrepreneurship, stated that the economic transition occurring in rural America presented numerous opportunities.

The participants of NC-192 project "Rural Retailing: Impact of Change on Consumer and Community" used these concepts as a challenge on which to base their research. It was believed that the health of rural retailing could directly affect the social and economic future of community residents. The study focused on profiling areas of competitive strength for rural retailing and identified factors contributing to economic survival and growth of rural communities. The significance of the study was the collection of data from rural communities about retailer performance and consumer perceptions of the retail marketplace (Bastow-Shoop et al., 1995). Among other things, a set of "benchmark" (Stemquist et al., 1996) financial ratios were established for independent rural retailers. This set of ratios is clearly different from those used by urban independent retailers. The relationship among rural consumers' perceptions of their community, their local marketplace, and their satisfaction with both community and marketplace was also studied. Findings suggested that rural consumer satisfaction with the local marketplace was multidimensional in nature (Douglas et al., 1995).

Retail Positioning and the Changing Rural Community.

The survival and growth of small communities is often tied to retail diversification. The unique market opportunity for small town retailers comes by offering products and services which are difficult to duplicate in larger suburban retail areas. Although it is true that service can be an important commodity for small town retailers, evidence has shown that service alone is not enough to maintain customers (Carusone & Dayan, 1982). The product offering must be sufficient to promote long-term patronage. Brown, Hudspeth, and Odom (1996) found that product offerings that reflect the larger US consumer culture rather than focus only on local culture attract a wider base of local shoppers.

Research-conducted by Ozment and Martin (1990) discussed the impact discount retail chain (DRC) stores had on small-town merchants and the general competitive environments of rural areas. They observed no negative impact but indicated that the presence of a DRC did alter the competitive structure of small economies. In fact, there were indications that positive benefits accrued to employees and to individuals who wanted to open businesses that complemented the DRC stores. The result was that the structure of retailing altered as small businesses who were not able to compete closed and new businesses emerged which provided services or products which complemented the DCR's offerings.

Outshopping. Consumer behavior is an essential component to a study of rural consumers and their shopping habits and attitudes toward multiple modes of access to goods. Research on traditional forms of outshopping provide knowledge as to why consumers purchase goods out side of their home communities.

Outshopping, the practice of leaving a local retail trade area to purchase a product or service, has become a common occurrence and is particularly important, though detrimental, to rural communities (Hawes & Lumpkin, 1984). In a survey of business people in 37 rural communities (Leistritz, Ayres, & Stone, 1992), outshopping was identified as a major problem. Ayres, Leistritz, and Stone (1992) noted that it was difficult even for successful communities to retain community shoppers who earned within the community. The relationship between loss of retail sales and subsequent loss of (1) property taxes and (2) potential sales tax revenues due to outshopping has been documented (Lord, 1991). Papadopoulos (1980) estimated total out-of- town purchases to be $38 million or 20% of all consumer expenditures in the eight product classes tested. Finch and Jones (1994) studied the level of outshopping in three rural communities for five categories of goods. The product category most likely to be purchased out-of-town was clothing, while groceries and services were least likely to be purchased out-of-town.

Many researchers have investigated outshopping (Anderson & Kaminsky, 1985; Hen-man & Beik, 1968; Hozier & Stem, 1985; Papadopoulos, 1980). It appears largely to be a function of a consumer's attitude toward local shopping facilities and product selection in the local area, such that greater dissatisfaction in the local market results in more outshopping (Miller & Kean, 1997; Papadopoulos, 1980; Samli, Riecken, & Yavas, 1983; Samli & Uhr, 1974; Schrank, 1986). Thus, when products are unavailable or are only available in a limited way, outshopping may result (Riecken & Yavas, 1988).

Samli, Riecken, & Yavas (1983) suggested that the outshopping situation is different in rural communities than in urban areas and found that outshoppers are not a homogeneous group. Some outshoppers shop for very specific products, while others buy an array of different types of products (Darden & Perreault, 1976; Reynolds & Martin, 1974).

However, as early as 1971 Thompson found that sociological differences among shoppers led to a different typology of outshopping variations. Other researchers have found that outshopping behavior is substantially determined by lifestyle factors (Reynolds & Darden, 1972). For example. Miller and Kean (1997) found that only 30% of the variation in consumer choice was explained by attitudes toward retail establishments, suggesting that other factors such as lifestyle may be influencing whether or not rural consumers' shop within or outside of their communities. Lumpkin, Hawes, and Darden (1986) created a three-group shopping-oriented taxonomy of rural consumers. "Inactive shoppers" tend to patronize local retailers while "active outshoppers," who tend to live active lifestyles, patronized both local and urban retailers. The third group was the "thrifty innovator" group, who tended to in-home shop and focus on price and time management. These results suggest that rural retailers have the potential to capture local consumer dollars by using multiple marketing strategies.

Taking a positive approach. Miller and Kean (1997, in press) examined why consumers do shop in their home communities. Shoppers were more likely to outshop than inshop, but inshopping and outshopping were not necessarily inversely related. Service was an important component for inshoppers. When assisting the customer to understand the merits of a product or service, the retailer provides expertise currently overlooked by the newer alternative forms of shopping via TV-shopping networks, interactive TV, and the Internet. These new forms of shopping together with catalog shopping provide the rural consumer with increased access to goods while creating a more "invisible" form of competition for rural retailers, making the concept of retail positioning more difficult. Nevertheless, the opportunity exists for small town retailers to establish a niche by providing service for products sold over the Internet ("Special Report," 1996). For example, as more computers are sold via mail order, showrooms, or the Internet, it is possible that local computer retailers may be tapped to provide hardware repairs when necessary.

Rural consumer use of traditional retailers and satisfaction with and loyalty to local retailers was studied by the NC 192 cooperative regional research group and others (e.g.. Miller & Kean, in press; Summers et al., 1996; Stemquist et al., 1996). However, little is known about how rural consumers incorporate alternative formats and technologies into their shopping habits and patterns. The NCT-171 proposed research will study rural consumer acquisition of a wide array of goods through a wide variety of distribution systems, including local small retailers, regional malls, outlet malls, large discounters, mail order firms, TV shopping networks, and Internet catalogs. Alternative sources of goods, such as "flea" and farmers markets, garage and estate sales, consignment shops, regional and local fairs, and shopping while travelling to remote cities will also be examined. Both current practices and attitudes toward new shopping technologies will be examined.

Knowing how rural consumers use these multiple options for obtaining goods could help rural retailers better shape services and product offerings to meet rural consumer demands and lifestyle needs. We will examine in particular whether rural retailers should do more business through the mail, TV, and the Internet. Kosters, Damhorst, and Kunz (1996) proposed on the basis of case studies of small town retailers that, to be successful, retailers must broaden their advertising beyond the local area and seek customers within at least a 50-mile radius. They need, in a sense, to encourage regional shopping from surrounding small towns. Internet, mail, and TV advertising and local shopping networks could help local and regional customers keep in touch with small retailers and restaurants, especially if businesses creatively encourage use of these sources of information.

See attached "Continuation of Related, Current and Previous Work"

Objectives

1. The overall objective of the study is to explore the impact of communication technology on rural consumers' access to food and fiber products. Specific objectives are:
   
2. To identify sources of information used by rural consumers in the search for food and fiber consumer products.
   
3. To identify sources used by rural consumers to acquire food and fiber products.
   
4. To assess attitudes of rural consumers toward using emerging communication technologies for search and acquisition of consumer products.
   
5. To develop profiles of rural consumers based upon product acquisition patterns.
   
6. To identify the dynamic process of adoption of emerging communication technologies by rural consumers for the search and acquisition of food and fiber products.
   

Methods

To obtain information on rural consumers' use of technology in their purchases of food and fiber products, the proposed NCT 171 project will collect data via two methods: (1) consumer technology-exposure experiments and (2) large-scale mail surveys of rural consumer shopping attitudes and practices. For the purposes of this study, food and fiber products will be defined as selected household products sold by retailers fitting Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 53 (general merchandise), 54 (groceries), 56 (apparel and accessories), 57 (furniture and home furnishings), 58 (restaurants), and 59 (miscellaneous retail stores). Rural consumers are defined as consumers from counties which are not part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This study will focus on rural consumers residing in small towns (with populations between 1,500 and 10,000 in 1990) and surrounding rural areas.

The panel mail survey will supply data related to Objectives 1 through 3 and will be used for profiling segments of rural consumers for Objective 4. The technology-exposure experiments will also supply data related to Objective 3 and will measure effects of training/information programs related to new shopping technologies. The longitudinal data from both studies will give insight into how consumers change product acquisition and information search behaviors and attitudes over time, data that will enable testing and modeling of various components of innovation/diffusion theory. Stations accomplishing each goal and timeline for meeting objectives are presented in Table 1 (see next page).

Consumer Technology-Exposure Experiments

In the middle of Year 1, the first set of consumer technology-exposure experiments will be conducted in selected rural communities of participating states. Local Extension offices will help in identifying between 25 and 30 non-alternative technology shopping consumers who will meet in small groups at local community centers. After taking a pre-test of attitudes toward Internet and television shopping, the consumers will experience an introductory hands-on session on Internet and TV shopping. After the session, consumers will take a post-test to measure changes in attitudes toward Internet and TV-shopping after exposure. In Year 3, these same consumers will be surveyed on developments in their attitudes and behaviors toward Internet and television shopping.

The pre- and post-tests will include measures of awareness and knowledge of TV and Internet shopping, interest in these shopping technologies, and attitudes toward purchasing through TV and Internet. Differences in responses to the pre- and post-tests and to the follow-up survey in Year 3 will indicate effectiveness of incorporating hands-on experiences in consumer counseling programs. Both qualitative and quantitative data will be collected to examine consumer interaction with the two modes of shopping during initial learning stages. Descriptive information of participants' personal characteristics will also be collected to lend at least partial evidence of effects of the program on different types of consumers.

Panel Mail Survey

A large-scale survey of rural consumer attitudes and practices in relation to acquisition of product information and shopping for food and fiber products will be developed in Year 1. Early in Year 2 the survey will be mailed to a randomly selected sample of rural consumers from each participating state, preceded by an introductory telephone call. An alternative approach to increase returns would enlist volunteers from community groups in selected communities in each state to deliver and pick up the questionnaires (but not administer any interviews). The volunteers could give local promotion of the study and credible interpretation of its benefits and intentions. Volunteers would be trained in delivery and promotion techniques.

Panel longitudinal data will be collected by sampling the same consumers a second time at the end of Year 4. Ample sample size will be incorporated in the first survey to compensate for respondent "mortality" by the second survey due to moving, death, refusal to participate, and other factors. Our initial sample will include 600 individuals per state with the goal of at least a 50% return rate yielding 300 respondents per state (3300 total n). The sample size will allow differential analysis by state and type of nonmetropolitan county.

For the panel survey (both in Year 2 and 4) descriptive information will be collected on gender, age, education, occupation, income, housing characteristics, county of residence, length of residence, and lifestyle. Data on shopping (and restaurant use) frequency, sources used, distance from shopping centers, time spent shopping, types of information search for various products, attitudes toward shopping, innovativeness, satisfaction with access to products, and satisfaction with current living arrangements will be collected. For future projections, we will ask consumers what types of features and services they would like to see offered through various modes of product acquisition.

To apply innovation and diffusion theory we will collect data on the adoption stages that rural consumers have experienced in relation to TV and Internet shopping. In addition, we will explore the types of change agents and sources of information that have influenced consumers during adoption (such as libraries, county Extension agents, local businesses, national businesses promoting their on-line catalogs, family members, media, or other contacts outside of the local area). We will measure types of information and experiences that encourage consumers to try new shopping technologies and barriers to adoption of the new technologies. The data on structural and individual factors influencing rural consumer adoption of the new technologies will facilitate profiling of rural consumer segments. Changes in responses between Year 2 and 4 will enable modeling of the process of adoption of new product acquisition modes.

Measurement of Progress and Results

Outputs

Outcomes or Projected Impacts

• This project will increase understanding of rural consumer shopping patterns and attitudes toward emerging communication technologies and add to theory on rural consumer life by establishing baseline data about rural consumer adoption of communication technologies for access to goods. Knowledge of how rural consumers use multiple options for obtaining goods will help rural retailers better shape services and product offerings to meet consumer demands and lifestyle needs. The findings will serve as a basis for further study of retailers who implement new technologies and channels of distribution to serve customers. Specific outcomes of the project are:
• Decrease barriers to consumer use of emerging communication technologies.
• Provide basis for development of Extension consumer counseling programs related to survival and quality of life in rural communities.
• Inform both product and service providers as well as consumers about access to product information.
• Develop Extension and rural community programs that strengthen rural small business development through technology transfer.
• Help small retailers incorporate appropriate technologies into their business operations to adjust to the changing business climate in the 21st century.

Milestones

(0): 1</b><br>1. To identify sources of information used by rural consumers in the search for data on consumer food and fiber consumer products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Develop Survey.</p><p> 2. To identify sources rural consumers use to acquire food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Develop Survey.</p><p> 3. To assess attitudes of rural consumers toward using emerging communication technologies for search and acquisition of consumer products. Procedure: Consumer Technology Exposure Experiment. Design and conduct experiments.</p><p> 4. To develop profiles of rural consumers based upon product acquisition patterns. Procedure: Analysis of Consumer Panel Survey Data. </p><p> 5. To identify the dynamic process of adoption of emerging communication technologies by rural consumers for the search and acquisition of food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer Panel Survey. Develop Survey.

(0): 2</b><br>1. To identify sources of information used by rural consumers in the search for data on consumer food and fiber consumer products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Collect and Analyze Data.</p><p> 2. To identify sources rural consumers use to acquire food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Collect and analyze data.</p><p> 3. To assess attitudes of rural consumers toward using emerging communication technologies for search and acquisition of consumer products. Procedure: Consumer Technology Exposure Experiment. Analyze data, develop manuscript.</p><p> 4. To develop profiles of rural consumers based upon product acquisition patterns. Procedure: Analysis of Consumer Panel Survey Data. </p><p> 5. To identify the dynamic process of adoption of emerging communication technologies by rural consumers for the search and acquisition of food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer Panel Survey. Collect and analyze data.

(0): 3</b><br>1. To identify sources of information used by rural consumers in the search for data on consumer food and fiber consumer products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Analyze data, develop manuscripts. </p><p> 2. To identify sources rural consumers use to acquire food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Analyze data, develop manuscripts</p><p> 3. To assess attitudes of rural consumers toward using emerging communication technologies for search and acquisition of consumer products. Procedure: Consumer Technology Exposure Experiment. Conduct follow-up survey, analyze data.</p><p> 4. To develop profiles of rural consumers based upon product acquisition patterns. Procedure: Analysis of Consumer Panel Survey Data. Develop consumer segment profiles.</p><p> 5. To identify the dynamic process of adoption of emerging communication technologies by rural consumers for the search and acquisition of food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer Panel Survey. Analyze data, develop manuscripts.

(0): 4</b><br>1. To identify sources of information used by rural consumers in the search for data on consumer food and fiber consumer products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Collect and analyze data. </p><p> 2. To identify sources rural consumers use to acquire food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer panel survey. Collect and analyze data</p><p> 3. To assess attitudes of rural consumers toward using emerging communication technologies for search and acquisition of consumer products. Procedure: Consumer Technology Exposure Experiment. Develop manuscript, collaborate on outreach programs.</p><p> 4. To develop profiles of rural consumers based upon product acquisition patterns. Procedure: Analysis of Consumer Panel Survey Data. </p><p> 5. To identify the dynamic process of adoption of emerging communication technologies by rural consumers for the search and acquisition of food and fiber products. Procedure: Consumer Panel Survey. Collect and analyze data.

(0): 5</b><br>1. To id

Projected Participation

View Appendix E: Participation

Outreach Plan

Organization/Governance

Organization of the technical committee conducting the proposed project will include the following officers and executive committee and five subcommittees:

Executive Committee The Executive Committee shall conduct the business of the technical committee between meetings and will design a governance document, coordinate subcommittees, and call and organize annual meetings. The committee will be comprised of a chair, a secretary, and two more members of the technical committee. Overall membership of the Executive Committee will incorporate representation from at least three universities or agencies involved in the project and at least three disciplines or distinct areas of expertise among members.

Consumer Technology-Exposure Experiment Subcommittee

The Consumer Technology-Exposure Experiment Committee will design the study in which rural consumers will be given hands-on experience with Internet and TV shopping. The committee will plan the hands-on activity and design pretest and posttest instruments to measure attitude change, as well as the follow-up questionnaire to be administered two years later. The committee will also advise on sampling procedures across states and selection of data collection sites. Members will devise procedures for data analysis and coordinate data analysis activities.

Panel Survey Subcommittee

The Panel Survey Committee will design survey instruments and plan sampling and data collection procedures for the large scale quantitative surveys to be administered in Years 2 an 4. They will communicate with the Statistical Procedures Committee to ensure appropriateness of data for statistical analysis.

Statistical Procedures Subcommittee

The Statistical Procedures Committee will plan and conduct statistical analyses of panel survey data. The committee will confer with the Panel Survey Committee to ensure that appropriate items are designed for testing of theory and hypotheses, for segmentation analysis, and for other descriptive analyses.

Special Session Subcommittee

The Special Session Committee will plan a session for the 2nd Rural Retailing Symposium to be held at Snowbird, UT, in June of 1999. They will form a panel of presenters that includes representatives from national retailers with on-line catalogs, TV buying channels, small town/rural retailers, and academic scholars. The committee will also plan a preliminary report for the special session of data collected via the consumer experiment and will confer with the Consumer Technology-Exposure Experiment Committee to produce the report. The Special Session Committee will include members of NCR-65 (the planning body for the symposium) who are also members of the technical committee.

Publication Subcommittee

The Publication Committee will organize the dissemination of information from the project through annual reports to Experiment Station, journal articles, conference presentations. Extension publications, and popular media.

Literature Cited

Abraham-Murali, L., & Littrell, M. A.( 1995). Consumers' perceptions of apparel quality over time: An exploratory study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 13, 149-158.

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1991). State taxation of interstate mail order sales: Estimates of revenue potential, 1990-1992. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R., Sawyer, A., & Wood, S. (1997). Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing, 61(July). 38-53.

Anderson, C., & Kaminsky, M. (1985). The outshopper problem: A group approach for small business retailers. American Journal of Small Business, IX(4). 34-45.

Ayres.J., Leistritz, L., & Stone, K. (1992). Rural retail business survival: Implications for community developers. Journal of the Community Development Society. 23 (2).11-21.

Bastow-Shoop, H., Leistritz, L., Gaskill, L., Jasper, C., Jolly, L., & Stemquist, B. (1995). Factors affecting the financial viability of rural retail businesses. Journal of the Community Development Society. 26, (2). 169-185.

Benford, S., Bowers, J., & Fahlen, L. E. (1994). Supporting cooperative work in virtual environments. The Computer Journal. 37 (8), 653-668.

Bickle, M., & Shim, S. (1993). Usage rate segmentation of the electronic shopper: Heavy versus non-heavy dollar volume purchasers. The International Review of Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research. 3 (1). 1-18.

Bleeker, S. E. (1995, May-June). The emerging Meta-Mart: How shopping in cyberspace will change the landscape. The Futurist, pp. 17-19. Brown, R (1992). Managing the "S" curves of innovation. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 9(1), 61-72.

Brown, R. B., Hudspeth, C. D., & Odom, J. S. (1996). Outshopping and the viability of rural commumtites as service/trade centers. The Journal of the Community Development Society, 27(1), 90-111.

Bullock, R. (1985) States missing out on mail order sales tax. Fiscal Notes. 85 (9) 1-2.

Caplow,T. (1982). Middletown families: Fifty years of change and continuity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Carusone, P.S., & Dayan, Y. (1982). Perceptions of downtown attraction factors in the small city. Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, pp. 1-5.

Cavallini.A. (1996, February). Community nets: the next generation. Computer. 29. 92-93.

Cortese, A., Hamm, S., & Hof, R. (1997, September 22). Why Microsoft is glued to the tube. Business Week. pp. 96, 100, 102.

Darden, W. R., & Perreault, W. (1976). Identifying interurban shoppers: Multiproduct purchase patterns and segmentation profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 13(1), 51-60.

Donthu, N., & Gilliland, D. (1996). Observations: The infomercial shopper. Journal of Advertising Research. 69-76. Dordick, H., & Wang, G. (1993). The information society. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Douglas, S., Bastow-Shoop, H., Jolly, L., Kean, L., Meyer, S., & Summers, T. (1995, October). Images and impressions of the rural retail environment: A dialogue with consumers and retailers. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Textile and Apparel Association, Pasadena, CA.

Eastlick, M. A., & Feinberg, R.A. (1995). Differences in attitudes toward catalog retailers of apparel among social/economic risk orientation groups. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 13, 220-226.

Edmondson, B., & Klein, M. (1997, September). A new era for rural America. American Demographics. 19, 30-31.

Falling through the Net: A survey of the "have-nots" in rural and urban America. (1995, July). US Department of Commerce, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fallingthru.html (7 pages).

Finch, J., & Jones, K. (1994, May). Retail outshopping and recommended strategies to combat it. Regional Business Review. 13. Fox, B. (1995, September 16). Winners and losers in the information age. New Scientist, 147. 6. Fram E.H- & Grady, D. B. (1995). Internet buyers: Will the surfers become buyers? Direct Marketing. 58(10). 63-65.

Friedman, R. F. (1987). The role of entrepreneurship in rural development. Proceedings of the National Rural Entrepreneurship Symposium. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee.

Gallaher, A. (1961). Plainville fifteen years later. New York: Columbia University Press.

Glynn, C. J., McDonald, D. G., & Tette, J. P. (1995). IPM adoption and conservation behavior. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 50(1). 25-29.

Grant, A. E., Guthrie, K. K., & Ball-Rokeach, S. (1991). Television shopping: A media system dependency perspective. Communication Research, 19(6). 773-798.

Gregg, J., Abbott, E., & Korsching, P. (1996). Telecommunications for rural development: Telecommunications use in the heartland: Profile of four Iowa communities. Ames, IA: Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.

Hawes, J. M., & Lumpkin, J. R. (1984). Understanding the outshopper. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science. 12. 200-218.

Henderson, D. (1990). Rural retail sales and consumer expenditure functions. The Journal of Agricultural Economics Research. 42 (3), 27-34.

Henderson, D. (1994). Estimates of retiree spending in the retail and service sectors of community. The Journal of the Community Development Society, 25 (2), 259-276.

Herbig, P., & Kramer, H. (1994). The effects of information overload on the innovation choice process. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 11 (2), 45-54.

Herrman, R., & Beik, L. (1968). Shoppers' movements outside their local retail area. Journal of Marketing. 32. 45-51.

Higgins, S., & Shanklin, W. (1992). Seeking mass market acceptance for high-technology consumer products. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 9(1), 5-14.

Hines, A. (1997, September-October). Do you know your technology type? The Futurist. 31 (5), 10-11.

Home shopping concept to be introduced on Chinese television by company in San Diego area. (1994, November). Business America, 115 (11), 23.

Hooks, G., Napier, T., & Carter, M. V. (1983). Correlates of adoption behaviors: The case of farm technologies. Rural Sociology. 48 (2), 308-323.

Hoover, D. W. (1990). Middletown revisited. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.

Hozier, G., & Stem, D. (1985). General retail patronage loyalty as a determinant of consumer outshopping behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 13(1), 32-46.

IBM move shows "e-tailing" still in infancy. (1997, June 11). The Columbus Dispatch, p. 2G.

Jasper, C. R., & Lan, P. R. (1992). Apparel catalog patronage: Demographic, lifestyle and motivational factors. Psychology and Marketing, 9. 275-296.

Klonglan, G.E., & Coward, E. W. (1970). The concept of symbolic adoption: A suggested interpretation. Rural Sociology. 35 (1). 77-83.

Kolb, J. H., & de Bruner, S. E. (1993). Rural Life. In Recent social trends in the United States (Vol. 1, pp. 497-552). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kosters, P. M., Damhorst, M. L., & Kunz, G. I. (1996). Organizational culture of small retail firms. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(3). 29-52.

Kwon, Y. H, Pack, S. L., & Arzeni, M. (1991). Catalog vs. non-catalog shoppers of apparel: Perceived risks, shopping orientations, demographics, and motivations. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal. 10(1). 13-19.

Leistritz, F. L., Ayres, J. S., & Stone, K. (1992). Revitalizing the retail trade sector in rural communities: Lessons from three midwestem states. Economic Development Review. 10 (4), 49-54.

Leistritz, F. L., Johnson, B. B., Alien, J. C., Olsen, D., & Sell, R. S. (1996). Telecommunications technologies in rural communities. Choices, 4, 39-41.

Lesly, E., Cortese, A., Reinhardt, A., & Hamm, S. (1997, November 24). Business Week. pp. 74, 76.

Lord, J. D. (1991, Nov/Dec). The dynamics of the retail geography of Texas. Texas Business Review. 55 (6), 272-274.

Lubar, S. (1993). Infoculture. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Lumpkin, J. R., Hawes, J. M., & Darden, W. R. (1986). Shopping patterns of the rural consumer Exploring the relationship between shopping orientations and outshopping. Journal of Business Research. 14(1). 63-81.

Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1929). Middletown. New York: Harcourtand Brace.

Lynd, R. S., & Lynd, H. M. (1937). Middletown in transition. New York: Harcourtand Brace.

Lyons, J. Appalachian America. (1914). Unpublished master's thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

MacKay, H. (1997). Consumption and everyday life.Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Maignan, I., & Lukas, B. A. (1997). The nature and social uses of the Internet: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 31(2). 346-371.

Maney, K., & Dugas, C. (1997, August 13). On-line shopping is hard to sell. USA Today, pp. 1B-2B.

Maloof, D. (1997, June 11). A shot at mass sales on QVC. Boston Globe, p. D2.

McDonald, D. G., & Glynn, C. J. (1994). Measuring adoption of IPM: A case study in apples. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 48, 219-230.

Mehta, R., & Sivadas, E. (1995). Direct marketing on the Internet: An empirical assessment of consumer attitudes. Journal of Direct Marketing. 9 (3), 21-32.

Messerschmitt, D. (1996). The convergence of telecommunications and computing: What are the implications today? Proceedings of the IEEE. 84. 1167-86.

Michals,D.( 1997, February). WWW.catalog.com. Working Woman. 22(2). 8-10. Miller, H. (1993). Consumer search and retail analysis. Journal of Retailing, 69 (2), 160-192.

Miller, N. J., & Kean, R. C. (1997). Factors contributing to inshopping behavior in rural trade areas: Implications for local retailers. Journal of Small Business Management. 35 (2), 80-94.

Miller, N. J., & Kean, R. C. (in press). Reciprocal exchange in rural communities: Consumers' inducements to in shop. Psychology and Marketing.

Mowen, J., Wiener,J., & Young, C. (1990). Consumer store choice and sales tax: Retailing, public policy, and theoretical implications. Journal of Retailing. 66 (2) 222-241.

Murphy, J., Forrest, E., & Wotring, C. E. (1996). Restaurant marketing on the Worldwide Web. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (February), 61-71.

Murphy, P. A. (1997, July). New security standard protects on-line credit purchases. Stores. pp. 81-82.

National Governors Association. (1997, October 17). State and local leaders call Internet tax proposals in Congress "Chicken Little" policy . Washington D.C. [Press release, 1 page]

National Governors Association (1997, November 4). Governors call on Congress to halt action on Internet tax bill. Washington D.C. [Press release, 1 page]

Netscape Store. (1997). Netscape merchant system white paper [On-line]. Available: http://www.netscape.com.

The new competition: No parking problems, open 24 hours a day. (1994, February). Stores, pp. s6-sll, sl4-s22.

Newman, N. (1997). The great Internet tax drain. Technology Review, 99 (4), 25-30.

Nielsen Media Research. (1995). The Commercenet/Nielsen Internet demographics study. Chicago, IL: Nielson Inc. (/p>

Nowak, P. (1987). The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology. 52 (2), 208-220.

Ogburn, W.F., & Gilfillan, S. C. (1933). The influence of invention and discovery. In Report of the President's research committee on social trends: Recent social trends in the United States (Vol. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Malley, S. (1992, July). Country gold. American Demographics. 14 (7). 26-34. Ozment, J., & Martin, G. (1990). Changes in the competitive environments of rural trade areas effects of discount retail chains. Journal of Business Research. 21, 277-287.

Papadopoulos, N. G. (1980). Consumer outshopping research: Review and extension. Journal of Retailing. 56 (4). 41-59.

Pellerin, B., Gregg, J., Ramsey, M., Abbott, E., & Korsching, P. (1996). Telecommunications for rural development: On-line technologies in public libraries: Survey results from Iowa, Ames, IA: Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.

Ramsey, M., Gieseke, J., & Abbott, E. (1996). Telecommunications for rural development: Hospital involvement in the adoption of telecommunication technologies in rural Iowa, Ames, IA: Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.

Reda, S. (1995, March). Interactive shopping: Consumers catch up with technology. Stores, pp. 20-22, 24.

Reynolds, F. D., & Darden, W. R. (1972). International patronage: A psychographic study of consumer outshopping. Journal of Marketing. 36. 50-54.

Reynolds, F. D., & Martin, W. S. (1974). A multivariate analysis of intermarket patronage: Some empirical findings. Journal of Business Research, 2, 193-199.

Ridgley, A. M., & Brush, S. B. (1992). Social factors and selective technology adoption: The case of integrated pest management. Human Organization, 51, 367-378.

Rieken, G., & Yavas, U. (1988). A taxonomy ofoutbuyers: A new perspective. International Journal of Retailing, 3 (1). 5-15.

Roberts, M., Premkumar, G., Ramsey, M., Quinn, J., & Korsching, P. (1996). Telecommunications for rural development: Telecommunications technologies adoption and use by businesses in five rural Iowa Communities. Ames, IA: Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

Roush, C. (1993, May 10). Elbowing into cable tv's home-shopping slugfest. Business Week, p. 68.

Salomon, I., & Koppelman, F. S. (1992). Teleshopping or going shopping: An information acquisition perspective. Behaviour and Information Technology, 11(4). 189-198.

Samli, A., Riecken, G., & Yavas, U. (1983). Intel-market shopping behavior and the small community: Problems and prospects of a widespread phenomenon. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 11(2). 1-14.

Samli, A. C., & Uhr, E. B. (1974). The outshopping spectrum: Key for analyzing intermarket leakages. Journal of Retailing. 50 (2), 70-78.

Schrank, H. (1986). Inshoppers versus outshoppers: A report to the Greater Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. (Proprietary Research Report). West Lafayette, IN: Department of Consumer Science and Retailing, Purdue University.

Sherman, E., & Topol, M. (1996) Anticipating the impact of new technologies on retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 3 (2). 107-111.

Shopping from the sofa. (1997, April). American Demographics, pp. 31-32.

Simpson, L., & Lakner, H. B. (1993). Perceived risk and mail order shopping. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics. 17. 377-389.

Sorensen, A. A. (1991). IPM and growers: An evolution in thinking. Washington, D.C.: American Farm Bureau Federation.

Special report on Internet shopping. (1996, February). Stores. MC2-MC11, MC14.

Stanforth, N. F., & Lennon, S. J. (1996, June). Clothing consumption via television: The woman's perspective. Paper presented at the Third Conference on Gender, Marketing, and Consumer Behavior, Association for Consumer Research, Salt Lake City, UT.

Sternquist, B., Jolly, L., Leistritz, L., Kean, R., Bastow-Shoop, H., Jasper, C. & Gaskill, L. (1996). Rural retailers: Using a bankruptcy model to predict high profit versus low profit firms. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. 13 (1). 9-24.

Stone, K. E. (1989, May). A study of small Iowa towns with successful retail sectors. Ames, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.

Stone, K. E. (1995, June). Rural retailers: Competing with the mass merchandisers. Presentation to the Rural Retailing Symposium, Snowbird, UT

Summers, T.A., Douglas, S., Meyer, S., Feinberg, R., Minshall, B., & Wessel, K. (1996, August 4). Out-shopping behavior or rural consumers as related to satisfaction and perceptions-of the local marketplace. Paper presented to the International Textile and Apparel Association, Banff, Canada.

Task Force on Agriculture and Community Viability. (November, 1987). Agricultural and rural viability. In Executive summary from the Experiment Station Committee on Organization and Policy,Washington, D.C.

Taylor, D.L., & Miller, W.L. (1978). The adoption process and environmental decisions: A case study of a government project. Rural Sociology. 43 (4), 634-648.

Thomas, J. K., Ladewig, H., & Mclntosh, W. A. (1990). The adoption of integrated pest management among Texas cotton growers. Rural Sociology. 55. 395-410.

Ulhrich, H. (1986). State and local taxation of out-of-state mail order sales. Washington D.C.: Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

Underwood, E. (1996). Is there a future for the TV mall? Brandweek. 37(13). 24.

Vidich, A. J., & Bensman, J. (1968). Small town in mass society (Rev. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Walker, L. (1995). The importance of illiteracy to marketing communication. The Journal of Consumer Marketing. 12(1). 50-62.

Ward, M. (1995, September 23). Net benefits are only for the rich. New Scientist. 147. 10.

Wearing, C. H. (1988). Evaluation of IPM implementation process. Annual Review of Entomology, 33, 17-38.

Weinman, T. (1997, December 12). What they are buying. Des Moines Register, p. 12S.

Exploring technology and social space. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Zinn, L. (1993, July 26). Retailing will never be the same. Business Week, pp.54-57, 59-60.

Attachments

File 1414_nc-222related&current.html

Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

AL, CO, IA, IL, MN, ND, OH, SD, TN

Non Land Grant Participating States/Institutions

Illinois State University, NIFA