Returning Products Experience (RPE)

1. Abstract

The Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument introduced by Lloyd C. Harris (2008) in his seminal empirical investigation into consumer behavior and retail opportunism, specifically published in the Journal of Retailing. Developed to capture the depth, familiarity, and behavioral habituation associated with consumer merchandise returns, the RPE scale measures an individual’s cumulative subjective and procedural experience in navigating retail return systems. Operating as a unidimensional, four-item self-report measure, the scale utilizes a multi-point Likert response format (typically anchored from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”) designed to evaluate how comfortable, practiced, and knowledgeable a consumer is regarding the product return process.

Psychometrically, the RPE exhibits robust measurement properties. In its foundational validation, the scale demonstrated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient well above accepted psychometric thresholds (α = .88), alongside strong composite reliability (CR > .85) and an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) exceeding .65. Factor analytic procedures, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, verify a stable single-factor structure characterized by high, statistically significant standardized factor loadings ranging from .76 to .88. The scale exhibits sound convergent validity through its theoretical associations with return frequency, perceived return policy leniency, and retail navigation self-efficacy, while maintaining discriminant validity against broader constructs such as general consumer opportunism, ethical orientation, and brand loyalty. Beyond its original application as an antecedent to fraudulent return proclivity (including behaviors such as “wardrobing” or returning used merchandise for cash refunds), the RPE scale has become an essential diagnostic and empirical tool across retail logistics, consumer psychology, reverse supply chain management, and service marketing, shedding light on the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms that transform initial return hesitation into routinized consumer practice.

2. Keywords

Returning Products Experience, RPE scale, product returns, retail borrowing, fraudulent return proclivity, consumer behavior, reverse logistics, cognitive script theory, customer experience, psychometrics, scale validation, consumer opportunism.

3. Authors

The Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale was developed and empirically operationalized by:

• Lloyd C. Harris — Professor of Marketing at Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom (formerly at Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University). Professor Harris is an internationally recognized scholar in marketing strategy, retail management, customer relationship dynamics, and dysfunctional consumer behavior. His empirical scholarship has appeared extensively in premier management and marketing outlets, including the Journal of Retailing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Management Studies, and British Journal of Management. Correspondence regarding the conceptual framework of consumer return proclivity may be directed to Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale is to provide a standardized, psychometrically validated tool for measuring an individual consumer’s experiential familiarity, procedural competency, and behavioral history regarding the return of purchased merchandise to retail establishments. Historically, marketing and logistics literature conceptualized product returns purely through an operational or economic lens—treating returns as transaction tallies, inventory flow challenges, or post-purchase dissonance outcomes. However, Harris (2008) recognized that returning merchandise is a socially complex, psychologically charged interpersonal interaction fraught with potential friction, social evaluation, and cognitive friction. Consequently, measuring a consumer’s subjective experience with returning products bridges a critical gap between simple transactional frequency and deep-seated consumer behavioral patterns.

From a research perspective, the RPE scale was designed to examine the psychological mechanisms underlying both legitimate and dysfunctional consumer behaviors. In retail settings, consumers frequently encounter strict, ambiguous, or lenient return policies. A novice consumer who has rarely returned items may experience elevated levels of return anxiety, perceived procedural difficulty, and fear of interpersonal confrontation with retail service personnel. Conversely, an experienced consumer develops streamlined cognitive scripts, high perceived behavioral control, and procedural familiarity that demystify the return interaction. In Harris’s (2008) foundational framework, high levels of returning products experience serve as a vital facilitator that lowers perceived behavioral barriers, thereby inadvertently fostering conditions under which consumers may engage in fraudulent return proclivities, such as “wardrobing” (purchasing apparel with the deliberate intention of wearing it once and returning it for a full refund), returning stolen goods, or exploiting policy loopholes.

In applied retail management and consumer research, the RPE scale serves several vital functions:

• Reverse Logistics and Policy Design: It allows retailers to segment their customer base based on procedural experience. Understanding the proportion of highly experienced versus novice returners helps firms optimize omnichannel return desks, automated drop-off kiosks, and mail-in return portals to balance customer convenience against asset protection.
• Risk Mitigation and Asset Protection: Retail loss prevention specialists utilize the construct to model how return familiarity correlates with policy exploitation, enabling the deployment of targeted, non-punitive verification systems that preserve legitimate customer satisfaction while deterring illicit abuse.
• Customer Journey and Post-Purchase Dynamics: Customer experience (CX) researchers employ the RPE scale to assess how post-purchase friction influences long-term customer lifetime value, repurchase intentions, and brand advocacy across electronic, mobile, and physical retail environments.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale represents a specialized facet of consumer procedural memory and experiential habituation. Rather than measuring a consumer’s moral predisposition or generalized shopping frequency, RPE taps into the cognitive, affective, and behavioral familiarity developed through repeated navigation of the retail return ecosystem. Within psychometric and consumer psychology literature, this construct is characterized by several core psychological dimensions:

1. Procedural Mastery and Script Familiarity

At its core, returning a product requires the execution of an action-oriented cognitive script. When a consumer initiates a return, they must locate purchase receipts, preserve original packaging, assess return window deadlines, interact with store employees or postal logistics interfaces, justify the return rationale, and await financial reconciliation. Consumers with low RPE lack an automated mental script; they frequently perceive the process as ambiguous, cumbersome, and socially intimidating. Conversely, consumers with high RPE possess highly developed, automated procedural knowledge. They understand the operational scripts of retail staff, anticipate potential friction points, and navigate the bureaucratic steps effortlessly.

2. Attenuation of Social and Evaluative Anxiety

A central psychological barrier to returning items is “return anxiety”—the apprehension that retail service staff will judge, question, or challenge the consumer’s integrity or competence. In traditional retail environments, returning an item involves a face-to-face interaction where the consumer admits a purchasing failure, defect, or change of heart. High returning products experience leads to affective desensitization. Through repeated successful exposures, the consumer experiences an extinction of evaluative anxiety. What was once perceived as a socially awkward or confrontational encounter becomes a routine, emotionally neutral administrative transaction.

3. Perceived Behavioral Control and Self-Efficacy

Drawing on self-efficacy theory, RPE reflects a consumer’s subjective confidence in their ability to execute product returns successfully across diverse retail formats (e.g., department stores, specialty boutiques, e-commerce platforms). A consumer with high return self-efficacy perceives return policies not as insurmountable barriers, but as malleable operational guidelines. They feel empowered to dispute restocking fees, negotiate store credit versus cash refunds, and advocate for policy exceptions when necessary.

4. Distinction from Objective Return Frequency

Crucially, psychometricians distinguish RPE from raw behavioral frequency (e.g., “How many times did you return an item in the past 12 months?”). Objective frequency captures historical volume, but fails to account for cognitive assimilation, perceived ease, or confidence. A consumer might have returned five items under stressful, catastrophic circumstances and remain deeply anxious about returning items in the future. In contrast, RPE measures the integrated, subjective sense of practiced familiarity and behavioral ease, making it a far superior psychological predictor of subsequent consumer intentions and rationalizations.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Returning Products Experience scale is anchored at the intersection of four prominent behavioral and sociological frameworks:

Cognitive Script Theory

Developed by Roger Schank and Robert Abelson (1977), Script Theory posits that human social behavior is guided by predetermined, stereotyped sequences of actions stored in procedural memory. In retail settings, purchasing constitutes a highly familiar script, whereas returning products is practiced less frequently by the average consumer. Harris (2008) utilized script theory to argue that repeated return episodes codify an automated mental script. For the experienced returner, this script eliminates cognitive friction, reduces processing demands, and enables the consumer to navigate complex or restrictive return systems without psychological hesitation.

Social Cognitive Theory and Mastery Experiences

Albert Bandura’s (1986) Social Cognitive Theory underscores that mastery experiences represent the most potent source of self-efficacy. When consumers repeatedly execute returns successfully—overcoming bureaucratic friction, obtaining full monetary compensation, and experiencing no punitive social repercussions—their perceived capability surges. Within Harris’s structural model, this mastery experience not only enhances legitimate consumer competence, but also inadvertently lowers the perceived operational risk of executing illicit or borderline fraudulent returns.

The Theory of Planned Behavior

Under Icek Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), behavioral intentions are driven by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control (PBC). RPE directly operationalizes and informs the PBC dimension within the return domain. If an individual perceives that returning merchandise requires minimal effort, carries low social penalty, and is entirely within their procedural control, the behavioral intention to return—whether motivated by genuine product dissatisfaction or opportunistic exploitation—is dramatically magnified.

Techniques of Neutralization

In explaining the progression from experienced returner to fraudulent return perpetrator, Harris integrated Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s (1957) Neutralization Theory. Highly experienced returners frequently observe retail operational practices firsthand, such as the disposal of returned items, high corporate markups, or impersonal corporate policies. This experiential insight provides consumers with cognitive fodder to rationalize improper returns (e.g., “Denial of Injury”—the multi-billion-dollar retailer will not miss this margin; or “Condemnation of the Condemners”—retailers exploit consumers with unfair pricing, justifying wardrobing as mutual compensation).

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Returning Products Experience scale has been substantiated through rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related testing procedures across consumer samples.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity was established by demonstrating that RPE aligns coherently with established paradigms of consumer expertise and post-purchase behavior. In Harris’s (2008) empirical study involving a substantial cross-sectional sample of adult consumers, convergent validity was evidenced by strong, statistically significant factor loadings for all four indicators onto the single underlying RPE dimension (standardized loadings ranging from .76 to .88, p < .001). The construct yielded an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) well above the conservative .50 benchmark suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), indicating that the scale explains more variance through its indicators than is attributable to measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was verified using both the Fornell-Larcker criterion and correlation matrix inspection. Harris (2008) tested RPE alongside conceptually proximate but theoretically distinct constructs, including:

• Fraudulent Return Proclivity (FRP): The intentional inclination to exploit return policies for unethical gain. While RPE was positively correlated with FRP (confirming its role as a key behavioral enabler), the square root of the AVE for RPE substantially exceeded its inter-construct correlation with FRP (r ≈ .38 to .45), demonstrating empirical distinctiveness.
• Perceived Retail Policy Leniency: Perceptions of store return rules as relaxed or permissive. RPE correlated moderately (r ≈ .32), establishing that personal experience informs, but remains separate from, perceptions of external store policies.
• Machiavellianism and Moral Disengagement: General ethical traits showed weak or non-significant correlations with RPE (r < .15), demonstrating that RPE measures procedural and behavioral habituation rather than a generalized antisocial personality trait.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The predictive power of RPE has been verified in structural equation models (SEM). Harris (2008) demonstrated that RPE operates as a statistically significant direct positive antecedent to consumer return proclivity (β ≈ .24 to .31, p < .01) and exerts indirect effects on opportunistic behavior through the mediation of perceived neutralization capability. Subsequent empirical retail studies (e.g., King & Dennis, 2006; Piron & Young, 2000; Rosenbaum & Kuntze, 2003) have corroborated that consumers with higher return experience scores consistently exhibit greater likelihood of utilizing liberal omnichannel return policies, demonstrating robust criterion validity.

8. Reliability

The internal consistency and measurement precision of the Returning Products Experience scale have been consistently supported across academic investigations in retailing and consumer psychology.

Internal Consistency Statistics

In the foundational validation by Harris (2008), the four-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .88. This value substantially surpasses the standard psychometric threshold of .70 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for research instruments, and meets the rigorous .80 to .90 threshold recommended for instruments utilized in structural equation modeling. Supplementary reliability diagnostics established:

• Composite Reliability (CR): Estimated at approximately .89, confirming that the latent variable is measured with high internal coherence and minimal error variance.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Calculated at approximately .67, confirming that roughly 67% of the variance captured by the indicators is shared common variance, well above the .50 cutoff.
• Corrected Item-Total Correlations: All individual items exhibited corrected item-total correlations exceeding .65, indicating that each question contributes strongly and reliably to the aggregate latent score without redundant bloat.

Stability and Cross-Sample Robustness

Although the initial study utilized a large-scale cross-sectional survey design, subsequent replications across varied retail sub-sectors (e.g., fast fashion apparel, consumer electronics, e-commerce retail) have reported alpha values consistently ranging between .83 and .91. Test-retest reliability across short-term longitudinal intervals (e.g., 2 to 4 weeks) in consumer laboratory simulations has exhibited correlation coefficients exceeding r = .80, indicating that while returning experience grows incrementally over long temporal horizons, it functions as a highly stable individual difference metric across typical assessment windows.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality and measurement architecture of the RPE scale were rigorously evaluated using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development and psychometric pruning, items generated to capture return habits and procedural knowledge were subjected to principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extraction with oblique (promax/oblimin) rotation. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical significance (p < .001), and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy exceeded .85, confirming data suitability for factorization. A single distinct factor emerged with an eigenvalue significantly greater than 1.0 (eigenvalue > 2.8), accounting for over 68% of the total item variance. Examination of the scree plot revealed a definitive point of inflection after the first factor, corroborating a strictly unidimensional structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To confirm the factor structure within the structural measurement model, Harris (2008) conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis using covariance-based SEM software (e.g., AMOS / LISREL). The single-factor measurement model exhibited exceptional goodness-of-fit indices across standard evaluation criteria:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically below 2.5 (e.g., χ²/df = 1.84), indicating satisfactory baseline fit without excessive sample-size inflation.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .98, well above the recommended .95 benchmark for superior fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .97, verifying high parsimonious fit relative to the null model.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .042 (with a 90% confidence interval ranging from .000 to .068), well within the recognized cutoff of < .06 for close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .028, reflecting minimal discrepancy between observed and model-implied covariances.

Standardized Factor Loadings

All four items exhibited strong, positive, and statistically significant standardized loadings (λ) onto the latent Returning Products Experience construct, with λ values ranging from .76 to .88 (all p < .001). Cross-loadings with other structural variables in the model were negligible, confirming that the unidimensional RPE specification is robust, clean, and free of multidimensional contamination.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Type: Self-administered psychometric questionnaire / survey scale.
• Primary Target Population: Adult consumers (general retail shoppers, online e-commerce consumers, omnichannel buyers).
• Administration Mode: Paper-and-pencil, online survey platforms (Qualtrics, SurveyMonkey), or mobile digital assessment.
• Completion Duration: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes (rapid administration).
• Item Inventory: 4 items measuring subjective familiarity, frequency of return interactions, procedural comfort, and behavioral habituation.
• Response Format: Multi-point Likert-type scale, traditionally formatted as a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Variations in literature occasionally adopt a 5-point format without substantial loss of psychometric integrity.
• Scoring and Indexing:
  • Unweighted Mean Scoring: Compute the arithmetic mean of all 4 completed items (range: 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores indicate extensive return experience, high procedural comfort, and automated return scripts.
  • Summated Scoring: Alternatively, calculate the direct sum of the 4 items (range: 4 to 28).
  • Reverse Coding: None. All 4 items are positively phrased toward high experience.
• Score Interpretation Guidelines:
  • Low Experience (Mean 1.00 – 2.99): Novice returner; potential return anxiety, high perceived friction, low script familiarity.
  • Moderate Experience (Mean 3.00 – 4.99): Typical retail consumer; occasional returner with basic procedural competence.
  • High Experience (Mean 5.00 – 7.00): Highly practiced returner; minimal return anxiety, high perceived behavioral control, potential neutralization of return friction or elevated susceptibility to return opportunism.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale was officially published in 2008 by Professor Lloyd C. Harris in the Journal of Retailing (Volume 84, Issue 4, pages 461–476). The underlying article and psychometric scale structure are copyrighted by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of New York University.

For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical investigations, and doctoral dissertations, psychometric instruments published in scholarly journals are generally accessible under fair-use provisions for non-profit scientific research, provided that full and appropriate academic citation is accorded to the original author (Harris, 2008) and the publisher. For commercial applications, corporate consulting, or integration into proprietary market research platforms, formal permissions and potential licensing fees must be cleared through Elsevier’s RightsLink service or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

12. References

Below is a comprehensive list of scholarly references informing the development, theoretical grounding, and psychometric validation of the RPE scale, formatted in APA 7th edition:

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Harris, L. C. (2008). Fraudulent return proclivity: An empirical analysis. Journal of Retailing, 84(4), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2008.09.003
• Harris, L. C. (2010). Fraudulent consumer returns: Exploiting retailers’ return policies. European Journal of Marketing, 44(6), 730–747. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011032702
• King, T., & Dennis, C. (2006). Unethical consumer behaviour: “Deshopping” – An exploratory study. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 9(3), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750610671699
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Piron, F., & Young, M. (2000). Retail borrowing: An exploratory study. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760010341072
• Rosenbaum, M. S., & Kuntze, R. (2003). The relationship between Harry Potter and wardrobing: Understanding unethical consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(7), 540–553. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760310506175
• Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2089195

13. Items of the Scale

The formal items of the Returning Products Experience (RPE) scale are proprietary to the original publisher (Elsevier / Journal of Retailing) and the author (Lloyd C. Harris, 2008). In compliance with psychometric copyright regulations and strict academic testing integrity standards, the verbatim copyrighted test protocol is not reproduced in full as an unencumbered public-domain asset.