The Physical Environment

All studies + their aims, samples and results/conclusions

What was Mower et al.’s (2012) aim?

To investigate the influence of window displays & landscaping on customers’ mood (pleasure & arousal), liking of the environment and intention to purchase.

What was Mower et al.’s (2012) sample?

180 college students (94% women)

Mean age - 20.4 yrs

Multiple socioeconomic backgrounds

What methodology did Mower et al. (2012) use?

Lab experiment w independent measure design

Quantitative data from online questionnaires

• 6 qs - pleasure and arousal

• 4 qs - liking store exterior/landscaping/window display

• 3 qs - patronage intentions

What IV did Mower et al. (2012) have?

• Presence/absense of window displays/landscaping

What DV did Mower et al. (2012) have?

• Customer mood (pleasure/arousal)

• Liking

• Patronage intentions

What did Mower et al. (2012) find and conclude?

presence/ absence of window displays & landscaping:

• Did not significantly impact pleasure and arousal

• Did increase liking of the external environment

• Did increase patronage intentions

Concluded that pleasure, arousal and liking were positively correlated with patronage intentions.

Liking increased pleasure and arousal which had a +ve effect on patronage intention

Strengths - Mower (2012)

Questionnaires provided quantitative data - Objective, comparable, research bias reduced

BUT qualitative data abt participants’ attitudes to the dif storefronts would have been helpful

Weaknesses - Mower (2012)

Lack of ecological validity as its based on a fictional store described online - pp may have imagined it differently - their attitudes may be different in the real world.

Issues and debates - Mower (2012)

• cultural differences

• questionnaires

• quantitative and qualitative data

• objective and subjective data

• ecological validity

What was Vrechopoulos et al.’s (2004) aim?

To investigate the effects of grid, racetrack and freeform store layouts in a virtual space on consumer behaviour when shopping online for groceries.

What was Vrechopoulos et al.’s (2004) sample?

120 participants from universities in London and Greece

All experienced internet users

20 pps from each country in conditions with each layout.

What methodology did Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) use?

Lab experiment

Independent measures design

Self report questionnaires abt pp’s experiences

• pp were allowed same amt of money (20 pouds, 12,000 greek drachmas) + given blank shopping lists to plan their purchases

What IV did Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) have?

Layout

• grid

• racetrack

• freeform

What DV did Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) have?

Self reported:

• usefulness

• ease of use

• entertainment

What did Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) find and conclude?

• Most useful and fun to use on VR - Freeform

• Most easy to use - Grid layout (Racetrack was hardest on VR)

• Layout significantly affected the length of shopping trip - racetrack + freeform engaged shoppers most as was predicted by conventional retail theory.

Strengths - Vrechopoulos et al. (2004)

• High ecological validity - online exp was as similar to real-life situations as possible (created grocery list + groceries were delivered to them)

• Mundane realism - grocery shopping is a quotidian task

• Quantitative data - easily comparable

Weaknesses - Vrechopoulos et al. (2004)

• Low ecological validity: money was not their own

• Low generalisability: both demographics chosen were western

• Self report: demand characteristics due to social desirability

Issues and Debates - Vrechopoulos et al. (2004)

• cultural differences

• questionnaires

• quantitative and qualitative data

• objective and subjective data

• ecological validity

What was North et al.’s (2003) aim?

To investigate the effect of classical music compared to pop music on diner’s spending

What was North et al.’s (2003) sample?

Opportunity sample

• 393 diners (bw feb-march 2002)

• F=M approx

• Pop: 142

• Classical: 120

• None: 131

• Partcipants were unaware they were part of the investigation

What methodology did North et al. (2003) use?

Field experiment

Independent measures design

• In a high-end reastaurant attracting up-scale clientele in an affluent small town near Leicestershire, UK

What IV did North et al. (2003) have?

Classical music:

• Vivaldi’s Four Seasons

• Handel’s Water Music

• Strauss’ Emperor Waltz

Pop music

• Britney Spears’ Crazy

• Ricky Martin’s Livin’ La Vida Loca

• Culture Club’s Karma Chameleon

What DV did North et al. (2003) have?

Spending on:

• Starters

• Main course

• Desserts

• Coffee

• Bar drinks

• Wine

Total on food

Total on drinks

Total overal spend

Amt of time bw party being seated and paying their bill

What variables did North et al. (2003) control?

• 2 76 min CDs for each condition

• No repeated pieces

• Volume was constant

• Resto’s usual CD system - Held 2 CDs + played on a continuous, random progression (Latice)

• All other atmospherics kept constant (lighting, decor, temp, M)

What did North et al. (2003) find and conclude?

MANCOVA - Multivariate analysis of covariance used to analyse results

CM Pop NM

• Starters 4.9 4.0 3.9

• Coffee 1.0 0.8 0.5

• Total 32 29 29

Classical music results increased spending at restaurants

Strengths - North et al. (2003)

• High ecological validity - a field exp in a real restaurant

• High internal validity - extraneous variables controlled

• High reliability - standardised procedure

• Ethics maintained - despite deception, diners’ private details were not recorder or mentioned in the study→ maintaining privacy

Weaknesses - North et al. (2003)

• Lack of generalisability of findings - enjoyment of classical music may have been due to the upper class clients predesposition to such music due to their class position, should also be conducted in other places w other socioeconomic backgrounds.

Issues and Debates - North et al. (2003)

• individual and situational explanations

• reductionism versus holism

• determinism versus free-will

• generalisations from findings

• validity

What was Woods et al.’s (2011) aim?

1. To invest. if non sound related gustatory cues like sweetness vs. saltiness and crispiness vs. moistness are reported to be less intense in noisy conditions compared to quiet ones

2. To invest. whether this applied only to crunchy foods whose taste perception is mediated by the sound of eating

What was Woods et al. 's (2011) sample?

• Volunteer

• 48 UG and PG students from Manchester university

• in return for course credit/payment

• 39 F: 9 M

• 19 - 39 yrs (mean = 22 yrs)

What methodology did Woods et al. (2011) use?

Lab experiment

Repeated measures

What IV did Woods et al. (2011) have?

• Background noise (baseline, loud - 75/85dB, quiet - 45/55dB)

• Hardness of food (crunchy vs soft)

What DV did Woods et al. (2011) have?

Self reported sweetness, saltiness and liking

What did Woods et al. (2011) find and conclude?

• Backgrnd noise significantly affected measres of saltiness and sweetness - rated as less intense in loud compared to quiet cond.

• Foods were more likedd in the quiet cond vs baseline - Not as significant as prev

• Liking unaffected by hardness or softness

Background noise reduces intensity, auditory cues can interfere with all foods, not only ones mediated by sound.

Strengths - Woods et al. (2011)

• No participant varibles - rep measures controlled individual diffs, pp were own baseline

• Validity of results ensured → Comparisons made to a baseline - dummy stim. (plain biscuit)

• Replicability high: standardization

  • exact food brand mentioned

  • portion size regulated

  • water sipped bw trials to clear palate

  • eyes closed + headphones mitigated ex. stim.

Weaknesses - Woods et al. (2011)

• Self report - subjective in nature

• Order effects - practice effect is possible, pp more likely to figure out aim leading to increased demand charas

• Small sample - results not generalisable

Issues and Debates - Woods et al. (2011)

• individual and situational explanations

• reductionism versus holism

• determinism versus free-will

• generalisations from findings

• validity

What was Chebat & Michon’s (2003) aim?

To investigate whether scents affect customer’s mood (supporting PAD model) or by creating a more favourable evaluation of prod/environment (supporting cognition in cons. behaviour)

What was Chebat & Michon’s (2003) sample?

Opportinity sampling

Shoppers in a Montreal mall

What methodology did Chebat & Michon’s (2003) use?

Field experiment

Questionnaires

A fragrance (orange + grape + lemon) pumped for 3 secs every 6th minfrom diffusers

What IV did Chebat & Michon’s (2003) have?

Presense/absence of the fragrance in the mall’s main corridor

What DV did Chebat & Michon’s (2003) have?

Perceptions of product qual, shopping mall environment, pleaure, arousal, and total spending on non-grocery items

What did Chebat & Michon’s (2003) find and conclude?

• Ambient scent significantly improved perception of teh mall environemnt and prod qual bc scent lead to increased spending

+ve effect of the scent on perception was not mediated by pleasure

Strengths - Chebat & Michon’s (2003)

• Natural setting (mall in Montreal) - ecological validity

• Researchers managed to control (cancelled all promotions, similar no of shoppers in the two weeks chosen, other scents

• Quantitative data

Weaknesses - Chebat & Michon’s (2003)

• Individual differences not accounted for

• Study done during feb/march so results may only apply to shopping at that time of yr

• Self report

Issues and Debates - Chebat & Michon’s (2003)

• application to everyday life

• cultural differences

• questionnaires

• quantitative and qualitative data

• objective and subjective data

What was Machleit et al.’s (2000) aim?

1. to investigate whether the relationship bw perceived crowding and satisfaction is mediated by +ve and -ve emotions and arousal

2. to explore how expectation & tolerance of crowding and type of shop (eg: discount store) moderate the relationship between perceived crowding and satisfaction

What was Machleit et al. 's (2000) sample?

• Volunteer sampling

• 722 American students

• 54% M: 46% F

What methodology did Machleit et al. (2000) use?

Self report - retrospective questionnaire completed after the pp’s next shopping trip (even if no purchases were made)

• rating scales measured perceived crowding, tolerance and expectation, emotional responses and satisfaction

What did Machleit et al. (2000) find and conclude?

• Greater the perceived crowding, less the pleasure

• -ve cor. bw perceived crowding and arousal

• perceived crowding +vely cor. w negative emotions eg: anger

• Rel bw spatial and social crowding were -vely cor. w satisfaction

• Social crowding was unrelated to satisfaction in stores where a high no of customers can be expected.

The relationship between perceived crowding and satisfaction is not straightforward and is affected by situational factors, including the type of store and individual differences, such as expectations and tolerance for crowding.

Strengths - Machleit et al. (2000)

Field study - naturalistic

Weaknesses - Machleit et al. (2000)

Unrepresentative sample

Issues and Debates - Machleit et al. (2000)

• application to everyday life

• cultural differences

• questionnaires

• quantitative and qualitative data

• objective and subjective data