Way finding in shopping mall

Legibility: how well a place is designed so customer know where they go

1. Signage

2. Visible cues (fountain)

3. Building layout (how we decorate that place, organize stuff in it)

4. Architecture design (the design of a whole thing so that it’s unique)

Mini study: Dogu and Erkip

See what spatial factor best assist wayfinding

155 shoppers in Turkey, asked to give direction to a store, usefulness of “you are here” map

Signage equally useful as building configuration

Most say “you are here” map useless (because maps are not well placed in mall)

Above 60% accuracy in giving direction. No difference in male and female in giving direction

Asked to point direction = realistic task in real life, behave naturally

Only 1 mall and Turkish ppt

Movement in store

Space syntax: how spatial design affect customer behavior and movement

Mini study: Gil et al

Observation of shopper movement pattern in store by CCTV camera (average walking speed, time spent)

480 shopper, when leaving store were asked about shopping habits

Movement pattern based on product location (milk, bread were most popular section, baby product not so much)

1. Short trip: Visit a few section, the quickest trip

2. Round trip: Along the main aisles, sometimes visit the side aisles, mainly in bread section

3. Central trip: Main aisle, then top aisle, back to main and bottom and out

4. Wave trip: Zigzag between side aisles

• Specialist: Long time spent looking for few items

• Native: Long trip to specific aisles, likely to buy

• Raider (mostly male): Fast moving, only go main aisles unless needed to go further

• Tourist: Fast moving, not likely to buy

• Explorer (lone female): Longest trip, buy the most

Difference group of people and different purpose adopt different movement pattern

Realistic setting in store

Ppt know being observed, act differently

Menu design

Mini study: Pavesic

Menu need to use eye magnet to propose expensive dish

Easy to read, pleasant to see, nice combination of colors

Customer spend 109 seconds to look at a menu (restaurant should keep menu short for easier decision making)

Primacy and recency effect: Remember first/last thing in a list better

Edge bias: likely to choose item in first/last in a menu

Edge avoidance: likely to choose middle items more

Mini study: Dayan and Bar-Hillel

Lab and field experiment (real cafe)

240 ppt, choose food items from menu (position of items are changed to test edge bias)

Edge bias is true, edge avoidance is not supported

e.g: Croissant was chosen 9 times when in the middle of menu, but 18 times when on top

Validity of lab and natural setting of field

Only cafe and in one country

Uncontrolled variables: Customer may choose item that they like, so a lot of ppt might like croissant on that time / choose same food as friends

Food name

Descriptive word can: create positive emotion, help visualize the food => more attractive

Mini study: Lockyer

ppt rate the appeal of 5 version of the same menu

Seasonal menu is most appealing

Simple and clear description that say the food is mouth-watering and fresh is highly favored

Random sample, better representative of the region

Qualitative data = interpretation bias

Table spacing - Robson et al

Investigate what length table spacing is good for different scenario (eating with friend,…) and if this is affected by cultural differences

Lab experiment (online survey)

IV: Spacing (6 inches, 24 inches) and who ppt eat with (business worker, friend, romantic partner)

DV: ppt emotional and thoughts => online questionnaire

1013 American, mostly white, less than 21 to over 50 years old

Sampling technique: survey link shared by a sampling company

Procedure

ppt filled demographic details

then see image of restaurant, tables apart either 6-12 inches (Hall’s intimate zone) or 24 inches (Hall’s personal zone)

ppt was told they are eating with either:

• Business colleague

• Friend

• Romantic partner

32 questions measure ppt experience, 7 point scale (1-disagree, 7-agree to the statements like “i feel uncomfortable sitting at this table”)

Robson also made her own 12 questions (all quantitative data), measure emotional responses from Stress Arousal Checklist + 16 questions measure perceived control, privacy and comfort

Results

6 inches highest stress level because:

• Least privacy

• Most crowded

• Might disrupt others if ppt stand up

70% ppt would like to change seat

12 inches, still stressful but has most control over 6/24

24 inches least negativity, but some still feel crowded

Eat with different people:

• Close table most stressful with romantic partner, less for friends and no effect on business

Age

• Young ppt more comfortable in 6 but more stressed in 24 inches than old ppt

Gender

• Male more comfortable in far spacing, women feel more stressed

Cultural

• Asian comfortable with all spacing

Location of living

• Frequent diner and live in urban areas feel more comfortable in close spacing

Collect ppt variables: ppt asked if they eat out a lot, live in urban area or not. help analyze data more fair

Survey was tested first to develop the best questions

Only quantitative data, ppt may have thoughts outside of given statements

Low generalizability: Mostly white Americans, not enough young Asian-American

Ethics: ppt name kept secret

Application: Should have far table spacing => attract customers of all demographics => repeat visit = more profit in long term rather than multiple tables close together (better for romantic dates)

Use divider to give privacy when having compacted table spacing

Hall’s zone of personal space

Depend on individual differences and situation (stand close to stranger on busy bus is better than close to 1 stranger on empty bus)

1. Intimate zone (6 inches)

2. Personal (24 inches)

3. Social (48 inches)

4. Public (12 feet)

When people invade personal space, our brain try to process possible threats => stressful

Behavior constraint: actions when someone invade personal space (avoid eye contact,…)

Personal space is not applicable for mental disorder like autism (require more space) (Lack idiographic)

Defending your place in a queue

Mini study: Milgram

Investigate factor affect ppt reaction to queue jumping, especially reaction of other queue members

Queue jump 129 places in New York, sometimes there are confederates in queue already and allow queue jumping

Negative reaction is least if other queue member allow the jumping, the most with 2 jumpers and other also show disagreement

Record quantitative data (categorize objection actions) and qualitative (note down what ppt say) => better interpretation of behavior

Different situation affect queue jumping objection, like if people are queue to get emergency aid in war zone, no one would tolerate queue jumping

Lack individual differences: Past experience, personality affect reaction to queue jumping