Alain d’Astous
ECOLE DESHEC, MONTREALResearch on the impact of the environment on shopper behavior generally might be also useful to study the darker side of the shopping
focuses on the design of retail environments that produce positive consumer experience and try to identify the environmental elements that
feelings in order to increase the likelihood of purchase. The basic message create negative consumer feelings during shopping. Focusing
of this article is that retailers and marketing researchers also should be on reducing or eliminating the environmental aspects that
concerned with environmental stimuli that create irritations among shop- displease shoppers is important since several studies have
pers and try to come up with strategies aimed at reducing or eliminating confirmed the prominence of negative information over
posi-such irritants. A study is presented where environment-based shopping tive information in the formation of consumer evaluations
irritants are identified on the basis of a conceptual framework and the (see Mizerski [1982] for a review).
degree of irritation induced by these irritants assessed. Results from a The present research centers around identifying aspects of
survey of 281 shoppers show that the degree of perceived irritation depends the shopping environment that are likely to produce negative
on the nature of the environmental variables considered and is affected emotions among shoppers and explores the role of key individ-significantly by shoppers’ gender and age. While women appear to be ual moderators (i.e., age, gender) on shoppers’ irritability per-generally more irritated than men by displeasing aspects of the shopping ceptions. Such research has important implications for retail-environment, the impact of age on shoppers’ extent of irritation depends ers interested in learning what environmental factors impact on which specific irritating factor is considered.J BUSN RES2000. 49.149– negatively on shoppers’ feeling states, what to do to improve
156. 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. the shopping environment, and what types of actions are
required for specific market segments.
T
he influence of the shopping environment on consum-Conceptualizing the
ers’ feelings and behaviors is a research topic of great
Shopping Environment
relevance to retailers. Knowing what environmental
factors impact on the feeling states of shoppers can suggest What do we mean by the shopping environment? A common appropriate marketing strategies to help create and maintain approach to defining the environment is to distinguish the positive shopping experiences. Pleasurable shopping experi- person (“me”) from the physical features that surround him ences induced by environmental factors in turn are likely to or her (“not me”) (e.g., Hansen, 1972; Everett, Pieters, and encourage consumers to spend more time in stores and to Titus, 1994). Listing all the features that comprise consumers’ spend more money than intended (Donovan, Rossiter,
Mar-environments is an impossible task because they are too nu-coolyn, and Nesdale, 1994).
merous. A more useful research strategy is to try to classify Unsurprisingly, research on the effects of the environment
environmental features into a finite set of categories (Hunt, on shopper behavior has tended to focus on the design of
1991). An early and widely cited attempt at categorizing as-retail environments that produce positive consumer feelings
pects of the environment was made by Kotler (1974) who and increase the likelihood of purchase (e.g., Kotler, 1974;
distinguished between visual (color, brightness, size, shapes), Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). While the design of pleasant
aural (volume, pitch), olfactory (scent, freshness) and tactile retail environments is certainly a pertinent marketing goal, it
(softness, smoothness, temperature) sensory dimensions of store atmosphere. Though Kotler’s (Kotler, 1974) classifica-tional scheme has not been used as a general framework for theory construction, it has stimulated and oriented research Address correspondence to Alain d’Astous, Ecole des HEC, 3000 chemin de
la Coˆte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3T 2A7. on the impact of environmental factors on consumer behavior
Journal of Business Research 49, 149–156 (2000)
2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN 0148-2963/00/$–see front matter
Table 1. Components of the Physical Environment
Category Definition Features
Ambient factors Background conditions that exist below the level of Air quality
our immediate awareness temperature
humidity
circulation/ventilation Noise (level, pitch) Scent
Cleanliness Design factors Stimuli that exist at the forefront of our awareness Aesthetic
Architecture Color Scale Materials Texture, pattern Accessories Functional
Layout Comfort Signage
Social factors People in the environment Other customers
Number Appearance Behavior Service personnel
Number Appearance Behavior
Source: Baker (1986).
(e.g., Areni and Kim, 1994; Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, work in this research to circumscribe consumer irritations that are caused by aspects of the shopping environment. Al-and Nesdale, 1994).
though the typology has yet to be validated, it has been used A different typology has been proposed by Baker (1986)
previously as an organizing scheme to develop research propo-who divided the physical environment into three components:
sitions (Baker, 1986) and test research hypotheses (Baker, (1) ambient factors, that is, background features that may or
Levy, and Grewal, 1992; Grewal and Baker, 1994). may not be consciously perceived but that affect human senses
(e.g., scent, music), (2) design factors, that is, features that
are directly perceptible by consumers, and (3) social factors,
Gender and Age as Moderators
that is, people in the environment. Baker (1986) furtherdi-of Consumer Reactions to
vided design factors into aesthetic and functional elements
Shopping Irritations
and social factors into sales personnel and other customers (see Table 1).
Gender
The Baker (1986) typology differs from Kotler’s (Kotler,
Several studies have shown that men and women differ signifi-1974) in its focus on the physical antecedents of consumer
cantly on how they process marketing information. In general, responses. Within this perspective, a given element in the
women have been found to process information in more detail, environment can be positioned along multiple sensory
dimen-resulting in a greater sensitivity to environmental factors (Mey-sions (e.g., people). Another notable characteristic of this
ty-ers-Levy and Maheswaran, 1991; Meyty-ers-Levy and Sternthal, pology is its explicit consideration of social factors. While
1991). Since they are more detailed information processors, some researchers exclude human elements from their
concep-women are more likely to be affected by negative information tion of the physical surroundings (see e.g., Bitner, 1992), the
than men because of its higher diagnosticity (Dube´ and Mor-role of others in creating excitement (e.g., during a show),
gan, 1996). The following hypothesis is founded on these frustration (e.g., waiting lines) and other feelings appears to
previous research results: be too important to be left out of a comprehensive framework
of the environment. H1: Women are more irritated than men by displeasing
frame-Table 2. Classification of 38 Shopping Irritants
Category
Shopping Irritant Ambient Design Social None
1. Crowding A B,C,D,E
2. Merchandise is hodge-podge A,B,E C,D
3. Unable to find what one needs E A,B,C,D
4. Mode of payment is complicated C,E A,B,D
5. Bad smell in the store A,B,C,D,E
6. Lighting in the store is inadequate B,C,D A,E
7. Turbulent kids around A,B,C,D,E
8. Arrangement of store items has been changed A,B,C,D,E
9. Being deceived by a salesperson A,B,D,E C
10. Clothing sizes in a store are limited E A,B,C,D
11. Waiting in line while the cashier is busy A,D B,C,E
12. Store is not clean A,B,C,D,E
13. Indifference of sales personnel A,B,C,D,E
14. Prices are not indicated A,C,E B,D
15. Store is too small B A,C,D,E
16. High-pressure selling A,B,C,D,E
17. Can’t find the price at the time of payment A,B,C,D,E
18. Cold weather B,C,D A,E
19. Store is cold and austere A,C,E B,D
20. Advertised specials are not available E A,B,C,D
21. Salespeople’s lack of self-assurance A,D,E B,C
22. Directions within the store are inadequate A,B,C,D,E 23. Too hot inside the store or the shopping center A,B,C,D,E
24. Merchandise of interest is in the store window A,C,E B,D
25. No mirror in the dressing room A,B,C,D,E
26. Finding his/her way in a large shopping center E A,B,C,D
27. Waiting lines A E B,D C
28. Negative attitude of sales personnel A,B,C,D,E
29. Music inside the store is too loud A,B,C,D,E
30. Having arms full of bags A,B,C,D,E
31. Feeling of being watched by sales personnel C,E A,B,D
32. Being in a hurry A,B,C,D,E
33. Stores carry similar merchandise A,B,C,D,E
34. Sales personnel not listening to client’s needs A,B,C,D,E
35. Abandoned carts in a grocery store A,B,D C,E
36. Being alone for shopping C,D A,B,E
37. Unavailability of sales personnel A,B,C,D,E
38. People move slowly A,C B,D,E
The letters A, B, C, D, and E represent the judges’ classification responses.
H2: The degree of perceived irritation induced by
displeas-Age
ing aspects of the shopping environment is negatively As consumers get older, their information-processing abilities
related to the age of consumers. decline, and consequently they are more likely to experience
some difficulties in understanding and responding to
market-ing stimuli. Accordmarket-ing to Moschis (1987), with increasmarket-ing age,
Method
consumers are less able to integrate information, less sensitiveSources of Shopping Irritations
to external stimuli (light, colors), and less able to make
Table 3. Perceived Irritability of Components of the
of the 38 irritants by means of a five-point scale (that irritates
Shopping Environment
or would irritate me enormously, a lot, average, very little,
not at all). The survey data were collected using an area Mean Standard
Shopping Irritants Irritability Deviation
sampling procedure in the Canadian city of Sherbrooke. More precisely, the city was divided into three geographic areas
Ambient
and streets were randomly selected in each area. Interviewers
Bad smell in the store 3.27 1.28
visited every second residence of the selected streets in order Store is not clean 3.54 1.33
to obtain residents’ participation in the study. Eligible partici- Too hot inside the store or the
shopping center 3.38 1.08
pants to the survey had to be responsible for the shopping in
Music inside the store is too loud 3.29 1.30
the household and the sample is therefore composed of a
Overall mean 3.37
majority of women (74%). Compared with census data of
Design
the Canadian population, the survey participants are more Unable to find what one needs 3.32 1.06 educated, somewhat older (between 16 and 80, mean538) Arrangement of store items has
been changed 2.60 1.14
and have a higher income.
Store is too small 2.52 1.19
Directions within the store
Classification of The Irritants
are inadequate 2.98 1.08The Baker (1986) framework was described to five judges, all No mirror in the dressing room 3.49 1.27 Finding his/her way in a
faculty members in the marketing department of a midsized
large shopping center 2.23 1.21
Canadian university with a least 10 years of teaching
experi-Overall mean 2.87
ence. The judges were asked to classify the 38 shopping irri- Social
tants into one of four categories, that is, Baker’s (Baker, 1986) Crowding 3.43 1.04
three components plus a “none” category. Table 1 was made Turbulent kids around 2.71 1.14
Being deceived by a salesperson 3.80 1.38
available to the judges during the classification task to remind
Indifference of sales personnel 2.86 1.28
them of conceptual definitions and provide them with
exam-High-pressure selling 4.07 1.10
ples. The written instructions given to the judges were as Negative attitude of
follows: “For each of the following shopping irritants, please sales personnel 3.61 1.26
indicate (x) to which physical environment category it belongs Sales personnel not listening to
client’s needs 3.35 1.17
uniquely.If you think that the irritant does not belong to any
Unavailability of sales personnel 3.38 1.07
of the categories uniquely or that it belongs to another
cate-Overall mean 3.40
gory, or if it is not clear to you then use the ‘none’ category.
Do not force in any time an irritant into a category.” The Scale values range from 1 (no irritation) to 5 (high irritation). use of judges to identify and categorize environment-based
irritants was deemed preferable to employing such
structure-seeking statistical technique as factor analysis and to calculat- 1989). In the present case, a reconciliation of the judges’ responses was attempted with irritants that were classified ing reliability indices (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha coefficient)
be-similarly by at least four judges. The reconciliation was done cause irritants in a given class (e.g., “crowding” and “negative
without difficulty after discussion with the judges. In the attitude of salespeople”) may not be correlated although they
final analysis, the ambient category comprises four irritants logically belong to the same conceptual category (i.e., social).
(numbers 5, 12, 23, and 29), the design category six (numbers The distribution of the five judges’ responses is displayed
3, 8, 15, 22, 25, and 26) and the social category eight (numbers in Table 2. The level oftotalagreement is not high since only
1, 7, 9, 13, 16, 28, 34, and 37). These 18 irritants serve as 17 of the 38 irritants were classified similarly by the five
dependent variables in the subsequent analyses. judges (i.e., 44.7%). There are however 24 irritants over 38
that were classified in the same category by at least four judges
(i.e., 63.2%). The interjudge percentage agreement ranges
Statistical Analyses and Results
from 57.9% (judges B and E and judges D and E) to 86.8%Preliminary Analyses
(judges B and D) with a mean of 68.9%. Since percentage
agreement statistics are influenced by the number of catego- The mean irritability ratings of the uncovered environment-ries, it is preferable to use an alternative measure of interjudge based shopping irritants are presented in Table 3. The highest agreement such as Perreault and Leigh’s (Perreault and Leigh, irritation is associated with “high-pressure selling” (mean5
1989) index of reliability. Applying this index to the data 4.07) and the lowest irritation is associated with “finding his/ leads to interjudge reliabilities ranging from 0.66 to 0.91 with her way in a large shopping center” (mean 5 2.23). On
a mean of 0.76. average, social factors and ambient factors are perceived as
Table 4. Univariate ANOVA Results
Mean Irritability
Women Men ,25 25–34 35–44 45–54 .54 Shopping Irritants (n5204) (n572) †a (n558) (n565) (n562) (n540) (n543) Fb
Ambient
Bad smell in the store 3.22 3.34 0.66c 3.65 3.30 3.39 3.48 2.60 4.39d
Store is not clean 3.50 3.60 0.57c 3.91 3.71 3.47 3.69 2.97 3.29e
Too hot inside the store or the
shopping center 3.50 3.02 3.16d 3.48 3.18 3.06 3.22 3.38 1.35c
Music inside the store is too loud 3.45 3.20 1.35c 3.00 2.98 3.22 4.09 3.33 5.60d
Design
Unable to find what one needs 3.54 3.02 2.91d 3.47 3.35 3.26 3.20 2.90 1.90c
Arrangement of store items has
been changed 2.69 2.44 1.49c 2.33 2.57 2.39 2.88 2.63 1.57c
Store is too small 2.61 2.34 2.19e 2.78 2.35 2.26 2.41 2.33 1.58c
Directions within the store are inadequate 3.05 2.99 0.36c 2.88 3.00 2.98 3.21 3.04 0.51c
No mirror in the dressing room 3.73 3.05 3.92d 3.51 3.55 3.15 3.61 3.13 1.75c
Finding his/her way in a large
shopping center 2.28 2.09 1.11c 2.06 2.05 2.46 2.20 2.14 1.11c
Social
Crowding 3.59 3.07 3.59d 3.46 3.59 3.14 3.22 3.25 2.05c
Turbulent kids around 2.75 2.60 0.96c 2.83 2.63 2.61 2.90 2.40 1.18c
Being deceived by a salesperson 3.86 3.78 0.40c 4.19 4.05 3.64 3.95 3.27 3.63e
Indifference of sales personnel 2.86 3.10 1.27c 2.94 2.76 2.75 3.32 3.13 1.60c
High-pressure selling 4.11 3.99 0.83c 4.26 4.39 4.12 4.13 3.35 6.13d
Negative attitude of sales personnel 3.59 3.84 1.42c 4.00 3.61 3.53 4.13 3.30 3.22e
Sales personnel not listening to
client’s needs 3.42 3.45 0.17c 3.63 3.37 3.28 3.54 3.35 0.82c
Unavailability of sales personnel 3.49 3.32 1.14c 3.46 3.25 3.41 3.51 3.40 0.43c
aWith (at least) 239 degrees of freedom. bWith 4 and (at least) 239 degrees of freedom. cNot statistically significant.
dp,0.01. ep,0.05.
between the design overall mean irritation and the other two simplify the presentation of results (almost identical results were obtained using age as measured directly). Since there means are statistically significant (p , 0.0001) while that
between the ambient and social overall means is not. are multiple correlated dependent variables grouped in three classes, the statistical analysis proceeded as follows. First, three These are interesting results since they provide some
unique empirical evidence about the relative importance of multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed using the perceived irritability ratings as vectors of dependent Baker’s (Baker, 1986) environmental factors, at least from
an irritability perspective. Assuming that these irritants are variables (three groups of variables) and gender and age (and representative of the environmental aspects that displease their interaction) as independent variables. As a follow-up, shoppers in general, one can conjecture that retailers’ primary for the purpose of identifying the variables that contribute efforts should be directed at eliminating the irritations caused most to discriminating the groups, univariate analyses were by ambient and social factors while adjustments with regard to performed using as dependent variables the irritability vari-design factors should be of lesser concern. These are obviously ables for which statistically significant effects of age and gender general conclusions that do not preclude the possibility of were observed in the first analysis phase. This is a common orienting the efforts on the most irritating and easiest-to- way of analyzing this type of data (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, improve aspects of the shopping environment (e.g., the sales and Black, 1995).
personnel). However, the generalizability of these conclusions The MANOVAs comprise, respectively four, six, and eight across different shoppers’ characteristics needs to be verified. dependent variables corresponding to the shopping irritants Accordingly, the impact of age and gender on shoppers’ irrita- associated with Baker’s (Baker, 1986) three-component typol-bility perceptions is examined in the following paragraphs. ogy of the environment (see Table 3). There was no statistically significant interaction between gender and age in any of the
Research Hypotheses Tests
MANOVAs. However, gender and age had both a significant impact on the degree of perceived irritability induced by the Five age categories were defined: less than 24 years old, 25–34,lambda50.95,p50.008; age: lambda50.81,p50.000), general predictions concerning the effects of age on the per-ceived irritability of environmental aspects of the shopping design (gender: lambda5 0.91,p 50.001; age: lambda 5
environment. The results indicate that in most cases, women 0.85,p 5 0.031) and social (gender: lambda5 0.91, p5
are more irritated than men by displeasing environmental 0.005; age: lambda50.77,p50.002).
features. Age, however, may show a negative (e.g., unclean Table 4 displays the results of the follow-up univariate
store) or a positive (e.g., loud music) relationship with shop-analyses by using the irritability variables associated with the
pers’ environment-based irritability perceptions depending on ambient, design, and social environmental dimensions as
sepa-the nature of sepa-the source of irritation. rate dependent variables and age and gender as independent
variables (main effects model). The marginal means associated with the gender and age categories also are presented in Table
Discussion
4 for the purpose of interpretation.
Thirteen out of eighteen mean differences between men The position adopted in this article is that retailers and market-and women on perceived irritability are in the predicted direc- ing researchers should not only be concerned by aspects of tion (H1), and five of these differences reach statistical signifi- the environment that make shopping a pleasurable experience cance (p,0.05). Women are significantly more irritated than but also, and perhaps more so, by those environmental stimuli men when it is too hot in a store, when they are unable to that create irritations among shoppers. Because displeasing find what they need, when a store is too small, when there environmental factors may lead to more cognitive processing is no mirror in the dressing room, and when they are in a and have a greater impact on shoppers’ evaluations (Mizerski, crowding situation. All other observed differences are not 1982), marketing strategies aimed at reducing or eliminating statistically significant. Overall, women appear to be more shopping irritants are very relevant. In order to implement irritated than men by displeasing features of the shopping such strategies, it is necessary to: (1) identify environment-environment with three notable exceptions: when the sales based shopping irritants, (2) assess the degree of irritation personnel is not giving adequate service, when a store is not that they induce, and (3) examine how the level of irritation clean, and when there is a bad smell in a store. This latter varies according to different shopper characteristics. The study observation is consistent with McGuinness and Pribram’s gen- described in this article is an attempt at meeting these research eral conclusion that women are more sensitive than men to requirements.
all modalities with the possible exception of smell (cited in Using the theoretical conception of the environment
pro-Meyers-Levy and Sternthal, 1991). posed by Baker (1986), 18 environment-based shopping
Table 5. Marketing Actions to Avoid Irritating Situations or Limit Their Consequences
Irritant What to Do
1. Unable to find what one needs Know your customers and offer brands and products that they will buy Increase the depth of the merchandise mix
Do not push products that do no fulfill clients’ needs
Give customers information about where to find what they are looking for 2. High-pressure selling Train salespeople into helping customers solve their problems in priority
Design an efficient compensation plan Set up a sales personnel evaluation system Whenever possible, give excuses and a refund 3. Too hot inside the store or the
shopping center Have the cooling/heating system checked regularly
Give clients the possibility of being relieved of their winter garments Have refreshments available
4. Crowding Design the shopping environment such that the feeling of crowding is lessened Consider increasing the floor surface
Limit the number of shops on the walking floor of the shopping center
cantly more irritation than design factors. It would be have more concrete instances of irritating events in memory. They would then judge these situations as more frequent important to corroborate these findings by using different
research approaches. For instance, the impact of various (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973) and more irritating. Because they are more involved in shopping than men (Guiltinan and sources of irritation on shoppers’ affective states (e.g., humor,
anger) and behaviors (e.g., store patronage, complaining) Monroe, 1980), women also may be more attentive to irritating situations and more likely to engage in cognitive elaboration could be estimated through experimentation. One possibility
would be to assess consumer reactions to written vignettes or about them.
The hypothesis of a negative relationship between age and videos describing irritating situations varying in systematic
ways (e.g., How would you feel in this situation? What would the degree of irritation induced by displeasing aspects of the shopping environment was not supported. It appears that the you do?). Another research approach would be to relate the
perceived irritability of the environmental components to such impact of age is conditional upon the nature of the irritant. While some aspects of the shopping environment are signifi-measures as attitude toward shopping, store enjoyment, desire
to spend money, store loyalty, etc., in order to get regression- cantly more irritating to younger shoppers (e.g., uncleanness), other aspects are more displeasing to older shoppers (e.g., loud based estimates of relative importance. These studies would
help retailers target specific areas where environmental im- music). Marketing strategies directed at eliminating shopping irritations for different age segments should therefore be ori-provements ought to be made.
Future research also should consider measuring negative ented toward well-specified irritants. reactions other than irritation. Other relevant negative
emo-tions in the context of shopping may include anger, frustration,
Managerial Implications
discontentment, and sadness. It would be interesting to see
how various displeasing aspects of the shopping environment This study has identified several environmental factors that might impact differently on these emotional responses. Recent cause irritation during shopping. Retailers should be con-research by Richins (1997) gives useful information about the cerned about the effects that such irritation may have on store appropriateness of several emotion descriptors to consump- patronage and product evaluations. Strategically, retailers have tion-related activities and about their measurement. two options. They may try to keep shoppers in good moods The results of this study indicate that the degree of irritation by different actions aimed at creating positive feelings in con-induced by some environmental shopping irritants depends sumers, such as the distribution of small gifts, the design of on consumers’ gender and age. Globally, gender and age have a a pleasant store atmosphere, training the sales personnel to statistically significant impact on felt irritation due to ambient, be courteous, or delivering service quality. Or, retailers can design and social factors. In general, women appear to be engage in specific actions aimed at eliminating the sources of more irritated than men by displeasing aspects of the environ- irritation during the shopping experience. In the context of ment. As hypothesized, because women are more detailed this latter strategy, the results presented in this article are very information processors, they show a greater sensitivity to ex- relevant.
Differences in Retrospective Judgments of Consumption
Emo-table: actions aimed at eliminating the factors that are the
tions.Journal of Consumer Research23 (September 1996): 156–162.
direct sources of irritation and actions to limit the
conse-Everett, Peter B., Pieters, Rik G. M., and Titus, Philip A.: The
Con-quences of the irritating factors. For instance, high-pressure
sumer-Environment Interaction: An Introduction to the Special
selling can be avoided by properly training salespeople or by Issue.International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 (March designing a compensation plan that does not link salary to 1994): 97–105.
sales volume only (Still, Cundiff, and Govoni, 1988). Or, Grewal, Dhruv, and Baker, Julie: Do Retail Store Environmental if customers complain of high-pressure selling, retailers can Factors Affect Consumers’ Price Acceptability? An Empirical Ex-amination.International Journal of Research in Marketing11 (March
attempt to reduce their irritation by offering a refund and
1994): 107–115.
excuses. The latter action does not take care of the problem
Guiltinan, Joseph P., and Monroe, Kent B: Identifying and Analyzing
at its source (i.e., the fact that salespeople force the sale), but it
Consumer Shopping Strategies, inAdvances in Consumer Research
may reduce the negative effects of the irritation on consumers’
7, Jerry C. Olson, ed., Association for Consumer Research, Ann
attitudes and future behaviors toward the store and the prod- Arbor, MI. 1980, pp. 745–748. ucts. Other marketing actions presented in Table 5 can be
Hansen, Flemming:Consumer Choice Behavior: A Cognitive Theory.
interpreted in a similar manner. These are only suggestions, The Free Press, New York. 1972.
and it would be important to conduct additional research to Hair, Joseph F., Jr., Anderson, Rolph, E., Tatham, Ronald L., and identify what marketing actions are most efficient to eliminate Black, William C.: Multivariate Data Analysis, Fourth Edition, or reduce the shopping irritations that this research uncovered. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1995.
Hunt, Shelby D.:Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philos-ophy of Marketing Science, South-Western, Cincinnati, OH. 1991.
I thank my colleagues in the Marketing Department at the University of
Sherbrooke, Guy Ara, Andre´e-Anne Che´nier, Franc¸ois Coderre, Gilles Va- Keppel, G.:Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook, Third Edi-lence, and Richard Ve´zina, for accepting to participate in the judging task tion, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1991.
described in this article and for making very useful comments, and the
Kotler, Philip: Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool.Journal of Retailing
anonymous reviewers for helping me to improve on several aspects of this
49 (Winter 1974): 49–64.
article.
Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Maheswaran, Durairaj: Exploring Differences in Males’ and Females’ Processing Strategies.Journal of Consumer Research18 (June 1991): 63–70.
References
Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Sternthal, Brian: Gender Differences in the Areni, Charles S., and Kim, David: The Influence of In-Store Lighting
Use of Message Cues and Judgments.Journal of Marketing Research on Consumers’ Examination of Merchandise in a Wine Store.
28 (February 1991): 84–96. International Journal of Research in Marketing11 (March 1994):
117–125. Mizerski, Richard W.: An Attribution Explanation of the
Dispropor-tionate Influence of Unfavorable Information.Journal of Consumer Baker, Julie: The Role of the Environment in Marketing Services:
Research9 (December 1982): 301–310. The Consumer Perspective, inThe Services Challenge: Integrating
for Competitive Advantage, John A. Czepiel, Carole. A. Congram, Moschis, George P.:Consumer Socialization: A Life-Cycle Perspective, and James Shanahan, eds., American Marketing Association, Chi- Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 1987.
cago, IL. 1986, pp. 79–84. Perreault, William. D., and Leigh, Laurence. E.: Reliability of Nominal Baker, Julie, Levy, Michael, and Grewal, Dhruv: An Experimental Data Based on Qualitative Judgments.Journal of Marketing
Re-Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions.Journal search26 (May 1989): 135–148.
of Retailing68 (Winter 1992): 445–460. Richins, Marsha, L.: Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experi-Bitner, Mary Jo: Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surroundings ence.Journal of Consumer Research24 (Setpember 1997): 127–146. on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (April Still, Richard, R., Cundiff, Edward W., and Govoni, Norman A.P.: 1992): 57–71. Sales Management: Decisions, Strategies, and Cases, Prentice-Hall, d’Astous, Alain, Roy, Nathalie, and Simard, He´le`ne: A Study of Con- Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1988.
sumer Irritations During Shopping, in European Advances in Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel: Availability: A Heuristic Consumer Research2, Flemming Hansen, ed., Association for Con- for Judging Frequency and Probability.Cognitive Psychology 5 sumer Research, Provo, UT. 1996, pp. 381–387. (September 1973): 207–232.
Donovan, Robert J., and Rossiter, John R.: Store Atmosphere: An Wells, William D., and Prensky, David: Consumer Behavior.John Environmental Psychology Approach. Journal of Retailing 58 Wiley and Sons, New York. 1996.
(Spring 1982): 34–56.
Zaltman, Gerald, Srivastava, Rajendra K., and Deshpande, Rohit: Donovan, Robert J., Rossiter, John R., Marcoolyn, Gilian, and Nes- Perceptions of Unfair Marketing Practices: Consumerism Implica-dale, Andrew: Store Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior.Journal tions, inAdvances in Consumer Research5, H. Keith Hunt, ed., of Retailing70 (Fall 1994): 283–294. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 1978, pp.
