See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238318155

Store environment, emotions and approach behavior: Applying

environmental aesthetics to retailing
Article in The International Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research · January 2003
DOI: 10.1080/0959396032000069568

CITATIONS READS

108 1,796

2 authors, including:

Shaked Gilboa
Ruppin Academic Center
23 PUBLICATIONS 396 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Customers coping with situations of stress View project

Servicescapes and product design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shaked Gilboa on 13 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Store environment – page 1

Store Environment, Emotions and Approach

Behavior:

Applying Environmental Aesthetics to Retailing

Shaked Gilboa
Department of Geography
Tel-Aviv University
shakgil@netvision.net.il

And

Anat Rafaeli
Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
anatr@ie.technion.ac.il

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:

Shaked Gilboa
Department of Geography
Tel-Aviv University
P.O. BOX 39040
Tel-Aviv 69978
ISRAEL

Telephone: +972-4-8122935
E-mail: shakgil@netvision.net.il
 Store environment – page 2

Store Environment, Emotions and Approach

Behavior:
Applying Environmental Aesthetics to Retailing.

Abstract

This exploratory study examines the influence of store environment on

emotions and behavior tendencies. The study brings insights from research on

external environments to the study of store environment. We combined the idea of

three distinct dimensions of emotions (pleasantness, arousal and dominance) and the

role of mediating approach-avoidance behaviors with two variables taken from the

field of environmental aesthetics – complexity and order. Twenty-four color

photographs of four sections of two grocery stores were rated by a sample of 43

subjects on their degree of complexity and order. A second sample of 87 subjects

rated the same photographs on emotions and approach-avoidance tendencies. The

relationship between complexity and order and reported pleasantness and arousal was

consistent with findings regarding external environments. The three emotional

dimensions mediated an inverted “U” relationship between complexity and approach

behavior tendencies, as expected. Order had a positive correlation with approach

behavior tendencies. The study suggests the importance of examining general

variables (such as complexity and order) in the context of retail environments and

provides ideas of extensive future research.

 Store environment – page 3

Key words: Store Complexity, Store Order, Consumer Emotions, and Consumer

Behavior Tendencies.
 Store environment – page 4

Introduction

The influence of the physical environment on emotions and behavior has

received attention from geographers, architects, and environmental psychologists

(Porteous 1997). During the last decades the importance of the environment has also

became prominent in the study of retail environment, with researchers beginning to

study the influence of the store environment on consumers’ behavior (for review, see

Turley & Miliman 2000). However, the study of retail environments is still searching

for a coherent framework for analyzing such environments (cf. Baker, Grewal and

Parasuraman 1994) and is yet to incorporate the extensive developments made in the

analyses of external environments (Bitner 1992). It is towards such a synthesis that

this effort strives.

A store’s environment can be defined as external to the person being studied,

which can be measured independently of the person (Russell and Mehrabian 1976).

That environment is never natural, but includes cues, messages, and suggestions to

consumers (Bitner 1992; Markin, Lillis and Narayana 1976). Retailers are known to

design store environments in a manner that will enhance consumers’ positive feelings,

assuming this will lead to desired consumers’ behaviors, such as higher willingness to

purchase or longer stays (Mano 1999).

Studies of the store environment (also known as “atmospherics”) examined

multiple aspects of consumers’ behavior. A recent review by Turley and Miliman

(2000) identified 58 variables that have been studied in this line of work. The authors

classified the atmospherics variables into 5 main categories: external, general interior,

layout and design, point-of-purchase and decoration, and human. Their classification,

however, lacks a theoretical frame, reflecting the main problem of this field of
 Store environment – page 5

inquiry. Similarly, Foxall and Greenley (1998) proclaimed that researchers have

generated settings in a random, convenience, intuitive manner without a justified

typology. Both authors conclude that atmospheric effects exist, but more effort is

needed to explain, predict and control consumers’ behavior.

One solution to this a-theoretical problem can be found in Donovan and

Rossiter’s (1982) and Tai and Fung (1997) studies, which applied the Mehrabian and

Russell (M-R) (1974) model of emotion to retail settings. The M-R model is based on

a Stimulus –Organism -Response paradigm, and offers a parsimonious description of

intervening variables and behaviors of store customers. Donovan and Rossiter (1982)

claim that the model is particularly strong in identifying intervening and response

variables, but fails to define appropriate stimulus taxonomy. In their study, the

environment was characterized by the Information Rate Scale (IRS), suggested by

Mehrabian and Russell (1974). Russell and Mehrabian (1976) proclaimed that since

environments include a variety of stimuli, it is essential to seek general variables as

descriptors that grasp the main influence of the environment. Mattila and Wirtz (2001)

add that consumers perceive servicescapes holistically, and their responses to physical

environments depend on a combination of effects.

In line with these claims, the current study introduces two general

environmental variables to the study of store environment: complexity and order.

These variables are new to the study of store environment , but are widely used in

studies of the aesthetics of external environments (Nasar 2000) and have been found

as characteristics that help capture distinctions among different external

environments, such as urban or natural environments (Heath 1988).

 Store environment – page 6

The model examined in this study is summarized in Figure 1. Below, we begin

by briefly summarizing the M-R model, which provided the mediating and dependent

variables in the study (see Figure 1.) We then summarize available knowledge

regarding our independent variables of order and complexity followed by a

description of the methods we used and our respective findings.

Insert Figure 1 about here

The Mehrabian & Russell Model

Mehrabian and Russell (1974) presented a basic model of human emotion

commonly used in marketing studies (Machleit and Eroglu 2000). The model claims

that three dimensions underlay any affective responses to any environment:

pleasantness, arousal and dominance (Mehrabian and Russell 1974). The

Pleasantness-Unpleasantness dimension relates to the degree that individuals feel

happy, pleased, satisfied, or content. High Arousal- Low Arousal distinguishes

between feelings of stimulated, excited, or frenzied and aroused and relaxed, bored or

sleepy. Dominance -Submissiveness relates to the extent by which a person feels

influential, in control, important, and autonomous or submissive, passive and lacking control.

Studies which were designed to test the model have found that the

pleasantness and arousal dimensions described well the affective space evoked by

environments, while dominance was not found to have a predictable or significant

effect (Russell and Pratt 1980; Ward and Russell 1981; Russell, Ward and Pratt 1981).

Thus, more recent summaries of the model define two rather than three basic dimensions –

pleasantness and activation (arousal). In these developments dominance is argued to be a

cognitive component of affective reactions (Russell and Feldman Barrett 1999). However,
 Store environment – page 7

some research continues to find a valid potency or control dimension, such as

Takahashi (1995) and Hluger and Rafaeli (2000).

Mehrabian and Russell (1974) further suggested an interaction between

pleasantness and arousal in determining individual approach-avoidance behavior. In

pleasant environments, an increase in arousal was argued to increase approach

behaviors, whereas, in unpleasant environments, an increase in arousal was suggested

to motivate more avoidance behaviors.

Several studies have established the intervening role of pleasantness and

arousal in the context of store environments (Donovan and Rossiter 1982; Donovan,

Rossiter, Marcoolyn and Nesdale 1994; Baker, Levy and Grewal 1992; Greenland and

McGoldrick 1994; Sherman, Mathur and Belk Smith 1997; Tai and Fung 1997;

Wirtz, Mattila and Tan 2000; Mattila and Wirtz 2001). Donovan and Rossiter (1982)

found a positive relationship between pleasantness and arousal and intentions to

remain in a setting and to spend more money. Baker et al. (1992) found an increase in

pleasantness and in arousal to influence intention to purchase. Mattila and Wirtz

(2001) found that a combination of pleasantness and arousal leads to higher levels of

approach and impulse buying behaviors. Donovan et al. (1994) reported that in

unpleasant settings, arousal was associated with what they labeled as “unspending.”

However, Tai and Fung (1997) found that pleasure and arousal are positively related

to approach-avoidance behavior both in pleasant and in unpleasant store

environments.

The role of dominance in relation to approach-avoidance behaviors remains

unclear and has received attention in very few studies. Foxall and Greenley (1998;

1999) did find that pleasantness, arousal and dominance separately explain

consumers’ expressions of approach-avoidance over a vast range of consumption

environments. Biggers and Rankis (1983) report that participants demonstrate more
 Store environment – page 8

approach behaviors toward situations that evoked power, and more avoidance

behaviors toward situations that evoked submissiveness. They conclude that the role

of dominance is an authorization to act in the environment rather than an emotion per

se (Biggers and Rankis 1983).

In attempting to marry the systematic study of environment to the study of

internal store environment, the M-R model was a natural choice. First, the model was

developed specifically for studying the impact of the environmental, such that the

three emotional dimensions supposedly differentiate between different environments.

Second, the model has already been used in studying store environment studies. Yet in

the current study, the M-R model is used in its full form. Moreover, this study adds

the perspective of the variables of complexity and order for analyzing store

environments as explained next.

Complexity and Order of Physical Environments

Complexity and order have been studied in the context of visual preference in

both lab studies, and field studies of urban and natural environments (Wohlwill 1976;

Ulrich 1983; Nasar 2000). Research in this area was initiated by Berlyne (1971) in a

series of lab studies in which complexity was manipulated in drawings, ornamentation

and scribbles. Later environmental scholars picked up on Berlyn’s ideas and used the

term of complexity to characterize exteriors (Nasar 2000.)

Environmental complexity has been defined as comprising visual richness,

ornamentation, information rate, diversity and variety of information in an

environment (Nasar 2000). An increase in complexity appears when there is more

richness to an environment, more variables in the environment and when these

variables do not maintain a coherent pattern and manifest large varian ce and little
 Store environment – page 9

redundancy (Nasar 1994). The environmental complexity variable is similar to the

IRS offered by Meharabian and Russell (1974), which is also based on Berlyne’s

studies. Order of an environment is related to the extent of organization, coherence,

fittingness, congruity, legibility and clarity of an environment (Nasar 2000).

Berlyne (1971) suggested that order has an effect above and beyond that of

complexity. He reported that adding order to a complex configuration created

different effects from those brought about by complexity alone. When order was

added to a set of stimuli with a low level of complexity, the interest level decreased.

In contrast, when order was added to stimuli with high complexity the effects were

positive. Berlyne (1971) suggests that subjects needed order to be able to cognitively

and emotionally deal with the information in high complexity environments. In

external environments, the combination between complexity and order is such that

complexity provides visual richness, while order structures this diversity and helps

reduce the uncertainty of the scene (Nasar 2000). The effects of the interplay between

order and complexity has not yet been studied in internal environments and is the

focus of our study here.

Complexity and Order as Predictors of Arousal and Pleasantness

Berlyne’s (1971) studies investigated the influence of complexity on emotion

(or as he labeled it interest and preference). He confirmed a linear relationship

between complexity and interest and a curvilinear relationship between complexity

and preference, with moderate levels of complexity (rather than extremely high or

extremely low levels) being most preferred. Studies of natural and urban

environments have confirmed these relationships to arousal and pleasantness

 Store environment – page 10

respectively (Ulrich 1983; Nasar 2000). Studies on buildings, housing scenes,

simulations of sign-scapes and urban skyline replicated the positive relationship

between complexity and arousal (Nasar; 1987; 1997; Heath, Smith and Lim 2000).

The inverted U relationship between complexity and pleasantness has been found in

studies on several urban scenes (Wohlwill 1976). This relationship was also found in

studies using simulated stimuli (Nasar 1997).

The field of environmental aesthetics has also considered the relationship

between environmental order and pleasantness and arousal. In studies of urban

environment, as summarized by Nasar (1997), order has been shown to have a

positive relationship with pleasantness and negative relationship with arousal. These

relationships have been confirmed in several studies on commercial road signs (Nasar

1987; Nasar and Hong 1999), images of city, housing scenes, building exteriors and

architecture (Nasar 1997).

Based on available findings regarding external environments we therefore

propose the following two hypotheses:

H1: The complexity of a store environment bears a positive relationship to

H2: cTohnesuom
rdeer aorfoausatolraendenavciruornvm
iliennetabreraerlsataionnesghaiptivtoe rceolnastiuom
nsehrip etoasantness.

consumer arousal and a positive relationship to consumer pleasantness.

Complexity and Approach-Avoidance Behavior

The relationship between complexity and order and individual approach-

avoidance behavior has not been empirically tested. Scholars have noted however

that a link may be expected between complexity and approach-avoidance tendencies

 Store environment – page 11

(Mehrabian and Russell 1974; Ulrich 1983; Baron 1994; Huffman and Hhan 1998).

Baron (1994) and Huffman and Hhan (1998) suggest that the relationship

between complexity and individual approach-avoidance tendencies can be explained

in the context of information theory. When the amount of information succeeds

human processing ability, people cannot attend to all the information, and as a

consequence prefer to avoid such situations. The opposite situation, where a very low

amount of information is available creates ambiguity or uncertainty, and is therefore

also experienced as aversive. Since both extremes are not pleasant, information

theory predicts that people will engage in behaviors aimed to bring environmental

stimuli to an optimally moderate level, which is not too high or too low.

Merging the M-R model into analyses of complexity, it seems reasonable to

expect pleasantness and arousal to mediate the relationship between complexity and

approach-avoidance behaviors. Since there is a curvilinear relationship between

complexity and pleasantness and a positive linear relationship between complexity

and arousal, as long as an environment is experienced as pleasant, arousal can be

expected to motivate approach behaviors. Otherwise, arousal can be expected to

motivate avoidance behaviors. In the current study we focused only on approach

(rather than avoidance) tendencies leading us to posit the following, third hypothesis:

H3: The complexity of a store environment bears a curvilinear

rOeulartinnvsehstiipgatotioconnosfutm
her ealpaptironaschiptebnedtewneceiens,oardnedrtahnisd raeplaptrioancshhibpew
haivlliobres

was expm
loerdaitaotreyd, bey caounsseuomfethrearcoounstarladaincdtoprlyeansaatnutrneeosfs.earlier findings. The
 Store environment – page 12

relationship between order and arousal has been argued to be negative, while the

relationship between order and pleasantness was argued to be positive (Nassar 1997).

An exploratory approach was therefore adopted to clarify this relationship.

Method

Overview

The goal was to conduct an exploratory study that integrates two different

fields of inquiry -- environmental aesthetics and store environment. Because of the

exploratory nature of the study, laboratory methods were preferred, to enable control

over multiple intervening variables such as noise, odor, interactions with employees

or other consumers, etc. The exploratory nature of the study also led to restricting the

study to a small and manageable set of representations of one context – 24

photographs of grocery stores. Such restriction allowed us to avoid any

contaminating effects of the type of store on the data collected. Tai & Fung (1997)

specifically suggest restricting data collection to only one type of retail context to

increase accuracy of results. An additional and final aspect of the exploratory nature

of the study is the reliance on students as subjects. This choice was motivated by the

relative ease with which students could relate to the abstract and time consuming

nature of the task required by the study. Since students are consumers in grocery

stores just like other people we see their responses as valid indicators in an

exploratory study.

Stimuli

Twenty-four color photographs served as the stimuli through which subjects

would experience the store environment. Nasar and Hong (1999) mention that
 Store environment – page 13

photographs may overlook noise and odors, but this method is a convenient and

highly controlled way to obtain responses to a variety of places, and research

consistently confirms color photographs as valid proxies of visual issues. Bateson and

Hui (1992) compared the validity of photographs compared to quasi-field experiments

and videos and showed photographs produce data that is similar in both quality and

dynamics to the data produced by videos or a field study.

Toward creating the stimuli multiple photographs were taken of several

sections inside two grocery stores. Two stores were used to ensure generalization

beyond a particular store. The two stores are part of the same chain, located in the

same neighborhood, and both include separate display sections of food, cosmetics,

toiletries, cleaning materials, etc. Fifty-two photographs were taken using Hodak 200

film, which is suitable for the illumination in the stores. Photographs were all printed

on glossy paper in a 15 cm. X 10 cm. size. From this pool of photographs two judges

selected twenty-four photographs that were judged to be the clearest and sharpest

photographs of the section. The twenty-four photographs represented 4 sections

(frozen foods, pasta, fruits and vegetables and dairy) in the two grocery stores. Each

section was photographed from three different angles, for a total of 24 photographs.

Sample and Procedure

The study included two independent samples of 43 and 87 respondents. Both

samples were composed of undergraduate students who were paid for their time or

received extra course credit for their participation.

The first sample rated the complexity and order of the photographs. The 43

subjectsYwoeuresesehionwfnroantseotfoyfosuixa osfertihes pohfopthoogtroagprhaspahnsdofwseercetiaosnksedoftoa rgartoeceearychstore.

picture on the degree of complexity and order. The order in which the photographs

were presented was counter balanced between subjects. The instructions these
 Store environment – page 14

Please rate each photo on its degree of complexity and order.

The ratings provided by this sample were combined to create indices of complexity

and order of each of the 24 photographs.

A second sample of 87 subjects was then shown the same photographs, but in

groups of three, with each threesome representing the same section of one grocery

store. Each respondent watched only one threesome, and was asked to rate the

emotions he/she would feel in the photographed place and the degree of approach

behavior he/she would demonstrate toward the photographed place. These subjects

were told:

You see in front of you a set of photographs of grocery store. Please take a

look at the photographs and then respond to the following questionnaire about

how would you feel or act as a visitor in that photographed place.

The ratings provided by this sample were combined to create indices of the emotions

and approach tendencies of each of the 24 photographs.

This design of two separate samples allowed us to examine the relationship

between the ratings of order and complexity provided by the first sample and the

ratings of emotions and behavior tendencies provided by the second sample,

eliminating the impact of common variance that would exist if both sets of ratings

were collected from the same sample of subjects. In other words, this design provided

independent ratings of the independent variables (order and complexity of the

environment) and moderating and dependent variables (pleasantness, arousal and

dominance and approach or avoidance).

Measures

Store Environment
 Store environment – page 15

Subjects rated the degree of complexity and order in each picture using a 5-

point scale (1 - a very small amount to 5 – a very high amount). Subjects were

presented with definitions of order and complexity found in the literature, which were

validated as applicable to the studied contexts in open interviews with architects and

laypeople. Subjects had no problem providing the requested rankings.

Emotions

Pleasantness, arousal and dominance were measure with a set items derived

from the scale suggested by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) and mildly adapted to fit

the context. All items were rated on a 5-point bipolar scale, wherein the emotion and

an opposite emotion comprised the two ends of the scale. The measure of

pleasantness comprised the following items: pleasant, enjoyable, convenient and

satisfying (Cornbach’s Alpha = .73). Arousal was measured with the following items:

interesting, active, awake, alert and boring (Cornbach’s Alpha = .62). The relatively

low reliability of the arousal index is acceptable, given the exploratory nature of the

study (Moye and Hincade 2002).

In addition to pleasantness and arousal, we also included items measuring the

third dimension of the Meharabian and Russell model – dominance, although

dominance has never been studied in the context of complexity and order. This

measure was included in an exploratory mode, since no expectations were set with

respect to it but it had been found to be a valid predictor of approach-avoidance

behaviors of consumers (Foxall and Greenlay 1998; 1999). Dominance was therefore

measured using the following items: weak, in-control, safe, strong and important

(Cornbach’s Alpha = .70).

Approach Tendencies
 Store environment – page 16

The index of approach tendencies comprised 5 items on a 5-point scale (1 – a very

small amount to 5 – a very high amount). The comprised items suggested by Russell

and Mehrabian (1978), Donovan and Rossiter (1982) and Foxall and Greenlay (1998).

Two items measured approach (1) “To what extent would you enjoy to explore or

investigate this place?” (2) “To what extent would you feel friendly and interested in

talking to other people near you if you found yourself in this place?” Three additional

items measured avoidance and were reverse coded in the data analysis: (3) “To what

extent would you try to leave this place as soon as you could?” (4) “To what extent

would you avoid getting back to this place after you had left it?” and (5) “To what

extent would you avoid any unplanned activityin this place?” (Cornbach’s Alpha = .79).

Results

Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among the study variables

are presented in Table 1. All analyses are based on index calculations as described in

the methods section.

Insert Table 1 about here

Complexity, Order and Emotions

The first hypothesis predicted that complexity of a store environment will bear

a positive relationship to consumer arousal and a curvilinear relationship to consumer

pleasantness. A positive correlation was observed between complexity and arousal, as

evident in Table 1, supporting this hypothesis.

 Store environment – page 17

Table 1 reveals the lack of a significant correlation between pleasantness and

complexity. However, this may be because of a suppression effect of dominance. A

salient finding in Table 1 is the strong relationship between dominance and both

complexity and pleasantness. These high correlations suggest a possibility that

dominance act as a suppressing variable, masking any relationship between

complexity and pleasantness. A partial correlation computed between complexity and

pleasantness controlling for dominance was used to test this assumption, and it

confirmed a highly significant negative correlation between pleasantness and

complexity (r= -.6283, p< .01). This reaffirms the suppressing effects of dominance,

though it leaves a question about the validity of the curvilinear relationship.

In order to identify the precise predictors of pleasantness, a hierarchical

regression was performed, in which order and dominance were entered first, and

complexity was added next. A comparison of the explained variance produced by the

two models provides an indication of the extent to which complexity (the variable

entered only to the second model) is a significant predictor. This comparison was

significant (F (1,20) = 9.777, p< .01). Thus, the first model confirms that order and

dominance are predictors of pleasantness (þ coefficient of order = .539, p< .001; þ

coefficient of dominance = .676, p< .001; R2= .725). The second model confirms that

pleasantness is also predicted by complexity (þ coefficient of order = .423, p< .01; þ

coefficient of dominance = .886, p< .001; þ coefficient of complexity = -.383, p< .01;

R2 = .813).

The second hypothesis predicted that order of a store environment will bear a

negative relationship to consumer arousal and a positive relationship to consumer

pleasantness. This hypothesis was fully confirmed by the data. Table 1 confirms a

significant negative correlation between order and arousal, and a significant positive
 Store environment – page 18

correlation between order and pleasantness, as predicted. A regression analysis of

predictors of consumer emotions summarized in Table 2 also confirmed that order is a

significant predictor of consumer arousal and pleasantness.

In short, the results provided partial support for the first hypothesis and fully

supported the second hypothesis. Complexity was found to have a negative

relationship with arousal as expected, but could not be shown to have a curvilinear

relationship with pleasantness. Order of store environment was shown to have a

positive relationship with pleasantness and a negative relationship with arousal, as

expected. Insert Table 2 about here

Approach Behavior Tendencies

Our third hypothesis predicted that the complexity of a store environment will

bear a curvilinear relationship to consumer approach tendencies, and that this

relationship will be mediated by consumer’s arousal and pleasantness.

A first regression analysis confirmed a linear relationship between all three

emotions and ratings of approach tendencies, as summarized in Table 3. This is a first

step in the mediation argument of this hypothesis, as predicted by Meharabian and

Russell (1974).

In order to fully test the hypothesis of a curvilinear relationship we

used a nonlinear (quadratic) model, which is based on entering two predictors to the

model: the original predictor aInndsetrhteFpigreudriect2oarbsoqutarheedr.e This analysis revealed a

marginally significant result. When complexity squared was entered as a predictor of

approacFhinteanlldye,naciheise,rathrcehm
icoadlerelgwreassm
ioanrgainnallylsyis iw
gnaisfiucsaendt t(oþ tceosetfwfihceiethnetr=e-m3o.7t4io,nps =.

i0n8d;eRed2 =m.e2d0i8a)t.e Tthheisrerelalatitoionnsshhipipbiestw

greaepnhiccoam
llypldexepitiyctaenddinapFpirgouarceh2r,aw
tinhgicsh. Irnevtheaisls an

increase in complexity and approach tendencies until an optimal level of moderate

complexity is reached. From this point an increase in complexity is associated with a

 Store environment – page 19

analysis, complexity and complexity squared were added as predictors to a linear

model where the emotions are the predictors of approach tendencies (see table 3). A

comparison of the two models confirmed that the addition of the complexity variables

did not make a significant contribution to the explained variance (F (2,18) = 2.874, p >

.10). This lack of significance means that complexity does not contribute to the

prediction of approach behavior beyond the prediction provided by the emotions,

confirms the hypothesized mediating role of emotions. These results support our third

hypothesis.

A final set of analyses addressed the relationship between order and approach

tendencies, about which no specific hypotheses could be postulated. Order was

significantly correlated both with arousal and with pleasantness, suggesting that

arousal and pleasantness may act as suppressor variables masking the relationship

between order and approach tendencies. Partial correlation in which arousal and

pleasantness are held constant indeed revealed a positive correlation between order

and approach tendencies (r= .4145, p= .055).

Furthermore, since both complexity and order independently predicted

approach tendencies, the effect of the interaction between them was explored.

Previous research has examined the effects of this interaction on preferences but not

in internal environments and not with regards to behavior tendencies (Nasar 1987).

An analysis of variance revealed a marginally significant effect of this interaction

(between complexity and order) on approach tendencies (F(4,15) = 2.795, p = .064), see

Figure 3). The analysis revealed that the highest approach reports were associated

with a combination of moderate complexity and high order. A multivariate analysis

with emotions as covariates was performed to see if the emotions mediate this
 Store environment – page 20

interaction. In this analysis the interaction (between complexity and order) on

approach tendencies was found to be not significant (F(4,12) =1.903, p>.10),

confirming the mediating role of the emotions.

Insert figure 3 about here

It is important to note that although the relationship between the store

environment variables of complexity and order and consumers’ approach tendencies

did not reach a commonly accepted level of significance (p<.05), the observed level of

significance may be an artifact of the relatively small sample (N=24). That the

direction of the relationship is as predicted by our hypotheses is suggestive that larger

samples may reach statistical significance. More generally, all of our results are based

on a combination of two independent sets of ratings – the independent variable

(complexity and order) were obtained from one sample, while the mediating and

dependent variables (emotions and approach tendencies) were obtained from a second

sample. This method strengthens the objective nature of our findings, as it reduces the

effects of shared variance. It also strengthens our confidence that the relationships

predicted by our hypotheses are valid.

Discussion

The current study investigates the relationship between two environmental

qualities- complexity and order - and emotions as well as approach behavior

tendencies of store visitors. The study applies and largely confirms hypotheses drawn
 Store environment – page 21

from prior research on external environments to the study of the internal environment

of stores. There are two significant implications to the study findings: First, the study

confirmed the mediating role of the basic dimensions of emotions predicted by

Mehrabian and Russell (1974). Only a small set of studies report similar findings

(Foxall and Greenley 1998;1999; Biggers and Rankis 1983), making additional

research on this question necessary. The findings reveal, however, a suppression

effect of the dominance dimension, suggesting that additional research is necessary to

unravel the precise nature of the relationship between pleasantness, arousal and

dominance and environmental variables (see also Hluger and Rafaeli 2000). Second,

the findings support Berlyne’s (1971) theory regarding the effects of complexity and

order on pleasantness and arousal. As such, the findings confirm the validity of using

complexity and order as assessments of interior environments.

One hypothesis that we could not confirm was about the relationship between

complexity and pleasantness, where we found a negative linear relationship rather

than the curvilinear relationship predicted by prior theory. A possible explanation of

this finding may be in the distribution of complexity ratings. In our data, ratings of

complexity were predominantly larger than 3 (with a mean of 3.41 and a median of

3.38), suggesting that most of the stimuli were viewed by our respondents as

representing moderate to high complexity. The observed negative linear relationship

between complexity and pleasantness may be because the stimuli belong to the negative side of

the inverted “U distribution.” The low level of pleasantness that our subjects

reported is not surprising, given that the stimuli were photographs of grocery stores,

and Machleit and Eroglu (2000) found that in the context of grocery stores people

experience low levels of pleasantness. Thus, our data do seem to maintain external

validity regarding the emotions reported.

 Store environment – page 22

Our findings imply that feelings of unpleasantness in grocery stores’ shoppers

may be due to the complexity of the settings. This finding should be taken into

accountIninatdhdeitdioesnigton coofninfitrem
rninalgsatorrelaetniovnirsohnipmbeenttwaenednstore aetnmvoirsopnhm
eren.tTahnedre is a

cem
omotmioonnAs,natshasniusamlsyptustidsoynosftuhtchacteehienudtm
eedraanicntbidoeoinncgbusemtpw
ernetefienrgcfoaem
erlepinllagetxsioiotnyfshpanilpedabsoeartndwtenereersnesvcoeovam
leerpdlethxaitythoef

hsutniogprheleesatnsalvenivrtonenelssmsoef(ncatfp.apW hl.aev2ris0o’0ra0sp)w
nrdoiarctcozhnesbtueam .pM
reoreacihnlbethietohasanevdionErsrttaoengnclduesn(2tch0iea0st0.c)oTam
dhdebiftnhineadt itm
nhgeosderate

cem
olem
aortpliyloensxauiltpyaptw
omritohassphshiegerhrtei onrfdseam
rs,atw
odreheibccyhanpisriem
cvoipnoasucist taceuontnhsw sthearpbsro’euvbtieothhuaesvsieroevrs.eaA
ourim ariracbheletotsenr(U
prlerfiecrhence

i1un9n8dth3eer;scB
taoanrtoeinnxgt1o9of9f4sti;hgH
enrsuef(lfN b7e)htawned1e9nu9rab8as)n.toHsrceue’fsnfm
amtaiaosnanrsah1ni9dp8H esnav(nH
iraoenrndzm
oHgehn1at9na9n(21d)9.c9oH
8n)esrw
uzm
aorgenr(1992)

reem
xtpaolitalieionrnsesdagctaahnianthsm
teleopndvreeirrtaotinelm
m
coeam
nntapsglteehxrasitycarseuatptoepolsiecetostm
iannpgsloeptxht,iam
ctlealim
caim
itnodguetsnhitraeotdfmienam
nfoyortm
rieoatnatsiolansnedattbionugts

tinhceleuenfdoveriermodunelm
tsiieprneledt w
ibteehm
hilaesvioinordroser.rdestrrtuoctpurreesserthviescionm
foprm
etaittiivoenadnvdanfatcaigleit,abteust istuscrhecvoagrnieitiyon

anidghptrocrceeastseinogv.erIltoiasdthfeosrecdoynnsuamiecrs ,thanatdmmoatyivlaetaedptroefdeerleanycsesoffopruercnhvairsoensm
m orenevtsen to

dcheparaarctuterreiszefrdom
bytm
heodsteorraetewciothmopulteaxnity paunrdchhaigsehsobredcearu.sOeuorfdsattiamsuuliggoevsetrltohadt.thAese

dmyennatm
ioincesdaalsboom ivoastet opfeothpeles’tsoareppdreopaacrhtmteenndtsenincioeusrtostiundtyerw
veo,tm naelrenjuvdirgoendmaesnts.

displaying moderate to high complexity, meaning that the grocery store environment

is quite Tcohm
e epflfeexctalorfeacdoym.pSlienxcietyoaunrdfionrddienrgosncobnefhiarm
vieodr tehnedceunrcviielsinceaanr rbelarteiloanteshditpo

bnaevtwigeaetniocnoomrp‘lw
exaiytyfiannddinagp’parcotaivchititeesn.dReensceiaersc,hineresfhfeacvtethfoeuynsdupthpaotrtdtihffeicauslsteierstioin swoafy

fHinudffim
nganaraenedxpHehraienn(c1e9d9a8s) lreesgsaprdleinasgahnitgahnldevmeolsreoafrcooum
sipnlgex(iStytapatrso,dG
ucaitnergslaevboeindaanncde

bHeahrativgio1r9s9.7R;eW
taielneresr s1h9o8u5l)d. W
se eknewra(y1s98to5)recdounccelusduecshtchoam
tw
plhexnitcyu,spteorm
haeprs rteharochugh

sutifm
fiucliaetnitngfrucostgrnaittiiovne,ctahtegyow
riizlaltiaovnoaids sthugegseystetedmbyenWtiirretzlye.tW
al.e(n2e0r0(01)9a8n5d)Hpuroffcmeaendsanbdy

clhaiam
H n i(n1g99t8h)a.t complex places are difficult to navigate, and characteristics of order

(such as legibility or logic) are needed to facilitate way finding. These examples

reaffirm the importance of controlling the levels of complexity and order by retailers

in order to make consumers stay inside a store setting.

Limitations and Future Research

 Store environment – page 23

There are few limitations to this study that should be noted. First, since the

data perStaeicnoenddt,othpehodtaotagrw
apehres cthoellreecitseda frrioskmthaastapmhpolteogorfaspthuidceanntsg,lew,hililcuhmminaaytiroens,troicrt

tshim
e ialpaprlfiaccatboirlsitymoafy thhaevreesinuflltusetoncoetdhethreporepsuullattsi.onIst.isAaslsnootuendclaebaorvteo, w
sthuadteenxtsteanrtethe

pgrhoocteorgyrasphhosppmearns,aagnedtoouacrcsuurbajteclytsrheapdrensoenptrtohbeleam
cturaelaetninvgirtoontmhenetxs.peO
riuenrcpereotfests

cshoonpfiprm
inegdinthtahtessutbojrecstswseapwrethsenptehdotto trhaepm
hs. H
asovwaelivdelry fruetpurreeserensteinagrcthheshsotourledsc.onfirm

tM
heorgeonveerra,liezvaetnioinf othfiosuisr fainthdrienagts, ittowoathserasnadm
om
pliezse.dMaocryoesasnadll H
phinoctoagdreap(2h0s0.2F)u,tfuorre

erexsaem
arpclhe,cfaonuhnodwtheavtedriafdfedrreenstsctohnissupm
roebrlsem
relbatyeudsiifnfgervenidteiomtappoerstaonrcefietoldstsoturedy

emnevtihronomloengtievs arisasbulegsg.eIsnteadddbiytiB
onat,ebsuoinldaing H
onuiB(i1tn9e9r2()1.992) the same questions

asked here could be examined in relation to employees of such services settings.

Employees usually do not receive much attention in studies of store environment. Yet

employees clearly spend a lot of time in this environment and most likely develop

reactions toward the environment. Such reactions deserve focused attention since they

may lead to costly ramifications in the form of absenteeism or turnover.

Finally, the set of stimuli we used represented only grocery stores and not

other internal environments. Wirtz et al. (2000) noted that people associate specific

expectations with specific retail settings, arguing that arousal anticipated in a specific

environment influences the emotions actually experienced in that environment. When

anticipated arousal is high, an interaction between arousal and pleasantness is

observed, while no such interaction is observed when anticipated arousal is low. Our

study settings of supermarket environments can be characterized as high target arousal

in this conceptualization, since people visit supermarkets expect to be active rather

than relaxed. Our findings - that the highest approach tendencies occur with high

order (which is also high pleasantness) and moderate complexity (which is also

moderate arousal) - lend support to the Wirtz et al (2000) claim. Future studies can

investigate these dynamics in additional settings such as other retail outlets, banks, or

restaurants.
 Store environment – page 24

In sum, the current study suggests a different research perspective on store

environments. It shows that complexity and order, and probably other general

variables, can be applied to interior environments. It also reaffirms the relationships

between store environment and approach tendencies mediated by emotions,

confirming their importance to retail setting design.

 Store environment – page 25

References

Baker, J., Levy, M., and Grewal, D. (1992) ‘An Experimental Approach to Making
Retail Store Environmental Decisions’, Journal of Retailing, 68(4): 445-460.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., and Parasuraman, A. (1994). ‘The Influence of Store
Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image’, Journal of Academy of
Marketing Science, 22(4): 328-339.
Baron, R.A. (1994) ‘The Physical Environment of Work Settings: Effects on Task

Performance, Interpersonal Relations, and Job Satisfaction’, Research in

Organizational Behavior, 16: 1-46.
Bateson, J.E.G., and Hui, M.K. (1992) ‘The Ecological Validity of Photographic
Slides and Videotapes in Simulating the Service Setting’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 19: 271-281.
Berlyne, D.E. (1971) Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Norwalk, CT: Appleton-
Centruy-Crofts.
Biggers, T., and Rankis, O.E. (1983) ‘Dominance-Submissiveness as an Affective
Response to Situations and as a Predictor of Approach-Avoidance’, Social
Behavior and Personality, 11(2): 61-69.
Bitner, M.J. (1992) ‘Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical Surrounding on
Customers and Employees’, Journal of Marketing, 56: 57-71.
Donovan, R.J., and Rossiter, J.R. (1982) ‘Store Atmosphere: An Environmental
Psychology Approach’. Journal of Retailing, 58(1): 34-57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., and Nesdale, A. (1994) ‘Store
Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior’, Journal of Retailing, 70(3): 283-294.
Foxall, G.R., and Greenley, G.E. (1998) ‘The Affective Structure of Consumer
Situations’, Environment and Behavior, 30(6): 781-798.
Foxall, G.R., and Grennley, G.E. (1999) ‘Consumers’ Emotional Responses to
Service Environments’, Journal of Business Research, 46: 149-158.
Greenland. S.J., and McGoldrick, P.J. (1994) ‘Atmospherics, Attitudes, and
Behavior: Modeling the Impact of Designed Space’, International Review of
Retail, Distribution, and Consumer Research, 4: 1-16.
Heath, T. (1988) ‘Behavioral and Perceptual Aspects of the Aesthetics of Urban
Environments’, in J.L. Nasar (ed.) Environmental Aesthetics. Theory,
Research, and Applications, Cambridge, UH: Cambridge University Press.
 Store environment – page 26

Heath, T., Smith, S.G., and Lim, B. (2000) ‘Tall Buildings and the Urban Skyline.
The Effect of Visual Complexity on Preferences’, Environment and Behavior,
32(4): 541-556.
Herzog, T.R. (1992) ‘A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Spaces’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12: 237-248.
Huffman, C., and Kahn, B.E. (1998) ‘Variety for Sale: Mass Customization or Mass
Confusion?’, Journal of Retailing, 74(4): 491-513.
Kluger, A., and Rafaeli, A.( 2000) ‘The three dimensions of affective reactions to
physical appearance’, in N. Ashkenasy et al. (eds.) Emotions in the workplace.
Theory, research and practice, Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Machleit, K.A., and Eroglu, S.A. (2000) ‘Describing and Measuring Emotional
Response to Shopping Experience’, Journal of Business Research, 49: 101-11.
Mano, H. (1999) ‘The Influence of Pre-Existing Negative Affect on Store
Purchase Intentions’, Journal of Retailing, 75(2): 149-172.
Markin, R.J., Lillis, C.M., and Narayana, C.L. (1976) ‘Social-Psychological
Significance of Store Space’, Jouranl of Retailing, 52(1): 43-54.
Mattila, A.S., and Wirtz, J. (2001) ‘Congruency of Scent and Music as a Driver of
In-Store Evaluations and Behavior’, Journal of Retailing, 77: 273-289.
Mehrabian, A., and Russell, J.A. (1974) An Approach to Environmental
Psychology, Cambridge: MIT Press.
Moye, L.N. and Kincade, D.H. (2002) ‘Influence of Usage Situations and Consumer
Shopping Orientations on the Importance of the Retail Store Environment’,
International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 12(1):
59-79.
Nasar, J.L. (1987) ‘The Effect of Sign Complexity and Coherence on the Perceived
Quality of Retail Scenes’, Journal of the American Planning Association,
53(4): 499-509.
Nasar, J.L. (1994) ‘Urban Design Aesthetics. The Evaluative Qualities of Building
Exteriors’, Environment and Behavior, 26(3): 377-401.
Nasar, J.L.( 1997) ‘New Developments in Aesthetics for Urban Design’, in G.T.
Moore and R.W. Marans (eds.) Advances in Environment, Behavior and
Design, Vol.4, New York: Plenum Press.
 Store environment – page 27

Nasar, J.L.( 2000) ‘The Evaluative Image of Places’, in W.B. Walsh et al. (eds.)
Person-Environment Psychology (2nd ed), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Nasar, J.L., and Hong, X. (1999) ‘Visual Preferences in Urban Signscapes’,
Environment and Behavior, 31(5): 671-691.
Porteous, J.D. (1997) Environmental Aesthetics. Ideas, Politics and Planning,
London: Routledge..
Russell, J.A., and Mehrabian, A. (1976) ‘Environmental Variables in Consumer
Research’, Journal of Consumer Research, 3: 62-63.
Russell, J.A. and Mehrabian, A. (1978) ‘Approach – Avoidance and Affiliation as
Functions of the Emotion-Eliciting Quality of an Environment’, Environment
and Behavior, 10(3): 355-387.
Russell, J.A. and Pratt, G. (1980) ‘A Description of the Affective Quality
Attributed to Environments’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(2): 311-322.
Russell, J.A., Ward, L.M., and Pratt, G. (1981) ‘Affective Quality Attributed to
Environments. A Factor Analytic Study’, Environment and Behavior,
13(3): 259-288.
Russell, J.A., and Feldman Barrett, L. (1999) ‘Core Affect, Prototypical Emotional
Episodes, and Other Things Called Emotion: Dissecting the Elephant’, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5): 805-819.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A., and Belk Smith, R. (1997) ‘Store Environment and
Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of Consumer Emotions’,
Psychology and Marketing, 14(4): 361-378.
Staats, H., Gatersleben, B., and Hartig, T. (1997) ‘Chang in Mood as a Function of
Environmental Design: Arousal and Pleasure on a Simulated Forest Hike’,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17: 283-300.
Tai, S.H.C and Fung, A.M.C. (1997) ‘Application of an Environmental Psychology
Model to In-Store Buying Behavior’, International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, 7(4): 311-337.
Takahashi, S. (1995) ‘Aesthetic properties of pictorial perceptions’, Psychological
Review, 102(4): 671-683.
 Store environment – page 28

Turley, L.W., and Miliman, R.E. (2000) ‘Atmospherics Effects on Shopping

Behavior: A Review of the Experimental Evidence’, Journal of Business
Research, 49: 193-211.
Ulrich, R.S.( 1983) ‘Aesthetics and Affective Response to Natural Environment’,
in I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (eds.) Behavior and the Natural
Environment: Human Behavior and the Environment, Advances in Theory
and Research, Vol. 6, New York: Plenum.
Ward, L.M., and Russell J.A. (1981) ‘The Psychological Representation of
Molar Physical Environments’, Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 110(2): 121-152.
Wener, R.E.( 1985) ‘The Environmental Psychology of Service Encounters’, in J.A.
Czepiel, M.R. Solomon and C.F. Surprenant (eds.) The Service Encounter.
Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Business, Lexington:
Heath and Company.
Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S., and Tan, R.L.P. (2000) ‘The Moderating Role of Target-
Arousal on the Impact of Affect on Satisfaction – an Examination in the
Context of Service Experiences’, Journal of Retailing, 76(3): 347-365.
Wohlwill, J.F.( 1976) ‘Environmental Aesthetics: The Environment as a Source of
Affect’, in, I. Altman and J.F. Wohlwill (eds.) Human Behavior and the
Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, Vol. 1, New York: Plenum.

View publication stats