Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Scents in the marketplace: explaining

a fraction of olfaction
Paula Fitzgerald

Journal of Retailing

Cite this paper Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Effect s of Gender-Congruent Ambient Scent on Approach and Avoidance Behaviors in a Ret ai…
Eric Spangenberg

Gender-congruent ambient scent influences on approach and avoidance behaviors in a ret ail st ore
Eric Spangenberg, Bianca Grohmann

A sense of t hings t o come: Fut ure research direct ions in sensory market ing
Ant onios St amat ogiannakis, Cindy Caldara, Vict or Barger
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228459756

Scents in the marketplace:

Explaining a fraction of olfaction

Article · June 1999

DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4359(99)00007-X

CITATIONS READS

120 780

2 authors:

Paula Fitzgerald Pam Scholder Ellen

West Virginia University Georgia State University
29 PUBLICATIONS 1,033 CITATIONS 35 PUBLICATIONS 2,229 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paula Fitzgerald on 01 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Scents in The Marketplace: Explaining a Fraction
of Olfaction

PAULA FITZGERALD BONE, PH. D.

West Virginia University

PAM SCHOLDER ELLEN, PH. D.

Georgia State University

The popular and business press is enamored with the idea that the sense of smell can have
strong effects on consumer responses to retail environments. The claims that odors have
strong persuasive powers tantalize retailers looking for the competitive edge. Herein, we
review the current paradigm of retailing-relevant olfaction research and find that “con-
ventional wisdom” does not allow researchers or retailers to reliably predict olfaction
effects. We suggest accessibility and availability theories as a way of explaining the current
empirical research and as a method by which we can increase the reliability of capturing
olfactory effects. We conclude by identifying fruitful areas of research in this interesting
stimuli–that which we smell.

INTRODUCTION

“A growing number of marketers are recognizing that the sense of smell can . . . be a
powerful motivator for sales. . .”
–Maxine Wilkie (1995)
“Research is now making strides to discover and manufacture odors that can be used . . .
to control the consumer’s emotions and thought processes.”
–Dr. Alan Hirsch (1989)
It’s in the news, prevalent in folklore and increasingly in the business press: “Smell sells.”
It is clear that many retailers believe that the right scent can positively impact customers’
behavior. The business press reports that scent increased the desirability of Nike athletic
shoes (press reports of Hirsch and Gay’s 1991 investigation), resulted in consumers
spending greater amounts of time in a jewelry store (press reports of Knasko’s 1989

Paula Fitzgerald Bone, West Virginia University, PO Box 6025, Morgantown, WV 26506 – 6025; Tel: (304)
293–7959; ^pbone@wvu.edu&

Journal of Retailing, Volume 75(2) pp. 243–262, ISSN: 0022-4359

Copyright © 1999 by New York University. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

243
244 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

investigation), and increased bakery sales by 300% (Hirsch, 1991). Indeed, retailers have,
in recent years, used olfaction to try to influence consumers in a variety of ways such as
in-store displays that scent the surrounding air (Macy’s use of scent-dispensing kiosks;
Power, 1998) and planned distribution systems for in-store odors (e.g., Superdrug’s use of
an ambient chocolate odor during Mother’s Day promotions; Brand Strategy, 1998).
Yet, while odors seemingly pervade the marketplace, there is limited academic research
that captures odor effects. Indeed, controlled experimental examinations more often
(63.2%) report null effects than significant effects. The problem for retailers and academic
researchers, then, becomes one of separating what is really likely to happen from the
hyperbole surrounding touted odor effects.
Here, we examine the effects of scents in the retail environment, excluding scents that
are central attributes of products (e.g., perfumes and air fresheners). We develop a
paradigm representative of current olfactory research effects relevant to a retail setting and
examine the evidence supporting that paradigm. We then review 206 tests of olfactory
effects found in 22 studies of the delineated relationships. The details for classifying the
studies and results are provided in the Appendix. We offer a theoretical rationale for the
observed olfaction effects (or the lack thereof) and, finally, identify areas of promising
research.

CONVENTIONAL ACADEMIC WISDOM

The myth associated with odor’s potential effect on consumers is strong that odors operate
subliminally, that they directly affect emotion and that they strongly influence sales. Those
propositions do not hold up under the scrutiny of experimental research. However, upon
exploring the studies in this area, it appears that academic researchers have collectively
expressed some common beliefs about how odors can operate to influence consumers. A
representation of that “conventional wisdom” is presented in Figure 1.
Three dimensions of an odor are felt to be important: its presence (or absence), its
pleasantness and its fit or congruity with the object studied. Odors are hypothesized to
affect consumers by changing approach/avoidance behaviors, altering mood state and
affecting elaboration. Additionally, odors are anticipated to influence the components of
the tripartite attitudinal model: the affective and cognitive responses as well as behavior
toward the place or object. Finally, researchers identify many moderators. These moder-
ators can be divided into two classes: individual characteristics (e.g., gender) and context
effects (e.g., a stressful task).
Below, we overview each of the three major dimensions of odor in light of the existing
theories of how odors work. We then examine whether the empirical evidence supports
conventional wisdom.

Presence of a Scent

Why might the presence of a scent affect a consumer’s response toward a shopping
item, a retail environment or even impact the consumer’s overt behavior? Hvastja and
Scents in the Marketplace 245

FIGURE 1
Conventional Wisdom View of Olfactory Effects

Zanuttinit (1991) suggest that one of the primary roles of olfaction cues is to, “heighten
awareness: it alerts the organism to existence of agents in the air, to check their quality for
guidance of behavior on the basis of previous encounters, to avoid or approach certain
substances” (p. 883). Therefore some consumer response may be an uncomplicated
behavioral response (i.e., approach/avoidance (c.f., Spangenberg, Crowley, and Hender-
son, 1996)). Simple approach/avoidance could occur because olfactory cues are processed
in a more primitive portion of the brain rather than in higher-level centers as occurs with
other sensory cues (Herz and Engen, 1996). Odors require little, if any, cognitive effort to
be experienced (Ehrlichman and Halpern, 1988) and basic behavioral responses can occur
without conscious attention. For example, respiration deepens in the presence of a pleasant
odor (Takagi, 1989). Conversely, the presence of an unpleasant odor halts breathing and
even causes physical withdrawal (Levine and McBurney, 1986).
In addition to a purely autonomic response, ambient odors may influence a consumer
through mood state. While strong emotional responses to olfactory stimuli are relatively
rare or idiosyncratic (Ehrlichman and Bastone, 1992; Rubin, Groth, and Goldsmith, 1984),
many researchers suggest odors affect moods and mild affective states. Indeed, mood and
affect shifts are the most frequently suggested mediators of olfaction effects (cf., Baron,
1990; Cann and Ross, 1989; DeBono, 1992; Ehrlichman and Bastone, 1992; Ellen and
Bone, 1999). Such mood effects may be a pure sharing of hedonic tone. In that case,
pleasant odors lead to pleasant mood states while unpleasant odors lead to unpleasant
states (Ehrlichman and Bastone, 1992).
Alternatively, mood shifts may result from “the complex meaning of previous social
246 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

experience with odors” (Kirk–Smith and Booth, 1987; p. 159). These learned associations
are ones common to larger groups of people, representing connections between the scent
and certain foods (e.g., oranges, chocolate), products with natural or artificial scents (e.g.,
Playdoh® and bubblegum), places (e.g., home), and events or time periods (e.g., Christ-
mas, birthdays, childhood). Given the opportunity and the availability of resources, odors
may aid in retrieval of stored information and increase elaboration about the target object
(c.f., Mitchell, Kahn, and Knasko, 1995). Assuming such elaboration is positive, one
could expect a positive shift in affect.
Thus, conventional wisdom offers three mechanisms by which olfactory cues may work
in a retailing environment: approach/avoidance, hedonic mood shifts and cognitive
elaboration. Does the empirical evidence support this? Table 1 contains the findings from
those studies examining the presence of a scent on consumer responses. All the studies
reviewed here included a no-odor control group. Surprisingly, there are no studies that
explicitly measured scent presence effects on physical approach/avoidance tendencies.

Scent Present ➔ Mood Relationship

Mood is typically conceived as two dimensions: (1) arousal, an activation state

measured, for instance, with Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974) arousal dimension or
measures of anxiety or sleepiness and (2) valence, its pleasantness or unpleasantness
measured, for instance, with Mehrabian and Russell’s pleasure dimension or measures of
feeling good or bad.
As shown in Table 1 only a small percentage (16.1%) of the tests show any effects on
either of these mood dimensions. Significant effects were found either for evaluative tasks,
where the odor was ambient or one of several cues available for fulfilling the tasks (i.e.,
simulated shopping or other cognitive tasks), or for memories evoked by a battery of odors

TABLE 1
Effects of Scent Presence/Absence on Consumers’ Response
Total Number of Statistically Significant
Tested Not Statistically Findings
Relationships Significant Findings Direct Inverse
Approach/Avoidance 0
Mood: Arousal 12 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%)
Valence 19 16 (84.2%) 3 (15.8%) 0 (0.0%)
Elaboration 36 21 (58.3%) 8 (22.2%) 7 (19.4%)
Affective Response 18 8 (44.4%) 6 (33.3%) 4 (22.2%)
Evaluative Response 26 16 (61.5%) 7 (26.9%) 3 (11.5%)
Intent 7 4 (57.1%) 3 (42.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Behavior: Time 6 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%)
Information Search 9 8 (88.9%) 1 (11.1%) 0 (0.0%)
Choice 10 8 (80.0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Total 143 93 (65.0%) 34 (23.7%) 16 (11.1%)
Scents in the Marketplace 247

where the effects are dependent on the specific odor’s ability to elicit associations in the
consumers’ memory and the focus of the study is the odor itself. Mood arousal was
affected in one of three odor-evoked memory tests and for females only in a photo rating
task. Mood valence was influenced by odor presence/absence in three cognitive tasks, all
moderated by either high stress, prior mood state, locus of control or the specific odors
used.

Scent Present ➔ Cognitive Elaboration

Many researchers examined variables indicative of elaboration, defined from both a

discursive processing (using words; c.f., Kisielius and Sternthal, 1984) and imagery
processing (using images; c.f., MacInnis and Price, 1987) perspective. Elaboration is a
continuum ranging from simple processing (such as directing one’s mental resources to a
stimulus) to more elaborate processing (such as integrating incoming information into
prior knowledge structures; MacInnis and Price, 1987). Elaboration may be measured by
simple recognition or recall of information, or by reports of imagining or remembering
themselves (self-referencing) using the product, new, enhanced or more vivid descriptions
of the stimuli, or the generation of counterarguments to the message.
The reported elaboration studies examined either memories evoked by batteries of
odors or olfactory effects during evaluative tasks. The majority of significant elaboration
tests (75%) examined odor-evoked memories; thus, the effects are dependent on the
specific odors’ ability to elicit associations in the consumer’s memory. The remaining
studies involved evaluation tasks where the odor was ambient or one of several cues
available. While many different indicators of elaboration were used in these tests, the
significant findings were those measuring thoughts about the spokesperson or self-
references. The null effects measured recall and inferences about the message claims.
As shown in the Figure, approach/avoidance, mood and elaboration are typically
viewed as mediators of olfactory effects on many traditional measures of response to retail
environments (i.e., affective and evaluative response, intentions, and behavior). Since
direct tests of mediation are relatively rare,1 we look at the tests of direct relationships
between scent presence and these important outcome variables.

Scent Presence ➔ Affective and Evaluative Responses

We defined affective responses as like/dislike responses to a stimulus whereas evalu-

ative responses are more attribute- or quality-related. Thus, a measure asking how much
the subject liked the product would be classified as an affective response and a measure
which asked whether the room was comfortable or a product was of high quality would
be considered an evaluative response.
As shown in Table 1, the majority of tests of affective response (55.6%) are statistically
significant, and all of them involved ratings of people, products or the environment. Null
effects were found for ratings of odor-evoked memories. The significant results are
predominantly moderated by gender (females rating more positively than males), char-
248 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

acteristics of the rated person (more positive ratings for less formal attire) and specific
scents. Spangenberg, et al., (1996) provide the most direct evidence of ambient odor
effects in a retail environment with scent presence positively affecting overall ratings of
a simulated store and of the store environment.
Evaluation was examined in 26 tests and the majority of effects (61.5%) were null.
Again, the effects that are significant are moderated by several variables including gender,
attire of the rated person, motivation to process, and scent fit.

Scent Present ➔ Purchase Intentions

Intentions to visit/return to the store and purchase various products were positively
affected by scent in 43% of the tests. In the marketing-related tests, respondents showed
greater likelihood to visit the store and purchase two out of four target products.

Scent Present ➔ Behavior

Behavioral measures were divided into three categories: time spent, information search
and choice. Two-thirds of the tests showed significant effects on time spent. Apparently,
presence of a scent actually decreased information-search time (Mitchell, et al. 1995) but
increased perceived time in the simulated store (Spangenberg, et al., 1996).
Researchers used many different measures of search ranging from the number tags
examined to the pattern used to acquire information (e.g., holistic). Compared to time
spent, there is little evidence of odor effects on information search with only one
significant effect. There was greater search of product tags for one of seven products
reported in Spangenberg et al. (1996), perhaps also indicating a difference in personal
relevance.
Choice measures included choice among brands and measures of variety seeking and
switching behavior. The two significant findings occurred in a replication study by
Mitchell, et al., (1995) where the initial tests were null. Thus, using the same procedures,
principal investigators, and identical dependent variables, the authors did not replicate
their own findings.

Summary of Scent Presence Effects

Evidence is stacked against the proposition that the simple presence of an odor affects
a retail customer’s behavior. The research provides no direct evidence of approach/
avoidance effects and very limited support for mood change when an odor is present.
Elaboration effects are more common but were largely dependent on the task subjects
were completing (i.e., odor-evoked memories). There is more evidence of affective than
evaluative odor effects, yet, many of the effects are moderated. Also there are some odor
effects on intentions to visit and purchase some, but not all, products. For behavior, the
stronger evidence is of effects on time spent but less actual time spent on search and
Scents in the Marketplace 249

increased perceptions of time spent. There was little effect on actual search and choice. It
appears that as we move through the traditional hierarchy-of-effects, the impact of odors
on consumers’ response lessens.
Before proceeding, one caveat about interpreting scent-present results is necessary. In
many cases, there was no information on the degree of pleasantness or congruity of the
odor with the stimulus or context. In other cases, scent-present conditions collapsed across
degrees of pleasantness or fit. Thus, there may be more guidance from the tests of odor
pleasantness and congruity described subsequently. We now turn to other tested dimen-
sions of odor.

Scent Pleasantness

Just as music and pictures can be identified by certain primary characteristics (e.g., tone,
beat, shape, color), there are two primary but related characteristics of odors: quality and
intensity. Quality refers to the affective tone of an odor ( i.e., its perceived pleasantness
or unpleasantness) (Harper, Bate–Smith, and Land, 1968; Takagi, 1989). Intensity refers
to the concentration of an odor (Takagi, 1989). Generally, as the intensity of a scent
increases, its pleasantness decreases; that is, an odor in low concentrations may be
perceived as pleasant while the same odor in high concentration could be considered
noxious (Henion, 1971).
If, as suggested before, the effects of scent are based on the sharing of hedonic tone,
then it follows that the more pleasant (unpleasant) the scent, the stronger and more
positive (negative) the effects on moods and evaluations. These positive or negative mood
states color one’s judgments of, or can be transferred to, unrelated focal objects (c.f., Isen
and Shalker, 1982; Petty, Schumann, Richman, and Strathman, 1993).
We now review the empirical evidence of scent pleasantness effects on consumers. As
can be seen from Table 2, there is less empirical work studying these relationships (14.8%
of all tests) than studying the effects of scent presence (68.4% of all tests). Again, there
were no studies of approach/avoidance effects nor were there any tests on intent or
behavior.

Scent Pleasantness ➔ Mood

While no tests indicate that a more pleasant scent resulted in mood arousal, we do see
a direct effect of pleasantness for six of ten tests on mood valence. The significant effects
occurred during specific cognitive or negotiation tasks while the null effects were found
in attractiveness-rating tasks and simulated shopping experience. This, then, provides
some support for researchers’ belief that scent valence positively influences mood valence.

Scent Pleasantness ➔ Cognitive Elaboration

Only one test of this relationship was found and it was null. It is thus premature to draw
any conclusions about this link at this time.
250 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

TABLE 2
Effects of Scent Pleasantness/Unpleasantness on Consumers’ Response
Total Number of Statistically Significant
Tested Not Statistically Findings
Relationships Significant Findings Direct Inverse
Approach/Avoidance 0
Mood: Arousal 6 6 (100%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Valence 10 4 (40.0%) 6 (60.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Elaboration 1 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Affective Response 6 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0.0%)
Evaluative Response 8 5 (62.5%) 3 (37.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Intent 0
Behavior: Time 0
Information Search 0
Choice 0
Total 31 20 (64.5%) 11 (35.5%) 0 (0.0%)

Scent Pleasantness ➔ Affective Response

Only a few researchers explored this relationship. Significant results were found for an
evoked-imagery study and a negotiation task. Interestingly, the study most in line with
retail atmospherics (Spangenberg, et al., 1996) reported two null findings.

Scent Pleasantness ➔ Evaluative Response

Evidence of a direct relationship between scent pleasantness and evaluative response is

mixed. Significant effects are reported for the evaluation of a scented room and one of
several products.

Summary of Scent Pleasantness Effects

We have evidence that greater (or lesser) pleasantness leads to more (or less) positive
mood valence and limited evidence that pleasantness affects evaluative responses to an
environment or object. Importantly, all the findings are consistent in that the relationships
are always direct–never do we find a pleasant (unpleasant) odor having a negative
(positive) affect on consumers. Additionally, at lower levels of processing (i.e., mood as
opposed to judgment) the evidence that scent pleasantness influences consumers is
stronger.
Scents in the Marketplace 251

Scent Congruity/Fit with the Target Oject

Cue congruity or fit refers to how well the cue complements the other components of
a marketing stimulus (cf., MacInnis and Park, 1991). Some odors, although generally
perceived as pleasant, may be viewed as inappropriate in a particular context. In other
words, in the consumer’s eyes (or nose) the odor just does not “fit” with the product.
Pomerantz (1981) suggests that when the cue does not fit, different components of the
consumer’s experience compete for cognitive resources and, thus, may inhibit attitudinal
judgments. Incongruent odors may result in the consumer retrieving irrelevant informa-
tion, thus interfering with processing of relevant information. However, when the cue or
odor fits, retrieval of stored information and judgments may be facilitated (Mitchell, et al.,
1995).
Scent congruity is a primary focus in the retailing and marketing studies of olfaction
(Bone and Jantrania, 1992; Ellen and Bone, 1999; Mitchell, et al., 1995; Spangenberg, et
al., 1996). Information contained in Table 3 shows the existing research on scent
congruity. Once more, we found no studies of scent fit effects on approach/avoidance.
Additionally, there are no tests of affective response or intention.

Congruity ➔ Mood

Only one study has examined mood effects under different congruity conditions (Ellen
and Bone, 1999). In a better-fit condition, there was a positive shift in mood valence.

TABLE 3
Effects of Scent Fit/Congruity or Familiarity on Consumers’ Response
Total Number of Statistically Significant
Tested Not Statistically Findings
Relationships Significant Findings Direct Inverse
Approach/Avoidance 0
Mood: Arousal 0
Valence 1 0 (0.0%) 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Elaboration 12 9 (75.0%) 3 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Affective Response 0
Evaluative Response 7 4 (57.1%) 3 (42.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Intent 0
Behavior: Time 2 1 (50.0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Information Search 2 1 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (50.0%)
Choice 10 4 (40.0%) 5 (50.0%) 1 (10.0%)
Total 34 19 (55.8%) 13 (38.2%) 2 (5.8%)
252 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

Congruity ➔ Elaboration

Consistent with scent-presence effects, greater elaboration was found for three out of
four imagery measures and one out of two self-referencing measures. As in the scent-
present conditions, the remaining nulls were for claim-related measures (i.e., recall).2

Congruity ➔ Evaluative Response

These tests were almost equally split between direct effects and null. Tests using global
product evaluations were significant while those using specific attribute ratings were not.

Congruity ➔ Behavior

Mitchell et al., (1995) performed several tests of the relationship between congruity and
behavior hypothesizing a distraction effect when the odor was inconsistent with the task.
They found that more total time was spent in a congruent condition but that there was less
variability in the information search, more brand switching and more subjects chose a
poorer quality brand.

Summary of Congruity Effects

There were no tests of approach-avoidance and only limited evidence of mood effects.
Congruity effects on elaboration and evaluation are weak; there were more significant
behavioral responses, yet these were more likely negative effects on decision-making
behaviors. Careful examination of the empirical tests of congruity shows that the reported
results often are not the result of a better-fitting scent boosting evaluations of the
environment/object evaluations. Instead, the reported effects are more often due to the
detrimental effects of an incongruent odor. Inconsistent conditions produced less imagery
(Wolpin and Weinstein, 1983) and lower ad evaluations (Ellen and Bone, 1999) while
there were no differences between the congruent and no-odor control groups. Only Bone
and Jantrania’s (1992) investigation provides positive evidence of fit effects. Specifically,
they found that the better-fitting odor for two different products resulted in more positive
overall evaluations than either the no-odor control or the lower-fit odor.

INTEGRATION AND SYNTHESIS OF OLFACTORY FINDINGS:

APPLYING ACCESSABILITY AND AVAILABILITY THEORIES

Can we make sense of the large number of null and contradictory results, while accounting
for some of the consistencies? The conventional wisdom is not significantly upheld in the
Scents in the Marketplace 253

empirical results. Instead, it seems that important variables are missing from our current
model. To enhance our understanding, we suggest accessibility and availability theories,
with their components, valence and diagnosticity.
Accessibility (Feldman and Lynch, 1988) and availability (Kisielius and Sternthal,
1984; 1986) theories suggest that information actively accessed from the environment or
available from long-term memory has the greatest influence on the consumers’ attitudes
and judgments.3 These theories suggest that individuals elaborate upon incoming envi-
ronmental information by relating the information to previously stored, activated infor-
mation.
Two characteristics of information affect a consumer’s judgment and behavior. First is
the valence of that information–whether the environmental information and/or the infor-
mation retrieved from memory is positive, negative or neutral. This seems to be a good fit
with the olfaction research due to the fact that the primary nature of odors is pleasant (i.e.,
positive) or unpleasant (i.e., negative). From our review, we have evidence, albeit mixed,
that exposure to odors sometimes affects retrieval and processing of information, thus
having the ability to activate information stored in memory.
The second characteristic of information is its diagnosticity–the degree to which the
information is helpful in categorizing (i.e., high quality, low quality) or interpreting the
product or service. Herr, Kardes, and Kim (1991), based on earlier work by Feldman and
Lynch (1988), suggest that diagnosticity is a function of the ambiguity of the information,
the valence of the information and the amount of other information available to the
consumer.
Olfactory information can be quite ambiguous, compared to other cues (e.g., words,
pictures and sounds). Scents are difficult to recognize and label (Schab, 1991) and can
produce false alarms (Engen, 1972). This lack of clarity when interpreting odors is
exacerbated by the fact that surrounding cues also affect consumers’ ability to detect and
recognize odors (Davis, 1981). As an example, the ability to recognize a lemon scent is
greater when the scent is presented in a yellow liquid as opposed to a red liquid. Finally,
olfaction researchers themselves have suggested that “response to these odours will
depend on circumstances and contexts, and these cannot be easily specified” (Kirk–Smith,
1994). All of this suggests that olfactory stimuli are rather ambiguous.
One will note that valence of information has now entered into our discussion twice.
Not only would one expect more positive judgments and more approach behaviors when
information is positive than when it is negative, but consumers tend to over-weight
negatively-valenced information since they perceive it to be more diagnostic than posi-
tively-valenced information (c.f., Herr et al., 1991).
The final diagnosticity criterion, the amount of information available, proposes that,
when faced with a situation in which some of the available information is perceived to be
diagnostic and some is felt to be ambiguous, the consumer will rely more heavily on the
more diagnostic information at the expense of the ambiguous information.
The next step is relating the olfaction results found to the above theories, paying
particular attention to the marketing-oriented investigations (e.g., Bone and Jantrania,
1992; Ellen and Bone,1999; Mitchell et al., 1995; Spangenberg et al., 1996). The observed
effect of scent pleasantness on mood valence, is clearly a case of accessible information
being valenced, and in turn, affecting the consumer’s mood. Thus, if one is attempting to
254 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

maximize the effects of odor on mood, one should use the most pleasant odor (for the
particular target market) possible. However, none of the specific marketing studies have
reported such an effect.
Accessibility explains differences in observed elaboration and product judgment when
the diagnosticity and ambiguity of the odor is taken into account. Clearly, odors can make
information more available and greater congruity enhances accessibility to stored infor-
mation and thus elaboration. Congruent cues that add information may enhance product
judgments. Bone and Jantrania (1992) demonstrated that the addition of a consistent scent
influenced product judgments. The scent of household cleansers and suntan lotions may
be indicators of quality because of prior experience and beliefs about these products and
because other attributes and characteristics of the products may have been difficult to
evaluate in the limited experimental setting. However, when congruent odors duplicate
existing information, judgments may not be enhanced. In Ellen and Bone (1999), the
addition of a floral scent to an ad with a picture of wildflowers and related prose provided
little new information and had no effect on product judgment beyond the control group.
Incongruity interferes with elaboration reducing the amount of relevant information
available to the consumer and making the task more difficult (Mitchell et al. 1995). The
addition of incongruent scents to household cleaners and suntan lotions in Bone and
Jantrania (1995) yielded negative effects on judgment. Similarly, Ellen and Bone’s (1999)
addition of a pine scent to the wildflower ad led to a decrease in ad evaluation. Incongruent
odors may cause negative responses because of the interference with elaboration or
because of the greater weight attached to negatively-valenced information. In the latter
case, the odor would have more influence than other positive cues (Herr et al., 1991).
Using these theories also allows us to explain why Spangenberg et al. (1996) found
strong support for ambient odor affecting the retail environment, but weaker effects for the
same ambient odor to influence product judgments. In their study, the simple presence of
a scent had consistent effects positively affecting 21 of 24 individual items regarding the
store, store evaluation and general merchandise measures. The researchers couch these
effects in terms of optimal arousal theory stating that “minor changes in environment, such
as adding a low level of scent, increases the environment’s perceived novelty and
pleasingness” (p. 70). In other words, odors in store environments may be perceived as
diagnostic–they are a part of the atmospherics. Spangenberg et al.’s findings are not as
strong for the three products evaluated (individual tests suggest that only one of three
product evaluations appear to be affected by the scent). It is likely that the scent was not
diagnostic for a particular product because it added no new relevant information to the
consumer. This may have occurred because many of the product characteristics were
likely to be accessible and thus competed with the effect of odor. It may also be that odor
is simply not relevant for calendars and the other products examined in this study.
Mitchell et al.’s (1995) investigation readily falls into the accessibility/availability
framework. These researchers suggest that congruent odors lead to greater access to
congruent attitudes, autobiographical memories, thoughts regarding prior experience with
the product class and product-class knowledge. Incongruent odors result in accessing
incongruent information and, thus create cognitive interference. Their discussion is clearly
based on availability theory arguments. Mitchell et al. (1995) find such effects with
respect to several measures of elaboration and product choice. At this point, however,
Scents in the Marketplace 255

retailers should be hesitant to use ambiant odor to create greater processing because, in
most tests (17 out of 20), the congruent situation resulted in no difference from a no-odor
control.
Finally, the plethora of null olfactory effects could simply be a function of the olfactory
cue’s ambiguity in a particular situation or its inability to compete (i.e., be diagnostic) in
light of other, more diagnostic information. For instance, the cases in which judgments
were unaffected by odor manipulations involved multidimensional stimuli (e.g., shoes, a
person’s physical attractiveness) where other, more pertinent, information may have
competed for resources.

EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS

While accessibility/availability may improve prediction, greater consideration must also

be given to some of the moderated effects and methodological differences found in the
existing studies. Table 4 includes data for some moderators (i.e., gender and directed
attention to odors), method (i.e., sample size), and measurement differences. Results are
for all tests across the independent variables (i.e., combining presence, pleasantness, and
congruity). T-tests of proportions and means are used to test for differences, keeping in
mind that the small samples sizes led to underpowered tests.

Moderators

A large percentage of odor effects were moderated by one or more variables. Acces-
sibility theory would predict the gender differences examined in several studies. Gender
is expected to moderate odor effects because women frequently have more developed
schemas with regard to olfactory cues and have more heightened sensitivity to odors than
do men (Koelega, 1994). While there is evidence in other olfactory literature that women
can detect odors and are, perhaps more sensitive to odors, there were no statistically
significant differences between tests using only men or women (See Table 4). However,
gender should still be considered as we seek to refine olfaction theory.
Greater accessibility and elaboration should occur when consumers are motivated to
process provided information including attending to olfactory cues. In studies where
attention was directed to the presence of an odor, elaboration effects were significantly
more likely. Perhaps directing attention to the odor increased the salience and thought
directed to the odor, and thus motivation to process, so that subjects were compelled to
consider the relevance of the odor to the task at hand. On the other hand, affective
responses were more likely in studies that did not direct attention to the odors. Not
directing attention to the odor may have allowed subjects to simply react more holistically
to the valence of the odor and transfer it to the object.
 256
TABLE 4
Moderator, Methodological and Measurement Explanations for Findings
Significant Gender Effects Drew Attention to Odor Mean Sample Size Specificity of Measures
No Not
Women Men Attention Attention Significant Significant Global Specific
Mood: Arousal 1 (100.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (14.3%) 1 (9.1%) 32** 120.7 1 (33.3%) 1 (6.7%)
Valence 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (36.4%) 7 (35.0%) 85.1 79.0 3 (33.3%) 8 (40.0%)
Elaboration — — 16 (44.4%)* 2 (16.7%) 79.7 91.4 — —
Affective Response 1 (100.0%) 1 (100.0%) 1 (16.7%) 11 (61.1%) 132.9 111.7 8 (61.5%) 0 (0.0%)
Evaluative Response 2 (66.7%) 1 (33.3%) 2 (18.2%) 14 (46.7%) 113.1 129.8 5 (45.5%) 8 (36.3%)

Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

Intent — — 1 (100.0%) 2 (33.3%) 252 185 — —
Behavior: Time — — — 5 (62.5%) 165.4 150.7 — —
Information Search — — — 2 (18.2%) 187.5 224.3 — —
Choice — — — 14 (38.6%) 77.9 77.6 — —
Overall (% of Total) 4 (57.1%) 2 (28.6%) 25 (34.7%) 58 (39.7%) 17 (47.2%)* 17 (28.3%)

* p # .10
Scents in the Marketplace 257

Method Differences

There was substantial variation in sample sizes across the studies with ranges from a
low of 12 to a high of 308. Across all dependent variables, sample size was significant
only for mood arousal effects, and then opposite that expected. In total, it appears that
sample size and the resulting statistical power are poor explanations of differences
between tests.

Measurement Differences

Ehrlichman and Bastone (1992) suggest that different levels of measurement specificity
could determine whether olfactory effects are captured. These researchers suggest that
global measures, notably global mood measures such as good/bad or pleasant/unpleasant,
appear to be more sensitive to changes in mood than are more specific measures (e.g.,
anxious or relaxing). As can be seen in Table 4, there were more significant effects when
global measures were used than when specific measures were used for affective response.
Across all dependent variables there were significantly more effects captured with global
measures. Thus, global measures appear to be more sensitive to odor effects.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

We offer two basic recommendations to guide researchers to more fruitful opportunities

to understand and use odors in retail strategies. The first is to focus on accessibility and
availability theories as a means to more reliably “capture” olfaction effects. The second
recommendation is to develop methodical approaches to explore the gaps in our literature
and resolve the discrepancies in the research findings. This explicitly includes the testing
of mediating processes.

Reliably Capturing Olfaction Effects

Reliably capturing olfaction effects depends heavily on critical tests of odors within the
context of accessibility and availability hypotheses and upon using appropriate dependent
variables. We identified no studies that examined diagnosticity or the effect of competing
cues on olfactory effects. Varying the degree of diagnosticity could be accomplished using
existing beliefs about the relevance of olfactory cues in a product category. Alternatively,
consumers could be trained to use olfactory cues as an indicator of product characteristics
or quality. For instance, Owen-Corning Fiberglass has successfully used the color (pink)
to be used as an indicator of product quality in the fiberglass industry. This pink color is
diagnostic for consumers because the product itself is difficult to evaluate and likely to be
258 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

a credence good. The diagnosticity of odors should improve if we use the odor with
“supporting” cues (e.g., add a yellow color to a lemon-scented product). Additionally, we
must ensure that the environmental and product scents used are not redundant of com-
peting information. Thus, the many dimensions of diagnosticity need to be systematically
tested.
Expectations about relevant outcomes also need to be realistic. For example, significant
effects were more common when evoked imagery measures (e.g., self-referencing, viv-
idness) were used rather than cognitive or learning measures such as recall. As for
behavioral measures, consideration must be paid to the relevant behaviors that may be
affected by mood and elaboration. Time spent is certainly one measure to be included, but
product choices may be too distal for observed effects.
Odors used in these studies should be perceived as congruent for the product or retail
outlet since we have found that incongruent odors have a detrimental effect on the
consumer’s evaluation. While Spangenberg et al. (1996) suggest the use of odors which
are neither congruent nor incongruent but neutral, the real difficulty may be delineating a
scent which is truly neutral and definitely not incongruent. Specifically, incongruent odors
may be diagnostic, but negative, and thus work counter to the retailer’s goals.
In sum, a series of systematic studies examining diagnosticity in various contexts and
using measures more sensitive to odor effects would add greatly to our understanding of
this area. Then academics and practitioners would be able to assess whether olfaction
effects can be predicted reliably. Clearly, we cannot make such predictions at this point
in time. If we fail to find reliable odor effects in contexts for which they should
theoretically be diagnostic and congruent, then it may be time to write the epitaph for the
pursuit of olfaction effects.

Exploration of Gaps

Two clear gaps in our knowledge exist. First, we have little information about the
mediating factors associated with olfaction. From a theoretical standpoint, researchers
need to explicitly examine whether odor effects on affective and behavioral outcomes are
direct or are partially or fully mediated by mood state, cognition or other variables.
Along similar lines, one of the most cited methods by which olfaction should affect
consumers’ is approach/avoidance; yet, we have no explicit tests of odors’ power to create
such a response. Belizzi, Crowley, and Hasty (1983) provide an interesting test of color’s
ability to create approach/avoidance. A similar type of experiment could put odors to the
test. For example, subjects could be allowed to freely move about a simulated retail
environment in which one area had an unpleasant odor, another a pleasant odor while a
final area is left unscented. Time spent in the various areas and the subjects’ relative
positioning of themselves in one area versus another are dependent variables that could
directly assess approach or avoidance.
Scents in the Marketplace 259

CONCLUSION

The empirical evidence reviewed suggests that conventional wisdom makes predicting
specific odor effects (i.e., specific moods, thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors) a risky
business. Counting on such effects is an unwise strategy at this point in time. Yet, more
methodical attention to odor use may change the current situation and allow retailers in the
future to use odor in a strategic manner in a cluttered competitive environment.

Acknowledgement: The authors thank Terence A. Shimp for his guidance on this project and
Deborah J. MacInnis for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We are grateful
to Randy Clark for help with the review. Both authors contributed equally to this paper.

APPENDIX: SELECTION OF STUDIES AND CLASSIFICATION OF RESULTS

Studies included in the analysis of olfactory effects were those examining scent manip-
ulations on cognitive, attitudinal or behavioral variables relevant to retailing. Specifically,
these studies assessed the effects of scent presence, scent pleasantness, or scent fit on
mood, elaboration, affective and evaluative response, intent and behavior (i.e., time spent,
information search, and choice). Findings were classified as tests of presence, pleasance
or fit using all available statistical tests in the articles. Any given test is inherently
confounded with the other traits (e.g., all tests of presence involved scents which are
pleasant/unpleasant to some degree). A complete list of the studies and effects is available
from the authors.
Several criteria were used to determine whether a particular investigation or a particular
variable was included in our review. Excluded from this analysis was the substantial
literature on the ability to detect, label, recognize and recall odors; such variables are of
little interest when attempting to increase customers’ evaluation of a particular store and
its offerings. For similar reasons, we have eliminated findings regarding task performance
(such as greater ability to proofread materials or to correctly complete math problems).
We have also excluded studies that examined only unpleasant odors as retailers are
unlikely to intentionally introduce foul odors into their environment.
When data from multiple scents and a no-odor group are available, we examined the
results separately for all applicable conditions (scent presence, scent pleasantness and/or
scent congruity). In all there were 206 individual test results in the final set of 22 articles.
Individual effects were included and evaluated on the following criteria:

1. Effects were judged significant if they reached conventional levels of statistical

significance (p # 0.05). Post-hoc and univariate results were treated as statistically
significant only if the relevant omnibus test is statistically significant.
2. Results regarding unpleasant odors are included only when the research involved
comparisons to pleasant odors effects.
3. Results from summated items or scales were used rather than the results for all
260 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

individual items composing the scale. Exceptions were made when the set of items
included both cognitive and affective items.

NOTES

1. Only one identified study provided a test of mediation (Ellen and Bone, 1999). They found
that scent pleasantness and mood partially accounted for the effect on attitude-toward-the-ad.
2. Herz and Cupchik (1992) looked at odor familiarity effects on elaboration. Familiarity with
an odor would be a precursor to congruity judgments since familiarity would determine the existence
and nature of the odor’s connections in the person’s schema.
3. Traditionally, accessibility deals with retrieving information from the environment while
availability theory focuses on retrieval from memory. We believe both factors are important when
considering olfaction efffects; therefore, we use both theories.

REFERENCES

Baron, R.A. (1981). “Olfaction and Human Social Behavior: Effects of a Pleasant Scent on
Attraction and Social Perception,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7(4): 611– 616.
. (1983). “‘Sweet Smell of Success?’ The Impact of Pleasant Artificial Scents on Evalua-
tions of Job Applicants,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 58(4): 709 –713.
. (1990). “Environmentally-Induced Positive Affect: Its Impact on Self-Efficacy, Task
Performance, Negotiation, and Conflict,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(5): 368 –384.
. (1992). “Exposure to Pleasant Fragrances as a Technique for Reducing the Effects of
Work-Related Stress,” presented at the Centennial Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC, August.
Belizzi, Joseph A., Ayn E. Crowley, and Ronald W. Hasty. (1983). “The Effects of Color in Store
Design,” Journal of Retailing, 59(1): 21– 45.
Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Swati Jantrania. (1992). “Olfaction as a Cue for Product Quality,”
Marketing Letters, 3(3): 289 –296.
Brand Strategy. (1998). “Sensory Design” July 24. 8 –10.
Cann, Arnie, and Debra A. Ross. (1989). “Olfactory Stimuli as Context Cues in Human Memory,”
American Journal of Psychology, 102(1): 91–102.
DeBono, Kenneth G. (1992). “Pleasant Scents and Persuasion: An Information Processing Ap-
proach,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11):1 910 –919.
Ehrlichman, Howard, and Linda Bastone. (1992). “Olfaction and Emotion.” Pp. 410 – 438 in
Michael Serby and Karen Chobor (Eds.), Science of Olfaction. New York: Springer-Verlag.
, and Jack N. Halpern. (1988). “Affect and Memory: Effects of Pleasant and Unpleasant
Odors on Retrieval of Happy and Unhappy Memories,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55(5): 769 –779.
Ellen, Pam Scholder, and Paula Fitzgerald Bone. (1999). “Olfactory Stimuli as Advertising Exe-
cutional Cues,” Journal of Advertising, 27(4): 29 –39.
Engen, Trygg. (1982). The Perception of Odors. New York: Academic Press.
Feldman, Jack M. John G. Lynch, Jr. (1998). “Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of
Scents in the Marketplace 261

Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3):
421– 435.
Harper, R., E. C. Bate-Smith, and D. G. Land. (1968). Odour Description and Odour Classification:
A Multidisciplinary Examination. New York: American Elsevier Public Company, Inc.
Henion, K. E. (1971). “Odor Pleasantness and Intensity: A Single Dimension,” Journal of Exper-
imental Psychology, 90(2): 275–279.
Herr, Paul M., Frank R. Kardes, and John Kim. (1991). “Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-
Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4): 454 – 462.
Herz, Rachel S. and Gerald C. Cupchik. (1992). “An Experimental Characterization of Odor-Evoked
Memories in Humans,” Chemical Senses, 17(5): 519 –528.
, and Trygg Engen. (1996). “Odor Memory: Review and Analysis,” Psychonomic Bulletin
& Review 3(3): 300 –313.
Hirsch, Alan R. (1989). Expert testimony given at a December 5 public hearing of the State of New
York Senate.
. (1991). “Nostalgia: A Neuropsychiatric Understanding,” presented at the annual meeting
of the Association for Consumer Research Conference, Chicago, Illinois. October.
, and Gay, S. E. (1991). “The Effect of Ambient Olfactory Stimuli on the Evaluation of a
Common Consumer Product,” presented at the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for
Chemoreception Sciences. April.
Hvastja, Loredana, and Luchia Zanuttini. (1991). “Recognition of Nonexplicitly Presented Odors,”
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72(1): 883– 892.
Isen, Alice and Thomas Shalker. (1982). “The Effect of Feeling State on Evaluation of Positive,
Neutral and Negative Stimuli: When You ‘Accentuate the Positive,’ Do You ‘Eliminate the
Negative’?” Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(1): 58 – 63.
Kirk-Smith, M. D. (1994). “Culture and Olfactory Communication.” Pp. 385– 406 in R. Allen
Gardner et al. (Eds.), Ethological Roots of Culture. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
, and D. A. Booth. (1987). “Chemoreception in Human Behavior: Experimental Analysis of
the Social Effects of Fragrances,” Chemical Senses, 12(1): 159 –166.
——-, C. Van Toller, and G. H. Dodd. (1983). “Unconscious Odour Conditioning in Human
Subjects,” Biological Psychology, 17(2/3): 221–231.
Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Sternthal. (1984). “Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in
Attitudinal Judgments,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21(1): 54 – 64.
——-. (1986). Examining the Vividness Controversy: An Availability-Valence Interpretation,“
Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4): 418 – 431.
Knasko, Susan C. (1989). ”Ambient Odor and Shopping Behavior,“ Chemical Senses, 14(94): 718.
. (1992). ”Ambient Odor’s Effect on Creativity, Mood and Perceived Health,“ Chemical
Senses, 17(1): 27–35.
Koelega, Harry S. (1994). ”Sex Differences in Olfactory Sensitivity and the Problem of the
Generality of Smell Acuity,“ Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(1): 203–213.
Laird, Donald A. (1932). ”How the Consumers Estimate Quality by Subconscious Sensory Impres-
sions: With Special Reference to the Role of Smell,“ Journal of Applied Psychology, 16(1):
241–246.
Levine, John M. and Donald H. McBurney. (1986). ”The Role of Olfaction in Social Perception and
Behavior. Pp. 179 –217 in C. Peter Herman et al. (Eds.), Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social
Behavior: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ludvigson, H. Wayne and Theresa R. Rottman. (1989). “Effects of Ambient Odors of Lavender and
Cloves on Cognition, Memory, Affect and Mood,” Chemical Senses, 14(4): 525–536.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and C. Whan Park. (1991). “The Differential Role of Characteristics of Music
262 Journal of Retailing Vol. 75, No. 2 1999

on High- and Low-Involvement Consumer’s Processing of Ads,” Journal of Consumer Research,

18(2): 161–173.
and Price, Linda L. (1987). “The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and
Extensions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4): 473– 491.
Mehrabian, A. and J. A. Russell. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mitchell, Deborah J., Barbara E. Kahn, and Susan C. Knasko. (1995). “There’s Something in the
Air: Effects of Congruent or Incongruent Ambient Odor on Consumer Decision-Making,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 22(2): 229 –238.
Petty, Richard E., David W. Schumann, Steven A. Richman, and Alan J. Strathman. (1993).
“Positive Mood and Persuasion: Different Roles for Affect Under High- and Low-Elaboration
Conditions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(1): 5–20.
Pomerantz, James R. (1981). “Perceptual Organization in Information Processing.” Pp. 141–180 in
Michael Kubovy and James Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organization. Hillsdale, N J: Erlbaum.
Power, Denise. (1998). “Appealing to a Third Sense: Macy’s Kiosks Add Scents,” HFN The Weekly
Newspaper for the Home Furnishing Network, 23 (June 8). 9.
Richardson, Alan. (1991–1992). “Personal Memories: An Exploratory Investigation,” Imagination,
Cognition, and Personality, 11(1): 53–74.
Rubin, David C., Elisabeth Groth, and Debra J. Goldsmith. (1984). “Olfactory Cuing of Autobio-
graphical Memory,” American Journal of Psychology, 97(4): 493–507.
Spangenberg, Eric R., Ayn E. Crowley, and Pamela W. Henderson. (1996). “Improving the Store
Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Behaviors?” Journal of Marketing,
60(2): 67– 80.
Takagi, Sadayuki F. (1989). Human Olfaction. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Lipman, Joanne. Wall Street Journal (1990). “Advertising: Scents that Encourage Buying Couldn’t
Smell sweeter,” (January 9). Sec. B, 5.
Warm, Joel S., William N. Dember, and Raja Parasuraman. (1990). “Effects of Fragrances on
Vigilance Performance and Stress,” Perfumer and Flavorist, 15(January/February): 15–18.
. (1991). “Effects of Olfactory Stimulation on Performance and Stress in a Visual Sustained
Attention Task,” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, 42(3): 199 –210.
Wilkie, Maxine. (1995). “Scent of a Market,” American Demographics, 17(8): August, 40 – 47.
Wolpin, Milton and Charles Weinstein. (1983). “Visual Imagery and Olfactory Stimulation,”
Journal of Mental Imagery, 7(1): 63–74.