Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 20 (2013) 400–407

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

A model of consumer’s retail atmosphere perceptions
Steven W. Rayburn 1, Kevin E. Voss
toey_
D:20190113191820+07'00'1/13/2019 7:18:20 PM
-------------------------------------------- แบบ
จำลองการรับรู ้บรรยากาศของผู ้บริโภค
n

Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States

article i n fo a b s tr a c t
Available online 12 February 2013 The authors propose a new model of the effects of four perceived atmosphere constructs on hedonic
Keywords: and utilitarian shopping evaluations. Survey data demonstrate that the perceived atmosphere
Atmospherics constructs are positively associated with both hedonic and utilitarian evaluations of retail shopping
Perceptions value. Importantly, the relationship between the customer’s perception of the store’s level of
Hedonic sophistication (perceived style) and the customer’s overall assessment that the store is a pleasant
Utilitarian place (perceived overall atmosphere) is different for different retail brands. The results suggest that the
relationship between constructs can be used to detect differentiation between retail brands.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction understanding customers holistic impressions is critically impor-

Atmospherics is a practice that ‘‘recognizes that a
marketing environment should be carefully sculpted to both
induce particular behaviors and evaluations from consumers and to
appeal to a specific target market (Turley and Bolton, 1999).’’ One
survey found that for
63% of consumers atmosphere caused them to spend more time
in the store, and among these 45% said they spent more money
as a result (Anonymous, 2004). Thus, it is important for retailers to
create atmospherics that impact the thoughts and feelings of
consumers (Chebat and Dube´ , 2000; Kotler, 1973). Wilson (2007:
48) details how the Dutch retailer G-Star has used atmospherics to
‘‘reflect the values and taste level’’ of their target clientele.
Retailers like G-Star under- stand their customers and respond
with physical environments that will keep them in the store a bit
longer and coming back for more. Unfortunately they are
designing these environments on a relatively small foundation of
theory-driven research; this paper seeks to improve this
foundation. As Chebat and Dube´ , 2000: 89) noted
‘‘ycomplex decisions on the design and management of retail
atmospheres are frequently made on the basis of a dearth
of information that in other domains would be unimaginabley’’
Turley and Milliman (2000) argue that retail researchers must
begin to make theoretical connections that can improve retail
managers’ practical understanding of the retail atmosphere.
Regrettably, retail atmospherics is not often examined in the
same holistic manner in which it is experienced by the customer
(Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Michon et al., 2005). Since retail
environments are designed to achieve an overall impression,
n and music (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001), the interaction of task
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 1 405 744 5106; fax: þ 1 405 744 5180.
E-mail addresses: steven.rayburn@okstate.edu (S.W. Rayburn),
vossk@okstate.edu (K.E. Voss).
1
Tel.: þ 1 405 744 5192; fax: þ 1 405 744 5180.
tant for assessing the extent to which the design’s goals have or
have not been reached. The present research contributes to the
literature on retail atmosphere in three ways. First, we propose
and empirically validate a new theoretical model of holistic
consumer perceptions of the retail atmosphere. Second, we
demonstrate that three different holistic perceptions of atmo-
sphere are related to hedonic and utilitarian value through a key
mediating variable: perceived overall atmosphere. Third, the
relationship between the customer’s perception of the store’s
level of sophistication (perceived style) and the customer’s overall
assessment that the store is a pleasant place (perceived overall
atmosphere) is different for different retail brands. Thus the
proposed model of retail atmosphere perceptions can substanti-
ate differentiation between retail brands.
2. Background
To a great extent, published articles in the area of retail atmo-
spherics have focused on very specific atmospheric variables such as
display type, color, signage, information rate, novelty, etc. (Turley
and Milliman, 2000). This approach involves the manipulation of
environmental variables; such as music (e.g. Areni, 2003; Mattila
and Wirtz, 2001; Yalch and Spangenberg, 2000), crowding (e.g.
Eroglu and Machleit, 1990; Michon et al., 2005), digital
signage (Dennis et al., 2010), odor (e.g. Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;
Michon et al., 2005), organization (e.g. Ang et al., 1997; Bitner,
1990), arousal level (e.g. Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006), or
favorability of the atmo- sphere (e.g. Baker et al., 2002; Thang and
Tan, 2003).
Secondly, research as examined the interaction effect of scent
orientation and retail density (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990), the
interaction of music tempo and visual cues (Chebat et al., 1993),
the interaction of

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.01.012
ambient music and lighting and social cues (Baker et al., 1992),
and Michon et al. (2005) investigated the effects of ambient
smells at different levels of retail density. We agree that examining
interaction effects among atmospheric attributes is valuable.
However, given the large number of atmospheric attributes that
are present in the retail environment, examining interactions via
experimental methods will necessarily be limited by the number
of manipulations that can be successfully introduced in such
studies. Thus, examination of inter- actions between atmospheric
attributes falls short of examining the retail atmosphere in the
holistic way that customers perceive it.
Thirdly, some published research views the retail environment
as a facilitator for specific behaviors. For example, Grossbart et al.
(1990) linked customer patronage intentions to specific elements
of the atmosphere. Other studies conceived of the atmosphere as
facilitating a customer’s positive or negative affective arousal,
which then influenced hedonic/utilitarian shopping value and the
proportion of the customer’s business directed at a specific
retailer (Babin and Attaway, 2000; Babin and Darden, 1995).
Similarly, Sharma and Stafford (2000) examined how the persua-
sive impact of sales force influence techniques varied based on
prestige store ambience versus discount store ambience. Kumar
and Karande (2000) found that atmospheric variables for grocery
stores such as the number of check-out stands and the proportion
of non-grocery items facilitated sales per square foot, but that this
varied by the attributes of the neighborhood in which the store
was located.
3. Perceptions of retail atmosphere
We develop a model of retail customer’s atmospheric percep-
tions; building on the understanding that customers utilize
holistic processing to form perceptions about the atmosphere
(Baker et al., 2002; Bitner, 1992; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Michon
et al., 2005; Sharma and Stafford, 2000). While many authors
have based their atmospheric investigations in the stimulus–
organism–response (S–O–R) tradition (e.g. Oh et al., 2008;
Thang and Tan, 2003), we propose a theoretical model of the
inter-relationships between important constructs that would be
at the organism level of an S–O–R model. Our model is grounded
in the hedonic and utilitarian branch of perceived value theory
(Sanchez-Fernandez and Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007). Hedonic and
utilitarian value is a two-dimensional perceived value theory
which holds that consumers value products for both affective
gratification (hedonic), and instrumental, task-related reasons
(Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982; Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
Reflecting the hedonic and utilitarian branch of perceived
value theory, customers’ attitudes toward, and evaluation of,
stimuli has been conceptualized with two dimensions (Babin
et al., 1994; Batra and Ahtola, 1990; Voss et al., 2003). Hedonic
shopping value is an experiential construct which reflects shop-
ping’s potential entertainment and emotional worth (Babin et al.,
1994; Bellenger et al., 1976). Hedonic shopping value is the
perception that a store is a location in which to participate in
shopping for the enjoyment of the activity; the purpose of
obtaining a specific item or group of items is still important but
greater value is placed on the experience. For example, Demoulin
(2011) showed that when music is congruent with the overall
atmosphere that customer’s perception of pleasure from shopping
increased. One also can contrast buying Legos building blocks at
a mass merchandise store versus buying Legos building blocks at
the end of a visit to LegoLand.s
Utilitarian shopping value, on the other hand, represents
individuals’ instrumental shopping desires, i.e. shopping with a
specific purchase purpose in which efficiency and effectiveness
are primary concerns (Babin et al., 1994). Utilitarian shopping
value is the recognition of a store as one in which to obtain
essential items or a specific outcome, quickly, and without
problems; that is, the utilitarian shopping experience is likely to
be driven by instrumental concerns with experiential concerns
centered on avoiding hassles or perceived effort. Following other
published literature (e.g. Babin and Darden, 1995; Jackson et al.,
2011; Sirohi et al., 1998), hedonic/utilitarian shopping value are
dependent variables in our hypothesized model. However, within
the domain of retail atmospherics, relationships between hedonic
and utilitarian value and customer’s holistic evaluations of the
retail atmosphere have not been convincingly established.
While unique, our model does have antecedents in the atmo-
spherics literature. Bitner (1992) introduced the construct ‘per-
ceived servicescapes’ as a key mediating variable between
ambient, special layout, and signage atmospherics and customer
responses to the service environment. Both Cottet et al. (2006)
and Michon et al. (2008) position environmental variables as
antecedents of hedonic and utilitarian shopping value, but these
articles use questionable measures and reach conflicting conclu-
sions. Wakefield and Blodgett (1996) introduced perceptual
measures as predictors of perceived quality, satisfaction, and
repatronage intentions; however, these are specific to athletic
stadiums and arenas. Jang and Namkung (2009) explored per-
ceived overall atmosphere as an antecedent to positive or nega-
tive affect and repatronage intentions. In our theoretical model
perceived overall atmosphere is a key mediating variable. More
recently, Massicotte et al. (2011) measured mall atmosphere in
hedonic terms (i.e. stimulating and interesting atmosphere) and
Jackson et al. (2011) explored mall experience as an antecedent to
hedonic and utilitarian shopping value.
Retailers have long realized that the retail environment is the
product of a design effort (Bellizzi et al., 1983; Donovan and
Rossiter, 1982). The retail designer creates a space that commu-
nicates with the customer and contributes to the overall shopping
experience (Kent and Stone, 2007). For example, the restaurant
chain Del Frisco attempts to combine tradition and modernness to
create a unique and interesting overall consumption experience
(Licata, 2009). Similarly, fashion retailer Deegie Carma has incor-
porated a cafe´ and beauty salon within its store to offer a
more engaging total experience (Wilson, 2008). In the theoretical
model proposed in Fig. 1 customers’ perception of overall
atmosphere is a function of perceived modernness, perceived
style, and perceived organization. Like Babin and Darden
(1995) Fig. 1 has hedonic and utilitarian shopping value as the
dependent variables. However, the antecedents in Babin and
Darden are the consumers’ pleasure–arousal–dominance
emotions evoked by the retail environment. In contrast, the
current model holds that perceptions of the retail atmosphere
directly influence the depen- dent variables.
3.1. Perceptions of retail atmosphere
Perceived overall atmosphere is the overall impression of the
store’s atmosphere as a pleasant or unpleasant place to shop (e.g.
Jang and Namkung, 2009; Teller and Reutterer, 2008). Overall
perceptions of the retail atmosphere are the most holistic
response an individual will have toward a store’s environment.
Some published qualitative research substantiates the perceived
overall atmosphere construct; for example, Floch (1988: 236–37)
interviewed customers of a hypermarket. Comments included
statements such as ‘‘You really have to want to go to the
hypermarket, feel at home when you’re therey,’’ ‘‘I like being
somewhere on a human scale, and not somewhere vast and
overwhelmingy,’’ and ‘‘yeverybody knows that you don’t get
the same warmth in a hypermarkety’’ Sitz (2008: 183–84)
interviewed shoppers regarding their experiences. Published
 Perceived
Organization
H1 .22***
JCPenney .28***
Belk .39***
Perceived H2
Style Rue 21 .56***
Old Navy .79***
H3 .22***
Perceived
Mod ernness
Fig. 1. Effects of atmospheric evaluations on hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Note: ***p o .01; **p o .05; *p o .10.
comments included: ‘‘My feeling in this store is special. I feel
calm, welcomedy,’’ ‘‘The fact is I feel good, but I don’t know
whyy,’’ and ‘‘I feel good in this store.’’ These comments reveal a
sense of comfort/discomfort and appeal/lack of appeal due to the
store’s atmosphere. In Fig. 1, perceptions of the overall atmo-
sphere are influenced by three atmospheric perceptions: per-
ceived organization, perceived style, and perceived modernness.
We address each in turn.
Bitner (1990) showed that perceived organization affects
customers’ causal attributions regarding the likelihood that poor
service quality would be repeated in the future. Organization, in
the sense of things being in their place, has been used as a
component of a favorable design in experimental research (Baker
et al., 2002). Perceived organization is defined as the perception of
the maintained nature of the retail store. The maintained nature
of the space includes perceptions such as cleanliness, orderliness,
and the sense that everything is in its assigned place. This is
impacted by layout and design variables (Ba¨ ckstro¨ m
and Johansson, 2006) as well as general interior variables
(Turley and Milliman, 2000). Because spaces that are clean,
uncluttered, and organized are more welcoming places than
those which are unclean, cluttered, and disorganized, it
follows that perceived organization should be an antecedent of
perceived overall atmo- sphere. Thus:
H1. Perceived organization is positively associated with the
perceived overall atmosphere of the retail environment.
Though not labeled as perceived style in published research,
the concept has been studied. For example, one experiment
measured differences in sales force influence based on a prestige
or discount store atmospheric, finding that the prestige manip-
ulation positively impacted perceptions (Sharma and Stafford,
2000). Perceived style is defined as the perception of the level of
sophistication of the retail store. Perceived style is a function of
those attributes included in the general interior’s layout and
design, point-of purchase layout and design, and decoration/
fashion variables (Turley and Milliman, 2000: 194). As the
above G-Star example demonstrates, retailers aim to design the
retail environment to a level of sophistication that matches
H4
.28***
Utilitarian
Shopping
Value
H6a
Perceived .52***
Overall
Atmosphere .52***
H6b
Hed onic
Shopping
Value
H5
.21***
clientele taste. Because environments that are perceived to be
more sophisticated and tasteful should be more appealing, it is
hypothesized that the perceived style of the store atmosphere
will impact the perceived overall atmosphere of the retail
environment.
H2. Perceived style is positively associated with the perceived
overall atmosphere of the retail environment.
Perceived modernness is defined as the perception of the retail
atmosphere as contemporary or as ahead of its time. That is, a
retail environment that is perceived as out-of-date or old-
fashioned is low in perceived modernness. Greenland and
McGoldrick (2005) examined a similar construct with respect to
bank design and atmospherics. They found that modernity of the
bank’s design was an important determinant of customer reaction
to the atmosphere. This variable will be highly dependent on
changing fashion. Influencing perceived modernness requires the
retail manager to regularly update the atmosphere to match the
times and trends. Importantly, perceived modernness is different
than perceived style. Perceived style can be high when the
atmosphere is designed to be retro, classic, or evocative of famous
scenes or famous works of art. But, such retail designs should not
be perceived as modern. When a retail store is perceived as
capturing current or future trends it should be an appealing
atmosphere for customers. Because perceived overall atmosphere
captures the appeal of the atmosphere, perceived modernness
will influence the perceived overall atmosphere of the retail
environment.
H3. Perceived modernness is positively associated with the
perceived overall atmosphere of the retail environment.
3.2. Hedonic/utilitarian shopping value
We expect that perceived organization will be positively
related to utilitarian shopping evaluations. Perceived organization
focuses on the idea that everything has a place and is in its place.
Stores that cultivate this perception are likely to increase func-
tional value by eliminating distractions and helping customers
focus on their shopping objectives. Such stores are undoubtedly
easier to shop in from the viewpoint of utilitarian concerns such
as finding what is sought and shopping with efficiency and
effectiveness.
H4. Perceived organization is positively associated with per-
ceived utilitarian value.
We also expect that perceived modernness will be positively
related to hedonic shopping evaluations. Recall that perceived
modernness captures the trend setting aspect of the retail
environment. These perceptions should enhance the experiential
aspect of the shopping experience in terms of fun, fantasy, moods,
and emotions. A modern retail environment conveys to the
consumer that they are up-to-date and in vogue. Then too, retail
environments that are perceived as modern will be thought of
new and fresh which might inspire the imagination and motivate
exploration. Since this is likely to affect the experience of shop-
ping, we expect that perceived modernness will be a significant
antecedent of perceived hedonic shopping evaluations.
H5. Perceived modernness is positively associated with perceived
hedonic value.
Hedonic/utilitarian shopping value is directly influenced by
perceived overall atmosphere. This is because the comfort and
appeal of the shopping environment provides both experiential
and functional value. Suggesting that the comfort and appeal of
the retail atmosphere is antecedent to hedonic shopping value is
non-controversial. Comfortable and appealing environments facil-
itate the experiential aspect of consumption, demonstrated by the
Deegie Carma example. However, we contend that the comfort
and appeal of the atmosphere will also facilitate utilitarian
shopping value as well. This is based on the idea that highly
experiential activities are often rated as highly utilitarian activ-
ities (Voss et al., 2003). Voss et al. suggest that this is due to the
stress relieving or relaxation functions of experiential phenom-
ena. Consistent with this reasoning, a comfortable and appealing
retail environment provides functional value by allowing the
customer to shop while minimizing perceived stress from time
pressure, perceived crowding, or competitive shopping pressures.
Thus, the utilitarian aspect of the shopping activity is enhanced if
the activity takes place in an environment that facilitates goal
achievement:
H6a. Perceived overall atmosphere is positively associated with
perceived utilitarian value.
H6b. Perceived overall atmosphere is positively associated with
perceived hedonic value.
In Fig. 1, we suggest that perceived overall atmosphere is a
mediating variable between perceived organization, perceived
style, perceived modernness and hedonic and utilitarian shopping
value. In view of hypothesis four, the relationship between
perceived organization and utilitarian shopping value is partially
mediated. Due to hypothesis five, the relationship between
perceived modernness and hedonic shopping value is also par-
tially mediated. The other four mediated relationships are con-
ceived of as fully mediated. Thus:
H7. The relationships between perceived organization, perceived
style, and perceived modernness and hedonic/utilitarian value are
fully or partially mediated by perceived overall atmosphere.
4. Method
4.1. Stimuli
We asked customers to report their perceptions of retail
environments on a paper and pencil survey. Based on a pretest
we selected four retail brands. We began with seven retail brands
in the apparel segment or apparel focused department stores that
represent a census of apparel retailers in a small city in the
Midwestern United States. Pretest participants were asked to
evaluate the retail brands based on their familiarity with the
brand and frequency of shopping at the store. Frequency of
shopping was measured on a seven-point scale with 1 ¼ never,
2 ¼ once a year, 3 ¼ every 6 months, 4 ¼ every 3 months, 5 ¼ 1
time per month, 6 ¼ 2 times per month, 7 ¼ 4 times per month.
Famil- iarity with the retail brand was measured on a
seven-point semantic differential scale with scale anchors 1 ¼
very unfamiliar to 7 ¼ very familiar. Prior to executing the main
study, one of these seven stores closed and was dropped from
the study. Of the remaining brands, Old Navy, The Buckle, and
American Eagle Outfitters were statistically indistinguishable on
the familiarity and frequency measures. Accordingly, we
randomly selected Old Navy and eliminated the other two to
maximize within store cell size given our planned sample size.
Selected were: apparel stores: Old Navy (freq ¼ 3.8, fam ¼ 5.3);
Rue 21 (freq ¼ 3.2, fam ¼ 4.2); department stores: J.C. Penney
(freq ¼ 3.4, fam ¼ 4.5); and Belk (freq ¼ 2.6, fam ¼ 3.2).
4.2. Measures
Two widely used existing measures were used for hedonic
shopping value and utilitarian shopping value. The first is the
scale proposed by Babin et al. (1994). The second is the scale
proposed by Voss et al. (2003). The former is specific to shopping
while the latter is context free allowing it to be easily used in the
shopping context. As discussed further below, Voss et al. (2003)
scale performed better psychometrically in this particular study.
For perceived overall atmosphere, two published measures of
perceived overall atmosphere were identified. Both scales pre-
sented measurement issues. For example, Jang and Namkung’s
(2009) used the following item in their measure: ‘‘Colors used
create a pleasant atmosphere.’’ All five items in the scale used this
form of double-barreled question. Moreover, this measure
included perceptual items for lighting, color, music, etc. This
approach can be questioned because it combines items that are
independent judgments leading to compromised unidimension-
ality (Mowen and Voss, 2008). Mattila and Wirtz (2001) and
Michon et al. (2008) used seven-item semantic differential scales
to capture customer evaluation of the store/mall environment
which are adaptations of Fisher’s (1974) environmental quality
scale. However, some of the items used seem to overlap with
other constructs—e.g. the good/bad item is often used in attitude
scales.
Accordingly, we developed a scale to measure perceived over-
all atmosphere. We generated our initial set of items based on the
constructs’ definition including items available in the literature
(e.g. Mattila and Wirtz, 2001). Items focused on the overall
comfort, appeal, and pleasantness of the atmosphere since these
capture perceived overall atmosphere. We began with eleven
items that were tested with a pre-test group of 290 subjects who
each rated two retail brands on the proposed items. Although the
initial coefficient alpha for the eleven-item scale was .84, item-to-
total correlations and a two factor solution in exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) suggested item reduction. Attractive/unattractive,
boring/exciting, warm/cool, pleasant/unpleasant, enjoyable/unen-
joyable, and interesting/uninteresting were eliminated. At this
point we retained five items, one of which was subsequently
eliminated in the main study. Final scale items are in the
Appendix.
A thorough search of the literature and marketing scale
compendiums (e.g. Bruner and Hensel, 1992) did not identify
existing measures for perceived organization, perceived style, or
perceived modernness. Thus, we developed scales to measure
these three constructs. Following scale development procedures
in the published literature (e.g. Churchill, 1979; Gerbing and
Anderson, 1988), we began by generating scale items based on
the published literature, scale handbooks, and brainstorming.
Scale items were composed as seven-point semantic differential
scales with scale anchors given at both extremes. We then
collected data with 290 pretest subjects drawn from students at
the local university. Pretest participants each rated two of seven
local retailers in the clothing and apparel category. Based on the
pretest, sixteen scale items were deleted and several others were
modified by changing the scale anchors. This resulted in a five-
item scale for perceived organization, and a five-item scale for
perceived style, a four-item scale for perceived modernness. As
reported below, we subsequently dropped two-items each from
the perceived style and perceived modernness scales due to weak
psychometric performance. Scale items are in the Appendix.
4.3. Data collection
Because the retailers selected as stimuli serve a university
town and random assignment to the retailers was needed, the
sample was drawn from students attending the local university.
As described below, data collection instruments were developed,
randomly assorted, then distributed to individuals during class.
Because random assignment to condition was used with a homo-
geneous sample the study has desirable properties regarding the
inferences that can be made about the parameter estimates
(Calder et al., 1981). On average study participants reported
shopping at the four stores between two and four times per year.
The data were collected from a sample of 380 individuals who
were randomly assigned to evaluate one of the four retailers. For
twelve completed surveys in which there were only isolated
missing responses we replaced the missing values with the
respondents’ mean response from the completed items in the
same scale—just 14 replacements were made. Nineteen other
surveys with substantial numbers of missing responses were
deemed incomplete and were deleted from the data set. In
addition, we deleted a further nineteen surveys for various issues
such as patterned responses. Thus, we had a data set of 342
completed responses.
4.4. Analyses
Using the 342 responses in the main study, we assessed the
measures using coefficient alpha, exploratory factor analysis
(EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). As noted above,
we collected the Babin et al. and the Voss et al. versions of
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, zero-order correlations, and coefficient alphas for study measures.
Mean
Utilitarian shopping (UTS) 4.38
Hedonic shopping (HDS) 3.94
Perceived overall atmosphere (OAT) 4.43
Perceived organization (ORG) 4.45
Perceived modernness (MOD) 4.63
Perceived style (STYL) 4.06
Note: coefficient alphas are on the diagonal, all correlations are significant with p o .01.
hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. In this administration, the
Babin et al. scale resulted in coefficient of alphas of .64 for the
hedonic dimension and .71 for the utilitarian dimension. One of
the items in the hedonic scale had a low inter-item correlation
( o .50) and was deleted. After deletion, coefficient alpha on the
hedonic scale was .82. An EFA resulted in a two-factor solution
which explained 62% of the variance. We also dropped one
hedonic item for the Voss et al. scale due to a low inter-item
correlation. Coefficient alpha was .91 for the hedonic dimension
and .87 for the utilitarian dimension. An EFA resulted in a two-
factor solution which explained 72% of the variance. Based on the
higher coefficient alphas and higher explained variance in the EFA
we chose to proceed using the Voss et al. version of the hedonic
and utilitarian scales. For the perceived overall atmosphere
construct, coefficient alpha was .91 and the single-factor EFA
solution explained 78% of the variance in the scale.
Of the scales we developed, only the perceived organization
scale was accepted without further item deletions; coefficient
alpha was .94 and a single-factor EFA explained 80% of the
variance. For the perceived style scale, an item with a low item-
to-total correlation was deleted. The resulting four-item version
of the scale produced a coefficient alpha of .87 and a single-factor
EFA solution accounted for 80% of the variance. For perceived
modernness, there was an item that, while the item-to-
correlation was not less than .50, was much lower than the other
three items: a coefficient alpha of .87 and a single-factor EFA
accounted for 80% of the variance.
We submitted all six measures to a CFA using LISREL 8.8
(Jo¨ reskog and So¨ rbom, 1996). The initial fitting of the
CFA demonstrated problems with item cross-loading. This led us
to delete one item each from the hedonic dimension scale,
the perceived modernness scale, and the perceived style scale.
The
2
revised CFA was a good fit to the data with w ¼ 404.53, df ¼ 194,
p o .01 and goodness of fit index (GFI) ¼ .90, normed fit index
(NFI) ¼ .97, non-normed fit index (NNFI) ¼ .98, comparative fit
index (CFI) ¼ .99. The measurement model with estimates
of construct reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) is
in the Appendix. Scale means, standard deviations, zero-order
con- struct correlations, and coefficient alphas are in Table 1.
We examined discriminant validity using two approaches.
First, we compared the AVE to the squared correlation for all
pairs of constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As shown in the
Appendix the minimum AVE is .58 for the utilitarian shopping
value measure. The largest inter-construct correlation (f) is
between perceived overall atmosphere and utilitarian shopping
value at .71. Since .58 is larger than .712 we have evidence that
the constructs capture distinct information. Further, because all
other inter-construct correlations are less than .71, we conclude
that the AVE greater than the squared correlation criteria will be
met for all pairs of constructs.
The second test determines if the observed f is less than unity
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi et al., 1991). This test
involved iteratively refitting the CFA model while constraining,
one at a time, the estimated f’s to equal one. The change that
s.d. UTS HDS OAT ORG MOD STYL
1.10 .87
1.24 .55 .88
1.20 .64 .54 .91
1.39 .50 .17 .54 .94
1.43 .29 .50 .43 .15 .90
1.15 .46 .40 .64 .54 .46 .87
produced the largest improvement in model fit was constraining
the correlation between the hedonic and utilitarian shopping
2
value to equal unity. However, the w difference test indicated
2
that the improvement was not statistically significant (wD ¼ 1.61,
1, p ¼.2042). Thus, we conclude that, while correlated, the
hedonic and utilitarian shopping value measures capture distinct
information. Because constraining all other inter-construct corre-
lations to unity produced smaller improvements in model fit, all
possible difference tests result in support for discriminant valid-
ity. Thus, each construct captures distinct information.
difference test indicated no preference between this model and
the unconstrained model (w2D¼ 19.02, df ¼ 18, p ¼ .3906) but a
statistically significant improvement over the completely fixed
model (wD2 ¼ 13.34, df ¼ 3, p ¼ .004). Thus, the model with only
the
perceived style to perceived overall atmosphere path uncon-
2
ship. Fit statistics were: w ¼ 1101.01 with 810 degrees of freedom
(p o .01); GFI ¼ .77, NFI ¼ .92, NNFI ¼ .97, and CFI ¼ .97. A
w2

4.5. Results

We first examined the pooled model; that is we fit the model

assuming no differences between the four retail brands. We fit the
data to our proposed model using a structural equations model in
LISREL 8.8 (Jo¨ reskog and So¨ rbom, 1996). The overall model fit
was
adequate: w2 ¼ 425.50 with 198 degrees of freedom (p o .01); fit
indices were GFI ¼ .96, NFI ¼ .97, NNFI ¼ .98, and CFI ¼ .98.
The parameter estimates supported all of our simple effects; i.e.,
H1 through H6b were all supported by significant, positively
sloped path estimates. These estimates obtained in our multiple
groups model discussed below are superior so we omit the
pooled estimates.
Recall that H7 predicted two partially mediated and four fully
mediated relationships. Because path estimates for H1, H3, H4
and H5 are significant we conclude that the relationships
between (1) perceived organization and utilitarian shopping
value and (2) the relationship between perceived modernness
and hedonic shopping value are partially mediated by perceived
overall atmosphere. The four fully mediated relationships were
tested by allowing each antecedent, one at a time, to have a direct
path to either hedonic or utilitarian shopping value (Baron and
Kenny, 1986). The resulting parameters were not statistically
significant, indicating that the effect of perceived organization,
perceived style, and perceived modernness on hedonic or utilitar-
ian shopping value was completely mediated by perceived overall
atmosphere; supporting H7.
Although we made no hypotheses regarding differences
between retail brands, detecting differences in the proposed
relationships between retail brands is important from the per-
spective of ecological validity. That is, if the proposed relation-
ships differ by retail brand, then we have evidence that the
proposed model is relevant and might be used to assess the
design of the retail atmosphere. Accordingly, we fit a multiple-
groups model in which the data were fit to the model for each of
the four retail brands. We began with an unconstrained model in
which all parameters were free to be estimated. Model fit
2
statistics were w ¼ 1081.99 with 792 degrees of freedom
(p o .01); fit indices were GFI ¼ .79, NFI ¼ .92, NNFI ¼ .97,
and CFI ¼ .97. We then fit a constrained model in which all
parameters were set equal, which again demonstrated
acceptable fit:
w2 ¼ 1114.35 with 813 degrees of freedom (p o .01); fit indices
2
were GFI ¼ .79, NFI ¼ .92, NNFI ¼ .97, and CFI ¼ .97. A w
difference test indicated a slight preference for the
unconstrained model
(w2D ¼ 32.36, df ¼ 21, p ¼ .
0538).
We then examined a series of models which involved con-
straining one parameter equal across groups, while allowing all
other parameters to be freely estimated. When we encountered a
constrained parameter that led to improved model fit we
accepted that and then continued refitting parameter estimate
by parameter estimate. This resulted in a model in which all but
one parameter was constrained. The parameter that varied was
for the perceived style to perceived overall atmosphere relation-
strained is preferred over the completely unconstrained model
(Jo¨ reskog and So¨ rbom, 1996). Accordingly, the perceived style
to perceived overall atmosphere relationship is moderated by
retail brand. The parameter estimates are summarized in Fig. 1.
Among our study participants the perceived style to perceived
overall atmosphere relationship is stronger for Old Navy than
for the other three retail brands. Also, the perceived style to
perceived overall atmosphere relationship for the JC Penney
department store was weaker than the other brands. Thus, our
theoretical model is useful for diagnosing differences between
retail brands.

5. General discussion

Nearly forty years ago Kotler (1973: 48) wrote: ‘‘In some
casesy ythe atmosphere of the place, is more influential than
the product itself in the purchase decision. In some cases, the
atmosphere is the primary product.’’ In that atmospherics is the
purposeful creation of an environment that attracts customers to
the location and hopes to positively impact purchase behaviors it
is important to understand that people respond to atmospherics
holistically (Bitner, 1992). Whether at a coffee shop or ‘outdoor
world’ the experience is processed in its completeness. Consu-
mers react to the entirety of the space in which they transact
business.
We proposed a model that holds customers develop a range of
perceptions regarding the retail environment. Further, we pro-
posed and tested a theoretical model in which the overall
perception of the atmosphere is a key mediating variable between
perceived organization, perceived style, and perceived modern-
ness and the customer’s utilitarian and hedonic shopping value.
All of the mediated relationships in the proposed model were
supported by data collected from actual customers of four retail
brands. Our model contributes to the literature on retail atmo-
sphere by developing a nomological network that captures con-
sumers’ holistic perceptions of the retail atmosphere and relates
these to dependent variables previously used in the retailing
literature. The relationships in the revised model proved useful
for identifying those areas in which customers perceive differ-
ences among competing retail brands.

5.1. Implications

Influencing the experience of shopping requires understanding

the relationships between perceptions and important shopping
outcomes. As is true with brand management, retail brands must
differentiate themselves by creating hedonic and utilitarian shop-
ping value. Previously published research has demonstrated that
these two sources of shopping value influence other important
outcomes such as shopping satisfaction, share of market, and
repatronage intentions. Many retail environments use floor lay-
out, music, olfactories, and customer interaction with product
offerings to accentuate the shopping experience. However, cus-
tomers perceive the retail atmosphere in holistic rather than
attribute terms. The current paper is among the first to propose a
model of consumer perceptions of the atmosphere and demon-
strate the interrelationships of these constructs. This should
hopefully open new avenues of inquiry for researchers interested
in retail atmosphere.
Historically, research in retail atmospherics has focused on
testing the effects of certain attributes, such as music or layout, on
customer behavior. As we noted above, the designer of the retail understandings of the impact of atmospherics on the shopping
environment seeks to create a space that contributes to the experience. This approach will assist managers in better testing
overall shopping experience (Kent and Stone, 2007). Since the store design to determine if design goals, such as eliciting
retail environment is the product of a design effort (Bellizzi et al., particular shopping experiences for consumers, have been met.
1983) it makes sense to use the model created herein to test
whether customer perceptions match those of the designer’s
intention. Thus, if the designer intends a highly modern theme
for the retail interior, our proposed constructs and measures Acknowledgments
could be used to assess the degree to which that intention was
successfully communicated to customers. The authors were equal contributors to this research and are
Still to be determined is how these perceptual constructs will listed in alphabetical order. We are grateful for the helpful
relate to the consequences of hedonic and utilitarian shopping comments of Todd Arnold and three anonymous reviewers on
values. Thus, future research should assess whether hedonic and earlier versions of this manuscript.
utilitarian shopping values mediate the effects of atmospheric
perceptions on outcomes like customer satisfaction and repatro-
nage intentions. Appendix A
Retail management should assess the extent to which the
goals of the atmospheric design are evidenced by customer Also see Table A1.
perception. Our theoretical model will enable managers to influ-
Table A1
ence their customers’ experience through store atmospherics in a Measurement statistics for reflective measures.
more focused manner, leading to memorable shopping experi-
Construct Standardized Construct Average variance
ences. The model tested herein may also guide retail managers in
loading reliability extracted
operational matters. Extending beyond retail design, variables
under the control of retail managers may foster desired percep- Utilitarian shopping .87 .58
tions; that is perceptions that match the intention of the retail Effective–ineffective .85
design. For example, the manner in which retail staff dress, (r)

communicate, and present themselves to customers should target Helpful–unhelpful (r) .76

a specific perception. Thus, our model helps managers facilitate Functional–not .80
functional (r)
atmospheric perceptions and then measure the impact of their
Necessary– .64
actions. unnecessary (r)
Practical–impractical .74
5.2. Limitations and future research (r)
Hedonic shopping .88 .72
Not fun–fun .85
The perceptual constructs developed herein are presumed to
Dull–exciting .92
be those perceptions that practitioners are attempting to achieve Not thrilling–thrilling .76
through the use of atmospherics. Our conceptualizations of atmo-
Perceived atmosphere .91 .71
spheric perceptions found empirical support. Our focus on retail Comfortable– .82
clothing brands, and clothing oriented department stores, may uncomfortable (r)
have biased our development of perceptual constructs. Additional Charming–obnoxious .85
perceptual constructs may be needed for the adequate study of (r)

other categories. Thus, Fig. 1 does not contain an exhaustive list of Displeasing–pleasing .86
Appealing– .84
perceived atmosphere constructs. Nonetheless, our conceptuali-
unappealing (r)
zation has breadth enough to encompass several holistic environ-
Perceived organization .94 .71
mental perceptions that should be useful across a wide range of Disorganized– .89
retail categories. But additional empirical support is necessary to organized
verify its generality. Messy–neat .95
The attributes that make up the retail atmosphere are mani- Maintained– .77
neglected (r)
fold and have been broken down into various elements. For
Disorderly–orderly .93
example, five elements were used in Turley and Milliman’s review Tidy–untidy (r) .83
of experimental research (2000): external, general interior, layout Perceived modernness .90 .82
and design, point-of-purchase, and human variables. Bitner Out dated–current .91
(1992) proposes a three component perspective of atmosphere: Old fashioned–trendy .90

ambient conditions, spatial layout and functionality, and signs, Perceived style .88 .70
symbols, and artifacts. Baker (1986) and Baker et al. (1994) Low end–high end .83
suggests an alternative three component framework of the retail Unrefined– .88
sophisticated
environment: ambient, social, and design. Common to these Tasteless–tasteful .80
frameworks is interior design or physical layout of the store.
2
While not explicitly considered herein, these frameworks may Model fit: w ¼ 404.53, df ¼ 194, p o .01; GF ¼ .90, NFI ¼ .97, NNFI ¼ .98, CFI ¼ .99.
provide a starting point for exploring how retail design affects
perceived organization, perceived style, perceived modernness, References
and perceived overall atmosphere.
The current conceptualization of customer experience in the Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice:
retail environment should assist in the further exploration of a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),
411–423.
atmospherics. It is a broad conceptualization that captures the Ang, S.H., Leon, S.M., Lim, J., 1997. The mediating influence of pleasure and arousal
holistic manner in which the environment is perceived by con- on layout and signage effects. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 4 (1),
sumers. This approach should lend to better theoretical 13–24.
Anonymous, 2004. Store atmospherics: those who invest see results. Chain Store
Age 80 (1), 15B.
Areni, C.S., 2003. Examining managers’ theories of how atmospheric music affects
perception, behavior and financial performance. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 10 (3), 263–274.
Ba¨ ckstro¨ m, K., Johansson, U., 2006. Creating and consuming experiences in
retail store environments: comparing retailer and consumer perspectives.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 13 (3), 417–430.
Babin, B.J., Attaway, J.S., 2000. Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and
gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 91–99.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., 1995. Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment.
Journal of Retailing 71 (1), 47–70.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic
and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (1), 644–656.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y.J., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organiza-
tional research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3), 421–458.
Baker, J.A., 1986. The role of the environment in marketing services: the consumer
perspective. In: Czepiel, John A., et al. (Eds.), The Services Challenge: Integrat-
ing for Competitive Advantage. American Marketing Association, Chicago,
pp. 79–84.
Baker, J.A., Levy, M., Grewal, D., 1992. An experimental approach to making retail
store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing 68 (4), 445–460.
Baker, J.A., Grewal, D., Parasuraman, A., 1994. The influence of store environment
on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 22 (Fall), 328–339.
Baker, J.A., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., Voss, G.B., 2002. The influence of multiple
store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage
intentions. Journal of Marketing 66 (2), 120–141.
Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1990. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of
consumer attitudes. Marketing Letters 2 (2), 159–170.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Bellenger, D.N., Steinberg, E., Stanton, W.W., 1976. The congruence of store image
and self image. Journal of Retailing 52 (1), 17–32.
Bellizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E., Hasty, R.W., 1983. The effects of color in store design.
Journal of Retailing 59 (1), 25–45.
Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surround-
ings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing 54 (2), 69–82.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on custo-
mers and employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (2), 57–71.
Bruner II, G.C., Hensel, P.J., 1992. Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compilation of
Multi-Item Measures. American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.
Calder, B.J., Phillips, L.W., Tybout, A.M., 1981. Designing research for application.
Journal of Consumer Research 8 (2), 197–208.
Chebat, J.C., Gelinas-Chebat, C., Filliatrault, P., 1993. Interactive effects of musical
and visual cues on time perception: an application to waiting lines in banks.
Perceptual and Motor Skills 77 (3), 995–1020.
Chebat, J.C., Dube´ , L., 2000. Evolution and challenges facing retail
atmospherics:
the apprentice sorcerer is dying. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 89–90.
Churchill Jr., G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1), 64–73.
Cottet, P., Lichtle´ , M.C., Plichon, V., 2006. The role of value in services: a study
of retail environment. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23 (4), 219–227.
Demoulin, N.T.M., 2011. Music congruency in a service setting: the mediating role
of emotional and cognitive responses. Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services 18 (1), 10–18.
Dennis, C., Newman, A., Michon, R., Brakus, J.J., Wright, L.T., 2010. The mediating
effects of perception and emotion: digital signage in mall atmospherics.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 17 (3), 205–215.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach. Journal of Retailing 58 (1), 34–51.
Eroglu, S.A., Machleit, K.A., 1990. An empirical study of retail crowding: ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing 66 (2), 201–221.
Fisher, J., 1974. Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environ-
mental esthetic quality and perceived crowdedness. Journal of Research in
Personality 8 (2), 177–188.
Floch, J.M., 1988. The contribution of structural semiotics to the design of a
hypermarket. International Journal of Research in Marketing 4 (3), 233–252.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research
28 (1), 39–50.
Gerbing, D.W., Anderson, J.C., 1988. An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing
Research 25 (2), 186–192.
Greenland, S., McGoldrick, P., 2005. Evaluating the design of retail financial service
environments. International Journal of Bank Marketing 23 (2/3), 132–152.
Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., Lapidus, R.S., 1990. Environmental
dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of Business
Research 21 (3), 225–241.
Hirschman, E.C., Holbrook, M.B., 1982. Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts,
methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing 46 (3), 92–101.
Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspect of consumption:
consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research 9 (2),
132–140.
Jackson, V., Stoel, L., Brantley, A., 2011. Mall attributes and shopping value:
differences by gender and generational cohort. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services 18 (1), 1–9.
Jang, S,C., Namkung, Y., 2009. Perceived quality, emotions, and behavioral inten-
tions: application of an extended Mehrabian–Russell model to restaurants.
Journal of Business Research 62 (4), 451–460.
Jo¨ reskog, K., So¨ rbom, D., 1996. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide. SSI, Chicago, IL.
Kaltcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006. When should a retailer create an exciting store
environment. Journal of Marketing 70 (1), 107–118.
Kent, T., Stone, D., 2007. The body shop and the role of design in retail branding.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 35 (7), 531–543.
Kotler, P., 1973. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 49 (4), 48.
Kumar, V., Karande, K., 2000. The effect of retail store environment on retailer
performance. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 167–181.
Licata, E., 2009. Philadelphia Del Frisco’s unit blends modern, historic touches.
Nation’s Restaurant News 43 (37), 18.
Massicotte, M., Michon, R., Chebat, J., Sirgy, M.J., Borges, A., 2011. Effects of mall
atmosphere on mall evaluation: teenage versus adult shoppers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 18 (1), 74–80.
Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (2), 273–289.
Michon, R., Chebat, J.C., Turley, L.W., 2005. Mall atmospherics: the interaction
effects of the mall environment on shopping behavior. Journal of Business
Research 58 (5), 576–583.
Michon, R., Yu, H., Smith, D., Chebat, J.C., 2008. The influence of mall environment
on female fashion shoppers’ value and behavior. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management 12 (4), 456–468.
Mowen, J., Voss, K.E., 2008. On building better construct measures: implications of
a general hierarchical model. Psychology & Marketing 25 (6), 485–505.
Oh, J., Fiorito, S.S., Cho, H., Hofacker, C.F., 2008. Effects of design factors on store
image and expectation of merchandize quality in web-based stores. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (3), 237–249.
Sanchez-Fernandez, R., Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A., 2007. The concept of perceived value:
a systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory 7 (4), 427–451.
Sharma, A., Stafford, T.F., 2000. The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’
perceptions of salespeople and customer persuasion: an empirical investiga-
tion. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 183–191.
Sirohi, N., McLaughlin, E.W., Wittink, D.R., 1998. A model of consumer perceptions
and store loyalty intentions for a supermarket retailer. Journal of Retailing 74
(2), 223–245.
Sitz, L., 2008. Beyond semiotics and hermeneutics: discourse analysis as a way to
interpret consumers’ discourses and experiences. Qualitative Market Research
11 (2), 177–191.
Thang, C.L., Tan, L.B., 2003. Linking consumer perceptions to preference of retail
stores: an empirical assessment of the multi-attributes of store image. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 10 (4), 193–200.
Teller, C., Reutterer, T., 2008. The evolving concept of retail attractiveness: what
makes retail agglomerations attractive when customers shop at them? Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services 15 (3), 127–143.
Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a
review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49 (2),
193–211.
Turley, L.W., Bolton, D.L., 1999. Measuring the affective evaluations of retail
service environments. Services Marketing Quarterly 19 (1), 31–44.
Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and
utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. Journal of Marketing Research
40 (3), 310–320.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1996. The effects of the servicescape on customers’
behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing
10 (6), 45–61.
Wilson, M., 2007. Atmosphere is the Star. Chain Store Age 83 (5), 48.
Wilson, M., 2008. Deegie’s combines good ’carma‘ and hip fashions. Chain Store
Age 84 (5), 34-35.
Yalch, RF., Spangenberg, E.R., 2000. The effects of music in a retail setting on real
and perceived shopping times. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 139–147.