Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145 – 150

Shedding some light on store atmospherics

Influence of illumination on consumer behavior
Teresa A. Summersa,*, Paulette R. Hebertb
a
Textiles, Apparel Design, Merchandising, School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
b
School of Architecture, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA
Received 1 May 1999; accepted 1 May 1999

Abstract

The influence of display lighting, a component of store atmospherics, on consumer approach – avoidance behavior was studied.
Supplemental lighting was temporarily installed and manipulated on merchandise displays in two retail stores to test for effects on consumer
behaviors of Time at Display, Number of Items Touched and Number of Items Picked Up. Video cameras recorded the consumers’ actions.
Subjects consisted of an accidental sample of consumers in the stores who passed within the measurement zones of the cameras. A total of
2367 subjects were recorded; behaviors and demographics were coded by two raters. Data were analyzed using correlations, Analysis of
Variance, and Bonferroni paired comparisons. Supplemental lighting treatments had a positive effect on consumer behavior, as qualified by
display. Interactions between lighting and display were found to be statistically significant. Findings could be useful to retailers in
developing in-store lighting as part of a store’s atmospherics to aid in attracting and retaining consumer patronage. D 2001 Elsevier Science
Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Lighting; Approach – avoidance; Store atmospherics; Consumer behavior

1. Introduction 2. Purpose

Retailers must continually strive to meet increased
competition and changing consumer preferences. Accord-
ing to Kotler (1973), consumers respond to the ‘‘total
product.’’ A significant aspect of the total product is the
place where it is bought or consumed. The atmosphere
of the place can be more influential than the product itself
in the purchase decision (p. 48). Store atmospherics
describe the special sensory qualities of retail spaces that
are often designed to evoke particular consumer responses.
Lighting is a significant component of store atmospherics.
A more appealing store with better-illuminated merchan-
dise may entice shoppers to visit the store, linger, and
hopefully make a purchase. Even though the importance
and benefits of lighting are generally acclaimed for retail
environments, very few empirical retail lighting studies
have been conducted.
The purpose of our exploratory study was to empirically
measure the effect of light level manipulations in retail
display areas on the approach – avoidance behavior of
consumers using a new methodology we developed that
incorporated video observational techniques. We postulated
that an increase in light levels on the test display would
increase consumers’ approach behavior, relative to the
display, as measured by: a desire to approach (remain at)
the test display or to avoid (leave) the test display; a desire
or willingness to explore the test display (touch merchan-
dise) or to avoid the test display; the degree of approach
(enhancement) or avoidance of the task of picking up
display merchandise.
3. Rationale and previous findings

3.1. Approach – avoidance theory

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-225-388-2281. The Mehrabian – Russell (M – R) model, first proposed in
E-mail address: tsummer@lsu.edu (T.A. Summers). 1974, served as the theoretical framework for our study

0148-2963/01/$ – see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 2 - X
146 T.A. Summers, P.R. Hebert / Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145–150
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Mehrabian (1976) sug-
gested that the combined effects of pleasure, arousal, and
dominance influenced people’s behavior in particular en-
vironments. He believed that lighting was a chief factor in
the environment’s impact on individuals because ‘‘brightly
lit rooms are more arousing than dimly lit ones’’ (p. 89).
Mehrabian described his model as ‘‘. . . the classical ‘in-
verted u’ relationship between approach – avoidance and
arousal’’ (p. 22), and theorized that people would want to
remain in environments that were both pleasant and
arousing. Mehrabian proposed that, in pleasant surround-
ings, an individual’s approach behavior would increase
with increases in the arousal level. Mehrabian postulated:
‘‘. . . why do people shop for things they don’t need or
cannot afford? Our analyses of the various types of shops
suggest that the single common element of the shopping
experience is arousal . . . this suggests that people shop to
increase their arousal and pleasure levels’’ (p. 293).
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) were among the first to
apply the M – R model to actual measurements of approach –
avoidance behavior in retail settings. They found arousal to
be a significant predictor of approach intentions for time and
affiliation. ‘‘. . . given a pleasant retail store atmosphere,
arousal now becomes the key mediator of intentions to spend
time in the store’’ (p. 50). Donovan et al. (1994) reported the
pleasantness of in-store atmospherics was a significant pre-
dictor of desire to approach or remain in the store and to
spend money while arousal was found to vary in its influ-
ence. These researchers did not study the effect of lighting
per se, but rather the total store environment.
3.2. Lighting field studies
We believe that research aimed to quantify the influence
of illumination on consumer behavior in actual retail
environments can be beneficial since lighting is recognized
as an important component of store atmospherics, affecting
the consumers’ visual appraisal of everything in a store,
including the merchandise (Gobe, 1990; Rea, 1993; Lopez,
1995). Yet, we found few empirical studies in our review of
the literature. Most of the studies we found had been
performed in controlled environments (Gardner and Siom-
kos, 1986; Baker et al., 1992), and only three studies had
been conducted in actual store settings. Boyce et al. (1996)
and Cuttle and Brandston (1995) surveyed consumers
regarding their perceptions of in-store lighting after exten-
sive renovations were made to an existing furniture store
and to an existing grocery store. The designers – researchers,
Cuttle and Brandston (1995) and Boyce et al. (1996)
participated in the design of the actual interior renovation
of the existing stores, which were used in the studies. Both
studies measured the impact of the lighting on changes in
electricity consumed by each store, customer, and proprietor
or staff’s perceptions, and merchandise sales. Areni and
Kim (1994) applied the M – R model to their study of the
impact of in-store lighting manipulation on shopping beha-
vior utilizing a convenience sample of 171 wine store
consumers over a 16-night period. Merchandise lighting
was manipulated to be ‘‘soft’’ on different evenings by
replacing some of the store’s existing lamps with lower
wattages or ‘‘bright’’ by replacing lamps. The perceptions
of wine store employees were used to determine that an
adequate difference in light levels was created. A modified
version of an instrument, developed by Hoyer (1984), was
used to record consumer behaviors. Areni and Kim (1994)
found that consumers examined and handled significantly
more items under ‘‘bright’’ lighting conditions than under
‘‘soft’’ lighting conditions. While the M– R model, with its
classical ‘inverted u’ relationship between approach – avoid-
ance and arousal, implies that lighting that is ‘‘too bright’’
could over-stimulate consumers leading to avoidance beha-
vior, no research was found that tested this extreme notion.
3.3. Measurement techniques
Arena and Kim’s (1994) study was the only research we
found that applied the M– R model to the influence of in-
store lighting on consumer behavior. Building on their
efforts, we developed and tested a new methodology in-
corporating supplemental lighting with video observation to
facilitate determination of the influence of lighting on
consumer behavior. Previous studies have relied heavily
on consumer perception and recall. However, much of
lighting’s effects and components are difficult for the
average consumer to describe, and his/her illumination
vocabulary is usually extremely limited. Terms, such as
brightness, may have different meanings for lighting experts
and consumers. Further, the purpose of retail lighting, in
addition to making the space more aesthetic and functional,
can be used to elicit particular behaviors, often without
consumers’ knowledge. The Illuminating Engineering So-
ciety of North America (IES) Handbook states that ‘‘the
primary goals common in the lighting of merchandise are to
attract the consumer, to initiate purchases, and to facilitate
the completion of the sale’’ (Rea, 1993). The IES recom-
mends that when illuminating merchandising spaces, light-
ing designers should create a ‘‘pleasant and secure
environment to do business’’ (Rea, 1993, p. 591).
4. Methodology
Mehrabian (1976) theorized that brighter light increased
arousal and that the combination of pleasantness and arousal
made individuals more susceptible to influence. In our
study, the ‘‘influence’’ to which the individuals were sub-
jected was the store’s merchandise. We proposed that an
increase in merchandise lighting helped to create a pleasant
and arousing environment at the merchandise display and
encouraged consumers to approach. We developed our
methodology based on the number of light levels tested,
coding instrument, and observational measurements used in
 T.A. Summers, P.R. Hebert / Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145–150
the Areni and Kim (1994) study. We conducted several tests
on methods and a pre-test to verify the feasibility of the
methodology prior to actual data collection.
4.1. Research design
We selected two independently-owned stores, a hardware
store, and a western apparel/feed store, located in the
Metropolitan Statistical Area of a major southern city for
the study. Participating retailers allowed us to install tem-
porary supplemental lighting systems over one of their
merchandise displays; to administer On/Off treatments of
the light system alternating daily during their normal oper-
ating hours; and to observe and record their consumers via
videotape. Both stores also exhibited substantial consumer
activity and had a minimum of daylight intrusion, which
was necessary in order to control for variations in overall
store ambient lighting levels.
The hardware store test display featured tools, and the
western apparel/feed store test display comprised belts.
The merchandise on the test displays in both stores
appeared to be non-color-critical, and therefore, unaffected
by color shift due to light. Existing ambient lighting in the
hardware store was an 8-ft-long double lamp profile
exposed bare lamp strips that was surface-mounted to the
ceiling and lamped with 75-W General Electric Cool
White fluorescent lamps. Existing ambient lighting in the
western apparel/feed store was an 8-ft-long double lamp
profile exposed bare lamp strips surface-mounted to the
ceiling and lamped with 60-W Sylvania Super Saver
Designer fluorescent lamps.
We installed temporary, supplemental illumination in the
ceilings of both stores over the test displays consisting of
inexpensive, readily obtainable, utilitarian floodlight 7  5
in., lensed, 500-W quartz fixtures —each lamped with one
quartz tubular Designers Edge 500 W T-4 lamp. We
determined the exact quantity, location, and aiming of these
lighting fixtures by following IES guidelines for retailers
(Recommended practice. . ., IES Merchandising Lighting
Committee 1997). While working within the existing con-
straints of each store, we succeeded in achieving lighting
quantity and quality near the light levels recommended by
IES for hardware and apparel display spaces. The lighting
treatment was turned On or Off daily during the experiment
in each store, alternating the On or Off lighting treatment
each Friday and Saturday for 8 h/day per display. The
lighting treatments were counterbalanced.
4.2. Data collection
A video camera, which was positioned in the ceiling near
the selected display in each store, recorded the shopping
behaviors of customers. The videotapes were then reviewed
by two raters, and consumer behaviors of interest were
counted, timed, and recorded using a Consumer Behavior
Code Sheet derived, with modifications, from the instrument
147
developed by Hoyer (1984) and modified by Areni and Kim
(1994). Inter-rater reliability tests produced highly signifi-
cant correlations between the raters ranging from 0.78 to 1.0
for all observations of demographics and dependent vari-
ables. The sample included a total of 2367 consumers
recorded within the zone of measurement, which was
approximately 5 ft wide (across the display) and up to 6 ft
deep in front of the display in each store. The variable, Time
at Display (Time), was determined by measuring the time (in
seconds) spent by consumers standing or walking in front of
the display with their head and/or body turned in the general
direction of the test display. The other variables were
measured by counting the Number of Items Touched
(# Items Touched) by consumers on the display and the
Number of Items Picked Up (# Items Picked Up) by con-
sumers from the display. A consumer identification code was
assigned sequentially to each new consumer observed on the
videotape. If a consumer returned to the zone of measure-
ment within 3 min after departing the zone, his/her additional
behaviors were added to his/her initial behaviors on the same
Code Sheet. If more than 3 min had passed, a new Code
Sheet was started for the new behaviors. Raters determined
the Time consumers remained by watching a hand-held
digital timer and recording the total number of seconds.
The # Items Touched and the # Items Picked Up by
consumers at the test display were counted and recorded
on the Code Sheet. The sex and approximate age range of
consumers were also noted.
4.3. Experimental design and statistical treatment
Correlations among the dependent variables were first
calculated to determine the relationships. A 2 (stores)  2
(lighting) Factorial Experimental Design was then utilized.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for sig-
nificant differences among means of the three dependent
variables — Time at Display (Time), Number of Items
Touched (# Items Touched), and Number of Items Picked
Up (# Items Picked Up) — with the two independent vari-
ables — stores and supplemental lighting treatments — and
to test for interactions. Bonferroni’s paired comparisons
were calculated to determine the difference among means.
Age was used as a covariate.
5. Results and discussion
Consumers in both stores were observed to be mostly
white, with a smaller percentage of blacks, and a very small
percentage of other races represented. A large majority of
consumers in both stores were between 20 and 59 years old.
Most consumers in the hardware store appeared to be men,
but an almost equal number of men and women were
observed in the western apparel/feed store.
Not surprisingly, significant relationships existed be-
tween dependent variables as indicated by the correlations
148 T.A. Summers, P.R. Hebert / Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145–150

between Time and # Items Touched (r = 0.60, p < 0.001); Table 2

Means and standard deviations of Time at Test Displays, Number of Items
Time and # Items Picked Up (r = 0.53, p < 0.001); as well as
Touched, Number of Items Picked Up
# Items Touched and # Items Picked Up (r = 0.67,
p < 0.001). This may be attributed to the necessity of a Supplemental lighting treatment M (S.D.)
consumer remaining at the test display in order to touch an Store Display On Off
item, and the necessity of a consumer remaining and touch- Time at test displays
Tools 5.25a (7.62) 8.58c (17.50)
ing a merchandise item in order to pick it up from the Belts 14.49be (30.98) 12.82de (25.44)
display. Areni and Kim (1994) reported similar correlations.
Number of items touched
5.1. Approach– avoidance behavior Tools 00.08a (00.45) 00.12ad (00.57)
Belts 00.63b (3.09) 00.33cd (2.06)
Results from the ANOVA, as shown in Table 1, revealed Number of items picked up
a highly significant difference in the main effect of display. Tools 00.02a (00.18) 00.04a (00.22)
Consumers remained longer at the belts (M = 13.44, S.D. = Belts 00.11b (00.57) 00.04a (00.30)
27.65) than at the tools (M = 6.75, S.D. = 13.14). No Means with different letters differ significantly at p < 0.05.
significant difference was found in Time by the main effect
of lighting treatment.
ANOVA of the interaction of display by lighting treat- The ANOVA of the interaction of display by lighting
ment revealed a highly significant difference in Time. treatment revealed a highly significant difference in the
Means and Bonferroni results are shown in Table 2. Con- # Items Touched (Table 1). Means and Bonferroni results
sumers remained longer at the tool display under the Off are shown in Table 2. Consumers touched significantly
treatment than the On treatment. No significant differences more belts under the On treatment than the Off treatment.
were found for Time at the belt display between the On and No significant differences in means were found for tools. No
Off treatments. significant differences in the # Items Touched by the
Significant differences in Time by the covariate of age covariate of age were found.
were also found (Table 1). Bonferroni results showed the A highly significant difference in # Items Picked Up
12-years-and-under age group (M = 15.33a) spent the was found by the main effect of display (Table 1). Con-
longest time at test displays in both stores followed by sumers picked up more belts (M = 0.06, S.D. = 0.42) than
13 – 19-year-olds (M = 11.59ab). The 20 – 39-year-olds tools (M = 0.03, S.D. = 0.20). A significant difference in
(M = 11.10b), 40– 59-year-olds (M = 10.77b), and 60- # Items Picked up was found by the main effect of lighting
years-and-above consumers (M = 9.51b) spent the least treatment. Consumers picked up more items under the On
time at the displays. lighting treatment (M = 0.07, S.D. = 0.45) than under the
A highly significant difference was found in # Items Off lighting treatment (M = 0.04, S.D. = 0.29).
Touched by the main effect of display (Table 1). Consumers As shown in Table 1, the ANOVA for the interaction
touched more belts (M = 0.45, S.D. = 2.50) than tools of display by lighting treatment revealed a highly sig-
(M = 0.10, S.D. = 0.51). Consumers touched significantly nificant difference in # Items Picked Up. Means and
more items under the On treatment (M = 0.41, S.D. = 2.4) Bonferroni results are shown in Table 2. Consumers
than under the Off treatment (M = 0.28, S.D. = 1.80). picked up significantly more belts under the On treatment
than the Off treatment. No significant differences in
means were found for # Items Picked Up between the
On and Off treatments for tools. No significant differ-
Table 1 ences in the # Items Picked Up by the covariate of age
ANOVA of consumer approach behaviors at test displays
were found.
F
Time at # Items # Items 5.2. Subset of approach – avoidance behavioral results
Source df display touched picked up
Main effects Following our methodology, all persons recorded by the
Store display 1 75.34*** 33.16*** 12.06** video cameras within the measurement zones were in-
Lighting 1 1.19 3.95* 4.96*
cluded in the total data set as previously described. The
Two-way interaction
Display  lighting 1 11.15** 6.84** 13.53*** majority of consumers observed paused less than 3 s at the
Covariate test displays and did not pick up or touch an item. We
Age 1 9.21** 2.96 0.12 believed it important to the integrity of this exploratory
Error 4729 573.50 4.32 0.13 study to retain data on these passersby as they served as a
* p < 0.05.
reference group, seemingly unaffected by the independent
** p < 0.01. variables. However, large variances resulted for Time,
*** p < 0.001. # Items Touched, and # Items Picked Up, and standard
 T.A. Summers, P.R. Hebert / Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145–150
deviations were always higher than means for these depen-
dent variables.
We were curious to learn if additional information
could be gleaned by creating a subset of the total data
set that would include only those behaviors of consumers
who remained at the test displays longer than 3 s or
touched or picked up one or more items. Therefore,
additional analyses to determine differences in the effect
of lighting treatment and store display on a subset of the
dependent variables were performed. The following three
variables, modified from the original dependent variables,
were analyzed: Time at Display —4 s or more (Time + 4),
Number of Items Touched — one or more (# Items
Touched + 1), and Number of Items Picked Up — one or
more (# Items Picked Up + 1).
Results from the Subset ANOVA indicated that, like
findings from the primary analyses for Time, there was a
highly significant difference in the modified variable,
Time + 4, by the main effect of store display, F(1) =
81.88, p < 0.000. Consumers remained longer at belts
(M = 20.83, S.D. = 34.36) than at tools (M = 10.52,
S.D. = 17.82). In an important contrast with the primary
analysis, a significant difference was found in Time + 4 by
the main effect of supplemental lighting treatment, F(1) =
7.76, p < 0.005. Consumers remained longer at the test
display under the On lighting treatment (M = 21.76, SD =
35.81) than under the Off lighting treatment (M = 16.11,
SD = 28.07).
Like the primary analyses, a highly significant difference
was noted in the Subset ANOVA for the modified variable
# Items Touched + 1 by the main effect of display, F(1) =
15.04, p < 0.000. Consumers touched more belts (M = 5.78,
S.D. = 7.09) than tools (M = 1.97, S.D. = 1.28). Contrary to
primary findings, no significant difference in # Items
Touched + 1 was found by the main effect of lighting
treatment, F(1) = 0.146, p < 0.70.
Subset ANOVA results, like findings from the primary
analyses, revealed a highly significant difference in the
modified variable # Items Picked Up + 1 by the main
effect of display, F(1) = 11.46, p < 0.001. Consumers
picked up more belts (M = 1.93, S.D. = 1.35) than tools
(M = 1.18, S.D. = 0.389). In contrast with primary
findings, no differences in # Items Picked Up + 1 by the
main effect of lighting treatment, F(1) = 2.09, p < 0.15,
were found.
5.3. Discussion
Findings from this study indicate that light levels do
contribute to consumer approach behavior. Like Areni and
Kim’s (1994) findings of consumers examining and hand-
ling more items under ‘‘bright lighting’’ than under ‘‘soft
lighting,’’ consumers touched more items and picked up
more belts with the addition of display lighting. When
passersby were omitted from the analyses, the influence of
lighting was even more evident with consumers spending
149
significantly more time at the displays under the On
treatment than the Off treatment. Results support Mehra-
bian’s (1976) contention that increased levels of lighting
will produce arousal and pleasure and increase the ap-
proach behaviors of consumers.
Differences were noted in consumer behaviors under
the lighting treatments as qualified by store display. We
chose to study consumers in two types of stores concur-
rently to account for extraneous community variables and
also to explore differences that might occur because of
store type. Results showed that variations did exist by
store type; however, because of the nature of this ex-
ploratory study, our emphasis was on differences within
rather than between each store. Consumers’ approach
behavior may have been influenced by weak lighting
contrasts between supplemental merchandise lighting and
ambient lighting. The IES Handbook (Rea, 1993) states
‘‘. . . as the background luminance (and therefore the
retinal illuminance) increases, the contrast threshold de-
creases, rapidly at first and then more slowly . . . ,’’
( p. 87). Human visual systems are designed to react to
changes in illumination within the visual field, and these
changes may be thought of as contrasts. ‘‘Contrast detec-
tion is a basic visual task from which many other visual
behaviors are derived,’’ (Rea, 1993, p. 86). Therefore,
consumers could gain visual information from a retail
environment based on the visual contrast between the
ambient lighting and the merchandise display lighting thus
influencing their approach behaviors. Further study is
needed to test the influence of contrast threshold.
In addition, the effect of store display may include
several factors that could potentially influence consumer
approach behavior. Merchandise content, need, or lack of
need to try on merchandise, and pricing methods may be
important influences in concert with light levels. Tools, as
compared to belts, may have inherently required less time
for consumer selection. Tools did not require size compat-
ibility while belts were often tried on in front of the test
display. This required consumers to remain at the test
display and may have contributed to the longer Time
noted for belts. Additionally, tool prices were found on
the front face of the display fixture minimizing time
consumers spent in determining prices. For belts, however,
pricing was indicated only on the back side of individual
belts with prices missing on some of the belts. No prices
were displayed on the display fixture. In order to deter-
mine prices, consumers were required to touch or pick up
individual merchandise items.
Age influenced Time but did not influence # Items
Touched nor # Items Picked Up. Children spent relatively
more time at the test displays than older consumers did.
They were observed playing at the test displays in both
stores. Children in the hardware store may have been
further enticed to remain within the video camera’s mea-
surement zone due to the close proximity of gum ball
machines to the test display.
150 T.A. Summers, P.R. Hebert / Journal of Business Research 54 (2001) 145–150
5.4. Limitations
Due to the complex nature of purchase behavior, the
emphasis of our study was limited to the effect of lighting
on in-store shopping behavior. We had no control over the
items initially chosen for each display nor the frequency
with which the displays were replenished. In order to remain
unobtrusive, we did not influence the composition or layout
of the merchandise displays but only manipulated the
supplemental lighting treatments.
Data on all subjects captured by the video cameras in
the measurement zones in this study were retained and
reported. In future studies, researchers may wish to elim-
inate the passersby or children from their analyses, espe-
cially if the retail store studied does not include children in
its target market.
6. Implications
We believe this study provides a sound methodology for
the further examination of the effect of lighting on in-store
consumer behavior. Based on approach – avoidance theory
(Mehrabian, 1976), the study extends Areni and Kim’s
(1994) research in retail field settings. Unlike previous
studies, our methodology included a full documentation of
physical conditions of the test stores’ interiors. The actual
store environments utilized in this study were realistic
settings in which to test hypotheses about consumer beha-
vior. Additionally, this study also included a relatively large
number of observations from two different store types.
Because of the limited amount of empirical research on
the effects of lighting on consumer behavior, we recom-
mend additional field investigations be conducted.
Based on findings from this study, retailers could
supplement the illumination on their merchandise displays
in compliance with IES recommendations for their store
type in order to attract consumers and involve them in
their merchandise. Retailers with limited funds could
install temporary, portable fixtures as utilized in this study.
These lighting fixtures are readily available at a relatively
low cost from home improvement stores. Our findings
suggest that a retailer’s manipulation of the in-store sup-
plemental display lighting may achieve a significant in-
crease in general consumer involvement with in-store
display merchandise.
References
Areni CS, Kim D. The influence of in-store lighting on consumers’
examination of merchandise in a wine store. Int J Res Mark 1994;
11(2):117 – 25.
Baker J, Levy M, Grewal D. An experimental approach to making retail
store environmental decisions. J Retailing 1992;68(4):445 – 61.
Boyce PR, Lloyd CJ, Eklund NH, Brandston HM. Quantifying the ef-
fects of good lighting: the green hills farms project. Meeting of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, Cleveland, OH,
August, 1996.
Cuttle C, Brandston H. Evaluation of retail lighting. J Illum Eng Soc
1995;24(2):33 – 49.
Donovan RJ, Rossiter JR. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach. J Retailing 1982;58(1):35 – 57.
Donovan RJ, Rossiter JR, Marcoolyn G, Nesdale A. Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior. J Retailing 1994;70(3):283 – 94.
Gardner MP, Siomkos GJ. Toward a methodology for assessing effects of
in-store atmospherics. Adv Consum Res 1986;13:27 – 31.
Gobe M. Visceral merchandising. Visual Merchandising and Store Design
(December) 1990;121:16, 18.
Hoyer WD. An examination of consumer decision making for a common
repeat purchase product. J Consum Res 1984;11:822 – 9.
IES Merchandising Lighting Committee. Recommended Practice for
Lighting Merchandising Areas: A Store Lighting Guide. Manuscript
in preparation.
Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. J Retailing 1973;4(4):48 – 64.
Lopez MJ. Retail Store Planning and Design Manual. New York:
Wiley, 1995.
Mehrabian A. Public Spaces and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work,
Play, and Living Environments. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Mehrabian A, Russell J. An Approach to Environmental Psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974.
Rea MS, editor. Lighting Handbook Reference and Application (8th edn.).
New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1993.