Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

The effects of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition

on consumers’ product evaluation and purchase intention in
store-based retailing
Shun Yin Lam a,∗ , Avinandan Mukherjee b,1
a Marketing and International Business Division, Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
b School of Business, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA

Abstract

Many retailers attempt to juxtapose and coordinate complementary products in their stores on the basis of key attributes because good
coordination of complementary items can provide consumers with relevant information for their evaluation of individual products. In addition,
the aesthetic appeal and the social impression that good coordination offers can be transferred to the products themselves. On the basis of these
theories, the authors test the effects of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition (vs. separation) on consumer behavior using actual clothing
items as stimuli in a laboratory setting. The authors find that coordination affects consumers’ evaluation of and purchase intention toward a
target item only when the item is juxtaposed with a complementary item. This effect can be explained by the aesthetic response of consumers
to and their social impression of a grouping of the items. Furthermore, in comparison with displaying the two items separately, juxtaposing
them in a poorly coordinated manner appears to depress the target item’s evaluation, though juxtaposing them in a well-coordinated manner
does not seem to improve the evaluation.
© 2005 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Merchandise coordination; Juxtaposition; Retailing

Merchandise presentation is a key issue in store manage-
ment (Levy & Weitz 1998). Although retailers use various
methods to present their merchandise, the most common
method is to place all items of a product category in the
same section to facilitate consumer choice. For example,
some apparel stores put all shirts in a particular area and
all pants in another area. A similar presentation method puts
items of related categories in adjacent locations. For example,
apparel retailers may put shirts and pants on adjacent sides of
a gondola to facilitate consumers’ search for complementary
items. In yet another method, retailers combine displays of
complementary items in the same location; that is, they jux-
tapose the items so that shoppers see them as an ensemble.
For example, furniture retailers such as IKEA combine fur-
niture in room settings to give consumers an idea of how the
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +65 6790 4776; fax: +65 6791 3697.
E-mail addresses: asylam@ntu.edu.sg (S.Y. Lam),
mukherjeeav@mail.montclair.edu (A. Mukherjee).
1 Tel.: +1 973 655 5126; fax: +1 973 655 7673.
items would look together in a home. Many apparel retail-
ers also juxtapose complementary items (such as shirts and
pants) on mannequins and free-standing fixtures so that the
items appear to be complete outfits (Berman & Evans 1995).
Such juxtaposition may enhance shoppers’ awareness of a
retailer’s merchandise variety and stimulate them to make
complementary purchases.
In addition, some retailers devote special attention to the
coordination of items, making sure that complementary prod-
ucts are well matched or consistent on key attributes such as
color, style, and design. Merchandise displays that are well
coordinated on these key attributes may create or enhance a
store’s image, attract consumer attention, and influence feel-
ing, shopping experience, shopping behavior, and purchase
outcomes. Although merchandise coordination and juxtapo-
sition can be treated as separate issues, retailers tend to con-
sider them together when presenting their merchandise. For
example, when juxtaposing complementary clothing items on
mannequins, retailers generally attempt to coordinate these
items so that they appear consistent in color and style.

0022-4359/$ – see front matter © 2005 New York University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2005.07.006
232 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
In this study, we examine how merchandise coordination
and juxtaposition affect consumers’ evaluation of and inten-
tion to purchase individual products. Our findings provide
answers to some key retail management concerns: How do
coordination and juxtaposition affect product evaluation and
purchase intention? Does juxtaposing products in a well-
coordinated manner improve product evaluation and pur-
chase intention? Does placing complementary products on
adjacent sides of a display unit have any effect on these two
variables? We consider these and other retail concerns in this
article.
The potential effects of merchandise coordination and
juxtaposition on consumer shopping behavior have been
acknowledged by marketing researchers (Russell et al. 1999).
However, evidence about these effects is sparse, and previous
investigation has been limited to the effect of coordination
on consumers’ evaluation of a juxtaposed product grouping
(Bell, Holbrook, & Solomon 1991). In our study, we pro-
pose a conceptual framework to explain how coordination
and juxtaposition (vs. separation) affect consumers’ evalu-
ation of and intention to purchase individual products. We
postulate that the effects of coordination can be explained
by a consumer’s aesthetic response to and social impres-
sion of this grouping. In addition, we argue that juxtapos-
ing complementary items makes the information conveyed
by their coordination more vivid and accessible than sepa-
rating them does. Therefore, juxtaposition should enhance
the coordination effect. Although some relationships in our
framework have been investigated in previous studies (e.g.,
Bell et al. 1991; Veryzer & Hutchinson 1998), we extend
previous research by examining several relationships jointly.
In particular, we contribute to this stream of research by for-
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework. Notes. Aesthetic response and social impression concern two complementary products as a whole.
of juxtaposition for H1b , H2b , H3b and H4b . H5a , H5b , H7a and H7b : Hypotheses for the mediating roles of aesthetic response, social impression and purchase
evaluation.
mally testing the mediating roles of perceived unity, aesthetic
response, and social impression, as well as comparing the
effect of coordination in juxtaposed and separate display con-
ditions.
To test our hypotheses, we conduct a laboratory exper-
iment using undergraduate student participants with men’s
casual wear and women’s formal wear as the products under
examination. Our results support the majority of our hypothe-
ses and offer important implications for managers involved
in retail merchandise presentation.
Conceptual framework and hypotheses
In developing our conceptual framework (shown in Fig. 1),
we reviewed relevant literature on aesthetics, consumer
information processing, and memory. In the following sec-
tions, we describe the theoretical grounds and existing
evidence that supports the relationships proposed in our
framework.
Coordination, juxtaposition, aesthetic response, and
social impression
Invoking the unity-in-variety principle developed by
philosophers of art (e.g., Beardsley 1981), Bell et al. (1991)
posit that an ensemble of complementary products may be
evaluated in terms of not only the individual components, but
also the aesthetic value and social impression communicated
by the overall product grouping. Aesthetic value (e.g., dis-
pleasing/pleasing, unattractive/attractive) is created, among
other things, by unity (Wagner 1999). Highly consistent
: Moderating effects
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
complements of consumer goods, also known as “Diderot
unities,” share some commonality or unity such that they
look as though they belong together or there is some visual
connection beyond mere chance that has caused them to
come together (McCracken 1988; Veryzer 1993). Using fur-
niture ensembles consisting of chairs, tables, mirrors, and
other decorative objects, Bell et al. (1991) find that merchan-
dise coordination positively affects consumers’ perceptions
of unity, which in turn has a positive effect on their aes-
thetic response to the ensemble. Similarly, in their study
of new product design, Veryzer and Hutchinson (1998) find
that consistency in shape and trim among different parts of
a product design has a positive effect on consumers’ per-
ceptions of unity of the design, which in turn affects their
aesthetic response to the design positively. On the basis of
these findings, we posit that the coordination of two com-
plementary clothing items by color and style will have a
positive effect on consumers’ aesthetic response to them as a
whole.
However, the effect of coordination may not be limited
to situations in which the two products are juxtaposed. After
seeing two products displayed separately, consumers retain
visual information about the products in their short-term
memory (Ashcraft 1989). Various studies on visual imagery
provide evidence that short-term memory contains visual
codes and that people use these codes to make judgments or
perform certain tasks (e.g., Cooper & Shepard 1973; Dahl,
Chattopadhyay, & Gorn 1999; Posner 1978). Therefore, using
their memory, consumers can assess the unity of two com-
plementary products as a whole even though the products
are placed separately. However, we expect that the effect of
coordination on the aesthetic response is stronger when the
two products are put together than when they are separated
because information conveyed by coordination is more acces-
sible and vivid in the juxtaposed condition than in the separate
display condition (hereafter, the separated condition). There-
fore, we advance the following hypotheses:
H1a . Merchandise coordination has a positive effect on
consumers’ aesthetic response toward two complementary
products as a whole.
H1b . The effect of merchandise coordination on aesthetic
response is moderated by merchandise juxtaposition. Specifi-
cally, merchandise coordination has a stronger positive effect
on consumers’ aesthetic response when the complementary
products are put together than when they are separated.
The perceived unity of a product grouping created by
coordination also may affect the social impression of the
grouping (e.g., socially acceptable/unacceptable, fashion-
able/unfashionable). According to Reed (2002) and Bell et
al. (1991), to attain or maintain a particular social identity,
consumers may use the consumption of socially visible prod-
ucts (such as clothing) to make a desired impression on other
people.
233
Coordination can affect the social impression conveyed by
a product grouping, in that an uncoordinated grouping may
convey an odd or abnormal image and leave a poor impression
on other people. Previous research on social information pro-
cessing also shows that models dressed in well-coordinated
clothing give a better impression (more competent, more
desirable as a coworker, more sociable) than do models
dressed in poorly coordinated clothing (Lennon 1990). Fur-
thermore, because information conveyed by coordination is
more accessible and vivid in the juxtaposed condition than in
the separated condition, we expect that the effect of coordina-
tion on the social impression is stronger when two products
are put together than when they are separated. Therefore, we
advance the following hypotheses:
H2a . Merchandise coordination has a positive effect on the
social impression of two complementary products as a whole.
H2b . The effect of merchandise coordination on social
impression is moderated by merchandise juxtaposition.
Specifically, merchandise coordination has a stronger pos-
itive effect on social impression when the complementary
products are put together than when they are separated.
Aesthetic response, social impression, product
evaluation, purchase intention, and juxtaposition
Using an elaboration likelihood framework, Bloch,
Brunel, and Arnold (2003) posit that consumers process aes-
thetic information in a peripheral or elaborate fashion. The
aesthetics of product groupings can provide consumers with
hedonic value that enhances their quality of life (Bell et al.
1991; Bloch et al. 2003). Through a process of affect transfer
or association, a consumer’s aesthetic response to a product
grouping can be used as a cue to evaluate the products that
constitute that grouping (Petty & Cacioppo 1986). This aes-
thetic response also may serve as an issue-relevant argument
in their evaluation of the attributes of individual products
(Petty & Cacioppo 1986). For example, consumers may have
a higher opinion of a shirt’s color if they find the overall color
tone of an ensemble that consists of the target shirt and a pair
of pants pleasing. Thus, the consumer’s aesthetic response
can have a positive effect on product evaluation by serving as
a peripheral cue or issue-relevant argument. We expect this
effect to be stronger in the juxtaposed condition than in the
separated condition because information about the aesthet-
ics of a product grouping is more vivid and accessible in the
juxtaposed condition. Also, in the separated condition, not
all people will attempt to visualize how the complementary
products would look if they were put together, leading to a
weaker observed impact of the aesthetics on product evalua-
tion. Bell et al. (1991) provide evidence that, in the juxtaposed
condition, aesthetic response to a product grouping has a pos-
itive effect on the evaluation of the grouping, but they do not
examine this effect in the separated condition. Neither do
they examine the effect of aesthetic response on consumers’
evaluation of individual products. Hence, we hypothesize
234 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
H3a . An aesthetic response toward two complementary
products as a whole has a positive effect on the evaluation
of the individual target product.
H3b . The effect of the aesthetic response on the evaluation of
the target product is moderated by merchandise juxtaposition.
Specifically, the aesthetic response has a stronger positive
effect on the evaluation when the complementary products
are put together than when they are separated.
Similarly, we can use the elaboration likelihood frame-
work to hypothesize the effect of social impression on prod-
uct evaluation. Because of the social-enhancing value that
a product grouping brings, consumers may use its social
impression as a peripheral cue to evaluate individual prod-
ucts. This social impression also may provide consumers with
an issue-relevant argument to judge the social acceptability
of individual products, thereby affecting product evaluation
positively. Similar to the effect of aesthetic response, we
expect that the effect of social impression on product eval-
uation is stronger in the juxtaposed condition than in the
separated condition because of the vividness and accessi-
bility of visual information in the former. We therefore posit
that
H4a . The social impression of two complementary prod-
ucts as a whole has a positive effect on the evaluation of the
individual target product.
H4b . The effect of the social impression on the evaluation
of the target product is moderated by merchandise juxtaposi-
tion. Specifically, the social impression has a stronger positive
effect on the evaluation when the complementary products
are put together than when they are separated.
The mediating roles of aesthetic response and social
impression
Following the recommendation of Baron and Kenny
(1986), we distinguish the mediating role of variables in a
main effect from their mediating role in a moderating effect,
and formulate hypotheses about these roles separately. Our
discussion and conceptual framework in Fig. 1 suggest that
coordination affects product evaluation positively because (1)
coordination has a positive effect on aesthetic response and
social impression (H1a and H2a ) and (2) aesthetic response
and social impression have a positive effect on product eval-
uation (H3a and H4a ). This discussion leads us to posit
that
H5a . The aesthetic response toward and social impression
of two complementary products as a whole totally or partially
mediate the main effect of merchandise coordination on the
evaluation of the target product.
According to the preceding discussion, juxtaposition mod-
erates the effect of coordination on product evaluation. As
Fig. 1 indicates, this originates from the moderating effects
of juxtaposition on the relationships between: (1) coordina-
tion and aesthetic response (H1b ), (2) coordination and social
impression (H2b ), (3) aesthetic response and product evalua-
tion (H3b ), and (4) social impression and product evaluation
(H4b ). On the basis of the notion of “mediated moderation”
advanced by Baron and Kenny (1986), we suggest that aes-
thetic response and social impression mediate the moderating
effect of juxtaposition on the relationship between coordina-
tion and product evaluation. Aesthetic response and social
impression are mediators because the moderating effect of
juxtaposition can be explained partly by aesthetic response
and social impression, in that coordination affects these two
variables differently depending on whether the items are jux-
taposed. Therefore,
H5b . Aesthetic response and social impression totally or
partially mediate the moderating effect of merchandise jux-
taposition on the relationship between merchandise coordi-
nation and the evaluation of the target product.
The mediating role of product evaluation and its effect on
purchase intention
Product evaluation, defined as an attitude toward a prod-
uct, may positively affect the perceived value of acquiring
the product. Perceived acquisition value has been found to
have a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to buy the
product (Grewal, Monroe, & Krishnan 1998). Furthermore,
the attitude-intention linkage is well supported by attitudinal
literature (Bagozzi 1982; Dabholkar 1994). Therefore,
H6 . The evaluation of the target product has a positive effect
on the consumers’ intention to purchase the product.
Fig. 1 shows that aesthetic response and social impression
affect purchase intention positively because they have posi-
tive effects on product evaluation (H3a and H4a ), and product
evaluation in turn has a positive effect on purchase intention
(H6 ). Therefore, we posit that
H7a . The evaluation of the target product totally or partially
mediates the main effects of the aesthetic response toward
and the social impression of two complementary products as
a whole on the purchase intention of the target product.
We also deduce that juxtaposition moderates the rela-
tionships between the aesthetic response and purchase
intention, and between the social impression and purchase
intention. This is because (1) juxtaposition moderates the
relationships between the aesthetic response and product
evaluation, and between the social impression and prod-
uct evaluation (H3b and H4b ), and (2) product evaluation
affects purchase intention (H6 ). Consequently, based on the
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
notion of mediated moderation (Baron & Kenny 1986), we
advance
H7b . The evaluation of the target product totally or partially
mediates the moderating effects of merchandise juxtaposition
on the relationships between aesthetic response and purchase
intention and between social impression and purchase inten-
tion.
Method
Design
In our experiment, each participant was asked to inspect
a set of men’s casual wear and women’s formal wear, which
represent two replications for testing our hypotheses. In
this study, “men’s casual wear” is defined as clothes worn
by men in casual occasions and “women’s formal wear”
as clothes worn by women in an office environment or at
social gatherings. Formal wear is relevant to our undergrad-
uate student participants because most worked either part-
or full-time or as interns in organizations before taking part
in our experiment. The experiment followed a 2 × 3 × 2
between-subjects design, with two levels of coordination
(well- and poorly coordinated), three levels of juxtaposi-
tion/separation (separated by four dummies, separated with
no intervening dummies, and juxtaposed), and two lev-
els of order (men’s wear before women’s wear and vice
versa).
Stimuli and manipulation
Clothing was selected as the product for study for two rea-
sons. First, coordinating and juxtaposing clothing items on
display is a common practice in apparel retailing (Berman &
Evans 1995; Levy & Weitz 1998). Second, previous research
suggests that in the purchase of clothing (particularly fash-
ion), consumers commonly consider both the product’s aes-
thetic value and the social impression it conveys (Bell et
al. 1991; Holbrook 1986). By replicating our study across
items of clothing worn by the different genders, we avoid
any possible attribution of our findings to the gender-specific
nature of the items. The replication also enables us to examine
the applicability of our framework to two different product
classes.
Because the coordination effect may be strongest for those
items that are rated neutrally,2 we chose target items that we
rated neither good nor bad. The target item for men’s casual
wear was a blue T-shirt with horizontal stripes. The target item
for women’s formal wear was a yellow-green satin shirt with
2 We thank an anonymous JR reviewer for this suggestion. The effects of
merchandise presentation may be stronger for ambiguous stimuli (clothing
with a neutral rating) than for clear-cut stimuli (clothing with an extreme
rating).
235
diagonal stripes. To create the poorly and well-coordinated
groupings, we selected complementary items that were either
consistent or inconsistent with the target item in color and
style (as shown in Fig. 2). For the poorly coordinated group-
ing, we chose a pair of red floral shorts for the men’s casual
wear and a skirt with a green, blue, yellow, and red floral pat-
tern for the women’s formal wear. For the well-coordinated
grouping, we selected a pair of green Bermuda shorts for
the men and brown, straight-cut executive pants for the
women.
The juxtaposition factor was represented by two types of
separate display conditions and one juxtaposed display condi-
tion. The “separated by four dummies” condition simulates a
shopping situation in which complementary products are not
placed close to each other. The “separated but with no inter-
vening dummies” condition represents a display arrangement
in which the products are placed close to each other but not
juxtaposed. As Fig. 3 indicates, for each trial, participants
were asked to inspect the target item, a complementary item,
and four dummy items in a sequence that varied according to
the juxtaposed/separated condition. The dummy items were
products that did not complement the target item in daily
use, such as swimwear, bedsheets, towels, and children’s
wear.
Specifically, in the “separated by four dummies” condi-
tion, the complementary item was displayed flat on a table to
the participant first. When the participant finished inspect-
ing the product, it was hidden from sight. Four dummies
then were displayed successively in a manner similar to that
of the complementary item. After the participant completed
inspecting the dummies, he or she was shown the target
item placed on a particular fixture. For the men’s casual
wear, the shirt was placed on a hanger, and for the women’s
formal wear, it was displayed on a mannequin. In the “sep-
arated with no intervening dummies” condition, the four
dummy items were shown first, followed by the complemen-
tary item, and then the target item. The juxtaposed condition
was identical, except that the target and complementary items
were juxtaposed and shown to the participant simultaneously
(Figs. 2 and 3).
To avoid the potential confounding effect of product famil-
iarity, we purchased all the items from stores that our par-
ticipants were unlikely to visit frequently. To control for
the effects of brand names and price, we chose items that
did not display brand names and were neither very expen-
sive nor very cheap. For the same reason, we removed
name labels from all items. However, we retained price and
material labels on the items to make the shopping situation
realistic.
According to adaptation level theory (Helson 1964), a per-
son’s prior exposure to related stimuli in the same modality
may affect his or her response to current stimuli. Therefore,
the order in which each set of clothing was shown could have
affected the endogenous variables in our framework. To con-
trol for this potential bias, the order was randomized across
participants. Accordingly, participants randomly were asked
236 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

Fig. 2. Juxtaposed display of the target and complementary items.

to inspect either the men’s or women’s wear during the first from marketing literature (e.g., Bell et al. 1991; Herr, Kardes,
trial. & Kim 1991; Yi 1990) (Table 1).

Variables and measures Participants and procedure

The exogenous variables under investigation are the coor-
dination and juxtaposition factors and the two control vari-
ables, namely, gender and order. All are categorical variables.
We include gender because culturally defined roles might
cause differences in preferences (e.g., women may prefer pas-
tel shades) between men and women (Holbrook 1986) and
thereby affect the endogenous variables (purchase intention,
product evaluation, aesthetic response, social impression, and
perceived unity). The endogenous variables are measured by
multi-item, seven-point, semantic differential scales adopted
Five hundred seventy-seven undergraduate students from
various disciplines took part in this study for either par-
tial fulfillment of course requirements or monetary com-
pensation. Each participant was assigned randomly to a
particular combination of the coordination, juxtaposition,
and order conditions and underwent two trials, one focus-
ing on men’s wear and the other on women’s wear.
For the men’s wear trial, participants were given the
following instructions before inspecting the experimental
items:
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250 237

Fig. 3. Sequence of product displays in the separated and juxtaposed conditions.

Table 1
Scale items and measurement properties (men’s wear)
Separated by four dummies Separated with no intervening dummies Juxtaposed

IRa CRa VEa IR CR VE IR CR VE

Perceived unityb
Low in unity/high in unity .85 .94 .90 .88 .95 .89 .90 .96 .91
Poorly coordinated/well-coordinated .93 .92 .95
Inconsistent/consistent .74 .80 .82
Aesthetic response
Offensive/enjoyable .62 .96 .86 .68 .96 .81 .68 .97 .87
Poor-looking/nice-looking .89 .84 .90
Displeasing/pleasing .81 .85 .88
Unattractive/attractive .80 .76 .82
Bad appearance/good appearance .83 .85 .88
Ugly/beautiful .80 .74 .83
Social impression
Socially unacceptable/socially acceptable .48 .90 .79 .56 .92 .79 .56 .91 .83
Unfashionable/fashionable .65 .67 .65
Undesired impression/desired impression .78 .80 .77
Disapproved by others/approved by others .68 .70 .74
Unpopular/popular .69 .72 .67
Low in status/high in statusc
Product evaluation
Bad/good .85 .96 .66 .82 .94 .69 .85 .96 .68
Unfavorable/favourable .93 .91 .89
Undesirable/desirable .86 .78 .87
Dislike/like .80 .73 .85
Not at all useful/very usefulc
Purchase intention
Not likely at all/almost sure to buy .97 .94 .84 .93 .94 .87 .94 .95 .89
Impossible/possible .82 .84 .87
a For each construct, the item reliability (IR), composite reliability (SR), and average variance extracted (VE) are provided.
b The scales of all constructs follow a seven-point semantic differential format.
c These items were not included in the finalized scales.
238 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

“Please imagine that you want to buy a T-shirt as a birth-
day present for one of your male friends or relatives who
is in his twenties, and you are looking for a T-shirt that he
can wear on casual occasions. Imagine that you are now
shopping in a department store for the T-shirt and encounter
a number of products during your shopping. I am going
to show you these products. You can touch them if you
want.”
The instructions for the women’s wear trial were similar,
except that they described a somewhat different shopping
goal:
“A female friend or relative of yours in her twenties recently
got a new job in a company. As she is going to work in an
office environment, you are asked to imagine that you want
to buy a top as a gift for her that she can wear in the office or
in social gatherings with friends or relatives.”
By specifying the shopping goals, we intended to make
the participants, regardless of gender, feel that the shopping
task was reasonable and thus ensure that they would involve
themselves actively in inspecting the products.
After participants had finished inspecting all items per-
taining to the first trial, they were asked to complete a
questionnaire containing the endogenous variable measures.3
Participants assigned to the separate display conditions were
asked to imagine that the target and complementary items
had been put together when they answered the questions on
perceived unity, aesthetic response, and social impression.
After participants had completed the questionnaire for the
first trial, they proceeded to the second trial with a different
set of products. The procedure was repeated, and after the
two trials, participants were asked to answer a final question
about how often they found poorly matched product displays
in retail stores ((1) never, (2) seldom, (3) sometimes, (4) often,
(5) very often).
Analysis
Following Anderson and Gerbing (1988), we conducted
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the conver-
gent (reliability) and discriminant validity of the multi-
item measures before testing our hypothesized relationships
using LISREL 8.30. We considered two hypotheses-testing
approaches. First, we could conduct a MANOVA to exam-
ine whether any of the dependent variables were affected
by the independent variables. Subsequently, using separate
univariate ANOVAs, we could test the effects of the indepen-
dent variables on each dependent variable. However, given
3 The first page of the questionnaire included questions on product eval-
uation and purchase intention. Because a participant’s response to these
questions could provide him or her with diagnostic information for answer-
ing subsequent questions on perceived unity, aesthetic response, and social
impression (Feldman & Lynch 1988), we placed the latter questions on the
second page, and the participant was instructed not to go back to the first
page while answering questions on the second page.
our belief that the dependent variables in our study are inter-
related (Fig. 1), the probability values of the ANOVAs are
not independent of one another (Tabachnick & Fidell 2001).
Also, this MANOVA–ANOVA approach is not useful for
understanding the nature and process of the experimental
effects on the interrelated variables (Bray & Maxwell 1985;
Yi 1990).
Second, we could conduct a step-down analysis, which
better meets our research objectives (Bray & Maxwell 1985;
Roy 1958; Tabachnick & Fidell 2001) because it examines
sequential relations among the original set of dependent
variables and indicates whether variation in a dependent
variable is due to the direct or indirect effects of an inde-
pendent variable. Together with ANOVA and/or ANCOVA
(Baker, Levy, & Grewal 1992), a step-down analysis can
perform the mediating test recommended by Baron and
Kenny (1986). In addition, unlike the univariate ANOVA
tests of the MANOVA–ANOVA approach, the probability
values associated with a step-down analysis are independent
(Roy 1958). Hence, a step-down analysis was used in this
research.
In a step-down analysis, a researcher assigns priorities
to the dependent variables being tested according to the-
oretical or practical considerations (Tabachnick & Fidell
2001). The highest-priority variable is tested in univariate
ANOVA, and the remaining dependent variables are tested in
a series of ANCOVAs. Each successive dependent variable is
tested with higher-priority dependent variables as covariates
to determine what, if anything, it adds to the combination
of dependent variables already tested. Using our conceptual
framework in Fig. 1, we assign the highest priority to the aes-
thetic response and social impression constructs, followed by
product evaluation and then purchase intention.
Results
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
The results of the multi-group CFAs, for which we allowed
the parameters to vary across the three groups (juxtaposed
and separate display), indicate problems with one product
evaluation item (very useful/not at all useful) and one social
impression item (high in status/low in status). Across the three
groups and the two replications, these items are consistently
lower than others measuring the same constructs in their fac-
tor loadings by approximately .05–.15. They also differ from
the other items in meaning. Specifically, this evaluation item
focuses on the utilitarian value of a product, unlike the other
evaluation items that focus on the overall evaluation of a prod-
uct. The social impression item, which pertains to status, does
not necessarily have a close relationship with social accept-
ability or approval, because a product that does not project
a high status can still be socially acceptable. Therefore, on
both empirical and substantive grounds, we excluded these
two items from subsequent analyses.
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250 239

We also examined the invariance of factor loadings across on the values obtained for the constrained and unconstrained
the three groups by setting the loadings to be equal. The models. Following the recommendation of Anderson and
invariance test is based on the difference in the χ2 goodness- Gerbing (1988), we conduct this test for one pair of factors at a
of-fit statistic between unconstrained and constrained CFA time and find that all the χ2 statistics are significant at the .001
models. The test results show no difference in the factor load- level, in support of discriminant validity. We also conduct a
ings across the three groups for either men’s or women’s complementary assessment by determining whether the con-
wear (men’s wear, χ2 (30) = 21.64, p > .05; women’s wear, fidence interval (plus or minus two standard errors) around
χ2 (30) = 39.55, p > .05). Therefore, we only examined the the correlation estimate between two constructs includes 1
results of the constrained model. (Anderson & Gerbing 1988). We find that, for every pair of
The majority of the goodness-of-fit indices suggest an constructs, the interval does not include 1, thus providing
acceptable model fit for the men’s wear data. The χ2 further support for discriminant validity.
statistic’s significance at the .001 level (χ2 (510) = 1,049) Having established the convergent and discriminant valid-
may be related to the large sample size used (577 cases). ity of the measures, we derive the score of each construct by
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) averaging the items of each scale. We use this score in our
is .075, and the standardized root mean square residual subsequent manipulation check and hypothesis testing.
(RMR) is .044. According to the benchmarks recommended
by structural equation modeling literature (Bagozzi & Yi
Manipulation check
1988; Diamantopoulos & Siguaw 2000), the RMSEA shows
a reasonable fit (below .08), and the standardized RMR
We performed a manipulation check on merchandise coor-
shows an acceptable fit (below .05). Similarly, the incre-
dination with perceived unity as a criterion variable. The
mental fit indices are greater than .9, suggesting a good fit
check confirms that our coordination manipulation is effec-
(non-normed fit index [NNFI] = .95, comparative fit index
tive in influencing unity perception in the expected direc-
[CFI] = .96). However, the low goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
tion. As Table 2 shows, the marginal means of perceived
(.83, less than the .9 threshold) suggests a relatively poor
unity are higher when the complementary products are well-
fit. To investigate the model’s viability further, we inspect
coordinated than when they are poorly coordinated. We find
the factor loadings and find that all standardized loadings
an interaction effect between coordination and juxtaposition
are high (greater than .6) and significant at the .001 level,
on perceived unity (men’s wear: F(2, 569) = 12.8, p < .001,
corroborating the model fit. Considering these results, we
η2 = .043; women’s wear: F(2, 569) = 3.4; p < .05, η2 = .012).
regard the fit of the constrained model acceptable for men’s
Table 2 and Fig. 4 show that the mean difference between
wear.
the poorly and well-coordinated conditions is greater when
The fit indices for women’s wear are similar: χ2 (510) =
the complementary products are juxtaposed (men’s wear:
1,160, p < .001; RMSEA = .093; standardized RMR = .051;
Mdiff = 2.26; women’s wear: Mdiff = 2.45) than when they are
GFI = .83; NNFI = .95, and CFI = .96. Also, the standardized
separated by four dummies or with no intervening dummies
factor loadings are high (greater than .6) and significant at the
(men’s wear: Mdiff = 1.11, 1.25; women’s wear: Mdiff = 1.73,
.001 level, supporting model fit. Furthermore, we apply the χ2
2.01).
difference test to examine the invariance of the error variance
In addition, we examined in depth the estimated marginal
and factor covariance across groups and find no support for
means in the juxtaposed condition. Table 2 shows that for
invariance.4
men’s wear, the mean of perceived unity is 4.24 for the
Subsequently, we examined the convergent validity (reli-
well-coordinated condition and 1.98 for the poorly coor-
ability) of the measures using our CFA model with the factor
dinated condition. T-tests comparing these means with the
loadings set equal across all groups. In Table 1, we show
middle (neutral) point of the perceived unity scale indi-
that for the men’s wear sample, item reliability is moderate
cate that the former mean is higher than neutral at the
to high. The composite reliability of all constructs is greater
.05 level (t(100) = 1.9, one-sided test), whereas the latter
than .6, and the average variance extracted by each construct
is lower than neutral at the .001 level (t(95) = −16.5, one-
is greater than .5, thus providing evidence for convergent
sided test). For women’s wear, the respective mean estimates
validity for men’s wear (Bagozzi & Yi 1988; Fornell & Lar-
(5.01 for the well-coordinated condition and 2.58 for the
cker 1981). The similar reliability results for the women’s
poorly coordinated condition) also are significantly differ-
wear sample also establish their convergent validity.5
ent from the neutral point at the .01 level in the expected
We assess the discriminant validity of the measures by
directions.
constraining the estimated correlation parameter between two
constructs to be equal and then performing a χ2 difference test
Hypothesis testing
4 Detailed results on the analysis of the invariance are available from the

first author. We report the results of our analyses in Tables 3 and 4 and
5 The reliability results of the women’s wear sample are available from describe the results for each dependent variable in the order
the first author. of its priority in the step-down analyses.
240 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

Fig. 4. Plots of estimated marginal means of perceived unity, aesthetic response, social impression, product evaluation, and purchase intention against mer-
chandise coordination and juxtaposition. Notes. The estimated marginal means were generated from the univariate ANOVAs with merchandise coordination,
juxtaposition, gender, and age as fixed factors. Sep. (4) = separated by four dummies condition; Sep. (0) = separated with no intervening dummies condition;
and Jux. = juxtaposed condition.
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
Fig. 4. (Continued ).
Aesthetic response and social impression
Tables 3 and 4 show a main effect of coordination on
aesthetic response (men’s wear: F(1, 569) = 100.1, p < .001,
η2 = .150; women’s wear: F(1, 569) = 237.7, p < .001,
η2 = .295). As Table 2 indicates, the mean differences in aes-
thetic response between the coordination conditions (Mdiff )
are positive, which indicates that aesthetic response is higher
when complementary products are well coordinated than
when they are poorly coordinated. Therefore, H1a is sup-
ported.
As shown in Table 3 and Fig. 4, we also identify an inter-
action effect between coordination and juxtaposition for the
aesthetic response toward the men’s outfit (F(2, 569) = 6.1,
p < .001, η2 = .021). As Table 2 indicates, the mean difference
in aesthetic response is much greater when the complemen-
tary products are juxtaposed (Mdiff = 1.38) than when they
are separated (Mdiff = .67, .73). The parameter estimates rep-
241
resenting the differences in the effect of coordination between
the juxtaposed and separated conditions are also significant
at the .01 level (b = .71, t(569) = 3.2; b = .65, t(569) = 2.9).6
Therefore, H1b is supported for men’s wear. However, as
Table 4 shows, the interaction effect is not significant for
women’s wear (F(2, 569) = .7; p > .05). Therefore, H1b is not
supported for women’s wear.
Examining the ANOVA results for social impression, we
find a main effect of coordination on social impression (men’s
wear: F(1, 569) = 93.2, p < .001, η2 = .141; women’s wear:
F(1, 569) = 201.9, p < .001, η2 = .262). Also, as Table 2 indi-
6 We used the General Linear Model Procedure of SPSS 11.5 to run the
ANOVAs and ANCOVAs. In addition to the F-statistics, the procedure also
provided parameter estimates, or regression coefficient estimates conveying
information about the direction and absolute magnitude of the effects under
study.
 242 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

cates, the mean differences in social impression between

Mean difference

the coordination conditions (Mdiff ) are positive, which indi-

cates that the impression is higher when the complementary
(Mdiff )

products are well coordinated than when they are poorly coor-
2.26

1.38
1.29
.84
.97

2.45

1.40
1.58
.51
.50

dinated. Therefore, H2a is supported.

We also identify in Table 3 and Fig. 4 an interaction effect
Well-coordinated

between coordination and juxtaposition on the social impres-

sion of the men’s outfit (F(2, 569) = 4.8, p < .01, η2 = .016).
4.24 (.13)

3.74 (.11)
4.17 (.12)
3.78 (.14)
4.16 (.18)

5.01 (.14)

4.27 (.12)
4.78 (.12)
4.09 (.15)
4.32 (.17)

As Table 2 indicates, the mean difference in social impression

is much greater when the complementary products are juxta-
posed (Mdiff = 1.29) than when they are separated (Mdiff = .58,
Poorly coordinated

.86). The parameter estimate representing the difference

between the juxtaposed and the “separated by four dummies”
Juxtaposed

conditions is significant at the .01 level (b = .70, t(569) = 3.1),

1.98 (.12)

2.36 (.11)
2.88 (.11)
2.94 (.14)
3.19 (.17)

2.56 (.13)

2.87 (.12)
3.20 (.11)
3.58 (.15)
3.82 (.17)

but that representing the difference between the juxtaposed

and the “separated with no intervening dummies” conditions
is nonsignificant at the .05 level (b = .43, t(569) = 1.9). Over-
Mean difference

all, H2b is supported by the ANOVA results for men’s wear,

but, as Table 4 shows, the interaction effect is not significant
for women’s wear (F(2, 569) = 1.6, p > .05). Therefore, H2b
(Mdiff )

1.25

.73
.86
.10
.12

2.01

1.41
1.27
−.03
−.08

is not supported for women’s wear.

Product evaluation
Well-coordinated
Separated with no intervening dummies

The ANOVA results in Tables 3 and 4 depict the inter-

3.56 (.13)

3.35 (.11)
4.00 (.12)
3.83 (.14)
4.22 (.18)

4.70 (.14)

4.16 (.12)
4.54 (.12)
4.07 (.15)
4.37 (.17)

action effect of coordination and juxtaposition on the eval-

uation of the target product (men’s wear: F(2, 569) = 7.5,
p < .01, η2 = .026; women’s wear: F(2, 569) = 4.8, p < .01,
η2 = .016). The interaction pattern is also evident in Table 2
Poorly coordinated

and Fig. 4. For men’s wear, the mean difference in prod-

uct evaluation between the coordination conditions is greater
2.31 (.13)

2.62 (.11)
3.14 (.12)
3.73 (.14)
4.10 (.18)

2.69 (.14)

2.75 (.12)
3.27 (.12)
4.10 (.15)
4.45 (.17)

when complementary products are juxtaposed (Mdiff = .84)

than when they are separated (Mdiff = −.18, .10). Planned
pairwise comparison confirms that in the juxtaposed con-
dition, the mean product evaluation is greater when the com-
Mean difference

plementary products are well coordinated than when they

are poorly coordinated (t(195) = 4.2, p < .001). In contrast,
(Mdiff )

there is no significant difference in the mean between the

The lowest value these variables can take is one; the highest is seven.
1.11

.67
.58
−.18
−.22

1.73

1.65
1.19
−.40
−.44
Estimated marginal means and standard deviations for major variables

coordination conditions when the products are separated by

four dummies or with no intervening dummies (four dum-
Well-coordinated

mies: t(185) = −.0, p > .05; no dummies: t(191) = .5, p > .05).
Similarly, for women’s wear, the mean difference between
3.32 (.13)

3.17 (.11)
3.65 (.12)
3.51 (.14)
3.87 (.18)

4.56 (.14)

4.41 (.12)
4.54 (.12)
3.95 (.15)
4.27 (.17)

the coordination conditions is greater when the products

Separated by four dummies

are juxtaposed (Mdiff = .51) than when they are separated

(Mdiff = −.40, −.03). Planned pairwise comparison confirms
Poorly coordinated

that in the juxtaposed condition, the mean is greater when

the products are well coordinated than when they are poorly
coordinated (t(195) = 2.5, p < .05). In contrast, there is no sig-
2.21 (.13)

2.50 (.12)
3.07 (.12)
3.73 (.15)
4.09 (.18)

2.83 (.14)

2.76 (.12)
3.35 (.12)
4.35 (.15)
4.71 (.18)

nificant difference in the mean between the two coordinated

conditions when the products are separated by four dum-
mies or with no intervening dummies (t(185) = −1.9, p > .05;
Aesthetic response

Aesthetic response
Product evaluation

Product evaluation
Purchase intention

Purchase intention

t(191) = −.1, p > .05, respectively).

Dependent variables

Dependent variables
Social impression

Social impression
Manipulation check

Manipulation check
Variables in the studya

Women’s formal wear

Perceived unity

Perceived unity
Men’s casual wear

In Fig. 4, we also note that the mean differences between

the juxtaposed and separated conditions are much smaller
when the complementary products are well coordinated than
Table 2

when they are poorly coordinated. Planned pairwise compar-

a

ison shows that in the well-coordinated condition, there is

 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250 243

Table 3
F tests—men’s casual wear

Notes. Aesthetic: aesthetic response toward two complementary products as a whole; social: social impression of two complementary products as a whole;
coordination: the coordination factor; juxtaposition: the juxtaposition factor; evaluation: evaluation of the target item; intention: intention to purchase the target
item; gender: male or female; order: order in which the men’s and women’s wear appeared. The step-down analysis is highlighted with bold borders. The other
analyses shown complete the mediation tests and examine the total effects of coordination and juxtaposition on product evaluation and purchase intention.

no difference in product evaluation between the juxtaposed
and “separated by four dummies” conditions (men’s wear:
t(189) = 1.3, p > .05; women’s wear: t(189) = −.2, p > .05) or
between the juxtaposed and “separated with no interven-
ing dummies” conditions (men’s wear: t(190) = .7, p > .05;
women’s wear: t(190) = .1, p > .05). In contrast, planned pair-
wise comparison in the poorly coordinated condition shows
that product evaluation is lower when the complementary
products are juxtaposed than when they are separated by
four dummies (men’s wear: t(191) = −4.0, p < .001; women’s
wear: t(190) = −8.9, p < .001). Similarly, the evaluation is
lower when the complementary products are juxtaposed than
when they are separated with no intervening dummies (men’s
wear: t(196) = −4.0, p < .001; women’s wear: t(196) = −7.8,
p < .001).
Overall, we conclude that there is a negative bias in the
effects of coordination and juxtaposition. Poor coordination
depresses product evaluation when the products are juxta-
posed, but good coordination does not enhance product eval-
uation in general.
In the next step of the step-down analysis, we perform
an ANCOVA on product evaluation by including aesthetic
response, social impression, and their interaction with jux-
taposition as covariates. We find that aesthetic response
has a main effect on product evaluation (men’s wear:
F(1, 563) = 41.4, p < .001, η2 = .068; women’s wear: F(1,
563) = 51.5, p < .001, η2 = .084). Furthermore, the parame-
ter estimates representing the simple main effect of aesthetic
response in different juxtaposed/separated conditions are all
positive and significant at the .05 level. Therefore, H3a is
supported.
In addition, the interaction effect between aesthetic
response and juxtaposition is significant for men’s wear
(F(2, 563) = 3.1, p < .05, η2 = .011) but not for women’s
wear (F(2, 563) = 1.6, p > .05). Aesthetic response appears
to have a greater effect on the evaluation of the men’s T-
shirt when the complementary products are juxtaposed than
when they are separated. The parameter estimate repre-
senting the difference between the juxtaposed and “sepa-
rated by four dummies” conditions is nonsignificant at the
.05 level (b = .33, t(563) = 1.8), whereas that for the dif-
ference between the juxtaposed and the “separated with
no intervening dummies” conditions is significant at the
.05 level (b = .39, t(563) = 2.4). Overall, the men’s wear
244 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

Table 4
F tests—women’s formal wear

Notes. Aesthetic: aesthetic response toward two complementary products as a whole; social: social impression of two complementary products as a whole;
coordination: the coordination factor; juxtaposition: the juxtaposition factor; evaluation: evaluation of the target item; intention: intention to purchase the target
item; gender: male or female; order: order in which the men’s and women’s wear appeared. The step-down analysis is highlighted with bold borders. The other
analyses shown complete the mediation tests and examine the total effects of coordination and juxtaposition on product evaluation and purchase intention.

results support H3b , but the women’s wear results do
not.
The ANCOVA also shows that social impression
has a main effect on product evaluation (men’s wear:
F(1, 563) = 11.9, p < .01, η2 = .021; women’s wear: F(1,
563) = 10.3, p < .01, η2 = .018). Furthermore, the parameter
estimates of the simple main effect of social impression in
different juxtaposed/separated conditions are all positive and
significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the ANCOVA sup-
ports H4a (the positive effect of aesthetic response on product
evaluation). However, the analysis shows that the interaction
effect of social impression and juxtaposition is nonsignificant
at the .05 level (men’s wear: F(2, 563) = .1, p > .05; women’s
wear: F(2, 563) = .6, p > .05), and therefore, H4b is not sup-
ported.
To test whether aesthetic response and social impression
mediate the relationship between coordination and product
evaluation (H5a ), we follow a procedure recommended by
Baron and Kenny (1986). For men’s wear, we already have
found that coordination affects aesthetic response, social
impression, and product evaluation and that both aesthetic
response and social impression have significant effects on
product evaluation when they are included as covariates in
the ANCOVA. In addition, when these two covariates are
controlled for, the main effect of coordination remains sig-
nificant (F(1, 563) = 17.7, p < .001, η2 = .030). The parameter
estimate representing this effect not only becomes less pos-
itive, but even turns negative when the two covariates are
included in the analysis.7 Therefore, in contrast to its posi-
tive effect, which is transmitted through aesthetic response
and social impression, coordination appears to have an addi-
tional negative effect on evaluation. Taken together, these
results suggest that aesthetic response and social impression
partially mediate the main effect of coordination on product
evaluation. Consequently, H5a is supported for men’s wear.
For women’s wear, the ANOVA on product evaluation shows
that the main effect of coordination on product evaluation
is nonsignificant (F(1, 569) = .8, p > .05), and consequently,
H5a is not supported.
We also conduct similar tests to examine whether aesthetic
response and social impression mediate the moderating effect
7 Baron and Kenny (1986) recommend that, in testing the fourth condition,
researchers should examine not only the significance of an effect, but also
its absolute size. Therefore, we examine the parameter estimate representing
the effect.
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
of juxtaposition on the relationship between coordination and
product evaluation (H5b ). For men’s wear, our testing for H1b
and H2b shows that juxtaposition moderates the relationships
between coordination and aesthetic response and between
coordination and social impression. We also find support
for the moderating effect of juxtaposition on the relationship
between coordination and evaluation. In addition, in testing
H3a and H4a , we provide evidence that aesthetic response
and social impression affect evaluation.8 Finally, when aes-
thetic response and social impression are included in the
ANCOVA as covariates, the interaction effect between coor-
dination and juxtaposition on product evaluation becomes
nonsignificant at the .05 level (F(2, 563) = .7), and the param-
eter estimates diminish. As such, H5b is supported for men’s
wear. In contrast, in testing H1b and H2b , we show that the
interaction effects between coordination and juxtaposition on
aesthetic response and social impression are not significant
for women’s wear. Therefore, the first condition laid down by
Baron and Kenny (1986) is not met, and H5b is not supported
for women’s wear.
Purchase intention
The univariate ANOVA results on purchase intention are
similar to those on product evaluation. As Tables 3 and 4 indi-
cate, there is an interaction effect of coordination and juxtapo-
sition on the evaluation of the target product (men’s wear: F(2,
569) = 6.2, p < .01, η2 = .021; women’s wear: F(2, 569) = 3.9,
p < .05, η2 = .014). As Table 2 shows, the mean difference
in purchase intention between the coordination conditions
is greater when the complementary products are juxtaposed
(Mdiff = .97) than when they are separated (Mdiff = −.22, .12).
Planned pairwise comparison confirms that the mean dif-
ference is significant if the products are juxtaposed (men’s
wear: t(195) = 4.0, p < .001; women’s wear: t(195), p < .05).
In contrast, the mean difference is not significant when the
products are separated by four dummies (for men’s wear:
t(185) = −.9, p > .05; women’s wear: t(185) = −1.8, p > .05)
or separated with no intervening dummies (men’s wear:
t(191) = .5, p > .05; women’s wear: t(191) = −.3, p > .05).
In Fig. 4, we note that the mean differences between
the juxtaposed and separated conditions are much smaller
when the complementary products are well coordinated than
when they are poorly coordinated. Planned pairwise compar-
ison shows that in the well-coordinated condition, there is
no difference in purchase intention between the juxtaposed
and “separated with no intervening dummies” conditions
(men’s wear: t(189) = 1.2, p > .05; women’s wear: t(189) = .2,
p > .05), and between the juxtaposed and “separated by four
dummies conditions” (for men’s wear: t(190) = .2, p > .05;
women’s wear: t(190) = −.2, p > .05). In contrast, planned
pairwise comparison applied to the poorly coordinated con-
8 According to Baron and Kenny (1986), whether juxtaposition moder-
ates the relationships between aesthetic response and product evaluation and
between social impression and product evaluation is irrelevant for establish-
ing the mediating roles of aesthetic response and social impression.
245
dition shows that purchase intention is lower when the
complementary products are juxtaposed than when they are
either separated by four dummies (men’s wear: t(191) = −3.7,
p < .001; women’s wear: t(191) = −3.7, p < .001) or separated
with no intervening dummies (men’s wear: t(196) = −3.7,
p < .001; women’s wear: t(196) = −2.7, p < .01). Therefore,
the effects of coordination and juxtaposition on purchase
intention indicate a negative bias, similar to that found for
product evaluation.
To test H6 (the effect of product evaluation on purchase
intention), we performed an ANCOVA performed on pur-
chase intention by including product evaluation and the
other dependent variables as covariates. The ANCOVA shows
that product evaluation has a significant effect on purchase
intention (men’s wear: F(1, 562) = 328.7, p < .001, η2 = .369;
women’s wear: F(1, 562) = 530.5, p < .001, η2 = .486). Fur-
thermore, the parameter estimate representing this effect is
positive. Therefore, H6 is supported.
To test H7a (the mediating role of evaluation in the main
effects of aesthetic response and social impression on pur-
chase intention), we again followed Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) procedure. Aesthetic response and social impression
affect product evaluation, therefore meeting the first condi-
tion. To test the second condition, we conducted an addi-
tional ANCOVA in which we excluded product evaluation
from the previous step-down analysis. As the last columns in
Tables 3 and 4 indicate, aesthetic response has a significant
effect on purchase intention (men’s wear: F(1, 563) = 23.0,
p < .001, η2 = .039; women’s wear: F(1, 563) = 31.5, p < .001,
η2 = .053). Social impression also has a significant effect on
purchase intention for men’s wear (F(1, 563) = 3.9, p < .05,
η2 = .007) but not for women’s wear (F(1, 563) = 2.5, p > .05).
Taken together, the additional ANCOVA suggests that aes-
thetic response and social impression as a whole affect pur-
chase intention. The effect of product evaluation on purchase
intention is also confirmed in the testing of H6 . Finally,
comparing the ANCOVAs presented in Tables 3 and 4, we
observe that the main effects of aesthetic response and social
impression, which are significant in the additional ANCOVA,
become nonsignificant at the .05 level when product eval-
uation is included as a covariate. The parameter estimates
pertaining to these effects also diminish. Therefore, we con-
clude that H7a is supported.
Finally, we test H7b , which pertains to the mediating
role of evaluation in the moderating effect of juxtaposition
on the relationships between aesthetic response and pur-
chase intention and between social impression and purchase
intention. We find that in the additional ANCOVA for pur-
chase intention, the moderating effect of juxtaposition on the
relationship between aesthetic response and purchase inten-
tion is not significant (men’s wear: F(2, 563) = .4, p > .05;
women’s wear: F(2, 563) = .4, p > .05). Similarly, we find
that the moderating effect of juxtaposition on the relationship
between social impression and purchase intention is not sig-
nificant (men’s wear: F(2, 563) = .3, p > .05; women’s wear:
F(2, 563) = .5, p > .05). Therefore, Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
246 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
second mediating condition is not fulfilled, and H7b is not
supported.
Discussion
Contributions to knowledge and explanation of findings
We summarize the results of our analysis in Table 5. Our
findings support most of our hypotheses and, by extension,
the conceptual framework that we use to explain the effects of
merchandise coordination and juxtaposition on product eval-
uation and purchase intention. The consistency of our results
for both men’s casual wear and women’s formal wear also
enhances the validity of our proposed framework. In partic-
ular, we find that the aesthetic response toward and social
impression of a product grouping play a central role in these
effects and that some hypothesized relationships are stronger
in the juxtaposed condition than in the separated conditions.
Our results are in line with the view that consumers’ prefer-
ences can be influenced by situational or contextual factors,
one of which is merchandise presentation in shopping envi-
ronments (Bettman, Luce, & Payne 1998; Hsee & Leclerc
1998).
Previous studies on merchandise coordination and the
aesthetics of product design show that a good match of prod-
ucts in an ensemble enhances the evaluation of the ensem-
ble and coordination of features in a product design affects
the aesthetic response toward the product (Bell et al. 1991;
Holbrook 1986; Veryzer & Hutchinson 1998). We extend
these observations by demonstrating that (1) the coordi-
nation of a product grouping affects the evaluation of the
individual product, (2) this coordination effect only takes
place in the juxtaposed condition, (3) this effect can be
explained in part by aesthetic response and social impres-
sion, and (4) there is a negative bias in the coordination
and juxtaposition effects on product evaluation and purchase
intention.
Our results also show that the effect of aesthetic response
on product evaluation is stronger than that of social impres-
sion. This difference may be related to the process that under-
lies the formation of aesthetic response and social impression.
Aesthetic or hedonic value provided by a product is an end
in itself (Bell et al. 1991), and a consumer’s response to a
product’s aesthetics is generally spontaneous, requiring little
cognitive or coding effort. Therefore, consumers are likely
to take into account the aesthetics of a product when evalu-
ating it. In contrast, the social value provided by a product
is extrinsic in nature (i.e., a means to achieve a higher-order
goal), and deciding whether a product conveys a desirable
social impression requires some cognitive effort. Unless con-
sumers are highly involved in their evaluation, they may
not deliberate actively on a product’s social acceptability.
Thus, social impression may bear less weight than aesthetic
response for many product evaluation and usage situations.
In their study of the effects of perceived value dimensions
on consumers’ willingness to buy durable goods (including
apparel), Sweeney and Soutar (2001) also find that the effect
of the social value dimension is less than that of the other
dimensions (quality, emotion, and price) in terms of impor-
tance.
Our results also indicate a negative bias in the effects of
coordination and juxtaposition on product evaluation, which
translates into a negative bias in their effects on purchase
intention. One possible explanation for this finding is that,
in the separate display conditions, exposing consumers to a
target item may evoke memories of complementary items
they saw previously, including those that consumers already
possess or saw recently. For example, when evaluating a T-
shirt, consumers may attempt to recall products that match
the T-shirt because their assessment of the T-shirt’s utility
depends partly on its ability to form a nice-looking outfit
with other products. As a result of this visualization, the rat-
ing of the T-shirt in the separated conditions differs little
from its rating in the juxtaposed, well-coordinated condi-
tion. However, when the T-shirt is juxtaposed with a pair
of pants in a poorly coordinated manner, consumers’ nega-
tive response toward the product grouping may suppress their
recollection of pants that match the T-shirt. Consequently,
the rating is reduced in the juxtaposed, poorly coordinated
condition. This negative bias is consistent with the loss aver-
sion assumption stated in prospect theory (i.e., losses loom
larger than gains; Kahneman & Tversky 1979) and in line
with evidence that negative information is more perceptu-
ally salient and given more weight than positive informa-
tion in the evaluation of an object (Peeters & Czapinski
1990).
Furthermore, the interaction effects between coordination
and juxtaposition on product evaluation and purchase inten-
tion help clarify whether a complementary item affects the
evaluation of the target item when they are displayed sep-
arately. Our results suggest that a complementary item that
does not match the target item will not affect the evaluation
of the latter. When both items are not juxtaposed, the evalu-
ation of the target item is similar in both the poorly and the
well-coordinated conditions. In addition, the similar scores
imply that consumers do not recall a poorly matched comple-
mentary item they saw previously when evaluating a target
item. However, with our results, we are unsure whether con-
sumers think about the complementary item if it matches
the target item. As we noted previously, our participants
may recall complementary products that match the target
item when they inspect the target item in isolation, but these
complementary products might include not only the comple-
mentary item that they saw during the experimental trial, but
also products they possess or had seen before taking part
in the experiment. Therefore, it does not necessarily fol-
low that the complementary item influences the target item’s
evaluation.
Finally, whereas previous studies on aesthetic response
to merchandise coordination and product design use pic-
tures of products as experimental stimuli (Bell et al. 1991;
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250 247

Table 5
Summary of hypotheses and results
Hypotheses Relationship Results
H1a Merchandise coordination has a positive effect on consumers’ aesthetic response Supported
toward two complementary products as a whole.
H1b The effect of merchandise coordination on aesthetic response is moderated by Supported for men’s wear but not for women’s wear
merchandise juxtaposition. Specifically, merchandise coordination has a stronger
positive effect on consumers’ aesthetic response when the complementary
products are put together than when they are separated.
H2a Merchandise coordination has a positive effect on the social impression of two Supported
complementary products as a whole.
H2b The effect of merchandise coordination on social impression is moderated by Supported for men’s wear but not for women’s wear
merchandise juxtaposition. Specifically, merchandise coordination has a stronger
positive effect on social impression when the complementary products are put
together than when they are separated.
H3a An aesthetic response toward two complementary products as a whole has a Supported
positive effect on the evaluation of the individual target product.
H3b The effect of the aesthetic response on the evaluation of the target product is Supported for men’s wear but not for women’s wear
moderated by merchandise juxtaposition. Specifically, the aesthetic response has a
stronger positive effect on the evaluation when the complementary products are
put together than when they are separated.
H4a The social impression of two complementary products as a whole has a positive Supported
effect on the evaluation of the individual target product.
H4b The effect of the social impression on the evaluation of the target product is Not supported
moderated by merchandise juxtaposition. Specifically, the social impression has a
stronger positive effect on the evaluation when the complementary products are
put together than when they are separated.
H5a The aesthetic response toward and social impression of two complementary Supported for men’s wear—partial mediation; not
products as a whole totally or partially mediate the main effect of merchandise supported for women’s wear
coordination on the evaluation of the target product.
H5b Aesthetic response and social impression totally or partially mediate the Supported for men’s wear—total mediation; not
moderating effect of merchandise juxtaposition on the relationship between supported for women’s wear
merchandise coordination and the evaluation of the target product.
H6 The evaluation of the target product has a positive effect on the consumers’ Supported
intention to purchase the product.
H7a The evaluation of the target product totally or partially mediates the main effects Supported
of the aesthetic response toward and the social impression of two complementary
products as a whole on the purchase intention of the target product.
H7b The evaluation of the target product totally or partially mediates the moderating Not supported
effects of merchandise juxtaposition on the relationships between aesthetic
response and purchase intention and between social impression and purchase
intention.

Holbrook 1986; Veryzer & Hutchinson 1998), we use
actual products and allow participants to touch them in our
study. Therefore, our findings have higher external validity
than those of previous studies with regard to store-based
retailing.
Managerial implications
Our results show that for the product categories under
study, merchandise coordination has an effect on product
evaluation and purchase intention only when complemen-
tary products are juxtaposed. The results also suggest that
even if two products are put on adjacent sides of a display
stand (as in the case of the “separated with no interven-
ing dummies” condition), no coordination effect likely will
arise out of product aesthetics. However, this finding does
not suggest that retailers and manufacturers selling differ-
ent product categories at retail outlets can improve their
products’ evaluation by merely juxtaposing them in a well-
coordinated manner. Instead, our results demonstrate that
even when a target item is juxtaposed with a complemen-
tary item in a well-coordinated manner, the evaluation of
the target item does not necessarily improve compared with
its evaluation in the two separated conditions. Our results
indicate that poor coordination of an ensemble in a juxta-
posed condition depresses product evaluation and purchase
intention. Therefore, retailers and manufacturers must be
concerned about whether the items juxtaposed as an ensem-
ble are poorly coordinated. This concern cannot be over-
stated, in that a significant proportion (37 percent) of our
participants said that product displays in retail stores were
sometimes poorly coordinated, and only four percent indi-
cated they had never seen poorly coordinated displays in retail
stores.
248 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
Although good coordination does not seem to improve
evaluation or purchase intention, our results indicate that
it improves the aesthetics and social impression of prod-
uct displays. The enhancement in aesthetic appeal may
lead to some outcomes beneficial to retail management,
such as an improvement of store image or an increase in
store traffic due to the aesthetic attraction. Furthermore,
because our results indicate that the aesthetic response and
social impression have positive effects on product evalua-
tion, apparel retailers and manufacturers should emphasize
the former two aspects in their displays. Whereas coordi-
nating the color and style of the product components of an
ensemble is a means to enhance the aesthetics and social
impression of a display, other visual elements may also help.
For example, the color and style of individual products in
an ensemble and the coordination between the ensemble
and its background (e.g., wallpaper or posters that form
the backdrop of a display) may affect the aesthetics and
social impression and, consequently, individual products’
evaluation.
Limitations and further research
Our explanation of the findings is based partly on the
assumption that consumers tend to recollect complementary
items that match an item being evaluated. Further research
should verify the validity of this assumption by using thought-
listing techniques to examine what consumers think or recall
when evaluating a product. We find that social impression
plays a relatively minor role in explaining the effect of coordi-
nation on product evaluation, but its role could be investigated
further, in that it might vary with consumers’ shopping goals
and usage situations. If consumers become highly involved
in a shopping task, they may put more effort into think-
ing through the consequences of using the target item, in
which case the relationship between social impression and
product evaluation may become more salient. To increase
involvement, researchers might adopt products with higher
social risks (e.g., suits) and usage goals with more serious
consequences (e.g., asking participants to imagine they are
considering buying suits that they will wear for job inter-
views).
Our mediation analysis shows that coordination has an
“unintended” negative effect on product evaluation, in addi-
tion to positive effects through aesthetic response and social
impression. This negative effect is counterintuitive, and its
cause is worth investigating. Perhaps a highly consistent
product grouping is not as arousing as a less consistent one,
and when other things are equal, consumers may like an excit-
ing grouping more than a less exciting one. Similarly, apart
from aesthetic response and social impression, an ensem-
ble may affect product evaluation in other ways, depending
on the type of display involved. An ensemble could give
its individual constituent items certain symbolic meanings
(McCracken 1988; Thwaites, Davis, & Mules 1994), because
a product on display can derive meaning or connotations
from other objects placed close to it through various semi-
otic operations, such as metaphor and metonymy (Thwaites
et al. 1994). For example, the “Jungle” line of perfume could
be strategically placed among objects or products associ-
ated with a tropical jungle or before a photographic jungle
background. Such display arrangement may give the per-
fume connotations of adventure and exoticism, which could
enrich the brand concept and enhance product evaluation.
Therefore, additional research should look into the coordi-
nation effect via the symbolic meanings that an ensemble
conveys.
Our study investigates only one moderator of the coor-
dination effect: merchandise juxtaposition. Further research
might consider other moderators, including personality traits
and other marketing mix variables. Bloch et al. (2003) find
that people differ in the value they place on product aesthet-
ics as a means of enhancing the quality of life, as well as
in their acumen for appreciating aesthetics. Considered to be
personality traits by Bloch et al. (2003), consumer value and
acumen may moderate the effect of an aesthetic response
and, hence, the effect of coordination on product evalua-
tion. In addition, merchandise coordination and juxtaposition
may interact with price promotion. During a price promotion,
consumers may use the savings from the price discounts to
purchase other items, particularly those that are complemen-
tary to the promoted items (Soman & Cheema 2001). This
promotional effect on the sales of complementary items will
be enhanced if the items are placed close to the promoted
items in a well-coordinated fashion. Thus, we expect an inter-
action effect among coordination, juxtaposition factors, and
price promotion on the purchase intention of complementary
items.
Finally, future research should study other consequences
of merchandise coordination and juxtaposition. Merchan-
dise juxtaposition may stimulate need recognition or retrieval
(Levy & Weitz 1998). The aesthetic appeal of well-
coordinated juxtaposed displays could affect consumers’
emotional state (such as pleasure or arousal), which in turn
could affect their approach or avoidance behavior (Bitner
1992; Donovan & Rossiter 1982). Approach or avoidance
behavior may be manifested as willingness to stay inside a
store longer, explore a store’s products, spend more money,
and so forth. Thus, researchers should examine whether good
coordination of products in complementary categories makes
consumers’ shopping experiences more positive, as well as
whether the pleasure or arousal induced by the coordination
affects their shopping behavior.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the participating retailer for
lending to them the mannequins used in the study. The
authors also express their appreciation to Teo Ai Ling, Fiona
Yap, Chen Yanling, and Lee Wen Ting for their assistance
in carrying out the study, as well as to Sally Burrows for
 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250
editing support. The financial assistance of the Nanyang
Technological University’s Nanyang Business School is also
gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank the editors,
three anonymous reviewers, and Professor Avijit Ghosh for
their useful comments on previous drafts of this manuscript
and are indebted to Professors Michael Hui, Sharan Jag-
pal, Albert Chau, and Soh Star for their advice on data
analysis.
References
Anderson, James C., & Gerbing, David W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Ashcraft, Mark H. (1989). Human memory and cognition. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.
Baker, Julie, Levy, Michael, & Grewal, Dhruv. (1992). An experimental
approach to making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of
Retailing, 68(4), 445–460.
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1982). A field investigation of causal relations
among cognitions, affect, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Mar-
keting Research, 19(November), 562–584.
Bagozzi, Richard P., & Yi, Youjae. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),
74–94.
Baron, Reuben M., & Kenny, David A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Beardsley, M. C. (1981). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of crit-
icism (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Haskett.
Bell, Stephen S., Holbrook, Morris B., & Solomon, Michael R. (1991).
Combining esthetic and social value to explain preferences for
product styles with the incorporation of personality and ensem-
ble effect. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 243–
273.
Berman, Barry, & Evans, Joel R. (1995). Retail management: A strategic
approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bettman, James, Luce, May Frances, & Payne, John W. (1998). Con-
structive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research,
25(3), 187–217.
Bitner, Mary J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surround-
ings on customer and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(April),
57–71.
Bloch, Peter H., Brunel, Frederic F., & Arnold, Todd J. (2003). Individ-
ual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept
and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(March), 551–
565.
Bray, James H., & Maxwell, Scott E. (1985). Multivariate analysis of
variance. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the
rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information
processing (pp. 75–176). New York: Academic Press.
Dabholkar, Pratibha. (1994). Incorporating choice into an attitudinal
framework: Analyzing models of mental comparison processes. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 21(June), 100.
Dahl, Darren W., Chattopadhyay, Amitava, & Gorn, Gerald J. (1999).
The use of visual mental imagery in new product design. Journal of
Marketing Research, 36(February), 18–28.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, & Siguaw, Judy A. (2000). Intro-
ducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. London: SAGE
Publications.
249
Donovan, Robert J., & Rossiter, John R. (1982). Store atmosphere:
An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1),
34–57.
Feldman, Jack M., & Lynch, John G. (1988). Self-generated valid-
ity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(August), 421–
435.
Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal
of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Grewal, Dhruv, Kent, B., & Krishnan, Monroe R. (1998). The effects
of price-comparison advertising on buyers’ perceptions of acquisition
value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Mar-
keting, 62(2), 46–59.
Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation level theory. New York: Harper and Row.
Herr, Paul M., Kardes, Frank R., & Kim, John. (1991). Effects of
word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An
accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research,
17(March), 454–462.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1986). Aims, concepts, and methods for the
representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to
design features. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(December), 337–
347.
Hsee, Christopher, & Leclerc, France. (1998). Will products look more
attractive when presented separately or together? Journal of Consumer
Research, 25(September), 175–186.
Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos. (1979). Prospect theory: An
analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 43(March), 263–
291.
Lennon, Sharron J. (1990). Effects of clothing attractiveness on percep-
tions. Home Economics Research Journal, 18(3), 303–310.
Levy, Michael, & Weitz, Barton. (1998). Retailing management (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
McCracken, G. (1988). Diderot unities and the diderot effect. In Culture
and consumption. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University
Press, pp. 118–129.
Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evalu-
ations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity
effect. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33–60.
Petty, Richard, & Cacioppo, John T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood
model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
19, 123–205.
Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associated.
Reed, Americus, II. (2002). Social identity as a useful perspective for self-
concept-based consumer research. Psychology & Marketing, 19(3),
235–266.
Roy, J. (1958). Step down procedure in multivariate analysis. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 29(December), 1177–1187.
Russell, Gary J., Ratneshwar, S., Shocker, Allan D., Bell, David, Boda-
pati, Anand, Degeratu, Alex, Hildebrandt, Lutz, Kim, Namwoon,
Ramaswami, S., & Shankar, Venkatash H. (1999). Multiple-category
decision-making: Review and synthesis. Marketing Letters, 10(4),
319–332.
Soman, Dilip, & Cheema, Amar. (2001). The effect of windfall gains on
the sunk cost effect. Marketing Letters, 12(1), 49–60.
Sweeney, Jillian C., & Soutar, Geoffrey N. (2001). Consumer perceived
value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing,
77(2), 203–220.
Tabachnick, Barbara G., & Fidell, Linda S. (2001). Using multivariate
statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Thwaites, Tony, Davis, Lloyd, & Mules, Warwick. (1994). Tools for
cultural studies: An introduction. Melbourne: MacMillan Education
Australia Pty Ltd.
Veryzer, Robert W. (1993). Aesthetic response and the influence of
design principles on product preferences. In X. X. Leigh McAl-
ister & Michael L. Rothschild (Eds.), Advances in consumer
250 S.Y. Lam, A. Mukherjee / Journal of Retailing 81 (3, 2005) 231–250

research (pp. 224–228). Provo, UT: Association of Consumer
Research.
Veryzer, Robert W., & Hutchinson, Wesley J. (1998). The influence
of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic responses to new product
designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(March), 374–394.
Wagner, Janet. (1999). Aesthetic value. In Morris B. Holbrook (Ed.), Con-
sumer value: A framework for analysis and research (pp. 126–146).
London: Routledge.
Yi, Youjae. (1990). Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context
for print advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 40–48.