International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Hospitality Management

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

How do customers respond to the hotel servicescape? T

Andrew Lockwood , Kyunghee Pyun
⁎

School of Hospitality and Tourism Management, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, United Kingdom

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Previous research shows some links between customers’ perceptions of their service experience in hotels, overall
Servicescape satisfaction and enhanced sales revenue. However, the ways in which the servicescape influences the customer
Hotels and their perceptions of the hotel experience remains relatively unexplored.
Emotional response This study explores the links between customers’ perceptions of the hotel servicescape and their emotional
Behavioural response
and behavioural responses. Previous research has used scales developed for other industrial contexts and this
study aims to develop an instrument directly relevant to the hotel context. To achieve this goal, a recently
developed hotel specific servicescape scale was used but both the emotional and behavioural response scales
were developed based on existing research but expanded to include items specifically for hotel customers.
Using a large-scale survey of hotel customers in London, analysis showed two dimensions of emotional re-
sponses and two dimensions of behavioural responses to be both valid and reliable for the hotel context. The
study then successfully determined the relationship between five hotel servicescape dimensions and customers’
emotional states and their behavioural responses. The findings showed the ways in which the hotel servicescape
significantly affects both emotional and behavioural responses, having clear implications for both hotel design
and management. The results also raised a number of interesting and potentially rewarding areas for further
research.

1. Introduction customer to mentally categorise the operation, with the environmental

Hotels have always known the value of design in attracting atten-
tion as well as in communicating and differentiating their product and
service values. There is an appreciation that an effective hotel physical
environment can attract customers from the desired target market. As
with other services, the physical environment, created and controlled
by the operation, provides the environment within which the simulta-
neous delivery and consumption of hotel services take place, con-
stituting a contact element that may strongly impact directly and in-
directly on the customers’ satisfaction and their perception of service
quality (Bitner, 1990; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Indeed, it has been
proposed (Oakes, 2000) that the servicescape will affect the customer
physiologically, cognitively and emotionally. Bitner (1992) described
how the tangible environment of services (the servicescape) influences
customers in physiological, cognitive, emotional as well as psycholo-
gical and sociological ways.
Bitner (1992) suggested that the service firm’s physical environment
itself may have a significant effect on customers’ satisfaction with their
service experience and consequently will affect the likelihood that the
customer will return to re-patronise that service operation. Her ratio-
nale is that the overall perception of the servicescape enables the
cues serving as a shorthand way for customers to distinguish between
different types of restaurants or hotels (Bitner, 1992).
This study was seminal to the servicescape literature but did not
address the hotel context specifically. This suggests that a study, set
directly in the hotel context, to investigate systematically and empiri-
cally the effects of the key dimensions of the physical environment on
customers’ feelings of pleasure and arousal, and subsequent approach-
avoidance behaviours, would be insightful and make a clear contribu-
tion to the hospitality literature.
People not only perceive and react to their physical environments,
but they also interact with them. The servicescape needs to be looked at
both in terms of the ‘physical container’ as well as the internal factors
that will help determine the overall atmosphere (Tombs and McColl-
Kennedy, 2003). In hotels, where customers spend a significant amount
time in the property, perceptions of the visual clues about the hotel’s
quality of care and core service values are especially difficult to sepa-
rate from the actual service delivery. In spite of the wide interest in
these physical environments, there has been very little research dealing
with this subject in the hotel industry context, where a customer has a
comparatively longer and potentially a more intimate relationship with
the service environment. However, until we know more about how the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.lockwood@surrey.ac.uk (A. Lockwood), kyungheepyun@gmail.com (K. Pyun).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.04.016
Received 14 November 2018; Received in revised form 21 March 2019; Accepted 23 April 2019
0278-4319/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun
built hotel environment could affect human emotions and behaviours,
our understanding of the hotel servicescape will remain incomplete.
The principal aim of this study, therefore, is to examine the effect of
the hotel servicescape on customers’ emotional and behavioural re-
sponses. In order to achieve this, a key objective is to develop reliable,
valid and specific emotional and behavioural response scales for hotel
customers; and only then to investigate the relationship between the
hotel servicescape and these elicited emotional and behavioural re-
sponses. First, this study reviews the S-O-R (Stimulus-Organism-
Response) model to explain the relationship between environmental
factors and responses in individuals. Then, the ways in which the ser-
vicescape affects customers’ behavioural and emotional responses are
discussed. Next, the development of the research design is described,
including those steps taken in the development of scales to measure
hotel customers’ emotional and behavioural response in the hotel spe-
cific context. The data collected by using these scales in a large cus-
tomer survey conducted in five upscale London hotels are described and
a detailed analysis is presented and discussed. Lastly, the theoretical
and managerial implications and the limitations of the study are dis-
cussed, as well as the areas for further research that emerge from our
analysis.
2. Previous studies on the influence of the physical environment
Based on Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory, the frame-
work developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974), has been widely
used to explain the effect of the environment on customer behaviour
(see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. The Mehrabian-Russell model (Source: Mehrabian and Russell, 1974).
The model suggests that the emotional states of the individual
mediate the influence of the environment on individual behaviour.
Looking at the retail industry, Donovan and Rossiter (1982) adapted the
model to look at the ways store environments stimulate an individual’s
basic emotional states of pleasure, arousal and dominance which then
affect their approach or avoidance behaviours. The stimuli in their
model are the physical features (e.g., colour, layout, lighting, etc.) of
the built environment. A high-load environment, where the individual
has high levels of arousal, will make a person feel excited and alert,
while a low-load environment will induce calm and relaxation.
The three emotional states aroused by the environment are:
Pleasure-displeasure: the degree to which an individual has feelings
of well-being, joy, happiness or satisfaction in an environment
Arousal-unarousal: the degree to which an individual has feelings of
excitement, stimulation, alertness or action in an environment
Dominance-submissiveness: the degree to which an individual has
feelings of control or freedom of action in an environment
However, due to insufficient empirical support, the dominance state
is most commonly omitted when using the model. For example,
Donovan and Rossiter’s (1982) study, in a retail setting, failed to link
the dominance dimension to approach-avoidance behaviours. Russell
and Pratt (1980) argue that the individual needs a cognitive inter-
pretation of the dominance dimension and this is not normally evident
in environments that call for an affective response. They suggest that
pleasure/displeasure and degree of arousal together can adequately
represent the individual’s internal emotional state. It is these
232
International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241
dimensions that have been fully operationalised for previous research
in retail stores.
In the final stage of the model, a set of responses or outcomes are
characterized as approach or avoidance behaviours (Turley and
Milliman, 2000; Bitner, 1992; Milliman, 1986; Donovan and Rossiter,
1982). The retail sector has proved a rich context for servicescape re-
search. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) began a series of empirical re-
search studies based in the retail sector showing the way an environ-
ment can affect customer emotions and then effect behaviours that
drive operational performance. They suggest that customers will be-
have in four possible ways:
1 The desire to physically stay in (approach) or leave (avoidance) the
environment: related to store patronage intentions.
2 The willingness to explore the environment (approach) or tendency
to remain inanimate with the surroundings (avoidance): related to
the degree of in-store searching and the range of merchandise to
which customers allow themselves to be exposed.
3 The desire to communicate with others in the store (approach) or
tendency to avoid any interaction with others (avoidance): related
to the interaction with the sales staff and other customers.
4 The degree of enhancement (approach) or hindrance (avoidance)
that the environment gives to solving problems: related to satisfac-
tion and repeat shopping frequency, as well as the amount of time
and money spent in the store.
While this research has proved to present useful insights in the retail
sector, the differences between the retail and hotel context means that
these insights may well not transfer directly.
The approach-avoidance model suggests that it is the customer’s
emotional state aroused by the environmental stimulus that drives these
behavioural responses. Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, and Nesdale
(1994), in a further study again in the retail sector, found that pleasure
is positively related to aspects of customer behaviour such as spending
extra time in the store and spending more than anticipated. In the Yalch
and Spangenberg (1990) study, music of different types played in a
retail store produced different emotional responses in customers. Sev-
eral empirical studies suggest that arousal can increase the impact of
pleasure on satisfaction (Mano and Oliver, 1993; Oliver, 1980;
Westbrook, 1987; Westbrook and Oliver, 1991; Wirtz and Bateson,
1999).
While the Mehrabian-Russell model would appear to have strong
support in retail store environments, few studies have offered a fra-
mework appropriate to hotel environments. This paper takes the posi-
tion that the servicescape clearly differs between industrial contexts
and suggests that, while the S-O-R paradigm can be usefully applied to
identifying the relationship between hotel servicescapes and customers’
emotional and behavioural responses, the scales used will need
amendment and contextualisation.
3. The hotel servicescape as an environmental stimulus
The basic framework of S-O-R theory for a hotel is as follows: the
physical environment acts as the stimulus, the hotel’s customers are
organisms that respond emotionally to that stimulus, and the behaviour
that the customers display within that environment is their response to
those stimuli. The model then helps us explain the various roles of the
hotel servicescape and customers’ emotional and behavioural re-
sponses. For this study, approach-avoidance behaviours may be con-
sidered to have three aspects in the hotel industry context:
1 A willingness or desire to stay in and return to the hotel (approach)
or a desire, in the extreme, to leave the hotel (avoidance) which at a
lesser level may present as feelings of discomfort;
2 The degree of enhancement (approach) or hindrance (avoidance) of
performance and the resulting satisfaction with task performance;
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

and
3 A desire to communicate with others in the hotel (approach) or to
avoid interacting with others (avoidance).
It is predicted that customers will enjoy spending more time and
money in a hotel where they feel pleasure and a moderate to high de-
gree of arousal. The hotel setting may be designed to encourage the
customer to linger on the basis that this is likely to increase the value of
the time spent. The ‘correct’ combination of pleasure and arousal pro-
duced by the hotel servicescape can enhance the service experience
within the hotel. In other words, customers’ affective states can be
managed through the design and maintenance of the hotel servicescape
so adding to the satisfaction of customers and their propensity to con-
tinue their interaction with the hotel. Therefore, it can be said that the
hotel environment plays a key role in providing information to custo-
mers about service quality. These aspects are currently not reflected in
the generic literature.
Servicescapes can also affect service employees’ performance
(Bitner, 1992; Sulek et al., 1995). Physical environments can evoke
extreme positive or negative reactions from employees. Employees
work harder and stay longer hours and become more involved when the
environment is right for them (Kasper et al., 1999). Employees who are
positively affected by their environment will respond more openly and
positively during customer interaction and are likely to provide better
service. Appropriately designed servicescapes can help employees to
perform their duties.
Finally, the servicescape itself can influence the nature of the cus-
tomer-server interaction (d’Astous, 2000; Foxall and Greenley, 1999;
Hui, Dube and Chebat 1997; Darden and Babin, 1994; Donovan and
Rossiter, 1982; Meharabian and Russell, 1974) as well as interactions
with other guests. The servicescape may clearly moderate the nature
and effect of the interaction between the customer and the employee.
4. Hotel servicescape dimensions
Having established the stimulus provided by the servicescape in the
hotel setting and its influence on customers, it is now important to
identify what the key dimensions of the hotel servicescape are in order
to understand these effects more fully.
Unfortunately, there are very few studies that have examined the
servicescape in hotels. Phillips (2004) focused on how hotel companies
could use aesthetics in a customer-oriented approach but merely pro-
vided a conceptual framework to show architects, interior designers
and hoteliers how hotel aesthetics could be better aligned with corpo-
rate and business-level strategy. Callan and Bowman (2000) conducted
a survey of 104 British senior travellers, who rated the importance of 38
hotel attributes when selecting a hotel. However, some of these attri-
butes were clearly mature customer-specific and the sample size was
not statistically representative. Countryman and Jang (2006) used a
scenario-based approach with colour photographs focusing just on the
hotel lobby. Their findings in a simulated environment, while
innovative, might not match those done in the real environment and
were limited to only considering the hotel lobby. Heide et al. (2007)
conducted an exploratory study using semi structured interviews to
gather insights into how hotel design experts and hotel managers try to
influence the ambience of their establishments. Their findings showed
clearly different perceptions between the industry and the designers.
The aspect of employee involvement was taken up by Dong and Siu
(2013) who differentiate between the substantive and communicative
aspects of the servicescape, where the substantive staging considers the
physical aspects of the environment (background music, smell, clean-
liness etc.) and the communicative aspects centre around the behaviour
of the employees. The scale they developed in the context of theme
parks has since been adapted and used successfully by Chang (2016) in
hot springs resorts and Dedeoglu et al. (2018) in hotels in Antalya,
Turkey. In this latter study the scales were taken directly from the Dong
and Siu (2013) original with limited adaptation for the hotel context.
However, Liu and Jang (2009, p495) argue that the inclusion of em-
ployee behaviour ‘makes it difficult to distinguish the effect of service
quality from the effect of atmospherics’ and so concentrate their study
on the physical aspects of the servicescape only. Their study again takes
a contextualised approach but in this case the context is Chinese res-
taurants.
Taking the Liu and Jang argument to concentrate on the physical
aspects of the servicescape, perhaps the most comprehensive study, to
date, of these physical aspects of the hotel servicescape was conducted
by Pyun and Lockwood (2018) who identified, through empirical re-
search, the key dimensions of the hotel servicescape. In that study,
based on a review of previous research, items that could reflect the
characteristics of the hotel servicescape were classified into one of four
primary dimensions using the Q-sort technique to test the content
adequacy before moving on to further analysis. In order to explore the
underlying structure of these items, factor analysis was conducted on
over 600 survey responses. Although four hotel servicescape dimen-
sions were originally suggested, the outcome of the factor analysis re-
vealed five dimensions based on 18 attributes. The factors and their
constituent attributes as well as the result of the reliability test for the
hotel servicescape scale are shown in Table 1 below.
This research has adopted the scale developed by Pyun and
Lockwood (2018) as the most recent, rigorous and appropriate ap-
proach to measuring customer perceptions of the stimulus provided
specifically by the hotel servicescape.
5. Research design and implementation
In order to answer the research questions posed for this research, a
quantitative approach based on a self-administered questionnaire was
determined to be the best approach with separate sections of the in-
strument measuring customer perceptions of the servicescape, their
emotional and behavioural responses and collecting demographic data.
A large international hotel company, interested in the hotel servi-
cescape, agreed to participate in the study and facilitate access to some

Table 1
Items to measure emotional responses to hotel servicescape and emotional state items in previous studies.
Items Reference study

Annoyed – Pleased Mehrabian and Russell (1974); Donovan and Rossiter (1982); Smith and Bolton (2002); Laros and Steenkamp (2005); Ryu and Jang (2007); Lin,
Gregor and Ewing (2008)
Unhappy – Happy Mehrabian and Russell (1974); Ang, Leong and Lim (1997); Richins (1997); Sherman, Mathur and Smith (1997); Newman (2007)
Bored – Entertained Mehrabian and Russell (1974); Barsky and Nash (2002); Ryu and Jang (2007); Lin, Gregor and Ewing (2008)
Disappointed –Delighted Wakefield and Blodgett (1994); Smith and Bolton (2002); Bigné, Andreu and Gnoth (2005); Ryu and Jang (2007); Jang and Namkyung (2009); Kim
and Moon (2009)
Depressed – Cheerful Donovan and Rossiter (1982); Spangenberg, Crowley and Henderson (1996); Liljander and Strandvik (1997); Mattila and Wirtz (2001); Laros and
Steenkamp (2005)
Uninspired – Inspired Herrington and Capella (1996); Barsky and Nash (2002); Laros and Steenkamp (2005)
Ill at ease – At ease Current study
Nervous – Confident Current study

233
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun
Table 2
Items used to measure behavioural responses.
No. Statements
1 This is one of the best hotels that I have stayed in.
2 I enjoyed myself in the hotel.
3 I made the right decision to stay at this hotel.
4 I will recommend this hotel to friends, family and/or work colleagues.
5 I will come back to this hotel.
6 I would like to have stayed for longer.
7 I spent more than I originally planned.
8 I will say positive things about this hotel.
of their customers.
While the items measuring the servicescape were taken directly
from Pyun and Lockwood (2018), it was determined that further work
needed to be done to ensure that the emotional and behavioural scales
were adapted for use in the hotel context as follows.
6. The scale development process
6.1. Generating items for emotional states
As explored in the previous section, several studies in environ-
mental psychology and marketing have examined the relationship be-
tween the physical environment in many different industries and cus-
tomers’ emotional states. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) cast these
variables onto the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework and
tested the linkage between the O and the R variables, with promising
results. In this context, the hotel servicescape (S) is a stimulus that
causes a guest emotional evaluation and causes a behavioural response
(R). The hotel servicescape has an effect on guests’ emotional states. To
examine how customers respond to the hotel servicescape through their
emotional evaluation, it was necessary to generate an initial pool of
items for emotional responses based on previous studies which were
then amended and added to in order to make them more hotel specific.
Based on the existing literature as shown in Table 1: Items to
measure emotional responses to hotel servicescape and emotional state
items in previous studiesA focus group of six researchers working on
topics related to hospitality management was then conducted to refine
the items that had been developed in earlier studies and then to add
newly created items that were considered to extend the coverage of the
hotel environment. Most of Mehrabian and Russell’s original items and
other items used in previous research were modified to better fit the
hotel industry context.
During this focus group, aspects of other emotional responses par-
ticular to hotels were discussed. From this discussion, two new items
emerged. As part of the hotel ethos is to make guests feel ‘at home’
during their stay, the construct of “Ill at ease – At ease” was added as
this was not reflected in any other existing construct. Similarly, some
guests might feel intimidated when entering a hotel while others can
cross the hotel lobby with complete confidence and therefore the
“nervous – confident” construct was added to reflect this. Overall, the
emotion descriptors for this study consist of eight bipolar measures and
are shown in Table 1: Items to measure emotional responses to hotel
servicescape and emotional state items in previous studiesalso shows
the studies in which these emotion items have previously been em-
ployed in their non-hotel amended state.
6.2. Generating behavioural response items
Customer responses to the hotel servicescape can be characterised
as approach behaviours or avoidance behaviours. To understand the
relationship between the hotel servicescape dimensions and customers’
behavioural responses, it was necessary to develop a measurement tool
to assess the impact of the hotel servicescape on customer behaviour.
234
International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241
First, published articles dealing with behavioural responses were re-
viewed to develop an initial pool of items for the behavioural response
scales. Prior studies that provided the basis for the behavioural response
scales are shown in Appendix A.
After the review of relevant literature, the initial large number of
items was rationalised to a smaller number which was deemed to
adequately cover the area under investigation. Then, the scales sug-
gested by previous studies were adapted and adjusted to the context of
hotels. For example, it can be proposed that guests will enjoy spending
more time and money in a hotel where they feel pleasure. The hotel
servicescape may encourage the customer to linger on the basis that this
is likely to increase the value of time spent. The correct emotional
combination of pleasure and arousal created by the hotel servicescape
can stimulate a positive service experience within the hotel. Given this,
the items for behavioural responses included customer loyalty, re-
purchase intentions and positive word-of-mouth. The procedures for
generating and contextualising the behavioural scale were the same as
for the emotional state items. Several meetings of the research team and
focus group interviews with other researchers were conducted to gen-
erate and refine items. The final measurement items for the behavioural
response scale are listed in Table 2.
6.3. Pre-testing
Dillman, Smyth and Christian (2009) recommended a pre-testing
with people who have specialised knowledge on some aspects of
questionnaire quality. Prior to administration, the questionnaire was
critically reviewed and assessed by nine fellow academics and the hotel
company’s Customer Insight team. Overall, the panel agreed that the
questionnaire was comprehensive enough to reflect the content of the
constructs and the layout was uncluttered and easy to follow. However,
the panel agreed to eliminate ‘I will say positive things about this hotel’
since it would be covered by remaining item such as ‘I will recommend
this hotel to friends, family and/or work colleagues’. Instead, ‘This is
one of the best hotels that I have stayed in’ was added.
6.4. Pilot study
Before starting the data collection, to evaluate the adequacy of the
wordings and layout of the questionnaire and to assess the success of
data collection, a pilot online survey was conducted at one of the hotels
in London. 100 survey invitations and questionnaires were distributed
by email to actual customers. They were asked to select a link which
directed the respondent to the questionnaire. A total of 87 effective
responses were received, yielding an 87% response rate. 44 percent of
the respondents were females and the largest age group was aged be-
tween 50 and 59 (33%) and the next largest group were aged between
40 and 49 (29%). The main reason for a hotel stay was for leisure
(72%).
Respondents in this pilot study did not find any major problems
such as ambiguity, the adequacy of the layout and understanding the
context of the questions. Therefore, it can be said that the pilot study
proved the clarity of the questionnaire. Consequently, no changes were
made at this stage and the questionnaire was finalised.
6.5. Questionnaire administration
In order to gather a sufficient sample size, data were collected from
five hotels in London as London attracts both business and leisure tra-
vellers. The survey was launched online and ran for two weeks to all
five of the hotels simultaneously. For this online survey, customers who
had indicated interest in receiving emails from the hotel regarding
newsletters or surveys and had stayed at one of its five hotels for at least
one night were selected. Then, the company’s Customer Insight team
sent them an email message that explained the purpose of the research
and invited them to participate in the study. It is possible that as all the
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

respondent had signed up to receive communication from the company
involved, they may already be positively disposed toward the company.
While this might have a small upward influence on the mean scores of
each of the scales to be measured, this should not affect the relation-
ships between the key variable which is the main focus of this study. In
addition, to overcome some of the limitations of non-probability con-
venience sampling, the sample size was maximised. This should also
ensure a good spread of more and less positively disposed respondents.
There was a total of 802 questionnaires returned. After data cleaning
696 fully completed and usable questionnaires formed the data for this
study.
7. Results
7.1. Demographic characteristics
64.5% of the respondents were males, while females accounted for
35.5%. The majority of the respondents fell in the 50–59 group (29.9%)
and the next largest group were aged 40 and 49 (28.8%). They are then
followed by those in the age group ‘30 to 39’ at 17.9% and 17.1% were
60 or over. Only 6.2% were aged 18–29. The main reason for a hotel
stay was leisure (50%) with 39% on a business trip and 11% other.
Respondents were also asked how many times they had stayed in a
hotel in the previous year. The largest was 49.4% who had stayed just
once, 27.2% 2–5 times, and 10.3% 6–10 times. There were 6.3% who
had stayed 11–20 times and 6.8% of respondents who had stayed over
20 times. These results suggest that the sample here provide a good
representation of the London hotel market at this level.
7.2. Reliability and validity of the hotel servicescape scale
In order to confirm the structure and reliability of the hotel servi-
cescape scale, adopted from Pyun and Lockwood (2018), an exploratory
factor analysis was conducted and the result are shown in Table 3. The
factor analysis gave exactly the same structure and loadings as expected
and the reliability co-efficients were all acceptable in the range from
0.673 to 0.9. In total, the factors explained just over 67% of the var-
iance. The hotel servicescape scale and its sub-dimensions therefore
represent a suitable vehicle for further analysis.
7.3. Reliability and validity of the emotional response scale
A rigorous analysis was conducted on the emotional and beha-
vioural response scales to confirm that the additions and amendments
made to these scales to customise them for the hotel industry had been
successful. First, the suitability of the first dataset for factor analysis
was assessed by calculating the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistic and
Bartlett’s test of sphericity on the 8 emotional response items. The re-
sults (KMO 0.887, Bartlett’s 2824.49 and significance p = 0.00) in-
dicate the suitability of the data for good factor analysis. Inspection of
the anti-image correlation matrix reveals that all measures of sampling
accuracy are well above the acceptable level of 0.5.
Second, the scores on the emotional response scale were factor
analysed using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation.
To make interpretation simpler, only factor loadings with an absolute
value greater than 0.3 were used. The initial pool of 8 items produced a
solution of two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. This was further
supported by the results of the Parallel analysis, which showed two
components with eigenvalues exceeding the corresponding criterion
values for a randomly generated data matrix of the same size. At this
stage, one cross-loading item was eliminated. The item ‘Delighted-
Disappointed’ had a factor loading of 0.442 on Factor 1 and a cross-
loading of 0.701 on Factor 2. The remaining 7 items were again factor
analysed. Each item was found to load strongly on only one factor.
Table 4 presents the final factor loadings and eigenvalues for the two
factors. This factor analysis yielded a two-factor solution, interpretable
in terms of two distinct constructs of emotional response and labelled as
‘Pleasure’ (Factor 1) and ‘Arousal’ (Factor 2). The two factors accounted
for 75% of the variance. Factor 1, ‘Pleasure’ had 4 items and 3 items
loaded on Factor 2, ‘Arousal’. The factor labels proposed by Mehrabian
and Russell (1974) suited the extracted factors and thus were used.
Factor 1 (Pleasure) has an eigenvalue of 4.02 which explains 57.45% of

Table 3
Results of factor analysis and reliability for the hotel servicescape scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: .839

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 2553.614

Significance: .000

Construct Name Attributes Factor Loadings Cronbach’s Alpha

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Aesthetic Quality The pictures and photos on display .861 .900

The style of the ornaments .852
The fabrics used .795
The use of flowers and plants .761
The style of the furniture used .743
The flooring design .651
The design of the hotel's exterior .618
Functionality The height of the tables and chairs .833 .798
The space between furniture .769
The practicality of the flooring .716
Atmosphere The artificial lighting .734 .673
Background music .718
The amount of natural light .714
Noise level .498
Spaciousness The amount of free space in the hotel .872 .792
The feeling of spaciousness .862
Physiological Conditions Temperature .881 .761
Humidity .866
Eigenvalue 6.274 2.075 1.421 1.198 1.136
% of Variance 34.85 11.53 7.90 6.66 6.31
Total of Variance Explained 67.24

235
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

Table 4 loadings with values < .3 have been suppressed. Looking at Table 5, it
Results of factor analysis for the emotional response scale. can be seen that factor loadings indicate a high level of association
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: .857 between items and the two derived factors. In fact, all items have more
than a 0.70 loading level. Seven behaviours load high on Factor 1
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 2320.377 without showing any significant loading on Factor 2. The two extracted
dimensions explained 77.53% of the variance with Factor 1 explaining
Significance: 0.000
64.85% and Factor 2 contributing 12.68%. The first factor was labelled
Construct Name Items Factor Loadings Cronbach’s Alpha ‘Favourable behaviours’ and contained 7 items and the second factor
was labelled ‘Propensity to spend’ since it had only one item, ‘I spent
F1 F2 more than I originally planned’.
Pleasure Pleased-Annoyed .850 .875
The reliability was alpha 0.937 for ‘Favourable behaviours’. This
Happy-Unhappy .836 reliability measure exceeded the usual recommendation of alpha 0.70
Inspired-Uninspired .803 for establishing internal consistency of the scale. Although it is difficult
At ease-Ill at ease .783 to prove the reliability of a single item, it was decided to retain the
Arousal Confident-Nervous .875 .823
factor ‘Propensity to spend’, taking into account the importance of the
Cheerful-Depressed .835
Entertained-Bored .774 willingness-to-spend-more facet captured by this factor. This is further
Eigenvalue 4.022 1.228 discussed in the limitations section of this paper.
% of Variance 57.45 17.55
Total of Variance Explained 75.00
7.5. Results of the multiple regression

the total variance, whereas Factor 2 (Arousal) has an eigenvalue of
1.228 and explains 17.55% of the total variance. These results provide
evidence for the construct validity of the scale.
In order to assess the reliability of the emotional response scale and
sub-scales, the Cronbach’s alpha is used to assess the internal con-
sistency of the scale and the two subscales extracted from the factor
analysis. Table 4 also summarises the result of the reliability test which
indicated that the emotional response scale exhibits good internal
consistency (α = 0.875 for ‘Pleasure’, α = 0.823 for ‘Arousal’). The
results of the item-to-total correlation coefficients for the scale also
appear sufficient and range from 0.593 to 0.832 for the ‘Pleasure’ di-
mension and 0.656 to 0.734 for the ‘Arousal’ dimension which indicates
acceptable levels of reliability. Therefore, the emotional response scale
with two factors and 7 items appears to be both valid and reliable.
7.4. Reliability and validity of the behavioural response scale
To explore the underlying structure of these items, a principal
component analysis was undertaken with Varimax rotation. The Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.904, above the re-
commended value of .6, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant
(3294.716, p < .05). Applying the Kaiser-criterion, a two-dimensional
solution is appropriate, as by extracting a third factor, the eigenvalue
would sink below 1. In order to facilitate the interpretation, factor
To explore the relationship among the five hotel servicescape di-
mensions, customers’ emotional states and behavioural responses and
the contribution of each hotel servicescape dimension to pleasure and
arousal and to behavioural response, standard multiple regression was
performed. The regression models had five hotel servicescape dimen-
sions (aesthetic quality, functionality, atmosphere, spaciousness and
physiological conditions) as independent variables, two emotional re-
sponse dimensions (pleasure and arousal) as mediating variables and
two behavioural response dimensions (favourable behaviours and
propensity to spend) as dependent variables. A summary of the results
is presented in Table 6.
R² = .504 indicates that this model accounts for 50.4% of the var-
iance in pleasure. The largest beta coefficient (β) is .304 (significant at
the .000 level), which is for ‘Spaciousness’. This means that
‘Spaciousness’ makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining
‘pleasure’. The β value for ‘Functionality’ was the lowest (.042) and was
not significant (probability level of .358, which is larger than 0.05).
Based on these results, it can be concluded that only four of the five
dimensions contributed to the model – namely ‘Aesthetic quality’,
‘Atmosphere’, ‘Spaciousness’ and ‘Physiological conditions’.
The second regression model assesses the relationship between the
five hotel servicescape dimensions and ‘Arousal’. The R² value of .298
indicates that this model accounts for about 30% of the variance in
‘Arousal’. ‘Aesthetic quality’ makes the strongest unique contribution to

Table 5
Results of factor analysis for the behavioural response scale.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy: .904

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: 3294.716

Significance: 0.000

Construct Name Items Factor Loadings Cronbach’s Alpha

F1 F2

Favourable I will recommend this hotel to friends, family and/or work colleagues. .923 .937
Behaviours I made the right decision to stay at this hotel. .898
I will come back to this hotel. .887
I enjoyed myself in the hotel. .865
This is one of my favourite hotels in London. .822
I would like to have stayed for longer. .812
This is one of the best hotels that I have stayed in. .789
Propensity to Spend I spent more than I originally planned. .981
Eigenvalue 5.188 1.014
% of Variance 64.85 12.68
Total of Variance Explained 77.53

236
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

Table 6 Table 8
Regression summary: five hotel servicescape dimensions, pleasure and arousal. Regression summary: emotional response, favourable behaviours and pro-
pensity to spend.
Independent Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable: Arousal
Variables Pleasure Independent Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable: Propensity
Variables Favourable Behaviours to Spend
β t-value p- β t-value p-
value value β t-value p-value β t-value p-value

Aesthetic quality .185 3.786 .000 .223 3.813 .000 Pleasure .681 21.577 .000 .120 2.353 .019
Functionality .042 .920 .358 −.021 −.384 .701 Arousal .139 4.388 .000 −.027 −.525 .600
Atmosphere .194 4.298 .000 .180 3.330 .001 R² = .585 F = 412.589 R² = .012 F = 3.154 Sig. = .043
Spaciousness .304 8.263 .000 .167 3.789 .000 Sig. = .000
Physiological .148 4.157 .000 .110 2.580 .010
Conditions
R² = .504 F = 122.209 R² = .298 F = 50.237 Sig. = .000
behaviours’. As the p-values for both dimensions of emotional responses
Sig. = 000
were less than .05, it can be said that ‘pleasure’ and ‘arousal’ make a
significant unique contribution to the prediction of ‘favourable beha-
explaining ‘Arousal’ (β = .223, Sig. = .000). The t-test results for the viours’ and more important factor in predicting ‘favourable behaviours’
independent variables, ‘Aesthetic quality’, ‘Atmosphere’, ‘Spaciousness’ is ‘pleasure’ (Fig. 1).
and ‘Physiological conditions’ were 3.813, 3.330, 3.789 and 2.580, The sixth multiple regression analysis was conducted by using the
respectively. The probability of these results occurring by chance was two emotional dimensions as independent variables and ‘propensity to
less than 0.05. This means that the regression coefficients for these spend’ as the dependent variable. The results also shown in Table 8
variables were statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level. The t- show that only 1.2% of the variance in ‘propensity to spend’ was ex-
value for ‘Functionality’ was the lowest (-.384) and was not significant plained by the two emotional dimensions. The F-value of 3.154 was
(probability level of .701, which is larger than 0.05). significant at the .043 level, indicating that at least one independent
The third regression model assesses the relationship between the variable is a significant predictor of the dependent variable. With a β-
five hotel servicescape dimensions and ‘Favourable behaviours’ (see value of .120, t-value of 2.353 and statistical significance p = 0.019,
Table 7). There is a significant relationship between the five hotel ‘pleasure’ is found to be significant in the explanation of ‘propensity to
servicescape dimensions and ‘Favourable behaviours’ (F-ratio = spend’, while ‘arousal’ does not make a significant contribution to the
106.073; Sig = .000). The R² value suggests that the model accounts prediction of ‘propensity to spend’.
for 47.8% of the variance in the ‘Favourable behaviours’ scores. ‘Spa-
ciousness’ has a standardised beta coefficient of .415 that is significant
at the .000 level. On the other hand Aesthetic quality and Functionality 8. Conclusions
have no statistically significant direct effect on favourable behaviours.
The fourth regression model tests whether the five hotel servi- 8.1. Summary of the results
cescape dimensions affect ‘Propensity to spend’. Table 7 shows that the
overall model does not reliably predict the dependent variable, The results are summarised in a graphical form in Fig. 2. All the
R² = .015, F = 1.612, Sig. = .155. In other words, the five hotel ser- relationships shown in the diagram are statistically significant as shown
vicescape dimensions do not show a statistically significant relationship in the tables of results in the previous section. The red lines in the
with ‘Propensity to spend’. Indeed Aesthetic quality was the only di- diagram represent the strongest relationships in each of the regression
mension to show a statistically significant relationship with the pro- analyses.
pensity to spend. This would appear to suggest that an aesthetically The findings show that the hotel servicescape significantly affects
pleasing design will result in increased customer spending. both emotional and behavioural responses. To be more specific, among
The fifth analysis used ‘favourable behaviours’ as the dependent the five hotel servicescape dimensions, four of the five dimensions, i.e.
variable and ‘pleasure’ and ‘arousal’ as the independent variables. ‘Spaciousness’, ‘Atmosphere’, ‘Aesthetic quality’, and ‘Physiological
According to the results of this analysis shown in Table 8, the two conditions’, make a contribution to explaining both ‘Pleasure’ and
emotional factors together explained 58.5% of the variance in the ‘Arousal’. ‘Spaciousness’ has the most significant impact on ‘Pleasure’,
evaluation of ‘favourable behaviours’, which was significant as in- while ‘Aesthetic quality’ makes the strongest unique contribution to
dicated by the F-value (R² = .585, F = 412.589, Sig. = .000). This ‘Arousal’. However, the effect of ‘Functionality’ on both ‘Pleasure’ and
suggests a linear relationship between the variables and therefore the ‘Arousal’ was not confirmed. This may in part reflect the more up
model significantly predicts the dependent variable, ‘favourable market nature of the hotels included in the study.
Then, the relationship between the five hotel servicescape dimen-
sions and ‘Favourable behaviours’ was examined. It was found that
Table 7 ‘Spaciousness’ was the most important dimension in predicting guests’
Regression summary: five hotel servicescape dimensions, favourable behaviours ‘Favourable behaviours’ and then, ‘Atmosphere’ and ‘Physiological
and propensity to spend.
conditions’ followed. Next, the influence of the five hotel servicescape
Independent Dependent Variable: Dependent Variable: Propensity dimensions on ‘Propensity to spend’ was tested. The results revealed
Variables Favourable Behaviours to Spend that the overall model did not reliably predict ‘Propensity to spend’.
Apart from ‘Aesthetic quality’, the other four dimensions did not make
β t-value p-value β t-value p-value
any contribution to the prediction of ‘Propensity to spend’.
Aesthetic quality .069 1.362 .174 .155 2.115 .035 The relationship between the two behavioural response dimensions,
Functionality .088 1.849 .065 −.030 −.438 .661 ‘Favourable behaviours’ and “Propensity to spend’ was also tested. Both
Atmosphere .149 3.163 .002 −.097 −1.422 .156
‘Pleasure’ and ‘Arousal’ had a positive influence on ‘Favourable beha-
Spaciousness .415 10.793 .000 .049 .882 .378
Physiological .115 3.078 .002 .019 .349 .727 viours’. On the other hand, only ‘Pleasure’ was found to be significant in
Conditions the explanation of ‘Propensity to spend’.
R² = .478 F = 106.073 R² = .015 F = 1.612 Sig. = .155
Sig. = .000

237
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun
Fig. 2. A graphical summary of the results of the study.
8.2. Theoretical implications
This research has therefore made a number of clear contributions to
the understanding of the hotel servicescape and its consequences.
First, it has tested a hotel specific servicescape scale which has
proved to be valid and reliable and provide insight into how different
aspects of the servicescape affect customer’s emotional and behavioural
responses. Second it has successfully developed, tested and purified a
hotel focussed emotional response scale as well as an extended hotel
focussed behavioural response scale.
By using these new scales, this study has successfully determined
the relationship between the key dimensions of the hotel servicescape,
customers’ emotional states and their consequent behavioural re-
sponses. Previous studies in non-hotel environments have demonstrated
that the servicescape influences customer attributions and satisfaction
(Bitner, 1992), the inferences that customers make about the store’s
merchandise and service quality (Baker et al., 1994), re-patronage in-
tentions (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996) and word of mouth (Lucas,
2003).
The findings of the present study are consistent with those previous
studies and show that in hotels the servicescape significantly affects
both emotional and behavioural responses. Four of the five dimensions,
i.e. ‘Spaciousness’, ‘Atmosphere’, ‘Aesthetic quality’, and ‘Physiological
conditions’, make a contribution to explaining ‘Pleasure’ and ‘Arousal’.
‘Spaciousness’ has the most significant impact on ‘Pleasure’, whereas in
the case of ‘Arousal’, ‘Aesthetic quality’ makes the strongest unique
contribution. However, the effect of ‘Functionality’ on ‘Pleasure’ and
‘Arousal’ was not confirmed. This is not consistent with Wakefield and
Blodgett’s (1994) study which showed that functionality and layout
were key factors in leisure services, mainly focused on Major League
Baseball (MLB) stadia. This may be due to the fact that the present
study investigated the servicescape in hotels and the results reflected
customer’s perceptions in this rather different context. This does sup-
port an argument in favour of recognising the contextual differences of
specific environments.
This research examined the combinations of hotel servicescape at-
tributes and their influences on hotel customers’ emotional responses
and behavioural responses. Previous studies have tended to deal with
the servicescape as a subset of service quality or have focused mainly on
the effect of a single servicescape element. This has led to a rather
piecemeal understanding. This study has taken a more holistic view of
238
International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241
the complete range of dimension in the hotel servicescape and how
each of these dimensions relates to differing emotional and behavioural
responses.
8.3. Managerial implications
Examining the emotional and behavioural responses created by
hotel servicescapes can enhance the understanding of satisfaction and
the ability to predict customer loyalty. This study suggests that
‘Aesthetic quality’ has the most significant impact on ‘Arousal’ and
‘Propensity to spend’. With aesthetic factors of the hotel servicescape
such as interesting interior design ideas (e.g. furniture style, fabrics
used, pictures/photos, ornament, flowers, flooring) and impressive ar-
chitectural features (e.g. exterior), management can create a hotel
fostering more memorable guest experiences. However, achieving a
balance between offering aesthetic appeal and a comfortable atmo-
sphere may be a challenge for hotels. In this context, the present re-
search tested the influence of not only the aesthetic aspect but also the
various factors of the hotel servicescape such as ‘Functionality’,
‘Atmosphere’, ‘Spaciousness’ and ‘Physiological conditions’ on custo-
mers’ emotion and behaviour.
A key result of this study is the discovery of the importance of the
construct of ‘spaciousness’, which has the largest single impact on both
customers’ state of ‘pleasure’ and on their positive behavioural inten-
tions. This suggests that managers could create immediate positive ef-
fects by reducing the clutter and congestion in their hotels to provide a
greater feeling of space.
Thus, a carefully designed and managed hotel servicescape will
have a positive impact on customers’ physical and emotional responses
as well as behaviour since the hotel is not just a place that offers a
unique interior design but is creating feelings of comfort and pleasure.
8.4. Limitations and future research
This study used a single-item scale to measure ‘Propensity to spend’.
This factor had only one item, ‘I spent more than I originally planned’.
The study recognises that estimating reliability for single-item factors is
difficult. In spite of that, it was decided to retain the factor ‘Propensity
to spend’, taking into account the importance of the willingness-to-
spend-more facet captured by this factor. In addition, according to
Wanous, Reichers and Hudy (1997), when the construct of interest is
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

relatively narrow or is unambiguous to respondents, a single-item
measure may be appropriate. In the present study, respondents did not
have any major problems such as ambiguity and understanding the
context of the question. Therefore, a single-item measure for factor
‘Propensity to spend’ was kept.
This study was conducted with respondents from up market hotels
in London belonging to a single company. It can be argued that the
servicescape in hotels at the 4/5* level may be more important than in
hotels of a lower star grading. This study has established clearly that the
servicescape does affect a customer’s emotional and behavioural re-
sponse but it is possible that those responses may differ for different
types of hotels. This would form a very interesting further extension of
this study. It is possible also that London as a large city could also have
an effect on customer responses and another extension to this study
could investigate the differences between different cities and also be-
tween city centre, transport related and beachside/countryside hotels.
Another limitation is that this research focused mainly on the cus-
tomer perspective of the hotel servicescape. However, there might be
the differences between the perceptions of the guests and the employees
toward the hotel servicescape. Therefore, future work is needed to in-
vestigate this issue further.
There are a number of areas for further research suggested by the
results of this study. First three key constructs in the servicescape
warrant further investigation. The construct of spaciousness appears to
have the greatest impact on both pleasure and positive behaviours. A
greater understanding of how customers perceive spaciousness should
be fruitful. The construct of aesthetic quality is also interesting. It has
the greatest impact on arousal and the greatest (and only significant)
impact on propensity to spend but arousal has no impact on propensity
to spend. Aesthetic quality must therefore be working indirectly in
some way through the state of pleasure. This merits further exploration
as increasing customers’ propensity to spend can have a direct impact
on the hotel’s bottom line. The construct of functionality clearly
emerges in customers’ perceptions of the hotel servicescape but appears
to have no effect on their emotional or behavioural states. Is func-
tionality then simply a hygiene factor or would it have more sig-
nificance in a different type of hotel?
A second area for further research would consider the optimum
balance between pleasure and arousal. Both pleasure and arousal affect
customers’ favourable behaviours but do they both work positively and
directly or could an ‘excess’ or arousal or pleasure have a detrimental
effect? Do pleasure or arousal have to achieve a minimum level before
the other factor can take effect?
The last area for further research concerns the ideas of propensity to
spend and decisions to linger longer introduced for the first time by this
research study. Both have the ability to have a direct influence on hotel
profitability and so are worth further examination. The item for staying
longer loaded clearly with the other favourable behaviour items. The
item for ‘propensity to spend’ emerged as a single item factor raising all
the issues discussed above. It is suggested that ‘propensity to spend’ is
important enough in its own right to warrant further investigation to
develop a more robust and reliable scale.
Declarations of interest
None.

Appendix A. Behavioural response items in previous studies

Items Citation

Would you enjoy shopping in this store? Donovan and Rossiter (1982)
How much time would you like to spend browsing in this store?
Would you avoid ever having to return to this store?
Is this a place in which you would feel friendly and talkative to a stranger who happens to be near you?
Would you want to avoid looking around or exploring this environment?
Do you like this store environment?
Is this a place where you might try to avoid other people, and avoid having to talk to them?
Is this the sort of place where you might end up spending more money than you originally set out to spend?
This shopping trip was truly a joy. Babin, Darden and Griffin (1994)
Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable.
During the trip, I felt the excitement of the hunt.
This shopping trip truly felt like an escape.
I enjoyed being immersed in exciting new products.
I enjoyed the shopping trip for its own sake, not just for the items I may have purchased.
I continued to shop, not because I had to, but because I wanted to.
I had a good time because I was able to act on the “spur of the moment.”
While shopping, I was able to forget my problems.
While shopping, I felt a sense of adventure.
This shopping trip was not a very nice time out.
I felt really unlucky during this trip.
I accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping trip.
I couldn’t buy what I really needed.
While shopping, I found just the items I was looking for.
I was disappointed because I had to go to another store to complete my shopping.
I feel this shopping trip was successful.
I feel really smart about this shopping trip.
This was a good store visit because it was over very quickly.
Say positive things about XYZ to other people. Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman
Recommend XYZ to someone who seeks your advice. (1996)
Encourage friends and relatives to do business with XYZ.
Consider XYZ your first choice to buy services.
Do more business with XYZ in the next few years.
Do less business with XYZ in the next few years.
Take some of your business to a competitor that offers better prices.
Continue to do business with XYZ if its prices increase somewhat.
Pay a higher price than competitors charge for the benefits you currently receive from XYZ.
Switch to a competitor if you experience a problem with XYZ's service.
Complain to other customers if you experience a problem with XYZ's service. Complain to external agencies, such as the Better Business

239
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241

Bureau, if you experience a problem with XYZ's service.

Complain to XYZ's employees if you experience a problem with XYZ's service.
I like the bank. Hui, Dube and Chebat (1997)
I will recommend the bank to my friends.
I will stay as a customer of the bank.
I like to spend much time browsing in this store. Kenhove and Desrumaux (1997)
I want to avoid looking around or exploring this store.
This is a place where I try to avoid other people, and avoid talking with them.
This is a place in which I feel friendly and talkative to store personnel who happens to be near me.
I like this store environment.
I enjoy shopping in this store.
I would avoid ever having to return to this store.
This is the sort of place where I might end up spending more money than I originally set out to spend.
I Like to stay at this mall as long as possible. Wakefield and Baker (1998)
I enjoy spending time at this mall.
In the future,
my shopping will be: not at all-very frequent,
unlikely-likely,
not probable-very probable,
impossible- very possible.
Continue to attend < festival > if the admission price was increased. Baker and Crompton (2000)
Pay a higher price than other festivals in the area charge.
Say positive things about < festival > to other people.
Attend < festival > again next year or the year after.
Get tired of coming back to < festival > every year.
Encourage friends and relatives to go to < festival > .
If < festival > was not available it would make little difference to me, since I would just go to another festival.
I will definitely consider buying a XX computer. Sharma and Stafford (2000)
If I were to buy a computer for myself, I would definitely consider buying XX computer.
The likelihood of purchasing this product is very high.
I enjoy shopping in this Airport Terminal. Newman (2007)
Generally, I like this shopping atmosphere.
I would happily spend extra time browsing.
I’m inclined to spend more money in these shops.
I avoid coming in to these shops.
I avoid browsing around these shops.
I avoid talking to people in this setting.
I would like to come back to this restaurant in the future. Ryu and Jang (2007)
I would recommend this restaurant to my friends.
I am willing to stay longer than I planned at this restaurant.
I am willing to spend more than I planned at this restaurant.

References
Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., Lim, J., 1997. The mediating influence of pleasure and arousal on
layout and signage effects: comparing more or less customized retail services. J.
Retail. Consum. Serv. 4 (1), 13–24.
Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and
utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656.
Baker, D.A., Crompton, J.L., 2000. Quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Ann.
Tour. Res. 27 (3), 785–804.
Baker, J., Grewal, D., Parasuraman, A., 1994. The influence of store environment on
quality inferences and store image. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 22 (summer), 328–339.
Barsky, J., Nash, L., 2002. Evoking emotion: affective keys to hotel loyalty. Cornell Hotel
Restaur. Adm. Q. 43 (1), 39–46.
Bitner, M.J., 1990. Evaluating service encounters: the effect of physical surroundings and
employee responses. J. Mark. 54 (2), 69–82.
Bitner, M.J., 1992. Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. J. Mark. 56 (2), 57–71.
Callan, R.J., Bowman, L., 2000. Selecting a hotel and determining salient quality attri-
butes: a preliminary study of mature British travelers. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2 (2), 97–118.
Chang, K.C., 2016. Effect of servicescape on customer behavioral intentions: moderating
roles of service climate and employee engagement. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 53,
116–128.
Countryman, C.C., Jang, S., 2006. The effects of atmospheric elements on customer im-
pression: the case of hotel lobbies. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 18.7, 534–545.
d’Astous, A., 2000. Irritating aspects of the shopping environment. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2),
149–156.
Darden, W.R., Babin, B.J., 1994. Exploring the affective quality of retail environments:
expanding the scope of retail personality. J. Bus. Res. 24 (2), 101–109.
Dedeoglu, B.B., Bilgihan, A., Ye, B.H., Okumus, F., 2018. The impact of servicescape on
hedonic value and behavioural intentions: the importance of previous experience. Int.
J. Hosp. Manage. 72, 10–20.
Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Dong, P., Siu, N.Y.-M., 2013. Servicescape elements, customer predispositions and service
experience: the case of theme park visitors. Tour. Manage. 36, 451–551.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach. J. Retail. 58 (1), 34–57.
Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior. J. Retail. 70 (3), 283–294.
Foxall, G.R., Greenley, G.E., 1999. Consumers’ emotional responses to service environ-
ments. J. Bus. Res. 46 (2), 149–158.
Heide, H., Lærdal, K., Grønhaug, K., 2007. The design and management of ambien-
ce—implications for hotel architecture and service. Tour. Manage. 28 (5),
1315–1325.
Herrington, J.D., Capella, L.M., 1996. Effects of music in service environments: a field
study. J. Serv. Mark. 10 (2), 26–41.
Hui, M., Dubé, L., Chebat, J.C., 1997. The impact of music on consumer’s reactions to
waiting for services. J. Retail. 73 (1), 87–104.
Kasper, H., van Helsdingen, P., de Vries, W.Jr., 1999. Services Marketing Management:
An International Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Kenhove, P.V., Desrumaux, P., 1997. The relationship between emotional states and
approach or avoidance responses in a retail environment. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib.
Consum. Res. 7 (4), 351–368.
Laros, F.J.M., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., 2005. Emotions in consumer behaviour: a hier-
archical approach. J. Bus. Res. 58 (10), 1437–1445.
Liljander, V., Strandvik, T., 1997. Emotions in service satisfaction. Int. J. Serv. Ind.
Manage. 8 (2), 148–169.
Lin, A., Gregor, S., Ewing, M., 2008. Developing a scale to measure the enjoyment of web
experiences. J. Interact. Mark. 22 (4), 40–57.
Liu, Y., Jang, S., 2009. The effects of dining atmospherics: an extended Mehrabian-Russell
model. Int. J. Hosp. Manage. 28, 494–503.
Lucas, A.F., 2003. The determinants and effects of slot servicescape satisfaction in a Las
Vegas hotel-casino. UNLV Gaming Res. Rev. J. 7 (1), 1–17.
Mano, H., Oliver, R.L., 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the con-
sumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 20 (1),
451–466.
Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store
evaluations and behavior. J. Retail. 77 (2), 273–289.
Mehrabian, A., Russell, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Milliman, R.E., 1986. The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant
patrons. J. Consum. Res. 13 (2), 286–289.
Newman, A.J., 2007. Uncovering dimensionality in the servicescape: towards legibility.
Services Ind. J. 27 (1), 15–28.
Oakes, S., 2000. The influence of the musicscape within service environments. J. Serv.

240
A. Lockwood and K. Pyun
Mark. 14 (7), 539–549.
Oliver, R.L., 1980. A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17 (4), 460–469.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perceptions of service Quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–40.
Phillips, P.A., 2004. Customer-oriented hotel aesthetics: a shareholder value perspective.
J. Retail Leisure Prop. 3.4, 365–373.
Pyun, K., Lockwood, A.J., 2018. Developing a scale measuring customers’ servicescape
perceptions in upscale hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manage. 30 (10).
Richins, M.L., 1997. Measuring emotions in the consumption experience. J. Consumer
Res. 24 (2), 127–146.
Russell, J.A., Pratt, G., 1980. A description of the affective quality attributed to en-
vironments. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 38 (2), 311–322.
Ryu, K., Jang, S., 2007. The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioural intentions
through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 31 (1), 56–72.
Sharma, A., Stafford, T.F., 2000. The effect of retail atmospherics on customers’ per-
ceptions of salespeople and customer persuasion: an empirical investigation. J. Bus.
Res. 49 (2), 183–191.
Sherman, E., Mathur, A., Smith, R., 1997. Store environment and consumer purchase
behaviour: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychol. Mark. 14 (4), 361–378.
Smith, A.K., Bolton, R.N., 2002. The effect of customers’ emotional responses to service
failures on their recovery effort evaluations and satisfaction judgments. J. Acad.
Mark. Sci. 30 (1), 5–23.
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E., Henderson, P.W., 1996. Improving the store environ-
ment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? J. Mark. 60 (2), 67–80.
241
International Journal of Hospitality Management 82 (2019) 231–241
Sulek, J.M., Lind, M.R., Maruchek, A.S., 1995. The impact of customer service inter-
vention and facility design on firm performance. Manage. Sci. 41 (11), 1763–1774.
Tombs, A., McColl-Kennedy, J.R., 2003. Social-servicescape conceptual model. Mark.
Theory 3 (4), 447–475.
Turley, L.W., Milliman, R.E., 2000. Atmospheric effects of shopping behavior: a review of
the experimental evidence. J. Bus. Res. 49 (2), 193–211.
Wakefield, K., Baker, J., 1998. Excitement at the mall: determinants and effects on
shopping response. J. Retail. 74 (4), 515–539.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1994. The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. J. Serv. Mark. 8 (3), 66–76.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., 1996. The effect of the servicescape on customers’ be-
havioural intentions in leisure service settings. J. Serv. Mark. 10 (6), 45–61.
Wanous, J.P., Reichers, A.E., Hudy, M.J., 1997. Overall job satisfaction: how good are a
single-item measure. J. Appl. Psychol. 82 (2), 247–252.
Westbrook, R.A., 1987. Product/consumption-based affective responses and post-pur-
chase processes. J. Mark. Res. 24 (3), 258–270.
Westbrook, R.A., Oliver, R.L., 1991. The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns
and consumer satisfaction. J. Consumer Res. 18 (1), 84–91.
Wirtz, J., Bateson, J.E.G., 1999. Consumer satisfaction with services: integrating the
environment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfirmation
paradigm. J. Bus. Res. 44 (1), 55–66.
Yalch, R., Spangenberg, E., 1990. Effects of store music on shopping behavior. J.
Consumer Mark. 7 (Spring), 55–63.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A., 1996. The behavioural consequences of
service quality. J. Mark. 60 (2), 31–46.