2.1 The physical environment
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 2.1
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
2.1.1Retail store design• 2.1.1 Retail store design- types of store exterior design including storefront, window displays and landscaping, including a study, e.g. Mower et al. (2012).- types of store interior design including grid, freeform and racetrack layouts; use of virtual store layouts, including a study, e.g. Vrechopoulos et al. (2004).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: cultural differences, questionnaires, quantitative and qualitative data, objective and subjective data, ecological validity.2.1.2Sound and consumer behaviour• 2.1.2 Sound and consumer behaviour- music in restaurants focusing on how background music influences the amount spent on food and drink (exemplified by the following Key Study).- Key study on musical style and restaurant customers' spending: North et al. (2003).- background noise focusing on how sound and noise affect the perception of food taste including reasons why sound influences taste, including a study, e.g. Woods et al. (2011) study 1 or study 2.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: individual and situational explanations, reductionism versus holism, determinism versus free-will, generalisations, validity.2.1.3Retail atmospherics• 2.1.3 Retail atmospherics- model of effects of ambience: Mehrabian and Russell's pleasure-arousal-dominance (PAD) model.- the effects of odour on shopper pleasure-arousal-dominance, including a study, e.g. Chebat and Michon (2003).- the effects of crowding on shopper pleasure-arousal-dominance, including a study, e.g. Machleit et al. (2000) study 1 or study 2.- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, cultural differences, questionnaires, quantitative and qualitative data, objective and subjective data.
Store design trades first impression, navigation efficiency and exploration
| Exterior cue | Intended route to response | Evidence boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Storefront/window | Visibility, theme, lighting, warm colour, perspective and self-image congruence can attract attention and entry | Promotion/style information alone may be weaker; culture, store type and display size matter |
| Landscaping | Vegetation/accessories shape liking and first impression before entry | Liking and patronage intention are not identical to actual purchase |
| Mower et al. (2012) | US university students evaluated apparel-boutique exteriors within an S–O–R framework; window/landscaping affected exterior liking and patronage intentions, not main pleasure/arousal | Student/judgment evidence supports a mediated intention claim, not universal sales causality |
| Layout | Physical/virtual structure | Likely trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Grid | Parallel aisles; online hierarchy category → subcategory → product | Efficient display, clear/easy/fast navigation, but constrained and less engaging |
| Freeform | Asymmetric varied displays; online search or permanently available direct links | Useful for planned list and entertaining/engaging, but can feel less orderly or harder |
| Racetrack/boutique | Themed semi-separate areas and directed loop; online corridor choices force a path | Exposure/exploration and impulse opportunity, but slower or frustrating for a direct target |
Vrechopoulos et al. (2004) transformed grid, freeform and racetrack into online grocery stores. Greek and UK participants completed a planned shopping task with money in a laboratory. Layout was manipulated: grid was easiest/fastest but least engaging; freeform supported list usefulness and entertainment; racetrack imposed corridor navigation. Apply the trade-off to the shopper's goal rather than declaring one best.
| Method | Strength | Limit |
|---|---|---|
| Virtual laboratory | Standardises products/layout and records navigation efficiently | Simulator strain, missing smell/body movement/scale and artificial money/task reduce ecological validity |
| Field experiment/observation | Captures actual movement, time and purchase in real context | Layout changes are costly and extraneous traffic/service/product factors reduce control |
| Questionnaire/interview | Captures satisfaction, liking and reasons; quantitative plus qualitative data possible | Subjective recall, leading wording and intention–behaviour gap |
A layout effect depends on task and context. Direct access can improve planned purchasing while engagement can increase time without guaranteeing spend. Virtual and physical layouts share navigation principles but not all embodied, sensory or cultural features.
Restaurant sound can change spending or reshape multisensory food perception
| Evidence route | Manipulation | Outcome and mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Background music | Classical, pop or no music in an upmarket restaurant | Music may signal congruent sophistication/atmosphere, changing item choice and spend |
| Background noise | No, quiet or loud white noise while tasting blind | Attention/cross-modal contrast weakens sound-unrelated sweetness/saltiness while food-related auditory texture can heighten crunchiness |
| North et al. (2003) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Aim/design | Field experiment: music style and restaurant spending; independent groups |
| Sample/setting | Opportunity sample 393 diners, roughly gender-balanced, expensive rural Leicestershire restaurant |
| Procedure/control | 18 evenings over 3 weeks; each condition six counterbalanced days; lighting, decoration, temperature, menu and data waitress held constant; spend/table and time recorded |
| Results | Total per head: classical £32.51, pop £29.46, no music £29.73; wine alone highest with no music (£5.05); classical differences included starters/coffee and combined spend |
| Conclusion | Classical was associated with greatest total spend in this congruent upmarket setting—not every item or restaurant |
| Woods et al. (2011) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Procedure | Blind tasting under no/quiet/loud white noise; ratings of sweetness, saltiness, liking (study 1) and flavour, crunchiness, liking (study 2) |
| Findings | Loud versus quiet noise reduced reported sweetness/saltiness, increased crunchiness; background-noise liking related to food liking in study 2 |
| Explanation | Unrelated noise competes for attention or creates cross-modal contrast; crunchiness itself has an auditory channel, so noise can enhance rather than uniformly suppress it |
| Lens | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Ecological validity | North captures unaware real diners; Woods controls sound/taste but headphones/blindfold/white noise are less restaurant-like |
| Individual–situational | Sound is situational, yet budget, taste, occasion, hearing and sound preference alter response |
| Reductionism–holism | One sound variable is testable; real dining combines company, service, scent, expectation and product |
| Determinism | Sound may bias but diners retain preferences/budget—soft, not hard, determinism |
| Generalisation | North uses one affluent UK restaurant; Woods lab foods/noise do not establish every cuisine or natural noise |
North measured actual spending, not food liking; Woods measured perception, not purchase. Classical music did not produce the highest wine-only spend, and loud noise did not simply reduce every sensation—crunchiness increased.
Retail atmospherics work through emotion, cognition and perceived crowding
| PAD dimension | Meaning | Why the same valence can differ |
|---|---|---|
| Pleasure–displeasure | How pleasant/unpleasant the person feels | Joy and contentment are pleasant at different activation levels |
| Arousal–non-arousal | How energised/alert versus calm/bored | Rage and euphoria are both high arousal despite opposite pleasure |
| Dominance–submissiveness | Feeling in control versus controlled | Anger may feel dominant; fear unpleasant but submissive |
Mehrabian–Russell chain: controllable ambient cue → PAD emotional state → approach (enter, stay, explore, return) or avoidance. Emotion mediates rather than the cue mechanically causing purchase.
| Chebat & Michon (2003) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Question | Did mall scent operate through PAD, or did cognition/arousal better explain response? |
| Field design | Canadian mall over two weeks: no-scent control week (447) then pleasant citrus corridor scent (145); self-administered questionnaire by perfume-free graduate students |
| Measures | Product quality, shopping environment, pleasure and arousal |
| Finding | Scent week produced more favourable product/environment cognitions; results supported cognition–arousal better than a simple PAD mediation |
| Boundary | Week and group differences, self-report/demand and one Canadian mall limit causal/cultural generalisation |
| Machleit, Eroglu & Mantel (2000) | Teaching claim |
|---|---|
| Construct | Human or spatial density can create perceived crowding, but objective density and subjective crowding are not identical |
| Outcome | Higher perceived crowding generally lowers shopping satisfaction |
| Mediation/moderation | Emotional reaction helps explain the link; tolerance, expectations, shopping motive/time and whether a purchase occurs can alter it |
| Application | Manage queue/aisle density and restore control, but test target shoppers/context rather than assuming fewer people always improves experience |
| Evidence lens | Strength and limit |
|---|---|
| Questionnaires/quantitative scales | Fast, standardised comparison of PAD/quality/crowding; forced options lack reasons and remain subjective |
| Qualitative data | Explains why scent/crowding feels pleasant or controlling; slower coding and lower standardisation |
| Objective versus subjective | Age, density or time can be objective; pleasure, arousal, dominance, quality and crowding are experienced judgments |
| Culture/application | Ambient meanings, scent acceptance, personal space and shopping norms vary; retailer benefits require observed behaviour/sales as well as ratings |
Pleasant odour can improve evaluation without PAD being the best causal model. Arousal is not automatically good, dominance is not sales control, and crowding is perceived from density plus expectations, control and purpose.