2.2 The psychological environment
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- 2.2
- Level
- A2
Learning objectives
2.2.1Environmental influences on consumers• 2.2.1 Environmental influences on consumers- wayfinding in shopping malls; factors affecting wayfinding such as signs and you are here maps, including a study, e.g. Dogu and Erkip (2000).- shopper behaviour focusing on spatial movement patterns including types of trip (short, round, central and wave) and the five types of spatial behaviour patterns (specialist, native, tourist, explorer, raider); the use of CCTV tracking, including a study, e.g. Gil et al. (2009).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: reductionism versus holism, idiographic versus nomothetic, questionnaires, generalisations, reliability.2.2.2Menu design psychology• 2.2.2 Menu design psychology- menu design focusing on the features of menu design which have positive and negative impacts and ways to study this, including the use of eye-tracking, e.g. Pavesic (2005).- the effect of primacy and recency and menu item position on menu item choice, including a study, e.g. Dayan and Bar-Hillel (2011).- the effect of food descriptions on menu choice, including a study, e.g. Lockyer (2006).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: application to everyday life, field experiments, objective and subjective data, generalisations, validity.2.2.3Consumer behaviour and personal space• 2.2.3 Consumer behaviour and personal space- personal space at restaurant tables including Hall's four zones; functions such as overload, arousal and behaviour constraint (exemplified by the following key study).- Key study on consumers responses to table spacing: Robson et al. (2011).- defending place in a queue including nature of intrusion, number of intrusions, social structure of a queue, responses of people queuing, including a study, e.g. Milgram et al. (1986).- Relevant issues and debates and methodology for this topic include: individual and situational explanations, cultural differences, observations, quantitative and qualitative data, ethics.
Wayfinding and movement traces reveal different shopper–environment fits
| Wayfinding input | Psychological job | Diagnostic question |
|---|---|---|
| Building configuration and visual access | Makes destination and possible route perceptible | Can the shopper see or infer where the destination lies? |
| Directional signs | Convert decision points into route instructions | Is the sign visible, unambiguous and placed before the choice? |
| You-Are-Here map | Links current position to a mental map and route | Are orientation, landmarks and destination labels aligned with the building? |
More signage cannot repair every hidden destination or confusing circulation pattern; configuration and information aids must work together.
| Dogu & Erkip (2000) | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Setting/question | A Turkish shopping mall: how configuration, visual accessibility, circulation, signs and You-Are-Here maps shape wayfinding |
| Measure | Closed questionnaire using responses such as always/sometimes/never, alongside environmental analysis |
| Finding | The mall was generally judged easy to navigate, yet signs were insufficient and visually inaccessible targets such as telephones, toilets and concealed stores remained difficult |
| Inference limit | Self-report identifies perceived difficulty but does not by itself prove the route actually taken or isolate one causal feature |
| Gil et al. (2009) cluster | Characteristic movement and likely trip |
|---|---|
| Specialist | Long attention to a small product set; often top-up/non-food and may buy little |
| Native | Long trip through relevant aisles; likely to purchase; main or top-up shop |
| Tourist | Fast route near the entrance while looking to buy |
| Explorer | Very long route through most/all aisles, sometimes repeated; high time and spending opportunity |
| Raider | Fast, decisive movement for a clear immediate target such as food for tonight |
The observed trip forms—short, round, central and wave—summarise route geometry; the five clusters combine trace with shopping purpose. They are patterns in CCTV traces, not diagnoses of personality.
| Lens | Strength | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| CCTV/naturalistic tracking | Actual routes, time and repeated spatial behaviour; low reactivity if unobtrusive | Motive must be inferred; covert observation raises privacy/consent concerns |
| Cluster analysis | Reduces many traces to meaningful patterns | Category boundaries can be mixed and labels may oversimplify individual trips |
| Questionnaire | Captures perceived ease, purpose and reasons | Demand characteristics, memory and wording can separate report from behaviour |
| Nomothetic–idiographic | Clusters support general patterns; individual traces retain context | Neither alone guarantees generalisation beyond that mall/store/layout |
Use route evidence cautiously: a shopper can behave like a raider on one trip and an explorer on another. A hidden target may remain hard to find even when overall mall ratings are positive.
Menus guide choice through visual attention, list position and description
| Route to choice | Design move | Psychological account | Evidence boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual attention | Boxes, images, colour/font contrast and deliberate spacing | Eye magnets increase salience during a non-linear scan | Attention is not purchase; clutter, hard reading, over-pricing, monotony or excessive size can reverse benefit |
| List position | Place an item at the beginning or end of its category | Edge position gains attention/retrieval; beginning and end are often framed as primacy and recency | Effect is relative and category/context dependent, not one universal ‘golden spot’ |
| Description | Use clear, fresh, sensory or occasion-congruent wording | Expectation and imagery raise appeal and anticipated taste | Individual/cultural preference and scenario can outweigh elaboration |
Pavesic (2005) treated the menu as both a decision tool and a statement of restaurant image and profitability. It should fit décor and service style, lead attention to suitable high-margin items and remain easy to read. Diners do not simply read line by line; entrées often receive early attention, and the reported average menu-viewing time was about 109 seconds. Design for selective scanning, not guaranteed control.
| Dayan & Bar-Hillel (2011) | Study 1 | Study 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Context | Laboratory choice from printed menus | Real Tel Aviv café orders |
| Manipulation | Category item order changed across baseline, reversed and inside-out variants | Standard versus inside-out menu order over 30 days |
| Measures/sample | 240 university participants chose from categories | 951 menu-referred orders (459 standard, 492 inside-out) |
| Result | Items at category beginnings/ends gained an edge advantage | Real orders supported a position effect; across studies an item could be up to twice as popular at an edge as in the middle |
| Caution | Controlled hypothetical choice | One café/time period and uncontrolled customer differences; neither proves primacy alone because both edges benefited |
| Lockyer (2006) | Exact teaching evidence |
|---|---|
| Focus groups | 4 groups, 48 self-selected participants in Hamilton, New Zealand; five menus described the same dishes differently |
| Survey | Separate randomly approached local sample of 200; open/closed questions, appeal ratings/reasons and content analysis |
| Findings | Seasonal wording had highest appeal, French wording lowest; delicious, flavourful and perfection were strong elaborations; fresh, clear and tasty language was favoured |
| Context | Romantic, business, mother-in-law and family-reunion scenarios altered preferences; individual differences remained substantial |
| Evaluation | Realistic menu stimuli and mixed data add detail, but one city, female imbalance, self-selection and imagined choices limit behavioural/cultural generalisation |
| Application decision | Evidence-based implementation | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Promote one dish | Add restrained eye magnet, place near a category edge and use vivid but accurate description | Randomly vary one feature at a time and record actual orders |
| Protect validity | Hold price, alternatives, time and availability constant where possible | Compare sales plus brief reason/appeal data |
| Protect ethics/brand | Avoid misleading sensory claims or manipulative clutter | Check comprehension, expectation–experience match and subgroup effects |
Dayan and Bar-Hillel found an edge advantage, not a simple first-item-only result. Lockyer measured reported appeal in scenarios, so evocative wording can shape expectation without guaranteeing purchase or experienced taste.
Personal-space responses depend on distance, purpose, control and queue norms
| Hall zone | Approximate range | Typical relation/use | Restaurant implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intimate | contact to 46 cm / 18 in | Embracing, touch, whisper; intimate relations | A neighbouring stranger inside this range can threaten privacy |
| Personal | 46 cm–1.22 m / 18 in–4 ft | Family and close-friend interaction | Often relevant to companion conversation and table separation |
| Social | 1.22–3.7 m / 4–12 ft | Acquaintances and formal interaction | Fits less intimate service/business contact |
| Public | 3.7 m–8 m+ / 12–25 ft+ | Public speaking | Usually beyond ordinary adjacent-table interaction |
These are approximate cultural conventions, not biological walls; relationship, setting and task shift comfort.
| Response account | Mechanism when space is invaded | Restaurant example |
|---|---|---|
| Overload | Unchosen smell, touch, heat, speech and movement exceed desired processing and reduce control | Nearby diners create stress and desire to leave |
| Arousal | Proximity raises activation; appraisal makes it positive or negative | Celebration may make activation enjoyable, whereas an intimate meal beside strangers may not |
| Behaviour constraint | The person feels unable to move, speak or act freely | Fixed close tables restrict escape/privacy and can create anger or discomfort |
| Robson et al. (2011) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Aim/sample | How table distance and dining occasion affect anticipated response; 1013 US volunteers (461 men, 537 women, 15 no gender response; 81% Caucasian; varied age/residence) |
| Design/procedure | Two-part web questionnaire; demographics/restaurant experience, then random assignment to one of 9 combinations: table images 6, 12 or 24 inches apart × romantic, friend or business scenario |
| Measures | 32 statements on 1–7 Likert-type scales covering emotional, intentional and anticipated behavioural response; stress-arousal items included |
| Results | Six inches produced more crowding, less privacy/control, greater dissatisfaction and a less positive meal expectation; romantic context showed the strongest negative response, friend moderate, business least affected |
| Evaluation | Large diverse-in-residence quantitative sample and standardisation; US volunteer/self-report, 32-item fatigue, imagined intention–behaviour gap and no qualitative reasons limit generalisation/validity |
| Milgram et al. (1986) | Exact evidence |
|---|---|
| Setting/sample | Confederates intruded into 129 naturally occurring New York waiting lines at ticket counters, betting parlours and other sites; average line length six |
| Procedure | Intruder entered between third and fourth person, made a neutral request, stayed up to one minute unless told to leave; nearby observer coded physical, verbal and non-verbal objections |
| Manipulations | 1 versus 2 intruders crossed with 0, 1 or 2 passive confederate buffers immediately behind the intrusion point |
| Results | Objection rates by condition were 54%, 25%, 5% for one intruder and 91.3%, 25%, 30% for two; people behind/near the insertion were most likely to object and buffers dampened response |
| Conclusion | Queue defence is local and segment-like, not a coordinated whole-line reaction |
| Lens | Robson | Milgram |
|---|---|---|
| Data/method | Standardised quantitative self-report about images/scenarios | Field intervention plus structured naturalistic observation |
| Validity | Reveals private anticipated feelings but not actual dining | Real behaviour, but uncontrolled queue/site differences |
| Ethics | Volunteer, confidential and low physical risk | Covert deception, no prior consent, distress/anger and potential confrontation |
| Explanation | Strong situational effects of spacing/purpose with individual/cultural moderators | Nature/number of intruders, social buffers and position alter norm defence |
| Generalisation | US restaurant volunteers | NYC queues in a particular era and service context |
Distance alone is not the explanation: dining purpose, perceived control, culture and relationship change appraisal. Milgram did not find that everyone objected; defence was strongest just behind the intrusion point, and passive buffers sharply reduced it.