![Environmen- ence and typical outcome of shopping at the store
as described
tal Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1974. by the
consumer.
Oliver, Richard L.: Cognitive, Affective and Attribute Bases of
the
Satisfaction Response. Journal of Consumer Research 20
(December Hedonic Value
1993): 418–430.
I only shop at [store X] when I need to buy something.
Smith, Craig A., and Ellsworth, Phoebe C.: “Patterns of
Cognitive A shopping trip to [store X] is truly a joy.
Appraisal in Emotion”. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology I enjoy the shopping trip for its own sake, not just
for
48 (October 1985): 813–838.
items I may have purchased.
Ward, James C., Bitner, Mary Jo, and Barnes, John: Measuring
the While shopping at [store X], I was able to forget my prob-
Prototypicality and Meaning of Retail Environments. Journal of
lems.Retailing 68 (Summer 1992): 194–220.
Compared to other things I could have done, the time
spent at [store X] was truly enjoyable.
Appendix. Description Utilitarian Value
of Measures While shopping at [store X], I found just the items
I was
looking for.
I couldn’t buy what I really needed in [store X].](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/atmosphericaffectasatoolforcreatingvalueandgainings-221015141857-8fa34681/85/Atmospheric-Affect-as-a-Tool-for-CreatingValue-and-Gaining-S-docx-29-320.jpg)
![Customer Share I was disappointed because I had to go to
another store
to complete my shopping.Instructions: Please fill in the blanks
below so that the state-
It was a good shopping trip because it was over veryments
describe you accurately.
quickly.
out of every five times I shop for clothing, I shop
at [store X]. Positive and Negative Affect
Out of every $100 I spend in a store like [store X], I spend
Responses recorded on a five-point degree felt scale based on
at [store X]. how well they describe a typical shopping trip at
the store as
Out of every $100 I spend on clothing, I spend described by the
respondent. When shopping at [store X], I
at [store X]. feel:
My usual shopping trip to [store X] lasts about
Excitedminutes.
BoldHow much of the money you spend on clothing each
Energeticmonth do you spend in [store X]: 0–20%, 21–40%,
Happy41–60%, 61–80%, or 81–100%
Satisfied
Disgusted
Shopping Value Bored
Responses recorded with a five-point disagree—agree scale
Sleepy
Annoyedbased on how well they describe the typical shopping
experi-](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/atmosphericaffectasatoolforcreatingvalueandgainings-221015141857-8fa34681/85/Atmospheric-Affect-as-a-Tool-for-CreatingValue-and-Gaining-S-docx-30-320.jpg)
Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for CreatingValue and Gaining S.docx
- 1. Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value and Gaining Share of Customer Barry J. Babin UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI Jill S. Attaway ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY Can the retail atmosphere be useful in developing long-lasting relationships many retailers inhabit, success driven retailers must find ways to maintain stability and grow in order to survive.with consumers? This research addresses this question by investigating the impact of positive and negative affect associated with ambient environ- At a basic level, retailers’ lifeblood is the revenue developed through relationships with customers. This revenue can bemental conditions. A key dependent variable is conceptualized and vali- dated and captures the proportion of business a customer spends in one expanded and developed through cultivating relationships with new customers, encouraging current customers to spendlocation relative to a store’s direct competitors. Structural equation results suggest that both positive affect and negative affect impact this measure, a larger proportion of their dollars with the retailer, and by extending the length of time or duration of the relationship—but
- 2. the impact is facilitated through both feelings’ relationship with hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J BUSN RES 2000. 49.91– 2000 seeking customers for life. A Canadian grocery chain explored these avenues for increasing profitability and observed that ifElsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. each customer purchased one additional produce item, profit- ability would increase by more than 40%. Similarly, current customers who substituted two store-brand items for two S urvival through continuous acquisition of consumer re- national brand items each store visit, would increase profitabil- ity by 55%. Furthermore, if these improvements were achievedsources is the most paramount goal and most appro- priate orientation of a firm (Anderson, 1982). Retailers simultaneously, future gross profits could be improved dra- matically (Grant and Schlesinger, 1995). Thus, expanding aand service providers have offered various incentive programs in an effort to gain a greater share of each customer’s business. customer’s share of wallet can lead to profitability gains and future success. The question remaining is how can retailersLike airlines with frequent flyer programs, hair salons, book- stores, and even mass merchandisers have offered programs achieve a greater proportion of customers’ expenditures? The research presented here investigates a retailer’s physicalin which frequent purchasers can gain further purchase incen- tives. The success and expense of these programs vary, but atmosphere and its role in creating consistent purchase behav-
- 3. ior. Previous research demonstrates how ambient conditions,the focus on developing more repeat purchases from each consumer motivates research into other avenues for generating including store layout, design and signage, and employee and customer appearance, evoke varying levels of emotions amonga like response. Retailers are seeking ways to maintain customer share and patrons (Baker, Grewal, and Levy, 1992; Bitner, 1992; Darden and Babin, 1994), and that these emotions impact store shop- increase profitability partially due to recent estimates forecast- ing industry shakeouts and consumer shopping declines. In pers’ approach/avoidance behaviors (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982), willingness to buy (Baker, Grewal, and Levy, 1992);a recent survey, 38% of respondents indicated they planned to shop at malls less often during the next year compared price perceptions (Grewal and Baker, 1994); perceived value (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994); current period purchasewith their past shopping trips. Retail consultants predict “as many as 300 of the roughly 1,800 regional and super-regional behavior and customer satisfaction (Babin and Darden, 1996). However, does the affect typically generated by a given storemalls will be either shut down or converted to the warehouse- style retailing” (Labich, 1995, p. 103). Given the shaky ground atmosphere affect patron purchase behavior over an extended period of time? Specifically, a causal model is developed and tested to Address correspondence to J. S. Attaway, Illinois State University, Depart-
- 4. ment of Marketing, Campus Box 5590, Normal, IL 61790-5590. explore whether a patron’s repeated purchase behavior is a Journal of Business Research 49, 91–99 (2000) - 2963/00/$–see front matter 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 PII S0148- 2963(99)00011-9 92 J Busn Res B. J. Babin and J. S. Attaway 2000:49:91–99 function, in part, of affect experienced while shopping and retail setting, some arousal indicators that can have ambiguous perceived personal shopping value. Shopping value is hypoth- valence in other situations (e.g., excitement, boredom) take esized to mediate the relationship between affect and purchase on more consistent positive or negative meanings (see Smith behavior. The basic rationale is that if the physical aura within and Ellsworth, 1985). For example, while excitement gener- an environment evokes positive affect as opposed to negative ally can be either negative or positive, in a retail setting excite- affect, consumers will perceive greater value from their time, ment represents a more pervasively positive reaction. and the increased value serves as a reward encouraging further Additionally, research suggests that positive and negative patronage. Study results are discussed in terms of implications affect can exhibit quite disparate effects. For example, positive for further empirical support and development of the Service- affect is stored in memory and retrieved differently than is scape model (Bitner, 1992), and in an effort for further under- negative affect (Dubé and Morgan, 1996). Additionally, the standing of marketing variables that affect the proportion of impact of negative and positive moods on memory varies
- 5. business a consumer gives to a specific marketer, or “share (Diener and Emmons, 1984). Environments evoking negative of customer.” events leave a more vivid impression and are recalled more easily. Consistent with this finding, the relationship between negative mood and satisfaction from a shopping trip can beConceptual Background stronger than the relationship between positive mood and consumer satisfaction (Babin and Darden, 1996). Further-The proposed model involves five key constructs. The exoge- more, marketing practitioners often think in terms of increas- nous constructs for the model are the levels of positive and ing the positive and decreasing negative events (Arnould andnegative affect experienced in a given servicescape. These are Price, 1993). Therefore, in this study, atmospheric-based af- expected to influence consumer perceptions of both utilitarian fect is operationalized as two separate, negatively related di-and hedonic shopping value (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994). Repeat purchase behavior is operationalized as the proportion mensions—positive and negative affect. of resources expended at a given retailer compared with the total amount a consumer spends within a category. Each of Perceived Shopping Value these constructs is described in more detail below along with Researchers note that shopping value should account for more hypotheses predicting specific interactions among them. than simply functional utility (Bloch, Sherrell, and Ridgway, 1986). Shopping can be valuable from a task-oriented stand- Shopping Affect point where a consumer finds an intended item, receives an Donovan and Rossiter (1982) initiated a stream of empirical intended service, or gathers useful information. Shopping also
- 6. research documenting an environment’s ability to change con- can provide value experientially in the form of immediate sumer emotions and thereby affect behaviors that drive retail personal gratification. Value is related to tangible and hedonic and service provider performance. For example, positive affect consequences (Holbrook and Corfman, 1985). Therefore, per- encourages a shopper to stay longer and interact with other ceived shopping value is operationalized as two dimensions employees more (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Dawson, indicating an assessment of the overall worth of shopping Bloch, and Ridgway, 1990; Hui and Bateson, 1991; Babin and activity in terms of utilitarian and hedonic shopping value Darden, 1995), it can simplify a consumer’s decision-making (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994). Utilitarian value reflects style (Isen, 1989; Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1992), build a task-related worth, and hedonic value reflects worth found positive store image (Darden and Babin, 1994), and improve in the shopping experience itself aside from any task-related merchandise and service quality perceptions (Baker, Grewal, motives. and Parasuraman, 1994). Negative affect has been associated THE IMPACT OF POSITIVE EMOTIONS. Emotions associatedwith crowding and has been shown to increase consumers with a specific atmosphere influence value perceptions (Babindesire to leave (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). and Darden, 1995). All things considered, it is rather obviousVarious researchers have adopted different dimensionalities that consumers would prefer to interact in a positive environ-in studying consumer-based emotions. Environmental psy- ment. A substantial body of literature documents and de- chologists proposed that three dimensions—pleasure, arousal, scribes shopping’s emotional worth and entertainment valueand dominance—adequately represent the emotional experi-
- 7. (Bellenger, Steinberg, and Stanton, 1976; Markin, Lillis, andence (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Pleasure and arousal Narayana, 1976; MacInnis and Price, 1987). In some in- generally have been operationalized by store atmosphere re- stances, the expected positive affect (pleasure, excitement,searchers with few studies showing any effects of dominance etc.) motivates shopping activities (Darden and Reynolds,(cf., Babin and Darden, 1995). However, other researchers, 1971). Therefore, positive affect is expected to influence he- using frameworks based on Izard’s (Izard, 1977) work, have donic shopping value positively.proposed that separate positive and negative affect dimensions However, there is evidence to suggest that positive affectare useful in understanding consumer reactions (Mano and Oliver, 1993; Oliver, 1993; Bagozzi and Moore, 1994). In a can actually improve task efficiency. Isen (1987) suggested 93Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value J Busn Res 2000:49:91–99 experimentally that hypothetical car shoppers showed greater single interaction with an environment, resource expenditures may cause value (Babin and Darden, 1995). Over extendedefficiency when induced with positive affect compared with periods of time involving numerous decisions evoking choicesthose in a control group. Furthermore, if positive affect im- within some store type, it is the value typically received thatproves merchandise perceptions (Baker, Grewal, and Parasu- will drive repeat purchasing behavior as operationalized byraman, 1994), there is a greater likelihood that product acqui-
- 8. customer share. Put succinctly, the store atmosphere evokessition will take place. Thus, by facilitating the task, positive emotions, these emotions help determine value, and this valueemotions are expected to influence utilitarian shopping value motivates customers to patronize a given choice repeatedly.positively. New retail mall formats, such as Forum Shops in Las Vegas, THE IMPACT OF NEGATIVE EMOTIONS. Contrasting with the recognize the importance of atmospheric elements in creating positive affect, negative affect can be detrimental to utilitarian value. The Forum Shops “approximates a Roman street scene, value. Negative affect is not rewarding in and of itself and with a polished flagstone floor and a painted-sky ceiling whose thus distracts from an activities worth. Also, negative emotions color is changed from dawn to dusk in hourly cycles by a generally create a desire to withdraw from an environment. system of computerized lights. Appropriately garish statu- For example, negative affect may encourage consumers to be ary—and upscale restaurants like Spago and The Palm lead less patient waiting for service (Chebat, Filiatrault, Gélinas- the way to pricey retailers like Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Chebat and Vaninsky, 1995; Baker and Cameron, 1996) and Gianni Versace. Each hour robotic statues on one of the foun- can lower involvement (Mano and Oliver, 1993). Consumers tains come alive and put on a show. Other attractions include feeling these emotions while in a store become less likely to Roman processions and nightly gladiator battles” (Labich, fulfill their intended purpose (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). 1995, p. 105). This format has proven successful by generating Therefore, increased negative affect is expected to lower both $1,000 per square foot or more in annual sales since the hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. property opened
- 9. (Labich, 1995). It is likely the Forum Shops atmosphere creates positive emotions and greater levels of hedonic shopping value.Creating Customer Share An overall model reflecting this conceptualization was de- Previous research has linked in-store mood to in-store spend- veloped and is shown in Figure 1. The predictions and pro-ing (Babin and Darden, 1996). However, the interest here is posed paths can be summarized in the following hypotheses:more long term and asks whether or not the affect associated with an environment translates into consistent repeat purchase H1: Positive affect is related positively to hedonic shopping behavior. That is, given several stores with similar product value. offerings, will a consumer patronize a store proportionately H2: Positive affect is related positively to utilitarian shop- according to the affect known to be experienced there? Cus- ping value. tomer share is seen as that key postconsumption outcome H3: Negative affect is related negatively to hedonic shop- construct. How much business does a firm get relative to its ping value.competitor from each individual customer? The feelings experienced while interacting within an envi- H4: Negative affect is related negatively to utilitarian shop- ronment are stored in memory and, over time, create schema- ping value. based affect (Fiske, 1982). Schema-based affect can alter con- H5: Hedonic shopping value is related positively to cus- sumers’ cognitive reactions (Babin, Darden, and Boles, 1995).
- 10. tomer share. More specifically, positive affect is associated with more favor- H6: Utilitarian shopping value is related positively to cus- able choice intentions and negative affect is associated with tomer share. less favorable choice intentions (Fiske, 1982). The schema- H7: Perceived shopping value mediates the relationshipbased affect becomes active when a patronage decision is being between affect and customer share.made, and those stores evoking negative affect are less likely to be patronized. Thus, affect experienced typically in an environment should relate to customer share. Research Methods However, this effect is expected to be mediated by per- Sampleceived shopping value. It is through the creation of perceived value that this effect takes place. The affect creates value, A study was designed and implemented that tested the pro- and this value creates perceptions of worth. Thus, in making posed model. Before the main study, a pretest was conducted further purchase decisions, consumers develop cognitive rules to identify retailers that (1) had similar merchandise offerings that become increasingly stronger as similar levels of worth are and (2) were perceived to provide primarily utilitarian or perceived (Holland, Holyoak, Nisbett, and Thagard, 1989). primarily hedonic value. The pretests were performed utilizing Retailers take on meaning through these cognitive processes free association techniques and a convenience sample of 36 consumers. Each respondent was asked to list the most salient(Ward, Bitner, and Barnes, 1992). Also, while in any one
- 11. 94 J Busn Res B. J. Babin and J. S. Attaway 2000:49:91–99 Figure 1. Hypothesized paths representing proposed structural model of atmospheric affect, shopping value, and customer share. representations of a “utilitarian” and a “hedonic store.” This structured item batteries. A “customer share” measure was developed and attempted to capture the extent of temporalwas done by describing a fictitious location that would, by law, only allow one type of store or the other. An example and economic resources proportionally spent at the assigned store compared with the competition. Four items asked re- description of a utilitarian store included phrases such as “the type of store you go to only to get a specific product” and a spondents to fill in blanks indicating (a) the usual shopping time at store X, (b) the proportion of times he/she shoppedhedonic store as “the type of store that is enjoyable just to visit.” Each subject received only one condition. After this in the primary store category that he/she selected store X, (c) how much out of every $100 spent in a store like store X wastask, subjects rated local retailers for similarity in merchandise offerings. The purpose of this pretest was (1) to insure variabil- spent at store X, and (d) out of every $100 spent in the store’s main category, how much was spent in store X. Additionally,ity in the store orientations used in the main study and (2) to
- 12. insure that stores used were competitors based on merchandise respondents were asked to circle a percentage that reflected the proportion of patronage given to store X. These itemsassortments. From these results, anchor stores at a major re- gional mall were selected to serve as stimuli for the main study. were standardized prior to analyses providing a common met- Study respondents were taken from a convenience sample ric. The items are described in detail in the Appendix. of mall shoppers. Graduate marketing research students inter- Perceived shopping value was measured using a shortened cepted potential respondents and requested participation. Po- version of a measure assessing both utilitarian and hedonic tential respondents were asked to take a few minutes to fill shopping value (Babin, Darden, and Griffin, 1994). The scale out a “brief” questionnaire. Given the intercept nature of the was shortened in an effort to minimize questionnaire length. interview, it was expected that most potential respondents Five items were included that indicated hedonic shopping would have familiarity with all stores. A familiarity rating was value and four that indicated utilitarian shopping value. The included on this survey and confirmed this finding. However, two dimensions contrast the value derived from being in an four respondents were excluded for lack of familiarity. In all, atmosphere for its own sake and for carrying out a consumer 156 respondents were intercepted and completed question- task. Respondents used a five-point Likert type scale to indi- naires. 144 were complete and used after listwise deletion. cate value derived from a typical shopping trip to store X. Nine items assessed in-store affect. Space precluded use of Response Form a more extensive battery. Affect descriptions were selected
- 13. based on their representativeness of positive and negativeRespondents were randomly assigned to respond to one of affect (Smith and Ellsworth, 1985; Green, Goldman, and Salo- the stores. The initial task required that respondents describe vey, 1993) and on their applicability to a retail atmospherein a paragraph a “typical” shopping trip to the assigned store. setting (Darden and Babin, 1994). Items representing positiveThis provided a memory aid serving to frame the questionnaire affect include happy, satisfied, excited, bold, and energetic.in terms of respondents’ total knowledge of a retailer. Following this task, respondents were queried using several Items representing negative affect include disgust, boredom, 95Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value J Busn Res 2000:49:91–99 Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Analyses Results:sleepiness, and annoyed. Responses were collected using a Standardized Estimatesstandard “degree felt” scale assessing the degree to which they experience each feeling on a typical visit to store X. Item CS HV UV PA NA CS1 0.61 Results CS2 0.86 CS3 0.90 Measurement Results CS4 0.72
- 14. HV1 20.62The proposed model and hypotheses were tested using struc- HV2 0.69tural equations analyses. A two-step model validation proce- HV3 0.76 dure was followed that first examines and purifies the mea- HV4 0.86 surement model and then tests the proposed theoretical HV5 0.83 structure (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Gerbing and Ander- UV1 0.63 UV2 20.86son, 1992). This provides for better testing of the theorized UV3 20.48paths and allows the measurement fit to provide a basis for PA1 0.64 assessing the structural model since a conventional measure- PA2 0.93 ment model provides the fit identical to a fully saturated PA3 0.89 recursive model (cf. Babin and Boles, 1996). PA4 0.79 PA5 0.65Initial confirmatory factor results suggested three items NA1 0.86producing poor empirical results (low loading and highly NA2 0.88 correlated error terms) that were dropped from further analy- NA3 0.82
- 15. ses (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). Thus, the final confirma- Variance tory model consists of 20 item indicators and 5 latent factors. Extracted 0.61 0.57 0.46 0.78 0.85 ScaleTable 1 displays measurement model estimates. All loading Reliability 0.80 0.83 0.74 0.83 0.75estimates are highly significant (p , 0.001), reliabilities exceed Correlation with 0.7, and variance extracted estimates are all above 0.5 with HV 0.43 the exception of that for utilitarian value (0.46). Additionally, UV 0.46 0.32 the square of each F is less than the variance extracted in each PA 0.35 0.67 0.35 NA 20.37 20.35 20.51 20.26construct. Finally, the hypothesized measurement structure produced a x2 of 3170.6 with 160 degrees of freedom (a ratio CS, customer share; HV, hedonic value; UV, utilitarian value; PA, positive affect; NA,of 10.98), a root mean squared residual (RMSR) of 0.07, a negative affect. comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.90, and a parsimony normed fit index (PNFI) of 0.69. The results indicate a satisfactory fit and provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity ships between negative affect and each shopping value dimen- (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Gerbing and Anderson, 1992). sion. H3 is supported by the significant, negative path estimate (g11 5 20.19, t 5 22.5, p , 0.01) from negative affect to
- 16. Theoretical Results hedonic value. H4 also is supported and demonstrates a stronger effect of negative affect on utilitarian value.Figure 2 depicts results of testing the proposed theoretical model using structural equations analysis. The model x2 is Hypotheses 5 and 6 predict direct positive effects of each shopping value dimension on purchase behavior as captured3180.8 with 163 degrees of freedom, which is not significantly different from the measurement model, and the remaining by the customer share measure. H5 is supported by a signifi- cant, positive path estimate of 0.32 (t 5 3.5, p , 0.001).fit indices are little changed from the confirmatory model. Furthermore, the PNFI increased to 0.71 suggesting that the Likewise, H6 is supported by a significant, positive path esti- mate of 0.37 (t 5 3.5, p , 0.001).proposed model is a more parsimonious representation of the covariance among observed variables than is a saturated H7 is a formal statement of the mediating properties of perceived shopping value. The overall model fit and the indi- theoretical model. Hypotheses 1 and 2 predict positive relationships between rect effects (see Table 2) provide initial support. Further steps were taken to assess the extent of mediation. For example,positive affect and both hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Both predictions are supported by the data. The path additional models were tested adding direct paths from posi- tive affect to customer share and from negative affect to cus-
- 17. between positive affect and hedonic shopping value is 0.62 (t 5 6.1, p , 0.001) while the effect of positive affect on tomer share. In neither case did either the path estimate (insig- nificant) or the overall fit (insignificant change) suggest thatutilitarian value, 0.23 (t 5 2.3, p , 0.01) appears significant but not as strong. a model including direct paths would provide a better fit. The addition of these paths did not affect the size or significanceConversely, hypotheses 3 and 4 predict negative relation- 96 J Busn Res B. J. Babin and J. S. Attaway 2000:49:91–99 Figure 2. Standardized structural path estimates suggesting the effect of atmospheric-based affect on purchasing behavior. x2 5 318.8, df 5 163; RMSR 5 .075, CFI 5 .90, PNFI 5 .71; Construct and R2: HSV .48, USV .32, PB .31. of other paths in the model. In terms of Baron and Kenny (0.28 versus 0.23) with a slight advantage for positive affect. So, these results, although exploratory, do not suggest a greater(1986), the addition of the facilitating construct (mediator) is attenuating (or accounts for) the simple relationship between impact for negative as opposed to positive affect. affect and customer share. Therefore, model results support the role of perceived shopping value in facilitating the relation- Discussion ship between affect and customer share.
- 18. Additional post hoc analyses were conducted to investigate Recent research suggests weaknesses in considering consumer an interesting question concerning the efficacy of positive vis- satisfaction/dissatisfaction as the best indicator of a consumer’s a-vis negative affect. In other words, does negative affect have future purchase behavior (Jones and Sasser, 1995). Others a stronger effect on value? Several additional models were have suggested alternatives including repeat purchase behav- estimated that constrained the values of parameters for the ior and value perceptions as superior indicators in this era of coefficients representing the paths from positive affect and relationship marketing (Berry, 1996). This research focuses negative affect to hedonic and utilitarian value, respectively. on these two constructs and on what effect the retail atmo- In each model, the corresponding paths were set equal to one sphere has in building superior levels of performance. another in terms of absolute value. In the case of hedonic A model of repeated purchasing behavior, reflected in cus- shopping value, by inspection, positive affect has a greater tomer share, or the proportion of resources given to a single impact (0.62 versus 0.23), and this is supported further by a retailer in a competitive arena, was developed and tested using significant 1 degree of freedom x2 difference test. For utilitar- structural equations modeling. The overall premise tested was ian shopping value, negative affect has a greater coefficient that patron affect experienced typically while interacting with (0.46 versus 0.23), but this difference did not produce a a retailer is related to relationship quality as expressed in significant x2 difference test. Furthermore, a comparison of customer share. Model results support this idea and explain the overall effects shown in Table 2 shows similar total effects it more precisely by considering the impact of perceived shop- ping value. Rather than exhibiting a direct effect, positive and negative affect alter perceived hedonic and utilitarian shopping
- 19. Table 2. Breakdown of Direct and Indirect Effects on value, and through this perceived value, customer share is Customer Share affected. Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect Thus, ambient atmospheric conditions contributing to a positive affect help build customer share and ambient atmo- Positive affect 0.28 0.28 spheric conditions contributing to negative affect reduce cus- Negative affect 20.23 20.23 tomer share. Unlike the effects of negative moods on customer Hedonic value 0.32 0.32 satisfaction (Babin and Darden, 1996), the effects of positiveUtilitarian value 0.37 0.37 and negative mood are similar with positive affect showing 97Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value J Busn Res 2000:49:91–99 only a slightly stronger effect on customer share. Results sug- trout pond. Oshman’s, a sporting goods retailer offers a minia- ture skating rink, basketball court, and Rollerblade track togest that retail atmosphere, in addition to effects on in-store allow customers to use products before purchase (Labich,shoppers, can help build a continuous consumer resource 1995).acquisition base as patrons experience them and maintain This research is limited in that it does not include a fullthem
- 20. cognitively in appropriate categories. range of shopping venues and contains a limited number ofA primary retail tactic to build customer share has been constructs. Future research should investigate a wider varietythe adoption of purchase incentives for accumulating pur- of shopping choices. For example, research should addresschases. This is a rather utilitarian approach in that it provides whether the same effects are observed among small retailers.consumers an opportunity for greater efficiency in exchange. Perhaps an application to nonstore retailers would yield inter- Results of the model suggests that these results may affect esting results dealing with affect created among consumerscustomer share positively given the observed direct relation- interacting with these venues. Additionally, research shouldship between utilitarian shopping value and customer share. address the potential moderating effects of shopping orienta- Retailers should make these programs very consumer friendly tions. For example, shoppers with more of a rule-based, func- and avoid inconveniences in redemption else they risk creating tional orientation might be affected more by utilitarian value,negative affect in the environment that could diminish poten- whereas shoppers with a more environmental-based orienta- tially positive effects on customer share. However, results tion could be influenced more by hedonic value (Babin andsuggest that more experiential or hedonic ambient elements Darden, 1995). Research also should identify additional exog- are equally important in building higher proportions of each enous factors that help build shopping value. The impact ofcustomer’s business. This is evidenced by a direct hedonic both hedonic and utilitarian value confirms the notion thatvalue customer share path that is not significantly different consumers demand more than just goods acquisition and afrom
- 21. the utilitarian value customer share path. This evidence retailer’s success depends on an equation that accounts forprovides further justification for investment in the store atmo- all types of value including that received from entertainmentsphere and the creation of appropriate affect through manage- (Berry, 1996). Hopefully, this work provides researchers withment of ambient conditions. a useful starting point in exploring these avenues.By mining its consumer database, Taco Bell identified two key market segments they referred to as penny pinchers and speed freaks. Penny pinchers were 18 to 24, patronized Taco Conclusions Bell frequently, but spent a limited amount of money on This study assessed the impact of environmental affect on theonly three or four products from the menu. Speed freaks share of customer a retailer acquires. A measure is developedrepresented busy dual-income couples or parents who were and validated that assesses this key construct. Results suggestconcerned with quick service, ease of use, as well as taste and that the retail atmosphere can be a useful tool in building thisquality of product. Speed freaks sought out higher-priced behavior. Furthermore, the study demonstrates the importantmenu items and were more concerned with convenience. role of perceived shopping value in mediating the relationship.Using this information, Taco Bell transformed its production Overall, retailers investing valuable resources in physical capi- line to create greater efficiencies and speed and initiated an tal in the hope of altering consumers feelings can take
- 22. solaceinventory-based approach instead of product on-demand. Re- in these results by the positive impact affect has on purchasingsults were impressive with 54% more peak-hour capacity and behavior.a 71% reduction in waiting times (Grant and Schlesinger, 1995). Therefore, Taco Bell succeeded in providing utilitarian value to speed freaks, which based on this study’s results References should lead to greater customer share. Anderson, Paul F.: Marketing, Strategic Planning and the Theory of A retail success story that emphasizes the role of ambient the Firm. Journal of Marketing 46 (Spring 1982): 15–26. atmosphere in generating customer share is the Mall of Amer- Anderson, James C., and Gerbing, David W.: Structural Equation ica, which opened in 1992 on 78 acres. The Mall includes Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (1988): 411–423.“four department stores, over 400 specialty stores, a seven- Arnould, Eric J., and Price, Linda L.: River Magic: Extraordinaryacre amusement park complete with roller coasters, a 14- Experience and the Extended Service Encounter. Journal of Con-screen movie complex, 45 restaurants, 9 nightclubs, a wedding sumer Research 19 (June 1993): 24–45.chapel, a LEGO play center, and an 18-hole miniature golf Babin, Barry J., and Boles, James S.: The Effects of Perceived Co-course” (Labich, 1995, p. 105). Evidence of success is pro-
- 23. Worker Involvement and Supervisor Support on Service Provider vided by the 35 million visitors per year, a 94% occupancy Role Stress, Performance and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Retailing rate, and annual sales-per-square-foot of $425. Other retailers 72 (Spring 1996): 57–75. who are using ambient characteristics to provide hedonic value Babin, Barry J., and Darden, William R.: Consumer Self- Regulation include the Bass Pro shop in Springfield, Missouri where in a Retail Environment. Journal of Retailing 71 (Spring 1995): 47–70.shoppers can learn how to tie flies and test them in an indoor 98 J Busn Res B. J. Babin and J. S. Attaway 2000:49:91–99 Babin, Barry J., and Darden, William R.: Good and Bad Shopping Environmental Psychology Approach. Journal of Retailing 58 (Spring 1982): 34–57.Vibes: Spending and Patronage Satisfaction. Journal of Business Research 35 (March 1996): 201–206. Dubé, Laurette, and Morgan, Michael S.: Trend Effects and Gender Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., and Griffin, Mitch: Some Com- Differences in Retrospective Judgments of Consumer Emotions. ments on the Role of Emotions in Consumer Behavior, in
- 24. Enhanc- Journal of Consumer Research 23 (September 1996): 156–162. ing Knowledge Developments in Marketing, Robert P. Leone and V. Eroglu, Sevgin A., and Machleit, Karen: An Empirical Study of Retail Kumar, eds., American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL. 1992, Crowding: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Retailing 66 pp. 130–138. (Summer 1990): 201–221. Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., and Griffin, Mitch: Work and/ Fiske, Susan T.: Schema-Triggered Affect: Applications to Social Per- or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Jour- ception, in Affect and Cognition, M. S. Clark and S. T. Fiske, eds., nal of Consumer Research 20 (March 1994): 644–656. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 1982, pp. 55–78. Babin, Barry J., Darden, William R., and Boles, James S.: Salesperson Fornell, Claes, and Larcker, David F.: Evaluating Structural Equations Stereotypes, Consumer Emotions, and Their Impact on Informa- Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. tion Processing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23 Journal of Marketing Research 18 (February 1981): 39–50. (Spring 1995): 94–105. Gerbing, David, and Anderson, James: Monte Carlo Evaluations of Bagozzi, Richard P., and Moore, David J.: Public Service Advertise- Goodness of Fit Indices for Structural Equations Models. Sociologi- ments: Emotions and Empathy Guide Prosocial Behavior.
- 25. Journal cal Methods and Research 21 (November 1992): 132–160. of Marketing 58 (January 1994): 56–70. Grant, Alan W.H., and Schlesinger, Leonard A.: Realize Your Custom- Baker, Julie, and Cameron, Michaelle: The Effects of the Service ers’ Full Profit Potential. Harvard Business Review 73 (September– Environment on Affect and Consumer Perception of Waiting October 1995): 59–72. Time: An Integrative Review and Research Propositions. Journal Green, Donald Phillip, Goldman, Susan Lee, and Salovey, Peter:of the Academy of Marketing Science 24 (Fall 1996): 338–349. Measurement Error Masks Bipolarity in Affect Ratings. Journal of Baker, Julie, Grewal, Dhruv, and Levy, Michael: An Experimental Personality and Social Psychology 64 (June 1993): 1029–1041. Approach to Making Retail Store Environmental Decisions. Journal Grewal, Dhruv, and Baker, Julie: Do Retail Store Environmentalof Retailing 68 (Winter 1992): 445–460. Factors Affect Consumers’ Price Acceptability? An Empirical Ex-Baker, Julie, Grewal, Dhruv, and Parasuraman, A.: The Influence of
- 26. amination. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11 (1994):Store Environment on Quality Inferences and Store Image. Journal 107–115. of the Academy of Marketing Science 22 (Fall 1994): 328–339. Holbrook, Morris B., and Corfman, Kim P.: Quality and Value inBaron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.: The Moderator- Mediator the Consumption Experience: Phaedrus Rides Again, in PerceivedDistinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strate- Quality: How Consumers View Stores and Merchandise, R. Peterson,gic, and Statistical Consideration. Journal of Personality and Social ed., Heath, Lexington, MA. 1985, pp. 31–57.Psychology 51 (July 1986): 1173–1182. Holland, John, Holyoak, Keith J., Nisbett, Richard, and Thagard,Bellenger, Danny, Steinberg, Earle, and Stanton, Wilbur W.: The Paul R.: Induction, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1989.Congruence of Store Image and Self Image. Journal of Retailing Hui, Michael K., and Bateson, John G.: Perceived Control and the52 (Spring 1976): 17–32. Effects of Crowding and Consumer Choice on the Service Encoun-Berry, Leonard L.: Retailers with a Future. Marketing Management ter. Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December 1991): 404– 420.(Spring 1996): 39–46. Isen, Alice M.: Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes and Social Behav-Bitner, Mary Jo: Servicescapes: The Impact of Physical
- 27. Surroundings ior, in Advances in Experimental Psychology, L. Berkowitz, ed.,on Customers and Employees. Journal of Marketing 56 (April Academic Press, New York. 1987, pp. 203–251.1992): 57–71. Isen, Alice: Some Ways in Which Affect Influences Cognitive Process:Bloch, Peter, Sherrell, Daniel, and Ridgway, Nancy: Consumer Implications for Advertising and Consumer Behavior, in CognitiveSearch: An Extended Framework. Journal of Consumer Research and Affective Responses to Advertising, Patricia Cafferata and Alice13 (June 1986): 119–126. M. Tybout, eds., Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 1989, pp. Chebat, Jean-Charles, Filiatrault, Pierre, Gélinas-Chebat, Claire, and 3–37. Vaninsky, Alexander: Impact of Waiting Attribution and Consum- Izard, Carroll E.: Human Emotion, Plenum Press, New York. 1977.er’s Mood on Perceived Quality. Journal of Business Research 34 (November 1995): 191–196. Jones, Thomas, and Sasser, Earl Jr.: Why Dissatisfied Customers Defect. Harvard Business Review 73 (November/December 1995):Darden, William R., and Babin, Barry J.: Exploring the Concept of 88–99.Affective Quality: Expanding the Concept of Retail Personality. Journal of Business Research 29 (February 1994): 101–110. Labich, Kenneth: What Will It Take To Keep People Hanging
- 28. Out at the Mall. Fortune May 29, 1995, pp. 102–106.Darden, William R., and Reynolds, Fred D.: Shopping Orientations and Product Usage Rates. Journal of Marketing Research 8 (Novem- MacInnis, Deborah, and Price, Linda L.: The Role of Imagery in ber 1971): 505–508. Information Processing: Review and Extensions. Journal of Con- sumer Research 18 (March 1987): 473–491.Dawson, Scot, Bloch, Peter H., and Ridgway, Nancy M.: Shopping Motives, Emotional States and Retail Outcomes. Journal of Retailing Mano, Haim, and Oliver, Richard: Assessing the Dimensionality of the 22 (Winter 1990): 408–427. Consumption Experience: Evaluation, Feeling and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (December 1993): 451– 466.Diener, Ed, and Emmons, Robert A.: The Independence of Positive and Negative Affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Markin, Rom J., Lillis, Charles M., and Narayana, Chem L.: Social 47 (May 1984): 1105–1117. Psychological Significance of Store Space. Journal of Retailing 52 (Spring 1976): 43–55.Donovan, Robert J., and Rossiter, John R.: Store Atmosphere: An 99Atmospheric Affect as a Tool for Creating Value J Busn Res 2000:49:91–99 Mehrabian, Albert, and Russell, James A.: An Approach to
- 29. Environmen- ence and typical outcome of shopping at the store as described tal Psychology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 1974. by the consumer. Oliver, Richard L.: Cognitive, Affective and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (December Hedonic Value 1993): 418–430. I only shop at [store X] when I need to buy something. Smith, Craig A., and Ellsworth, Phoebe C.: “Patterns of Cognitive A shopping trip to [store X] is truly a joy. Appraisal in Emotion”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I enjoy the shopping trip for its own sake, not just for 48 (October 1985): 813–838. items I may have purchased. Ward, James C., Bitner, Mary Jo, and Barnes, John: Measuring the While shopping at [store X], I was able to forget my prob- Prototypicality and Meaning of Retail Environments. Journal of lems.Retailing 68 (Summer 1992): 194–220. Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent at [store X] was truly enjoyable. Appendix. Description Utilitarian Value of Measures While shopping at [store X], I found just the items I was looking for. I couldn’t buy what I really needed in [store X].
- 30. Customer Share I was disappointed because I had to go to another store to complete my shopping.Instructions: Please fill in the blanks below so that the state- It was a good shopping trip because it was over veryments describe you accurately. quickly. out of every five times I shop for clothing, I shop at [store X]. Positive and Negative Affect Out of every $100 I spend in a store like [store X], I spend Responses recorded on a five-point degree felt scale based on at [store X]. how well they describe a typical shopping trip at the store as Out of every $100 I spend on clothing, I spend described by the respondent. When shopping at [store X], I at [store X]. feel: My usual shopping trip to [store X] lasts about Excitedminutes. BoldHow much of the money you spend on clothing each Energeticmonth do you spend in [store X]: 0–20%, 21–40%, Happy41–60%, 61–80%, or 81–100% Satisfied Disgusted Shopping Value Bored Responses recorded with a five-point disagree—agree scale Sleepy Annoyedbased on how well they describe the typical shopping experi-