Abstract: Atmospherics has received increasing attention from marketing scholars. However, most of the prior studies investigated single dimensions of atmosphere. Comprehensive studies including multi dimensions of the retail environment is still limited. Furthermore, there are still limited studies addressing how shopping motives may influence the evaluation of atmospheric cues. Moreover, most of the prior studies have been carried out in developed countries. This study aims to contribute to literature on atmospherics by investigating how consumers shopping motivations influence the evaluation of design, ambient and social factors of the retail environment. The study further examines if the influence of age and gender on evaluation of atmospheric cues differs with respect to shopping motivation. The study was carried out in an emerging market and a non-Western context. Analysis of 325 questionnaires reveals that, evaluation of design and ambient factors differs with respect to shopping motivation. Whereas, consumers both with hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives, evaluate social factors as equally important. Results also show that age and gender do not affect the evaluation of atmospheric cues for consumers with hedonic shopping motives. Findings can be beneficial for academicians and practitioners working in the fields of marketing and retailing by providing a holistic perspective of retail atmospherics, by highlighting the importance of shopping motives in designing retail environment and by implying when age and gender can make a difference. The findings can also inspire further studies to be carried out in emerging markets, to expand and enrich the literature of retail atmospherics.
INTRODUCTION
Retailers today need to search for new marketing strategies to attract new customers and to retain existing ones. In this respect, atmospherics can be used as a tool by which retailers can differentiate themselves from their competitors (Andreu et al., 2006). Atmospherics has received increasing attention from marketing scholars since Kotler (1974) highlighted it as an important source of competitive advantage in the retail environment. Earlier studies focused on how atmospheric cues can influence product’s image (Obermiller and Bitner, 1984), store’s image (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998), consumers’ purchasing behavior (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Wright and Noble, 1999; Andreu et al., 2006) and satisfaction level (Bloemer and de Ruyter, 1998).
Most of the prior studies investigated single dimensions of atmosphere such as music (Dube et al., 1995), scent (Spangenberg et al., 1996) and color (Bellizi and Hite, 1992) or two dimensions such as music and scent (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001). Comprehensive studies including multi dimensions of the retail environment is still limited.
Consumers with different shopping motives may respond differently to various attributes of a retail atmosphere. Previous studies in this area showed how atmospheric elements help to create both utilitarian and hedonic shopping value and assessed differences between task-oriented consumers and consumers who shop for hedonic reasons (Dawson et al., 1990; Babin et al., 1994; Babin and Attaway, 2000; Jones et al., 2006; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006; Ballantine et al., 2010). Recently some retail and marketing studies have addressed the relationship between shopping motives and store attributes (Moye and Kincade, 2002; Morschett et al., 2005; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). However, there is still limited empirical study addressing how different shopping motives may influence the evaluation of different atmospheric cues. Moreover, most of the prior studies have been carried out in developed countries. This study aims to fill this gap in literature by investigating whether the evaluation of atmospheric cues in retail environment differs with respect to shopping motivation, in an emerging market.
The previous studies also imply that age (Moschis and Moore, 1979; Martin, 2009) and gender (Shim and Kotsiopulos, 1993; Grewal et al., 2003) often influence consumption perceptions, attitudes and experiences. Therefore the study also analyzes if consumers’ age and gender affect the impact of shopping motivation in evaluation of atmospheric cues.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
Atmospherics: Atmospherics is defined by Kotler (1974), as “the effort to design buying environments to produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhance his purchase probability”. Combination of store’s atmospheric elements such as design, layout, display, signs, colors, lighting, temperature, music and scent, together help to create an image in consumer’s mind (Levy and Weitz, 2004).
These factors of the retail environment are critical when assessing stores, since they provide information regarding the quality and the price of the product and the shopping experience (Bitner, 1992). Therefore, retail stores also consider the products they sell when designing their retail atmosphere because design, social and ambient environment cues provide information regarding the product (Bitner, 1992).
Most of the scholars who have studied retail atmospherics followed environmental psychologists (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) stimulus-arousal-response model (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Obermiller and Bitner, 1984; Eroglu and Machleit, 1990; Baker et al., 1994, 2002; Babin and Attaway, 2000). According to this model, environmental stimuli generate emotions of pleasure, arousal and dominance referred as the "PAD" and these emotions stimulate approach or avoidance behaviors. Some of the well-known scholars who studied various atmospheric cues are included in Table 1.
Baker classified the factors of retail environment in three groups (Baker et al., 2002):
| • | Design factors which are visual cues such as layout, spatial crowding, cleanliness and color |
| • | Ambient factors which are non-visual cues such as scent, music and lighting |
| • | Social factors which include the people in the store such as customers and employees |
| Table 1: | Scholars who studied various atmospheric cues |
Baker and colleagues’ classification of retail environment was used as it is a comprehensive and well structured model that includes all design, social and ambient environment cues which are critical when assessing stores.
Design factors: Design factors consist of exterior and interior design of a store, layout and product display, spatial crowding and color. Consumers can sometimes judge a store by its exterior. Store sign, number of entrances, type of entrance used, style of the walkway, window displays are all dimensions of the store exterior. They serve to identify the store and to attract shoppers. Store’s interior design has become an important factor in appealing to a certain target market as well. Type of flooring, wall textures, store fixtures, dressing facilities are all elements of a store’s interior design which can help to create a distinctive atmosphere.
Store layout, space planning and product display are the other design elements which can influence customers’ buying decisions. Based on the needs of the customers, the store layout will either be easy to move around so that merchandise will be found easily or it will be varied and different. Product displays also impact the store atmosphere. They can either provide information to shoppers or serve as a promotion tool, helping customers in their buying decisions (Turley and Milliman, 2000).
Consumers will perceive the store environment as crowded when the number of people and/or objects restrict their activities. Retail crowding has two dimensions: human and spatial crowding. Spatial crowding is included among design factors and human crowding in social factors. Spatial crowding is related to the number of nonhuman objects such as amount of merchandise and fixtures and their arrangement within the store (Machleit et al., 2000). Studies have shown that the level of perceived in store crowding can affect consumers’ satisfaction, loyalty or patronage decisions and shopping experience. Overcrowding can confuse the customers and cause them to leave the store without buying anything (Chebat and Michon, 2003).
Color which is one of the design factors, has three dimensions: hue (i.e., warm versus cool colors), value (light versus dark) and intensity (bright versus dull). Previous studies found that color affects mood and emotions and can have positive or negative implications on the retail environment. For instance, warm colors such as yellow and red produce different physiological and psychological effects compared to cool colors such as green and blue (Bellizi and Hite, 1992). Light colors can be used to generate feelings of spaciousness and calmness. Neutral and pale colors can be soothing and relaxing. On the other hand, bright colors often create feelings of arousal and excitement (Bellizi and Hite, 1992; Crowley, 1993). Furthermore, demographic factors such as age, ethnicity and gender affect people’s color preferences. Therefore, colors should be chosen according to the target customers or to the specific products, as colors that do not match the theme or overall presentation of the store can have a negative effect on the display (Levy and Weitz, 2004).
Ambient factors: Ambient factors are the non-visual cues such as scent, music and lighting. Product-specific scent is the scent of the product, whereas ambient scent is the scent “that is not coming from a particular object but is present in the environment” (Spangenberg et al., 1996). More retailers started to believe that ambient scent influence customer’s evaluation of the store (Spangenberg et al., 1996). Scent is often differentiated on three dimensions: affective quality (i.e., pleasantness), arousing nature and intensity of the scent. If ambient scent used in the retail environment is in harmony with the shopping environment, it can have beneficial results, whereas scents which are inconsistent with the product have a negative effect on the product (Chebat and Michon, 2003). Furthermore, using scent in stores can make customers feel like they are spending less time shopping or waiting (Spangenberg et al., 1996). Previous studies also indicate that presence of scent is more critical than nature of the scent. Therefore, it is found that in stores where neutral and inoffensive scents are used, customer’s perception of the store is more positive than stores where no scent is used (Spangenberg et al., 1996).
Music is another factor affecting feelings, mood and behavior and therefore, it is increasingly used as a stimulus in the retail environment. It has been shown that, music played both in retail and service environments influence the consumers in various ways such as; perceived waiting time, perceived shopping duration, purchase intention, perception of salespeople, evaluation of service and perceived product and service quality (Vaccaro et al., 2008). According to Bitner (1992), music is a key determinant of customers’ service evaluation and presence of music generally creates a positive attitude towards the store.
Tempo, type and valence (liked versus disliked) of music are analyzed in various studies. Type and volume of the music played in the store has an impact on consumer’s judgment of the store and products. Volume and tempo of music can also be used to attract attention or to control store traffic (Levy and Weitz, 2004). Furthermore, having music in the background may reduce the negative effect of waiting for services because it distracts the consumers and as a result they perceive the length of wait to be shorter which in return influences their service evaluation (Hui et al., 1997). Moreover, presence of background music may influence how buyers and sellers interact with each other and can increase their desire to affiliate (Dube et al., 1995). Music is most effective when consumers have low cognitive and/or high affective involvement with the product, such as in the case of jewelry, sportswear and cosmetics. On the contrary, music will be less effective when consumers have high cognitive involvement, as in the case of buying cars, appliances and PCS (Bruner, 1990).
Lighting is also among the ambient factors. It is used to highlight products as well as creating a mood that enhances the store’s image. Having appropriate lighting can create excitement and have a positive impact on customer’s purchasing behavior. Lower lighting can increase comfort level, however brighter lighting is more important in the retail environment, as it is related to higher product involvement of consumers and more positive consumer perceptions of the store image (Vaccaro et al., 2008). Lighting can even impact the loyalty and patronage decisions of the consumers (Summers and Hebert, 2001).
Social factors: Employees are among the social factors of the store environment and they have an important role in affecting consumers’ mood and satisfaction. Having the right number of salespeople in a store is an important issue. Too many salespeople may lead to human or social crowding which refers to the number of people and level of interaction between them in a store setting. However, being understaffed may lead to customers spending more time searching for merchandise and therefore can have a negative impact on customers’ perceptions and responses (Baker et al., 2002). In addition to the number of employees, appearance and behaviors of the employees are also indications of the service quality. Polite, well dressed, friendly and knowledgeable personnel create a positive atmosphere. On the contrary, bad mannered, poorly dressed and uninformed personnel will generate a negative environment.
Consumers are the other social factor in the retail environment. Their purpose and mood affects response to the environment (Bitner, 1992). In the study they have carried out in 1987, to analyze the consumer mood in clothing stores, Sherman and Smith (1987) found that consumer moods have a positive relationship with the store image, the number of items purchased, the amount of money spent, unplanned purchases and the time spent in the store. Type of store influences impact of human crowding on satisfaction. For example, in discount stores, number of shoppers are associated with low cost-value positioning. Therefore, as opposed to spatial crowding, human crowding does not necessarily decrease customer satisfaction in all types of stores (Machleit et al., 2000).
As highlighted above, a store’s atmosphere contributes to customers’ perceptions and also affects customers’ purchasing behavior and satisfaction level. It influences level of shopping enjoyment; time spent browsing, money spent in the store and customer loyalty. However, consumers with different shopping motives may respond differently to various aspects of a retail atmosphere. Therefore understanding the target customers’ needs and shopping motives is critical before developing the store environment.
Shopping motives: In retailing studies, shopping motives have received considerable attention in explaining shopping behavior (Morschett et al., 2005). Shopping motives (alternatively shopping needs or shopping orientations) refer to a customer’s needs and wants related to the choice of outlets (Morschett et al., 2005). They represent “enduring characteristics of individuals” (Westbrook and Black, 1985). They are used to categorize shoppers based on their shopping experiences, activities, interests and opinions about the shopping process (Moye and Kincade, 2002).
Various motivational orientation labels are used in shopping behavior literature (Table 2). These empirical studies distinguish mainly between two groups of motives: utilitarian shopping motives (functional, product-oriented, or task-oriented) and hedonic shopping motives (non-functional, need, or stimulation seeking) (Bellenger and Korgaonkar, 1980; Westbrook and Black, 1985; Dawson et al., 1990; Babin et al., 1994).
Consumers with utilitarian shopping motives engage in shopping out of necessity to obtain needed products, services, or information. In this case, satisfaction depends on accomplishing a product acquisition. They gain no pleasure from the shopping experience itself. Shopping trips are described by consumers as “an errand” or “work”. On the other hand, consumers with hedonic shopping motives engage in shopping to derive satisfaction from the shopping experience itself rather than from task completion (Arnold and Reynolds, 2003; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Hedonic value results from fun and enjoyment (Hirschman and Holbrook, 1982). Studies support that, shopping may provide both hedonic and utilitarian value (Babin et al., 1994; Jones et al., 2006; Martin 2009).
| Table 2: | Motivational orientation labels used in shopping behavior literature |
In retail environment, retailers now try to provide an experience by appealing to the multiple senses of sight, sound, smell and touch. However, they need to consider the shopping motivation of their target customers before they decide on the level of arousal and excitement so that atmospheric elements will not have an adverse effect on the customer value. Individuals with utilitarian shopping motives want to complete the shopping and acquire the needed product with minimum effort, as they seek function, results and purpose. Therefore they may find high arousal environments unpleasant, as they require more effort to complete the shopping. On the other hand, consumers who shop for hedonic reasons may find high arousal environments pleasant as they seek fun, enjoyment and pleasure. Therefore they find shopping in such environments more exciting and rewarding (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006).
As stated by Jones et al. (2006), previous studies mainly focused on the antecedents to both hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Some of these studies explored the relationship of shopping value with retail outcome variables, such as satisfaction (Babin et al., 1994), customer share (Babin and Attaway, 2000) and patronage intentions (Stoel et al., 2004). Shopping motives are often used in explaining shopping behavior, but recently some retail and marketing studies show that relationship between shopping motives and store attributes also exist (Moye and Kincade, 2002). Morschett et al. (2005) argue that shopping motives can inffuence the perception of retail store attributes as well as the attitude towards retail stores. According to them degree of importance shoppers place on certain store attributes differs as physical properties and features of a store are subjectively perceived and judged by consumers. Therefore, consumers with different shopping motives can have different ratings of the store environment. On the basis of these discussions, it is proposed that consumers’ shopping motives influence their evaluation of different atmospheric cues:
| • | H1: | Consumers’ shopping motivation affects the evaluation of retail atmospheric cues |
| • | H1a: | Consumers’ shopping motivation affects the evaluation of design factors |
| • | H1b: | Consumers’ shopping motivation affects the evaluation of ambient factors |
| • | H1c: | Consumers’ shopping motivation affects the evaluation of social factors |
Consumer demographics: Consumers’ motive for shopping can influence customer experience. However, these motives are also shaped by factors such as personality traits, socio-demographics and situational circumstances (Verhoef et al., 2009). Therefore, characteristics and demographics of the target customer group are critical when planning the store environment.
Younger consumers and adults are likely to form different attitudes toward retail environmental cues (Martin, 2009). For instance, younger consumers are likely to spend less time searching for information when making consumption decisions as compared to older consumers (Moschis and Moore, 1979).
Consumer socialization literature further suggests that consumers, who regard recreational shopping as a rewarding activity, are more likely to be younger consumers, since they have greater desire for hedonic value in their shopping experiences compared to adults (Martin, 2009). Therefore, retail environmental factors can have a more important role in the shopping experiences of younger consumers compared to older consumers. Moye (1998) also found a relationship between shopping motivations and store attributes among elderly consumers (Moye and Kincade, 2002). Based on implications of previous studies, it is proposed that consumers’ age can affect their evaluation of atmospheric cues:
| • | H2: | Consumers’ age affects the impact of shopping motivation on evaluation of atmospheric cues |
| • | H2a: | For consumers having utilitarian shopping motivation age affects evaluation of atmospheric cues |
| • | H2b: | For consumers having hedonic shopping motivation age affects evaluation of atmospheric cues |
The literature on gender differences indicates that men and women may evaluate the store environment differently (Otnes and McGrath, 2001; Grewal et al., 2003). Study suggests that men are often more time-conscious than women. They estimate short time intervals more accurately than do women (Rammsayer and Lustnauer, 1989) whereas women tend to underestimate time (Krishnan and Sexena, 1984). Furthermore, men are achievement oriented and they “shop to win.” Consequently, when they cannot fulfill their shopping goals, they get bored and irritated (Otnes and McGrath, 2001). Grewal et al., 2003 also supports the direct effect of gender on wait expectations and store atmosphere evaluations. They found that men reacted more negatively in terms of wait expectations and they also evaluated the store atmosphere less positively than did women (Grewal et al., 2003).
Shim and Kotsiopulos (1993) further found that female consumers place importance on store attributes such as visual image of the store, price, quality and assortment of merchandise which is influenced by consumer’s shopping motives. On the basis of the previous studies, it is suggested that gender differences may influence evaluation of atmospheric cues:
| • | H3: | Consumers’ gender affects the impact of shopping motivation on evaluation of atmospheric cues |
| • | H3a: | For consumers having utilitarian shopping motivation gender affects evaluation of atmospheric cues |
| • | H3b: | For consumers having hedonic shopping motivation gender affects evaluation of atmospheric cues |
In the proposed model (Fig. 1), store atmosphere is defined based on Baker et al. (2002) classification; as design factors, ambient factors and social factors.
| Fig. 1: | Exploratory model to examine influence of shopping motivation, age and gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues |
Shopping motives are classified according to Babin et al. (1994) categorization of utilitarian and hedonic shopping value. The model proposes that consumers with hedonic shopping motives have different evaluation of atmospheric cues than consumers with utilitarian shopping motives. The model also analyzes if consumers’ age and gender have an impact on evaluation of different atmospheric cues. Furthermore, it is suggested that the effects of shopping motivation on evaluation of atmospheric cues can differ with respect to age and gender.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling: When selecting the sample of respondents, judgmental sampling was used. The researcher purposively selected the respondents so that females and males were proportionate and different age groups were included. Sampling group was selected from respondents living in different districts of Izmir and Istanbul which are the third and first most populous urban cities in Turkey. Three hundred twenty five usable surveys were collected in 2012.
Sample profile: The sample demographics indicate that 58% of the respondents were female and 42% were male. The age profile of the overall sample (n = 325) was distributed as follows: <20 years (2.5%), 20-39 years (55.1%), 40-59 years (37.2%) and 60 years and older (5.2%). As the number of participants younger than 20 and older than 60 were only a small percentage of the total sample, four age groups were reduced to two groups for further analysis. As a result, respondents younger than 40 made up 57.5% of the whole sample and respondents 40 and over were 42.5% of the total sample.
The number of married and single respondents was almost the same. The highest percentage of the respondents within the income groups were having 1001-3000 Turkish Liras (TL) income which is followed by the ones having more than 7000 TL income. The majority of the respondents had graduate and post graduate degree of education which shows that the sample was highly educated. Nearly one fourth of the sample was comprised of students, followed by managers and self-employed people. Almost twenty one percent of the respondents had occupations other than the ones specified in the questionnaire. The distribution of demographic variables is shown in (Table 3).
Data collection: Respondents were asked to fill out a self-administered structured questionnaire taking into account apparel retailers in general. Apparel was chosen because of the variety and importance of atmospherics in this industry. As aesthetics is important in apparel/clothing (Venkatesh and Meamber, 2008), atmospherics and retail environment becomes an important criteria in store selection.
A pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted before distributing it to the participants of the study. The purpose of the pilot test was to identify any questions that were difficult to comprehend and revise them prior to conducting the survey. Thirty men and women of various ages participated in the pilot test. The results were not used for statistical purposes and were not included in the findings. However, based on the suggestions and comments of the participants, wording of the questionnaire and instructions were clarified.
The final questionnaire consisted of three parts. In the first part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to evaluate different atmospheric cues for apparel stores taking into account two different scenarios (The statements included in the first section are given in Appendix 1).
| Table 3: | Demographic profile of the sample group |
The scenarios were prepared considering the definitions of hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives in literature (Babin et al., 1994; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). There have been applications of similar role-play scenarios in prior studies (Schlosser, 1998; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Using such scenarios are useful as they engage participants in a simulated shopping experience, however they do not capture many elements of the experience that consumers have when shopping in an actual store (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006).
Prior to completing the questionnaire, the researchers explained the scenarios to the participants. The two scenarios were presented in rotating order to minimise order effect. Some of the respondents were first given Scenario A and then Scenario B whereas in others the order was reversed. The same respondents were asked to answer the questions from 1-20 taking into account the scenario they were given. Scenario A illustrates a hedonic shopping situation, where the participants visit apparel stores to gain pleasure and to seek fun and enjoyment.
| Appendix 1: | Statements included in the first section of the questionnaire |
| Scenario A: | It is the weekend and you are alone at home. None of your friends are around. You do not want to watch TV or do any work. You feel very bored and you decide to visit some apparel stores to relieve the sense of boredom |
Scenario B described a utilitarian shopping occasion, where the respondents want to acquire the needed apparel product with minimum effort. They seek function, results and have purpose.
| Scenario B: | You need to get a present for a work colleague. You have limited time. You decide to buy the present from an apparel store. In the store that you visit you do not want to lose any time and aim to get the present and leave as quickly as possible |
The 20 statements included in the first part of the questionnaire, measure consumers’ evaluation of design, ambient and social factors of store atmosphere, on a 5-point likert scale, 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 being ‘strongly agree’. Design factors were measured by eight items related to interior design (2 items), layout (3 items), color (1 item) and spatial crowding (2 items). Ambient factors were measured by six items regarding music (3 items), lighting (1 item) and scent (2 items). Items measuring social factors included social crowding (1 item) and employees (5 items). Table 4 shows the dimensions, the relevant items and the adapted scales used to measure these items (Items corresponding to the statements are given in Appendix 2).
In the second part of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to rank nine factors of retail environment in order of importance for apparel stores in general, 1 being the most important and 9 being the least important. The nine factors of the retail environment were; interior design, layout, spatial crowding, color, lighting, scent, music, employees and social crowding. The third section included six demographic items related to gender, age, marital status, income and education level and occupation.
| Appendix 2: | Items corresponding to the statements included in the first section of the questionnaire |
| Table 4: | Dimensions and adapted scales |
Reliability analysis: Reliability analysis was performed for all the items included in hedonic and utilitarian shopping motivation cases, separately. The constructs exhibited good internal consistency, as the Cronbach’s alpha values in both hedonic (0.864) and utilitarian (0.884) cases exceeded the recommended 0.70 coefficient alpha value for acceptability (Nunnally, 1978).
Initial scale evaluation of the items both in hedonic and utilitarian case indicated two inconsistent items with corrected item correlation values less than 0.30. However, removing these items only made a slight increase in total score. Moreover, as the initial Cronbach’s alpha value was higher than 0.80 in both cases (Hedonic case: 0.864, Utilitarian case: 0.884), it was decided not to remove any items from the scale. Table 5 shows the results of the reliability analysis.
| Table 5: | Reliability analysis |
RESULTS
Evaluations of atmospheric cues under two shopping motivations: Table 6 summarizes the descriptive analyses of all the constructs and items involved in both cases. Some differences were detected between evaluations of atmospheric cues under the two shopping motivations. Compared to consumers with utilitarian shopping motives, consumers with hedonic shopping motives gave higher scores for design and ambient factors. Among design factors, consumers with utilitarian shopping motives had slightly higher scores for only layout which shows that layout plays an important role for both consumer groups. On the other hand, the mean scores are almost the same in evaluation of social factors. This signifies that social factors are equally important when consumers have hedonic or utilitarian shopping motives (Appendix 2 gives the statements corresponding to measured items).
To assess if there is a significant difference in evaluation of atmospheric cues between consumers with hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives, paired sample t-test was conducted. Results of the paired sample t-test reveal that there is a significant difference between consumers with hedonic shopping motives and consumers with utilitarian shopping motives in evaluation of design and ambient factors and in overall evaluation of atmospheric cues (sig. 2-tailed: 0.000). However, this difference is not significant in evaluation of social factors (sig. 2-tailed: 0.596) (Table 6). Findings support H1, H1a and H1b, but reject H1c.
Influence of age in evaluation of atmospheric cues: In order to test the influence of age in evaluation of atmospheric cues for both hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives, t-test is carried out. Table 7 shows the impact of age in evaluation of atmospheric cues for hedonic shopping motivation and Table 8 for utilitarian shopping motivation.
t-test results in Table 7 show that, in hedonic shopping motivation case, there was no significant difference in evaluation of design, ambient, social factors and overall atmosphere between consumers younger than 40 and consumers 40 and older. Their means did not differ significantly from each other in evaluation of atmospheric cues (sig. 2-tailed >0.05).
t-test results given in Table 8 highlight that, in utilitarian shopping motivation case there was no significant difference in evaluation of design and social factors, between consumers younger than 40 and consumers 40 and older, since their means did not differ significantly from each other (sig. 2-tailed >0.05). However, significant difference was found between consumers younger than 40 and consumers 40 and older, when evaluating ambient factors (sig. 2-tailed: 0.008) and overall atmosphere (sig. 2-tailed: 0.029). In utilitarian shopping case, older consumers had higher evaluations of ambient factors and overall atmosphere. This may signify that as consumers get older, they become more sensitive towards ambient factors such as lighting, music and scent which as a result affects their overall evaluation of atmospheric cues.
Findings partly support Hypothesis 2a but reject 2b. As a result Hypothesis 2 is partly accepted. When consumers have utilitarian shopping motives, their age affects evaluation of ambient factors and overall atmosphere, but not evaluation of design and social factors. When they have hedonic shopping motives age does not make a difference in their evaluation of atmospheric cues.
| Table 6: | Mean and standard deviation of items and t-test results |
| *95% confidence interval of the difference | |
| Table 7: | Influence of age in evaluation of atmospheric cues-hedonic shopping motivation |
| *95% confidence interval | |
Influence of gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues: In order to test the influence of gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues for both hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives, t-test is carried out. Table 9 shows the impact of gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues when consumers have hedonic shopping motivation.
| Table 8: | Influence of age in evaluation of atmospheric cues-utilitarian shopping motivation |
| *95% confidence interval | |
| Table 9: | Influence of gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues-hedonic shopping motivation |
| *95% confidence interval | |
Results of the t-test reveal that there was no significant difference in evaluation of design, ambient, social factors and overall atmosphere in hedonic case, between female and male participants (sig. 2-tailed >0.05).
Table 10 illustrates that, there was significant difference in evaluation of design factors (sig. 2-tailed: 0.044), ambient factors (sig. 2-tailed: 0.001) and overall atmosphere (sig. 2-tailed: 0.004) in utilitarian case, between female and male respondents, since their means differ significantly from each other. Female consumers had higher evaluations of design and ambient factors and overall atmosphere. In utilitarian case, there was no significant difference between female and male respondents only in evaluation of social factors (sig. 2-tailed: 0.161). Findings partly support H3a but reject H3b. Therefore, H3 is partly accepted. Only when consumers have utilitarian shopping motives, their gender affects evaluation of design and ambient factors and overall atmosphere. However, when they have hedonic shopping motives, gender does not make a difference in their evaluation of atmospheric cues.
Ranking of different atmospheric cues: As final analysis, general ranking of nine retail environment factors was evaluated. This analysis is carried out independent from shopping motives to provide additional information and insight on relative significance of the environmental factors, irrespective of shopping motivation.
| Table 10: | Influence of gender in evaluation of atmospheric cues-utilitarian shopping motivation |
| *95% confidence interval | |
| Table 11: | Ranking of factors of retail environment |
Weighted frequency results calculated in Table 11 imply that layout (weighted frequency average: 58.7) is the most important retail environment factor followed closely by employees (weighted frequency average: 56). Spatial crowding, social crowding and interior design are the other important factors. Factors such as lighting, scent and music were less important. Color was found to be the least important of all factors (weighted frequency average: 6.7). If factors are sorted in three groups, then design factors are the most important (sum total = 124.1). The second most important group is the social factors (sum total = 80.3) and the least important is the ambient factors (33.6).
DISCUSSION
Findings of the study show that shopping motives can inffuence the evaluation of different atmospheric cues which is in line with earlier studies (Morschett et al., 2005; Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Significant difference is found in evaluation of design and ambient factors and in overall evaluation of atmospheric cues between consumers with hedonic shopping motives and consumers with utilitarian shopping motives. On the other hand, consumers’ evaluations of social factors do not differ depending on their shopping motivation. Consumers both with hedonic shopping motives and utilitarian shopping motives evaluate social factors as equally important. This signifies the importance of social factors in retail environment. Therefore, apart from social factors, it can be said that evaluation of atmospheric cues in retail environment differs with respect to shopping motivation.
The findings also highlight that age does not affect the evaluation of atmospheric cues for consumers with hedonic shopping motives. Retail environment has an important role in shopping experiences of both young and old shoppers when they have hedonic shopping motivations. However, for consumers with utilitarian shopping motives significant difference is found in evaluation of ambient factors and overall atmosphere. Older consumers are found to have higher evaluations of ambient factors and overall atmosphere which is contrary to previous findings of (Martin, 2009). This may imply that importance of ambient factors and overall atmosphere can increase as shoppers get older, even when they have utilitarian shopping motives. However, no significant difference is found in evaluation of design and social factors between younger and older consumers. Therefore, it can be said that consumers’ age affects evaluation of ambient factors and overall atmosphere, only when they have utilitarian shopping motives. When they have hedonic shopping motives, age does not make a difference in their evaluation of atmospheric cues.
Similar to findings on influence of age, no significant difference is found in evaluation of atmospheric cues between female and male participants, when they have hedonic shopping motives. However, when consumers have utilitarian shopping motives, their gender affects evaluation of design and ambient factors and overall atmosphere. This signifies the importance of design and ambient factors and overall atmosphere for female shoppers, even when they have utilitarian shopping motivations. No significant difference is found in evaluation of social factors between female and male shoppers. As a result, it can be said that gender affects evaluation of atmospheric cues, apart from social factors, only when consumers have utilitarian shopping motives. Gender does not make a difference in evaluation of atmospheric cues when consumers have hedonic shopping motives.
When the degree of importance consumers place on different atmospheric cues is analyzed, layout and employees are found to be the most important factors, irrespective of their shopping motivation. This finding supports the earlier findings on the importance of layout and social factors.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
By highlighting that shopping motives play an important role in evaluation of retail environment, this study can be beneficial for academicians and practitioners working in the fields of marketing and retailing. Most of the prior studies have investigated single dimensions or two dimensions of atmosphere. By including design, ambient and social factors of the retail environment in the study and testing all dimensions at the same time, a more comprehensive study is offered which hopefully will make a contribution to retail atmospherics literature and to academicians of the field. A scale covering all the dimensions in this study can be developed in the future which will bring a holistic approach to evaluation of retail atmospherics.
It may not be possible to separate consumers as hedonic or utilitarian, as their orientations can change depending on the occasion. The same consumer can have a hedonic motivation in one situation and a utilitarian motivation in another situation. For instance, utilitarian motivation can be more relevant under time pressure. Therefore, it is preferred to give scenarios describing hedonic and utilitarian cases to the participants which is another originality of the study. Future studies can use similar scenarios to carry out experimental design in order test and support the findings.
Most of the prior studies on retail atmospherics have been carried out in developed countries, in a Western context. This study investigates whether the evaluation of atmospheric cues in retail environment differs with respect to shopping motivation, in an emerging market and a non-Western context. Retail environment in emerging markets have been changing with traditional retail formats increasingly being replaced by modern, organized retail chains, increasing number of shopping malls and increased importance being given to retail atmospherics which is relatively a new concept in these markets. Therefore, hopefully the findings will inspire further studies to be carried out in emerging markets, to expand and enrich the literature of retail atmospherics.
Results of the study imply that different shopping motivations of customers need to be taken into consideration when designing retail environments. The same individual may place importance to different atmospheric cues at different times depending on their shopping motivation. This is especially valid for design (apart from layout) and ambient factors, since social factors are perceived to be as equally important for consumers with both hedonic and utilitarian shopping motives. Therefore, retailers need to be aware of the importance of social factors and pay attention to customer relationship management. Employees can be trained better to understand the shopping motivations of the customers so that they can cater to their needs accordingly. For instance, a shopper with a hedonic shopping motivation may want to be left alone so that he or she can wonder around the store. On the other hand a shopper with a utilitarian shopping motive may need urgent help in order to find the specific item he or she wants as soon as possible.
Results further imply that customers’ age affects the evaluation of ambient factors when they have utilitarian shopping motivation. As individuals become older they become more sensitive towards ambient factors. Therefore retailers need to consider their target customers’ age especially when determining the music, scent, lighting of the store. Findings also show that customers’ gender affect the evaluation of design and ambient factors when they have utilitarian shopping motivation. Female shoppers place more importance to these factors which the retailers need to take into account.
As a result, understanding the relationship between shopping motives and consumers’ evaluation of retail environment can help retailers to more efficiently serve their target customers and to have long lasting customer relationships.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE STUDY
The judgmental (non-random) sampling used in the study limits the scope of external validity of the survey and the generalizability of the results. Random sampling can be used in future studies to be able to better generalize the findings.
Considering the scope of the study, only age and gender were included as demographic variables. Verhoef et al. (2009) provide evidence for the strong impact that personality traits can have on shaping shopping motives. Therefore, future studies can examine the influence of other demographic and psychographic variables and personality traits to enrich the findings.
This study aims to compare the atmospheric evaluations of the same group of participants for two different shopping occasions: hedonic shopping case and utilitarian shopping case. It also aims to compare evaluation of atmospheric cues of different age groups and of different genders. The directionality of possible effects is not examined. Therefore, future studies can investigate the directionality of effects based on shopping motivation and moderating effects of consumer demographics.
The study was not structured as an experiment. The scenarios aimed at measuring evaluation of atmospheric cues under two different situations. Future studies can be formulated as a between-subjects design experiment and similar role-play scenarios can be used. Moreover, in order to provide more information about the generalizability of the results, either controlled experiments or correlational studies in actual stores can be carried out.