Shedding Some Light On Store Atmospherics-Influence of Illumination On Consumer Behaviour
Shedding Some Light On Store Atmospherics-Influence of Illumination On Consumer Behaviour
Shedding Some Light On Store Atmospherics-Influence of Illumination On Consumer Behaviour
Textiles, Apparel Design, Merchandising, School of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
b
School of Architecture, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504, USA
Received 1 May 1999; accepted 1 May 1999
Abstract
The influence of display lighting, a component of store atmospherics, on consumer approach avoidance behavior was studied.
Supplemental lighting was temporarily installed and manipulated on merchandise displays in two retail stores to test for effects on consumer
behaviors of Time at Display, Number of Items Touched and Number of Items Picked Up. Video cameras recorded the consumers actions.
Subjects consisted of an accidental sample of consumers in the stores who passed within the measurement zones of the cameras. A total of
2367 subjects were recorded; behaviors and demographics were coded by two raters. Data were analyzed using correlations, Analysis of
Variance, and Bonferroni paired comparisons. Supplemental lighting treatments had a positive effect on consumer behavior, as qualified by
display. Interactions between lighting and display were found to be statistically significant. Findings could be useful to retailers in
developing in-store lighting as part of a stores atmospherics to aid in attracting and retaining consumer patronage. D 2001 Elsevier Science
Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Lighting; Approach avoidance; Store atmospherics; Consumer behavior
1. Introduction
2. Purpose
0148-2963/01/$ see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 8 - 2 9 6 3 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 8 2 - X
146
(Mehrabian and Russell, 1974). Mehrabian (1976) suggested that the combined effects of pleasure, arousal, and
dominance influenced peoples behavior in particular environments. He believed that lighting was a chief factor in
the environments impact on individuals because brightly
lit rooms are more arousing than dimly lit ones (p. 89).
Mehrabian described his model as . . . the classical inverted u relationship between approach avoidance and
arousal (p. 22), and theorized that people would want to
remain in environments that were both pleasant and
arousing. Mehrabian proposed that, in pleasant surroundings, an individuals approach behavior would increase
with increases in the arousal level. Mehrabian postulated:
. . . why do people shop for things they dont need or
cannot afford? Our analyses of the various types of shops
suggest that the single common element of the shopping
experience is arousal . . . this suggests that people shop to
increase their arousal and pleasure levels (p. 293).
Donovan and Rossiter (1982) were among the first to
apply the M R model to actual measurements of approach
avoidance behavior in retail settings. They found arousal to
be a significant predictor of approach intentions for time and
affiliation. . . . given a pleasant retail store atmosphere,
arousal now becomes the key mediator of intentions to spend
time in the store (p. 50). Donovan et al. (1994) reported the
pleasantness of in-store atmospherics was a significant predictor of desire to approach or remain in the store and to
spend money while arousal was found to vary in its influence. These researchers did not study the effect of lighting
per se, but rather the total store environment.
3.2. Lighting field studies
We believe that research aimed to quantify the influence
of illumination on consumer behavior in actual retail
environments can be beneficial since lighting is recognized
as an important component of store atmospherics, affecting
the consumers visual appraisal of everything in a store,
including the merchandise (Gobe, 1990; Rea, 1993; Lopez,
1995). Yet, we found few empirical studies in our review of
the literature. Most of the studies we found had been
performed in controlled environments (Gardner and Siomkos, 1986; Baker et al., 1992), and only three studies had
been conducted in actual store settings. Boyce et al. (1996)
and Cuttle and Brandston (1995) surveyed consumers
regarding their perceptions of in-store lighting after extensive renovations were made to an existing furniture store
and to an existing grocery store. The designers researchers,
Cuttle and Brandston (1995) and Boyce et al. (1996)
participated in the design of the actual interior renovation
of the existing stores, which were used in the studies. Both
studies measured the impact of the lighting on changes in
electricity consumed by each store, customer, and proprietor
or staffs perceptions, and merchandise sales. Areni and
Kim (1994) applied the M R model to their study of the
impact of in-store lighting manipulation on shopping beha-
4. Methodology
Mehrabian (1976) theorized that brighter light increased
arousal and that the combination of pleasantness and arousal
made individuals more susceptible to influence. In our
study, the influence to which the individuals were subjected was the stores merchandise. We proposed that an
increase in merchandise lighting helped to create a pleasant
and arousing environment at the merchandise display and
encouraged consumers to approach. We developed our
methodology based on the number of light levels tested,
coding instrument, and observational measurements used in
147
148
Table 1
ANOVA of consumer approach behaviors at test displays
Table 2
Means and standard deviations of Time at Test Displays, Number of Items
Touched, Number of Items Picked Up
Supplemental lighting treatment M (S.D.)
Store Display
Time at test displays
Tools
Belts
On
Off
5.25a (7.62)
14.49be (30.98)
8.58c (17.50)
12.82de (25.44)
00.12ad (00.57)
00.33cd (2.06)
00.04a (00.22)
00.04a (00.30)
F
Source
df
Main effects
Store display
1
Lighting
1
Two-way interaction
Display lighting
1
Covariate
Age
1
Error
4729
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.
Time at
display
# Items
touched
# Items
picked up
75.34***
1.19
33.16***
3.95*
12.06**
4.96*
11.15**
6.84**
13.53***
9.21**
573.50
2.96
4.32
0.12
0.13
deviations were always higher than means for these dependent variables.
We were curious to learn if additional information
could be gleaned by creating a subset of the total data
set that would include only those behaviors of consumers
who remained at the test displays longer than 3 s or
touched or picked up one or more items. Therefore,
additional analyses to determine differences in the effect
of lighting treatment and store display on a subset of the
dependent variables were performed. The following three
variables, modified from the original dependent variables,
were analyzed: Time at Display 4 s or more (Time + 4),
Number of Items Touched one or more (# Items
Touched + 1), and Number of Items Picked Up one or
more (# Items Picked Up + 1).
Results from the Subset ANOVA indicated that, like
findings from the primary analyses for Time, there was a
highly significant difference in the modified variable,
Time + 4, by the main effect of store display, F(1) =
81.88, p < 0.000. Consumers remained longer at belts
(M = 20.83, S.D. = 34.36) than at tools (M = 10.52,
S.D. = 17.82). In an important contrast with the primary
analysis, a significant difference was found in Time + 4 by
the main effect of supplemental lighting treatment, F(1) =
7.76, p < 0.005. Consumers remained longer at the test
display under the On lighting treatment (M = 21.76, SD =
35.81) than under the Off lighting treatment (M = 16.11,
SD = 28.07).
Like the primary analyses, a highly significant difference
was noted in the Subset ANOVA for the modified variable
# Items Touched + 1 by the main effect of display, F(1) =
15.04, p < 0.000. Consumers touched more belts (M = 5.78,
S.D. = 7.09) than tools (M = 1.97, S.D. = 1.28). Contrary to
primary findings, no significant difference in # Items
Touched + 1 was found by the main effect of lighting
treatment, F(1) = 0.146, p < 0.70.
Subset ANOVA results, like findings from the primary
analyses, revealed a highly significant difference in the
modified variable # Items Picked Up + 1 by the main
effect of display, F(1) = 11.46, p < 0.001. Consumers
picked up more belts (M = 1.93, S.D. = 1.35) than tools
(M = 1.18, S.D. = 0.389). In contrast with primary
findings, no differences in # Items Picked Up + 1 by the
main effect of lighting treatment, F(1) = 2.09, p < 0.15,
were found.
5.3. Discussion
Findings from this study indicate that light levels do
contribute to consumer approach behavior. Like Areni and
Kims (1994) findings of consumers examining and handling more items under bright lighting than under soft
lighting, consumers touched more items and picked up
more belts with the addition of display lighting. When
passersby were omitted from the analyses, the influence of
lighting was even more evident with consumers spending
149
150
5.4. Limitations
Due to the complex nature of purchase behavior, the
emphasis of our study was limited to the effect of lighting
on in-store shopping behavior. We had no control over the
items initially chosen for each display nor the frequency
with which the displays were replenished. In order to remain
unobtrusive, we did not influence the composition or layout
of the merchandise displays but only manipulated the
supplemental lighting treatments.
Data on all subjects captured by the video cameras in
the measurement zones in this study were retained and
reported. In future studies, researchers may wish to eliminate the passersby or children from their analyses, especially if the retail store studied does not include children in
its target market.
6. Implications
We believe this study provides a sound methodology for
the further examination of the effect of lighting on in-store
consumer behavior. Based on approach avoidance theory
(Mehrabian, 1976), the study extends Areni and Kims
(1994) research in retail field settings. Unlike previous
studies, our methodology included a full documentation of
physical conditions of the test stores interiors. The actual
store environments utilized in this study were realistic
settings in which to test hypotheses about consumer behavior. Additionally, this study also included a relatively large
number of observations from two different store types.
Because of the limited amount of empirical research on
the effects of lighting on consumer behavior, we recommend additional field investigations be conducted.
Based on findings from this study, retailers could
supplement the illumination on their merchandise displays
in compliance with IES recommendations for their store
type in order to attract consumers and involve them in
their merchandise. Retailers with limited funds could
References
Areni CS, Kim D. The influence of in-store lighting on consumers
examination of merchandise in a wine store. Int J Res Mark 1994;
11(2):117 25.
Baker J, Levy M, Grewal D. An experimental approach to making retail
store environmental decisions. J Retailing 1992;68(4):445 61.
Boyce PR, Lloyd CJ, Eklund NH, Brandston HM. Quantifying the effects of good lighting: the green hills farms project. Meeting of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, Cleveland, OH,
August, 1996.
Cuttle C, Brandston H. Evaluation of retail lighting. J Illum Eng Soc
1995;24(2):33 49.
Donovan RJ, Rossiter JR. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology
approach. J Retailing 1982;58(1):35 57.
Donovan RJ, Rossiter JR, Marcoolyn G, Nesdale A. Store atmosphere and
purchasing behavior. J Retailing 1994;70(3):283 94.
Gardner MP, Siomkos GJ. Toward a methodology for assessing effects of
in-store atmospherics. Adv Consum Res 1986;13:27 31.
Gobe M. Visceral merchandising. Visual Merchandising and Store Design
(December) 1990;121:16, 18.
Hoyer WD. An examination of consumer decision making for a common
repeat purchase product. J Consum Res 1984;11:822 9.
IES Merchandising Lighting Committee. Recommended Practice for
Lighting Merchandising Areas: A Store Lighting Guide. Manuscript
in preparation.
Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. J Retailing 1973;4(4):48 64.
Lopez MJ. Retail Store Planning and Design Manual. New York:
Wiley, 1995.
Mehrabian A. Public Spaces and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work,
Play, and Living Environments. New York: Basic Books, 1976.
Mehrabian A, Russell J. An Approach to Environmental Psychology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974.
Rea MS, editor. Lighting Handbook Reference and Application (8th edn.).
New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 1993.