Assessing the Effect of Store Environment Dimensions on Customers. Irritation: a Multi-setting Empirical Study

Transcription

1 Assessing the Effect of Store Environment Dimensions on Customers Irritation: a Multi-setting Empirical Study Nathalie Demoulin * Associate Professor IESEG School of Management Kim Willems Assistant Professor Vrije Universiteit Brussel Gilbert Swinnen Full Professor Hasselt University * 3 rue de la digue, Lille, n.demoulin@ieseg.fr,

2 Evaluation de l effet de l environnement du point de vente sur l irritation ressentie par le client : une étude empirique multi-contexte Les études précédentes portant sur l atmosphère du point de vente se sont intéressées aux réponses émotionnelles positives. Cependant, des expériences de shopping moins plaisantes peuvent également engendrer des réponses affectives négatives. Cette recherche se penche sur l effet de l environnement du magasin sur le niveau d irritation et la satisfaction parmi trois secteurs d activités variant selon l implication et les motivations d achat. Nos résultats montrent que les facteurs les plus irritants sont l aménagement et les facteurs sociaux. L irritation diminue la satisfaction du client. Cependant, ces résultats varient en fonction de l implication et des motivations. Mots-clés : Irritation, atmosphère du point de vente, implication, motivation d achat, comparaison cross-sectorielle Assessing the Effect of Store Environment Dimensions on Customers Irritation: a Multisetting Empirical Study Most previous studies on store atmospherics have focused on their impact on positive emotional customer responses. However, less pleasurable shopping experiences may also generate negative affective responses. This study investigates the effect of shopping environment on customers irritation level and satisfaction across three retail sectors varying in terms of involvement and shopping motives. Our results demonstrate that design and social aspects of the store are the most irritating ones. Customers irritation decreases their satisfaction. However, these effects depend on involvement and shopping motives. Key words: Irritation, Store environment, involvement, shopping motives, Cross-sectorial comparison

3 Assessing the Effect of Store Environment Dimensions on Customers Irritation: a Multisetting Empirical Study Introduction More research attention should be paid to the identification of irritants for shoppers. It seems more efficient to eliminate the irritants first before attempting to add enhancers. (Ng, 2003: 452) The existing literature on how servicescapes and store atmospherics can be strategically used in order to optimize customer experiences is quite vast (see e.g. Bitner, 1992 and Turley and Milliman, 2000, for an overview). The majority of the studies conducted have so far focused on the positive effect of commercial environments on consumer emotions and responses (e.g., Kotler, 1974; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). The design of pleasant retail environments is undoubtedly a pertinent marketing goal. However, if not managed properly, the servicescape can also generate negative affective responses and even irritation (d Astous, 2000). Shoppers in a bad mood state tend to have an avoidance response towards stores (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990). And even though they may actually spend the same amount of money as consumers who are in a good mood (some basic human needs will always remain), negative mood shoppers eventually spend less time shopping and are likely to be less satisfied overall (Babin and Darden, 1996). Moreover, given the prominence of negative information over positive information in the formation of consumer evaluations (cf. Mizerski, 1982), gaining insights into how to reduce displeasing environmental aspects in retailing merits further academic attention. D Astous (2000) was among the first scholars to study shopping irritations due to environmental factors. Within Baker s (1986) framework, he identified the social- and the ambient factors as being the main sources of shopper irritation. However, his consumer 1

4 survey (n = 281 Canadians), has a few limitations: (1) customers were interviewed without reference to a specific shopping experience just having coped with; (2) the perceived irritation is measured for each individual environmental aspect without however measuring overall irritability; (3) no outcome variables were included (e.g., satisfaction) to examine the strategic impact of shopping irritations in the d Astous (2000) study; and (4) the article does not clarify the retail sector or shopping setting in which the study was conducted. This study presents the findings of three empirical studies on shopping irritations induced by environmental factors in retailing, each assessing the role of store atmospherics in irritating customers in a different context (i.e., grocery- versus fashion- versus electrical appliances retailing). Subsequently, the findings of the three respective retail settings are compared to draw conclusions regarding shopping irritations (1) across hedonic/symbolic and rather utilitarian shopping contexts (cf. e.g. Babin & al., 1994), and (2) across retail context that differ in terms of involvement of the product category on offer (cf. Rossiter and Percy s grid, 1987). 1. Theoretical Background 1.1. Shopping environment feature classifications Several classifications of store or service environment elements have been proposed (e.g. Kotler, 1974; Baker, 1986; Bitner, 1992; Turley and Milliman, 2000). In line with previous empirical research (Sherman & al., 1997; Baker & al., 2002), we adopt the Baker (1986) subdivision in three categories: (1) ambient, (2) social, and (3) design elements. Ambient factors can be defined as background conditions that exist below the level of our immediate awareness (e.g., air quality, noise, scent, cleanliness). Design factors pertain to stimuli that do exist at the forefront of our awareness (e.g., functional layout, signage, comfort). Social factors comprise other people in the environment, referring to both other 2

5 customers as well as service personnel (e.g., number, appearance, behaviour). The explicit inclusion of the social factors is a key differentiator between the Baker (1986) typology and alternative classifications such as the one by Kotler (1974). Given the previously demonstrated role of human elements in the servicescape in creating service quality, customer satisfaction or rather customer frustration (e.g., waiting lines, crowding), this study adopts Baker s (1986) framework. Our conceptual framework, shown in Figure 1, includes three categories of irritating environmental stimuli that are ambient, design and social aspects. In line with the Stimulus-Organism-Response models (Mehrabian and Russell, 1974) and d Astous (2000) results, we expect that: H1: Ambient, design and social environmental factors cause customers irritation Involvement shopping motivations Ambient factors Noise, Scent, Cleanliness, Temperature H2 Design factors Checkout desk, Store layout H1 Irritation H3 Satisfaction Social factors Salesforce, Other customers Figure 1. Conceptual framework 1.2. Maximizing the shopping motivations- and involvement-environment fit In order to understand how store environment dimensions generate irritation among customers, we use the Foote, Cone, and Belding (FCB) grid (Vaughn 1980) adapted by Rossiter and Percy (1987) and Rossiter & al. (1991). The FCB Grid positions consumers' attitudes toward products in terms of two dimensions that are involvement and think-feel. The Rossiter-Percy Grid replaces the dimension think-feel by customers type of 3

6 motivations. The Grid has been used in other contexts than advertising (e.g. Leroi-Werelds & al. 2013). We assume that this FCB grid can be adapted to better grasp how customers perceive and react to store environment. We consider that customers involvement and shopping motivations will influence their perception of the irritating factors present in the store environment. A shopper has certain needs, motivations or goals (s)he seeks to fulfill when shopping. The think category or the informational motivation is rather utilitarian and can be satisfied by providing information about the product (Rossiter & al., 1991). The feel category or transformational motivation includes ego gratification, sensory and social acceptance (Rossiter & al., 1991). We thus consider that in retailing context, the latter category includes hedonic or symbolic benefits search. Whether a shopper has utilitarian (task-oriented) or hedonic (recreational-oriented) motivations has an impact on the kind of shopping environment (s)he seeks (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). The key for retailers and designers is to maximize the motives environment fit by providing environmental conditions that either support or at least do not constrain the shopper s needs (Michelson, 1970). The store environment must fit with customers shopping motivations (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Consumers evaluate stores in terms of their meaning or identity, asking themselves whether they will be able to fulfill their goals in that locale (Hall, 2008). Customers with utilitarian motivations shop to buy product services or to get information while little satisfaction is derived from the shopping experience. Their main objective is to shop efficiently i.e., obtaining what they search for while minimizing their effort. Social factors such as unhelpful salespersons and slow or noisy customers may prevent customers from achieving their utilitarian objectives. When customers have hedonic shopping motivations, they perceive intrinsic rewards from the shopping activity itself. Intrinsic rewards such as sensory or social stimulations generate positive feelings (Rossiter & al., 4

7 1991). People must identify themselves with the store (Rossiter & al., 1991). Thus, they may expect to shop in a pleasant ambient environment and to affiliate with other customers. Therefore, the store ambiance and design may cause negative emotions. The second dimension in the FCB grid is the customer involvement. For low involvement products, customers do not show much interest in the overall product category and/or the purchase decision. They are not willing to make much effort to buy such product. The store functional design is likely to be a major help or rather a huge source of irritation (e.g., way finding, passing through with a shopping cart, etc.). High involvement purchase decisions however do require considerable elaboration from the customer s part. With high involvement products, customers perceive more risks and make more search efforts before purchasing products (Rossiter & al., 1991). Sales force may be a good source of information thereby reducing the perceived risk during the decision-making. Therefore, salespeople without knowhow on the product category are likely to go on customers nerves. Given the different shopping motives and the level of involvement associated with different retail sectors, we can expect sources of irritation to differ. Based on the theoretical background provided, we expect that: H2: Involvement and shopping motives moderate the effect of environment factors on customers irritation H2a: In hedonic shopping contexts, ambient factors have a higher impact on customers irritation than in utilitarian ones. H2b: In hedonic shopping contexts, store layout has a higher impact on customers irritation than in utilitarian ones. H2c: In utilitarian shopping contexts, sales force has a higher impact on customers irritation than in hedonic ones. 5

8 H2d: In low involvement shopping contexts, store layout has a higher impact on shoppers irritation than in high involvement ones H2e: In high involvement shopping contexts, salespeople have a higher impact on shoppers irritation than in low involvement ones. H3: The irritations impact on customer satisfaction varies according to customers involvement and shopping motives. 2. Research design 2.1. Choice of Retail sectors We consider three retail sectors that vary according to the utilitarian-recreational motivations and the customers involvement. First, grocery retailing is a rather utilitarian context whereby shoppers are often on a mission, trying to gather their groceries in an efficient way. The involvement with the product categories is rather low. Second, fashion retailing is rather hedonic in nature, and often more leisure-related (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Customers show a rather high involvement with this product category (Rossiter & al., 1991). Third, electrical appliances products are considered as having informational/utilitarian motivations and high involvement (Rossiter & al., 1991). 2.1 Sample and Procedure All three the empirical studies discussed in this article are based on a field study. Consumers were surveyed after a shopping experience in grocery-, fashion- or respectively electrical appliances retailing. The sectors were chosen according to the shopping motives and customers involvement. Given that we have collected data about three retail contexts, we have a fractional factorial design. This design does not allow us to test interaction between 6

9 involvement and shopping motives. The sample of Study 1, pertaining to grocery retailing (low involvement-utilitarian), was collected in Spring/Summer 2010 and includes 150 valid respondents ((m age = years old, s.d.= 17.22; 52% female). The sample of Study 2, regarding fashion retailing (high involvement-hedonic), was collected in Spring/Summer 2012 and consists of 183 valid cases (m age = years old, s.d.= 12.92; 54.6% female). The sample of Study 3, on electrical appliances retailing (high involvement-utilitarian), was collected in Spring/Summer 2012 and includes 156 valid responses (m age = years old, s.d.= 13.62; 42% female). 2.2 Measures For all the concepts, we used 5-point Likert scales to evaluate the level of agreement with statements. In order to measure irritating ambient/design/social aspects of the store environment, we pre-tested the items from D Astous (2000) scale in a focus group interview which allowed for customization of the three atmospherics categories to a fashion retail setting as well (e.g., lighting in the dressing rooms was one item that was added based on this preliminary interview). In Study 1 (grocery), respondents indicate the level of agreement with 20 statements about the presence of potentially irritating aspects of the store (i.e., 8 ambient, 6 design, and 6 social). In Study 2 (fashion), respondents evaluate 29 irritation items (i.e., 9 ambient, 11 design, and 9 social). Study 3 (electrical appliances) finally, comprised 23 irritation items (i.e., 8 ambient, 6 design, and 9 social). We measure customers satisfaction consistently with 3 items from Oliver (1981). The irritability has been measured in all three studies by using a scale developed by Graig & al. (2008) and in line with Fennis and Bakker (2001). The complete questionnaires can be obtained from the authors upon request. 7

10 3. Results The conceptual model, presented in Figure 1, is estimated in SmartPLS (Ringle & al., 2005), for each of the three datasets, linking ambient-, design-, and social environmental irritators to overall irritability, and a subsequent customer response of satisfaction. First, we have examined the initial measurement model and limited it down in function of favorability of psychometric properties and comparability across the three datasets (NB: detailed results can be obtained from the author). Second, we tested the conceptual model for each of the retail sectors with SmartPls. Then, we run a series of regressions by using latent variables scores of the three studies provided by SmartPLS. In order to test H1, we run a regression with irritation as a dependent variable and environmental factors as independent variables (see Table 1). In order to test H2, we ran a regression similar to the previous one but we add involvement and shopping motivations as moderating variables (see Table 2). Note that a formal multi-group analysis (MGA) is not possible since the measurement model is comprised of sector specific irritator items (e.g., lighting in the dressing rooms is not sufficient, for the fashion retail setting). Finally, we used a regression analysis to test the effect of irritation on customers satisfaction and the moderating effect of involvement and shopping motives. We assessed whether irritation s impact on satisfaction differs depending on our two moderators. In order to test H1, we look at the results presented in Table 1. Among ambient factors, scent is the only element that increases customers irritation (β = 0,081; p < 0,05). Store design affects customers irritation through store layout (β = 0,137; p < 0,001) and checkout desk (β = 0,081; p < 0,01). Social factors are the most important irritating factors. Both other customers (β = 0,149; p < 0,01) and sales force (β = 0,415; p < 0,01) rises customers irritation. H1 is thus partially supported by the results. 8

11 Adj R² = 0,37 Std. Coeff. t-stat p-value Dirtiness 0,037 0,914 0,361 Ambient Scent 0,081 2,08 0,038 Noise 0,005 0,111 0,912 Temperature -0,054-1,282 0,2 Store design Social factors Layout 0,137 3,182 0,002 Checkout desk 0,081 1,949 0,052 Others customers 0,149 3,488 0,001 Sales Force 0,415 10,332 <0,001 Table 1. Effect of environmental factors on irritation: regression results To test H2, we look at the moderation effect of involvement and shopping motives. Involvement and shopping motives are binary variables where involvement is equal to 1 for low involvement retail sectors whereas the variable motives is equal to 1 for hedonic retail sectors. Results presented in Table 2 show that only one main effect is significant. Sales force increases customers irritation (β = 0,6462; p < 0,01). However, as expected, we have significant interaction effects for this variable. For low involvement retail sectors, sales personnel has a lower impact on customers irritation than for high involvement ones (β = - 0,2299; p < 0,01). H2e is supported. In addition, sales force has a greater influence on irritation in utilitarian shopping contexts than in hedonic ones (β = -0,2251; p < 0,0003). H2c is thus supported by the results. H2a is partially supported because only one interaction between motives and ambient factors is significant. Dirtiness has a higher impact on customers irritation in a hedonic context compared to an utilitarian one (β = 0,1139; p < 0,0558) 1. In order to test H2b, we look at interaction between motives and store design. We 1 Given our hypotheses, we can consider a one-tailed probability test with a significance level of 10 %. 9

12 have a significant interaction between store layout and motives. Layout has a higher impact on customers irritation in hedonic environment (β = 0,1125; p < 0,0784) which support H2b. Store layout has a higher impact on irritation in a low involvement context compared to a high involvement one (β = 0,1827; p < 0,0019). Thus, H2d is supported. Adj. R² = 0,40 Std Coeff. t-value p-value Ambient Dirtiness -0,0496-0,7500 0,4513 Scent 0,0122 0,1800 0,8583 Noise 0,0122 0,1800 0,8583 Temperature -0,0001 0,0000 0,9984 Store design Layout -0,0094-0,1400 0,8905 Checkout desk 0,1169 1,3000 0,1930 Social factors Others customers 0,1209 1,3300 0,1843 Sales Force 0,6462 9,5400 0,0001 Involvement * Dirtiness 0,0459 0,7600 0,4453 Scent 0,0264 0,4700 0,6411 Noise 0,0145 0,2600 0,7926 Temperature -0,0715-1,2200 0,2234 Layout 0,1827 3,1200 0,0019 Checkout desk -0,0740-1,1300 0,2601 Others customers 0,0200 0,3000 0,7614 Sales Force -0,2299-4,2200 0,0001 Motives * Dirtiness 0,1139 1,9200 0,0558 Scent 0,0166 0,2900 0,7712 Noise 0,0611 1,0900 0,2777 Temperature -0,0179-0,3200 0,7502 Layout 0,1125 1,7600 0,0784 Checkout desk -0,0315-0,4700 0,6396 Others customers 0,0394 0,5700 0,5709 Sales Force -0,2251-3,6600 0,0003 Table 2. Moderating effects of involvement and motives: regression results 10

13 When assessing H3 (see Table 3), irritation decreases customers satisfaction (β = - 0,8135 ; p < 0,01). Irritation has the most devastating impact on customer satisfaction in high involvement and utilitarian retail setting (i.e., electrical appliances). Indeed, results show that in hedonic settings (β = 0,2163 ; p < 0,01) as well as in low involvement retail contexts (β = 0,2001 ; p < 0,01), the effect of irritation on satisfaction is lower. Consequently, the strategic impact is significantly different across retail contexts varying in involvement and shopping motives. Adj. R² =0,35 Std Coeff, t-value p-value Irritation -0, ,5700 <,0001 Involvement * irritation 0,2163 4,2200 <,0001 Motives * irritation 0,2002 3,7200 0,0002 Table 3. Moderating effects of involvement and motives on the irritation-satisfaction relationship: regression results 4. Conclusion and discussion Enhancing the shopping experience is an important strategic objective, but in the first place preventing or reducing shopping irritations should be on the managerial agenda. Indeed, our results demonstrate that considering all retail sectors, ambient, design and social factors increase customers irritation. Shopping irritations negatively impact on customer satisfaction, and this finding seems to hold regardless of the retail sector under study. The present article demonstrates that the kind of environmental factors that should be managed and monitored particularly closely is however depending on the customers involvement and shopping motives. In rather utilitarian retail stores, customers are more irritated by sales force misbehaviors than in hedonic retail stores. Indeed, sales person can be crucial for customers whose main objective is to shop efficiently. However, in hedonic retail sectors such as fashion 11

14 retailing, store ambiance and layout have a higher effect on customers irritation than in a rather utilitarian context because the store appearance is important to them and they must identify with the store. Customers expect to shop in a pleasant atmosphere and atmospherics such as dirtiness or inadequate store layout create negative emotions. In low involvement shopping situations, such as grocery shopping, the store layout generates more customers irritation whereas sales force creates less irritation than in high involvement ones. Indeed, customers search for simple problem-solution. It must be easy for them to find products in the store. In a high involvement product category, like electrical appliances, the only significant environmental source of irritation identified in this study is salespeople. Upon dealing with an involving purchase decision, having to manage without the help of available, friendly, and competent sales assistants or facing with pestering sellers forcing customers to buy unneeded products seems to be experienced as the most irritating, social environmental factor in the process. Retail chain should therefore carefully design their store atmosphere by considering every single element of the store ambiance, design and social dimensions. Overall, the sales force and other customers are the most important sources of irritation, the store layout comes after. Sales persons should be aware that their behavior and the way they approach customers have a really strong impact on customers negative emotions. These results enlighten the tremendous importance of employees motivation to create a pleasurable customers experience. This study has several limitations. The ambient factors have not been manipulated and given that they exist at an unconscious level, it is particularly difficult to evaluate to what extent their perception causes irritation. The second limitation of this study is the lack of a fourth context (low involvement-hedonic motives) which would enable us to test interaction effects. This research is ongoing and we will run a study 4 to complete this research. 12

15 References Babin B.J. et Darden W.R. (1996), Good and bad shopping vibes: Spending and patronage satisfaction, Journal of Business Research, 35 (3), Babin B.J., Darden W.R. et Griffin, M. (1994), Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value, Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (4), Baker, J. (1986), The role of the environment in marketing sciences: The consumer perspective. In J.A. Czepiel, C.A. Congram, and J. Shanahan (Eds.), The service challenge: Integrating for competitive advantage (pp ). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Baker J., Parasuraman A., Grewal D. et Voss G.B. (2002), The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions, Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), Bitner M. (1992), Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees, Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), Cox A.D., Cox D. et Anderson R.D. (2005), Reassessing the pleasures of store shopping, Journal of Business Research, 58 (3), Craig K.J, Hietanen H., Markova I.S. et Berrios, G.E. (2008), The irritability questionnaire: A new scale for the measurement of irritability, Psychiatry Research, 159 (3), d Astous A. (2000), Irritating aspects of the shopping environment, Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), Donovan R.J. et Rossiter J.R. (1982), Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach, Journal of Retailing, 58 (1), Eroglu S.A. et Machleit K.A. (1990), An empirical examination of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences, Journal of Retailing, 66 (2),

16 Fennis B.M. et Bakker A.B. (2001), Stay-tuned, we will be back right after these messages: Need to evaluate moderates the transfer of irritation in advertising, Journal of Advertising, 30 (3), Hall C. (2008). Servicescapes, designscapes, branding, and the creation of place-identity: south of Litchfield, Christchurch, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 25 (3), Kaltcheva V. et Weitz B. (2006), When should a retailer create an exciting store environment?, Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), Kotler P. (1974), Atmospherics as a marketing tool, Journal of Retailing, 49 (4), Leroi-Werelds S., Streukens S., Brady M.K. et Swinnen, G. (2013), Assessing the value of commonly used methods for measuring customer value: a multi-setting empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Forthcoming. Laurent G. et Kapferer J.-N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (1), Mehrabian A. et Russell J. (1974), An approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Michelson W.H. (1970), Man and his urban environment: A sociological approach. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Mizerski R.W. (1982), An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3), Ng C.F. (2003), Satisfying shoppers psychological needs: From public market to cyber-mall, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (4), Oliver R.L. (1981), Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail setting. Journal of Retailing, 57 (3), Ringle C.M., Wende S. et Will A. (2005), SmartPLS 2.0. Hamburg, Germany: University of Hamburg. 14

17 Rossiter J.R. et Percy L. (1987), Advertising and promotion management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Rossiter J.R., Percy L. et Donavan, R.J. (1991), A better advertising planning grid, Journal of Advertising Research, 31, 5, Sherman E., Mathru A. et Smith R.B. (1997), Store environment and consumer purchase behavior: Mediating role of consumer emotions, Psychology and Marketing, 14 (4), Turley L.W. et Milliman R. (2000), Atmospheric effects of shopping behavior: A review of the experimental evidence, Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), Vaughn R. (1980), How Advertising Works: A Planning Model, Jounal of Advertising Research, 20,5,