Consumer Psychology

• Turley & Milliman (Retail Store Architecture)


  Identified and reviewed 60 studies that found a statistically significant relationship between some aspect of atmospherics and shopping behavior. Atmospheric variables were grouped into 5 categories...

  
  

  - External variables: signs, displays, building size

  - General interior variables: color schemes, flooring, lighting

  - Layout and design variables: allocation of space, merchandise placement, waiting space

  - Point of purchase and decoration variables: wall decorations, certificates, point of purchase displays

  - Human variables: employee characteristics, uniforms, crowding

  
  

  Turley & Milliman argued that more research needed to be done on exterior variables (building shape, landscaping, signage)
• Finlay et al. (Leisure Environments)


  Finlay et al. compared two different types of casinos:

  - The 'playground model' (Kranes 1995), which consists of a simple space with familiar, natural elements

  - The model by Friedman (2000), which highlights machines, and divides the casino into small areas that twist and turn to reduce legibility.

  A quasi-experiment was conducted, since researchers simply identified 3 casinos constructed on each design. Emotional reactions to the casinos were collected from people who had gambled in all 6 casinos. The participants were 48 individuals (26 males, 22 females) recruited from casinos in Las Vegas in May 2002. Their mean age was 28, and all had at least a high school degree. Groups of 2 or 3 were paired with a researcher, and went to visit 4 casinos in succession. This recruitment process was replicated so that each of the 16 casinos was rated by at least 3 individuals. The results showed higher ratings of pleasure and restoration in Kranes-type casinos.

  
  

  Evaluation: field experiment = extraneous variables, but high ecological validity
• Vrechopolous et al. (Store Interior Layout)


  Vrechopolous manipulated the layout of an online grocery store to compare 3 models: free-form, grid, and racetrack. 120 Ps from Greece and the UK were given a shoppoing task and money (20 pounds or 12000 drachmas), and assigned to 1 of the layouts. Whatever Ps purchased, researchers would subsequently purchase and deliver it to the Ps. The store offered mainly European brands, as well as some own-brand products. The results showed that the free-form layout was most useful for finding items, and most entertaining. The grid was easier to use (the racetrack was hardest). The racetrack and free-form layouts engaged shoppers for longer.

  
  

  Evaluation: Ps from two countries = high generalizability
• North et al. (Music in Restaurants)


  Field experiment conducted in a UK restaurant comparing the effects of different types of music (pop, classical, and none) on spending. Researchers employed an independent subjects design, and all other aspects of the restaurant were stabilized. 393 customers participated unknowingly. The DV was mean spent per person, and was calculated separately for starters, main course, desserts, coffee, bar drinks, overall food bill, and total spent. Researchers also recorded time spent in the restaurant. Classical music yielded higher average spending, and made customers more likely to have starters/coffee. This could be due to the music being synergistic with the environment (although this conflicts with findings from North and Hargreaves (1998), which was conducted in a student cafeteria). Another explanation could be that customers preferred classical music, or that classical music promotes an upmarket atmosphere that primes contextually appropriate behavior.
• Woods et al. (Background Noise and Food Perception)

  Laboratory experiment investigating the effect of auditory background noise on gustatory food properties (saltiness, sweetness, crunchiness, and liking). The IV was the background noise (no noise, quiet white noise (45-55 dB), or loud white noise (75-85 dB) delivered via headphones), and the DV was food ratings. In exp 1, Ps rated sweetness, saltiness, and liking. In exp 2, Ps rated flavor, crunchiness, and liking. Ps from experiment 1 were 48 students (39 female, 9 male) from Manchester University who volunteered for credit or payment. 5 smoked and 5 reported mild cold symptoms. Ps tasted the food blind and took sips of water between foods. There were 25 trials per P, which took 30 min. The second exp involved 34 students (19 female, 15 male) from Manchester, with ages ranging from 20-49. Results showed sweetness and saltiness rating were significantly lower in the loud condition, but crunchiness was higher. There was also a relationship between liking of the background noise and liking the food. Authors concluded that background sound unrelated to food diminishes gustatory food properties, but enhances crunchiness.
• Mehrabian and Russel (Pleasure-Arousal Model)

  The pleasure-arousal model proposes that mood is a mediating factor between environmental cues and behavior. We can react to our environment with approach or avoidance behaviors.
• Chebat and Michon (Effects of Odor on Shopper Arousal and Emotions)

  Field experiment conducted over two weeks in a Canadian mall to determine the effects of odor on shopper arousal. After a week of no modification, researchers placed 10 diffusers that released a citrus scent for 3 sec every 6 min in the mall. Graduate students handed out questionnaires on perception of the mall and amount spent, and 145 were returned on week 2 (447 on week 1). Researchers concluded that scent contributes to a favorable perception and increased perception of product quality (which supports the cognition-emotion model). Although a product-related scent may increase sales of one product, it may reduce sales of others.
• Machleit et al. (Crowding in Retail Environments)


  Machleit claimed that increased crowding would decrease customer satisfaction. He hypothesized that...

  
  

  - Perceived retail crowding would be positively correlated with negative/neutral emotions and negatively correlated with positive emotions.

  - Higher levels of crowding will result in lower customer satisfaction

  - Shopper satisfaction will be higher when perceived crowding falls short of or meets expectations, and lower when crowding exceeds expectations

  
  

  Researchers also suggested that people vary in their ability to tolerate crowds, and that type of stores would also be a factor (crowding in discount stores would have less of an effect on Ps). In study 1, 722 students from marketing courses were asked to complete a survey after their next shopping trip, which asked about purchases, trip purpose, past experience, and perceptions of crowding, satisfaction, and outcome. Results showed that crowding led to a decrease in positive emotions, but did not significantly affect arousal (led to a decrease). In study 2, a more diverse adult sample was recruited from parenting groups and schools and asked to participate as part of a fundraiser. The results confirmed those of study 1, but did not show the same effect of expectation. Study 3 was a lab experiment, in which a photographer made short films that varied the human and spatial density in the bookstore. 231 Ps were given a short passage that described the bookstore as either discount or upmarket and stated that the P was searching for an important book. They then watched one of four 55 sec videos, and responded. Results showed that a decrease in satisfaction can be mediated by expectations of crowding and personal tolerance. It also found that store type was a factor.
• Gil et al. (Shopper Movement Patterns)


  Interviewed and tracked movements of over 480 shoppers to produce profiles. Researchers were interested in whether store layout has an impact on movement, shopping duration, and product interaction. Ps were asked to partake in a survey, which recorded basic information, and then given a colored tag that allowed them to be tracked on the store CCTV system. The post-shopping interview asked about trip purpose, list use, satisfaction, and amount spent (as well as general shopping habits and frequency). Researchers concluded that shopper behavior is strongly affected by product location, and that some areas (milk, fruit, vegetables) are more popular than others (baby products and non-food). 4 movement patters were found: short trip, round trip, central trip, and wave trip. 5 types of spatial behavior patterns were also identified: the specialist, native, tourist, explorer, and raider
• Pavesic (Menu Design Psychology)


  Argued that the menu was the most important marketing tool of a restaurant, and that common mistakes include failing to spend enough time on design, font sizes, paper colors, use of space, and making the price too obvious. Reported the average time spent reading a menu was 109 sec, and that it would be better to have shorter, more attractive menus. Making a menu item stand out via boxes, images, etc. could increase item sales.
• Dayan and Bar-Hillel (Primacy, Recency, and Menu Item Position)

  Study 1 employed 240 Hebrew University students randomly allocated to four menu designs at an Israeli pizza chain: baseline, mirror, inside out baseline, and inside out mirror. Results showed that Ps were significantly more likely to select items at the extremes (beginning or end) to an advantage of 56%. No primacy-recency effect was found. The authors conducted a second, non-hypothetical study at a coffee shop in Tel Aviv over 30 days. The menu was alternated with the inside out version. The mean advantage was 55%, and there was an even larger gain when an item was moved from the exact middle to an extreme. The study supports the recommendation to place items at the beginning or end of a category for increased purchases.
• Robson et al. (Space at Restaurant Tables)


  Web-based survey that asked more than 1000 American Ps to respond to a scenario where restaurant tables were spaced at 6, 12, or 24 inches apart. The first part of the survey asked about the P, and the second measure emotional, intentional, and anticipated behavioral reactions to 1 of 3 images of tables. Questions invoked 1 of 3 dining scenarios: business, friend, or romantic. Ps were randomly assigned to 1 of 9 scenarios (ex: 24 inch with friend) and responded to 32 statements measuring emotional and behavioral responses to the distances. Results showed that close spacing made people feel less private, more crowded, less likely to have a positive meal experience, mores dissatisfied, and more concerned with disturbing others or being overheard. Stress scores were significantly higher, and strong objection to tables was found especially in the romantic condition. The authors conclude that context is a key factor in preference, in addition to gender (women were less comfortable). Tight spacing may mean customers eat less and leave quicker without paying less, but also make them less likely to return.
• Milgram et al. (Defending Your Place in a Queue)


  Confederate approached the space between the 3rd and 4th person in line and said "excuse me; I would like to get in here" before joining the queue. If someone asked them to leave, they would, but would otherwise stay for one minute. 5 students were intruders, and an observer was stationed nearby to record all reactions. The IVs were the number of intruders (1 or 2) and number of buffers (0, 1, or 2). The experiment was conducted in 129 natural lines, and results showed that queuers following the intruder were more likely to object than those ahead. 2 intruders prompted a stronger reaction and buffers dampened the queue's response. Physical action occurred in 10% of queues, and verbal in 21.7%. Non-verbal objections included dirty looks and gestures (14.7%). Milgram concluded that a queue can be considered a social system that influences individuals to act by reference to the queue.-
• Simon (Satisficing Model)


  Consumers get "approximately where they wanted to go" and then stopping the decision-making process
• Kahneman and Tversky (Prospect Theory)


  People value gains and losses in different ways and are more likely to base their decisions on perceived likelihood of gains rather than losses
• Compensatory Strategies


  A consumer may allow the value of one attribute to compensate for another (a low mileage to compensate for the ugly color of a car)
• Non-Compensatory Strategies


  Each attribute is evaluated individually (even though a car scores high on mileage, make, and price, etc., it would be eliminated if it was not the correct color).

  
  

  Simon suggests there are many non-compensatory strategies, including...

  
  

  1. Satisficing

  2. Elimination by aspects - sets a "cut off" value for the most important attribute and then allows everything that meets it to remain under consideration; this process is then repeated with a different attribute

  3. Lexigraphic - the most important attribute is evaluated and if one item is considered superior, this stops decision making
• Partially Compensatory Strategies


  Majority of Conforming Dimensions - individual evaluates 2 products against all relevant attributes and retains the one that does best

  
  

  Frequency of Good and Bad Features - all products are compared to the appropriate cut-off values and the product with the most positive features exceeding values will be chosen
• Choice Heuristics (Availability, Representativeness)

  Heuristics - mental shortcuts that help us make decisions quickly

  Availability - how easy it is to bring something to mind

  Representativeness - comparing products with the best known example of a category
• Wansink et al. (Anchoring and Purchase Quantity Decisions)


  Examined factors that determine how many units of a product that consumers buy. One potential quantity anchor is a promotion which presents the price for multiple units. Researchers conducted a 1 week field experiment comparing a single unit promotion to a multi-unit promotion in 86 stores. The DV was the percentage change in sales compared with the baseline. 13 items were included, such as cookies, candy, soup, etc. Results showed that multi-unit prices increased sales by 32%, and 9 of 13 products had a significantly different change in sales. The authors conclude that consumer confusion (believing they needed to purchase both to receive the discount) could be a factor.

  
  

  Study 2 examined the effect of purchase quantity limit anchors ("limit 12 per customer"). It was a field experiment in 3 supermarkets in Iowa, and the product was Campbell's soups for 79c each (usually 89c). The IV was no limit, 4 per customer, or 12 per customer. The results showed that with no limit, customers purchased an average of 3.3 cans. With the smaller limit, customers purchased 3.5, and 7 with the larger limit. The 12 can limit increased sales per buyer by 112%.

  
  

  Study 3 examined the effect of anchor-based suggestive slogans ("Snickers - buy them for your freezer"). 120 Ps were offered 6 well-known products at one of 3 prices (no discount, 20%, and 40%), and given suggestive selling claims that either included or did not include quantity. Results suggested that both the suggestive anchor and discount level increased purchase intentions.

  
  

  Study 4 recruited 139 undergraduates, all of which were given a shopping scenario involving 25-30% discounts on single servings of well-known products. There were 4 purchase quantity limits (none, 14, 28, and 56). The expansion anchor increased purchase quantities by 150%.
• Kahneman and Tversky (Thinking, Fast and Slow)

  Argue that most people do rarely use system 2 thinking ("Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?").
• Hall et al. (Choice Blindness)


  180 shoppers sampled jam and tea and decided which one out of a pair they preferred. Immediately after making their choice, the participant was asked to sample again, unbeknownst to the fact that the product was switched. Experimenter 1 asked questions, took notes, and managed the recording device, and experimenter 2 switched the item. Any detection of the switch was rated as concurrent detection (Ps voiced concerns immediately), retrospective detection (Ps claim to have noticed at the end), or sensory-change detection (Ps described the taste/smell as somehow different). In total, 33.3% of jam and 32.2% of tea trials were detected. Considerable choice blindness was demonstrated, but the researchers note that Ps may be more likely to recognize manipulation in a higher-stakes decision. It is interesting to note that Ps offered the jam/tea as a gift were less likely to notice.
• Atalay et al. (Attention and Shelf Position)


  Study 1A:

  Used eye tracking technology in a review of vitamins/meal replacement bars to reveal that brands in the center received more frequent and longer eye fixations; center products were chosen more often

  Study 1B:

  Replica of first study, but planograms were added that reduced in size and sifted to the left or right by 50% such that the central item on the planogram was not centrally located on the screen itself. Results showed that the brand in the horizontal center received more frequent and longer eye fixations.

  Study 2:

  Replica of first experiment in real-world context, using three energy drinks placed in the left side, middle, or right side. Results showed that the central brand is more often chosen, even when not in the center of the visual field. Yet, the central brand was not rated any more positively. Ps rated the statement 'I believe that the most popoular products are always placed in the middle' a 5.8 from 1-9.
• Kardes et al. (Disrupt-Then-Reframe)

  DTR technique confuses customers with a disruptive message, and then reduces this ambiguity by reframing the message.

  Study 1:

  Supermarket shoppers told by confederates that Christmas candy was on special offer ("The price is now 100 eurocents (2 sec pause), that's 1 euro. It's a bargain"). 65% in DTR and 44% in control bought candy.

  Study 2:

  Dutch university students asked via DTR and control about joining a student interest group, and then completed a 20-item scale measuring cognitive closure. 30% of DTR and 13% of control joined. Compliance increased as need for cognitive closure (NFCC) increased.

  Study 3:

  Undergraduates watched video in which male actor gave either DTR or control message about the need for more money for research. Results showed that DTR was more effective as NFCC increased.
• Cialdini (Ways to Close a Sale)

  1. Reciprocity (if someone gives us something, we must give in return)

  2. Commitment and Consistency

  3. Liking

  4. Authority

  5. Social Proof

  6. Scarcity
• Engel, Blackwell, and Kollat (Characteristics That Affect Customer Behavior)

  Model with 5 steps...

  1. problem (or recognition of need)

  2. information search

  3. evaluation of alternatives to meet this need

  4. purchase decisions

  5. post-purchase behavior
• McCarthy (The Four Ps)


  Product, place, price, and promotion
• Lauterborn (The Four Cs)


  Customer want/need, cost to satisfy, convenience to buy, communication
• Fischer et al. (Brand Recognition in Children)


  Developed a game technique to measure recognition level for brand logos (10 brands, including Disney channel, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, etc, 7 adult brands, including Ford and Apple, and five cigarette brands. Children showed good recognition rates for childrens' brands, cigarette brands were recognized between 18-32%, and adult brands were recognized between 16 and 54%. Recongition increased with age.
• Snyder & DeBono (Advertising and Consumer Personality)

  Study 1:

  50 University students divided into high/low self-monitors. Shown 2 adverts, either hard or soft shell approaches. Results showed that high self-monitors reacted more favorably to image-oriented ads, and low self-monitors to quality-oriented ads.

  Study 2:

  40 students from same University participated for course credit. Shown same ads and asked how much they were willing to pay for the item. Results showed that high self-monitors would pay more for image ad than quality, and the reverse was true for low self-monitors.

  Study 3:

  40 undergraduates from same University. Experimenter posed as market researcher and delivered either an image or quality message ad via telephone. Ps then asked how willing they would be to use the shampoo, and then indicate the percentage willingness. High self-monitors were more willing to try it if they thought it would make their hair look good, and low self-monitors if it would make their hair clean.
• Kohli et al. (Effective Slogans)


  Slogans, unlike name and logo, can communicate what the company is about. Slogans have 2 aims: to enhance brand awareness and to positively affect the brand image. Jingles may be better suited to small companies with limited budgets and primarily radio advertising. Suggestions for effective slogans include taking a long-term view of the product, positioning the brand clearly, making sure the slogan links to the brand effectively, and using the slogan from the outset of the add campaign. Researchers also suggest the use of jingles, repetition, and creativity.