|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 RETAIL LIGHTING DESIGN PREFERENCES BETWEEN RECREATIONAL AND TASK ORIENTED SHOPPERS By LEE HSUAN LIAO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TH E DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Lee Hsuan Liao
3 To my family, and those who contributed their support to me
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my thesis chair, Dr. Nam Kyu Park. Her encouragement a nd faith in my abilities have helped me to believe myself in completing this thesis and my education I appreciate her patience and constructive suggestions and could not have imagined having a better mentor for my graduate work This thesis would not have bee n successful completed without her continuous support and guidance I would also like to express my gratitude to my other committee member Prof. Jason Meneely for h is insightful comments and suggestions My sincere thanks also goes to Dr. Hyunjoo Oh for offering her expert knowledge and giving me permission to use the lab resource in conducting the research work I also wish to thank all those who have helped me with my work in the Department of Interior Design They provided me a wonderful study envi ronment in which to learn and grow through these graduate years I would like to express a special thanks to my boy friend Weihong Lin for always being there for me helping me get through the difficult times. His emotional support and devotion provide d me strength to pursue my Masters Lastly, I would like to thank my family my sisters Yichi Liao and Pen Liao for their loving support. Most importantly, I wish to thank my parents, Shuchun Liao and Shuhui Tsai for t heir encouragement and endless love throug hout my life. To them I dedicate my thesis.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 Research Purpose and Questions ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16 Retail Design and Atmosphere ................................ ................................ ............................... 16 Lighting in Retail Store ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 18 Lighting Contrast and Color of Light ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 Shoppers' Motivational Orientations ................................ ................................ ...................... 26 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 29 3 RESEARCH M ETHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 33 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 33 Experimental Settings ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 34 Lighting Cond itions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 36 Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 40 Pilot Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 42 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 Behavioral Research Lab ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Characteristics of the Participants ................................ ................................ .......................... 47 Reliability of Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 48 Arousal States ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 49 Pleasure States ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 50 Behavioral Intentions (P urchasing Behavior) ................................ ................................ ......... 52 Lighting Preference ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 54 Manipulation Checks ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 59
6 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) ................................ ................................ ............ 59 Light Contrast Uniform vs. Non uniform ................................ ................................ ..... 59 Light Contrast Bright vs. Dim ................................ ................................ ...................... 60 Task oriented Motivational Condition ................................ ................................ ............ 60 Recreation oriented Motivational Condition ................................ ................................ ... 61 Qualitative Findings of Lighting Preferences ................................ ................................ ......... 61 Lighting Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 64 Shopper (task oriented/ recreation oriented ) Focused ................................ .................... 65 Store Atmosphere ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 66 Flynn's Five Subjective Impression ................................ ................................ ................. 66 Product (handbag) Focused ................................ ................................ ............................. 67 Store Image ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 68 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 69 Arousal States ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 69 Pleasure States ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 71 Behavioral Intentions (Purchasing Behavior) ................................ ................................ ......... 73 Lighting Preference ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 75 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 78 Conclusion and Implication ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 79 APPEN DIX A IRB APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 82 B CONSENT FORM ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 83 C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 84 D SURVEY INSTRUMENT 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 85 E MANIPULATION CHECKS RESULTS ................................ ................................ ............... 87 F PARTICIPANT WRITTEN COMMENTS ................................ ................................ ............ 94 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 104 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 112
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Characteristics of the participants ................................ ................................ ...................... 48 4 2 states ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 49 4 3 ............................ 50 4 4 Mean and standard deviation (SD) scores for s states ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 51 4 5 .......................... 52 4 6 behavioral intention (purchasing behavior) ................................ ................................ ....... 52 4 7 behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 4 8 preferences ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 55 4 9 ................................ ...................... 56 4 10 Results of the chi ............................ 56 4 11 Qualitative themes development used to analyze participants' responses ......................... 61 4 12 Number of mentions of participants' lighting preferences ................................ ................. 63 E 1 correlated color temperatures ................................ ................................ ............................. 87 E 2 Mean and standard uniform/non uniform ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 E 3 bright/dim ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 89 E 4 oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would be task oriented) ................................ .... 90 E 5 oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would try to get things done) ............................ 91
8 E 6 Mean and standard oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would be recreation oriented) ..... 92 E 7 Mean and standard deviation (SD) scores for oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would try to have fun) ................. 93 F 1 Participant written comments ................................ ................................ ............................ 94
9 LIST OF FIG URES Figure page 2 1 Theoretical framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 32 3 1 The lighting plan for an experimental handbag store (1500 sq.ft. / N ot to Scale) ............. 36 3 2 Scene one (warm color and non uniform lighting condition) ................................ ............ 38 3 3 Scene two (warm color and uniform lighting condition) ................................ ................... 38 3 4 Scene three (cool color and non uniform lighting condition) ................................ ............ 39 3 6 View of the behavioral lab from the back ................................ ................................ .......... 44 3 7 View of the research participants' station ................................ ................................ .......... 44 3 8 Behavioral lab floor plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 45 4 1 Interaction effect for motivational orientations by light contrast on behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior) ................................ ................................ ........................ 54 4 2 store lighting ................................ ........ 57 4 3 ................................ ........ 58 4 4 Interaction effect for motivationa l orientation by light contrast on manipulation check of uniform/non uniform light ................................ ................................ .................. 60
10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requireme nts for the Degree of Master of Interior Design RETAIL LIGHTING DESIGN PREFERENCES BETWEEN RECREATIONAL AND TASK ORIENTED SHOPPERS By Lee Hsuan Liao December 2011 Chair: Nam Kyu Park Major: Interior Design Retail design has moved beyond the scope of providing basic displays since atmospherics have been proved as an important role during shopping process. Lighting is recognized as a valuable design element to store environments and brand images. Despite t he effects of lighting have been investigated in retail environmental studies, the knowledge of lighting's impacts on emotional responses is scarce. Moreover, it is suggested that consumers' motivations can affect environmental impacts on shopping behavior. So far no study has been dedicated to the inf luence of lighting on customers behavior based on different shopping motivations Therefore, t his study was conducted to examine the effects of two Colo r Correlated Temperatures (warm and cool) and two light contrasts (uniform and non uniform) to ascertai behavioral intentions (purchasing behav ior), emotional states (arousal and pleasure), and oriented and recreation oriented). A simulated research was conduct ed in Behavior al Research Lab in the Marketing Department at the University of Florida A total of 208 female students between the ages of 18 and 35 were recruited. Based on randomization, 104 task oriented assignments and 104 recreation
11 oriented assignmen ts were distributed respectively. Participants then completed a self administer questionnaire which was organized to answer each page of questions for each lighting condition. The findings indicate that : 1) Participants' arousal states for different light ing conditions were significantly affected by CCT and light contrast. P articipants perceived cool lighting and uniform lighting as more arousing. 2) The light contrast had an effect on participants' pleasure state. Participants felt more pleasant in unifor m lighting condition. 3) P articipants were assigned to task oriented motivation responded that uniform lighting enhanced their purchasing behavior, while participants were assigned recreation oriented motivation responded non uniform lighting enhanced thei r purchasing behavior 4) To both groups, the store with uniform lighting was rated as more preferable than non uniform lighting. Although both groups preferred uniform lighting, it seems that participants were assigned recreation oriented motivation prefe rred non uniform lighting than participants were assigned to task oriented motivation.
12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In an increasing ly competitive marketplace, retailers are striving to gain popularity over their rivals and outsell one another. While retailers are making their effort to better the quality of their products while maintaining competitive pricing; however, more and more retailers are realizing that intangible value s provide a further venue for market differentiation. Consumers' in store experience Store atmosphere is recognized as an important marketing tool which can influence consumers' shopping behaviors (Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & Nesdale, 1994; Orth, Limon, & Rose, 2010; Turley & Milliman, 2000) and product evaluation (Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal & Voss, 2002). While an effective shopping environment facilitate sales ( Chebat & Michon, 2003 ); bad store atmosphere can negatively affect purchases (Maxwell & Kove r, 2003). Good ambiences also enhance satisfaction with the store ( Singh, 2006). Visibility of merchandise and the space is a major element of design com ponents in retail store, which contributes to the store experience, merchandise attractiveness and customers' willingness to purchase. Lighting is a key element that is designed to fulfill these goals (Rea, 2000; Schlosser, 1998). Lighting researchers and designers indicated that light ing causes psychological responses and affects how people perceive and react to a built environment (Boyce, 2003; Davis, 2011; Fleischer, Krueger & Schierz, 2001 ; Van Erp, 2008 ). In store lighting has been shown to impasct consumer's perceptions of qualiti es of the environment (Custers, Kort, IJsselat eijn & Kruiff 2010) the appraisal of products (Hegde, 1996; Roush, 1994), and promote in teraction between merchandise and customers (Areni & Kim, 1994; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Hebert, 2001). Indeed the importance of good lighting design can no
13 longer be denied, yet few studies attempted to e valuate the contribution and role of good lighting in retail environments. In today's fluctuating market, retailers bring memorable experience to their customers ( Pin e & Gilmore 1999) who with their own personality, feelings and longings ( Custers et al., 2010 ) to differentiate themselves from competitors. Studies showed there were many types of consumers with various shopping motives (Westbrook & Black 1985).Subsequent researchers focused on two fundamental shopping motives, task oriented and recreation oriented ( Babin, Darden & Griffin, 1994; Childers, Ca rr, Peck & Carson, 2001; Chitturi, Raghunathan & Mahajan, 2008; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) found consumers' shopp ing motives can enrich or diminish th eir store experiences, suggesting that retailers to design each department sep arately according to its target shopper typologies. It follows that r etail store lighting, as a major design element, should be designed with particular consumers in different shopping motivations in mind. Research Purpose and Questions While many l ightin g researchers have examined the physical characteristics of lighting in shopping environments ( Areni, & Kim 1994 ; Park & Farr, 2007; Quartier, Christiaans, & van Cleempoel, 2008 ; Summers, & Hebert, 2001 ). Most of these studies only focus on the effects of illumination levels and color of light on shopping behaviors and p erceived atmosphe re. In contrast, the current study examines the influence of color of light and light contrast on consumers' emotional states, behavioral intentions and preference. Further more, few studies, if any, examined the role of shopping motivation s and lighting In Kaltcheva and Weitz's (2006) study of consumers' motivations and physical cues of shopping environments lighting was not reviewed even though it is a key visual element in retail store environment. More research is needed to determine whether and to what extent in
14 behaviors, and how different types of shoppers react to various light ing conditions. The current study seeks to exp lore the relationship of in store lighting, to tates, behavioral intentions, and preferences accordi ng to different shopping motivations The purpose of t h is study is to investigate how the two Color Correlated Temperatures (CCT) (war m and cool) and two light contrasts ( uniform and non uniform ) impact emotional states (arousal, pleasure) behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior ) and preferences relate to task oriented and recreation oriented shopping motivations The spec ific research questions this study attempts to answer are: 1. How does the impact of lighting contrast and CCT relate to emotional state of arousal in retail store environment s between task oriented and recreation oriented shoppers ? 2. How does the impact of li ghting contrast and CCT relate to emotional state of pleasure in retail store environments between task oriented and recreation oriented shoppers ? 3. What is the impact of lighting contrast and CCT on task oriented and recreation oriented behaviora l intentions in retail store environments? 4. What is the impact of lighting contrast and CCT o n task oriented and recreation oriented lighting preference in retail store environments? Definition of Terms A ROUSAL Arousal is defined as the experie nce of energy mobilization (Russell & Barrett, 1999). It is the subjective state that consumers can experience as pleasant or unpleasant ( Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). P LEAS URE Hedonic valence (pleasant or unpleasant) of the affective response to a stimulus. Stimuli that facilitate goal achievement are experienced as pleasant, whereas stimuli that impede goal achievement are experienced as unpleasant (Clore, Schwarz & Conway, 1994). T ASK ORIENTED CONSUMERS Shoppers are those who derive satisfaction from tas k completion, the outcome of the shopping activity and like efficient shopping (Babin et al. 1994; Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006) R ECREATION ORIENTED CONSUMERS Shoppers are those whose satisfaction is derived from the rich exper ience and shopping activity itself and feel shopping is an enjoyable use of the ir time (Babin et al. 1994; Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006) Light contrast is ''the difference between surface are lighted (the focus or foreground) and
15 those that are left in comparative darkness (the surround or background)'' (Gordon, 2003, 11). U NIFORM LIGHTING A lighting condition characterized by a large portion of diffuse light and a small amount of focused light. Luminance is uniformly distribute d throughout the room (Gordon, 2003; Steffy, 2002; Turner, 1998). N ON UNIFORM LIGHTING A lighting condition characterized by a large portion of focused light (on an object or the foreground) and a small amount of diffuse light (the background), which pr esents a non uniform luminance environment (Gordon, 2003; Steffy, 2002; Turner, 1998). C ORRELATED COLOR TEMPERATURE T he color of light emitted from a light source, which can be measured in Kelvin (K). It is determined by the x and y location on a color d iagram developed by the International Commission on Illumination (Gordon, 2003; Winchip, 2008).
16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter review s the literatures contain ing studies that had investigated: 1) retail design and atmosphere, 2) lighting in retai l store s 3) light contrast and color s and 4) shopping motivations. At the end of this chapter, the process of developing the theoretical framework that shoppers' emotional states, behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior s ), and preferences are mediated by different motivational orientations (task oriented vs. recreation oriented) is introduced. The integration of theories regarding physical environment atmospheric and shoppers' motivational orientations is discussed. Retail Design and Atmosphere Mehrab had been used in most researches as ground s to access impact s of store atmosphere on shopping behaviors. They proposed that environmental stimuli directly affect people's emotion, thereby influenc ing people's behaviors (appro ach avoidance) in that environment (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). E motional responses include three variables which are pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD). Donovan and Rossiter (1982) were the pioneer s who applied Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) PAD mod el to examine the environmental effects on shoppers' behaviors within the retail context. Their results suggested retail environment could induce customers' emotional responses that altered shopping intentions. However, they found pleasure and arousal were significantly related to approach avoidance behavior s while dominance was not. Thus, dominance has not been given much attention in subsequent researches. Baker, Levy, & Grewal, (1992) furthered Donovan and Rossiter's (1982) finding. They found stores whi ch employed different ambient and social levels evoked various emotional states and these responses did influence consumers' willingness to buy (Baker et al., 1992).
17 Marketing researchers have noticed the importance of environmental factors and the emotion as a mediator of customers' behaviors was investigated. The findings exhibited that the physical environment had an effect on the perceptions of price s (Grewal & Baker, 1994), value s (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Grewal, Dhruv, Baker, Levy, &Voss, 2003), and se rvice quality (Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994) while i t also influenced sales (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Milliman, 1986), time spent in a store (Donovan et al., 1994; Grossbart, Hampton, Rammohan, & Lapidus, 1990), willingness to buy (Baker et al., 1 992), consumers' satisfaction (Bitner, 1992) and loyalty (Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, 1997). While retailers have focused their marketing strategies on factors regarding product s themselves such as assortment, brands, prices, promotion, and service, physi cal surrounding where these products are consumed should be treated as a part of consumers' purchase (Buckley, 1991). The whole shopping environment play ed an important role in customers' satisfaction with the service offering (Bitner, 1990), and g a ve reas ons to customers to choose which store to go to Through controlling environmental attributes, retailers could create different levels of ambience that influenced shopping experience s Consumers in a store with classical music being played and soft lighti ng which produce a high ambient shopping environment ha d higher acceptance of price s than those in a low ambient store (Grewal & Baker, 1994). They also conceive d the store sold merchandise of quality and expect to receive attentive service s (Baker et al., 1994). Retailers aim for long term relationships with their patrons to maintain their business es Shopping value encourages repeated patronage. When products or services customers purchased are prove n worthwhile to make the trip s th ose customers tend to return for business. Physical surrounding wa s said to have a substantial influence on customers' emotional states that could
18 raise consumers' perception of value s and thereby achieve store loyalty (Babin & Attaway, 2000). Studies also showed physical su rrounding wa s a promising medium for retailers to encourage buying behavior s A p leasant shopping environment encouraged shoppers to spend extra time and money (Donovan et al., 1994). Milliman (1986) investigated the effects of music on length of stay and money spent in the supermarket. The results indicate d that ''the pace of in store traffic flow was significantly slower with the music of slow tempo than with the one of faster tempo (Milliman, 1986, 89). ''As customers move more slowly through the store they tend to buy more. Conversely, as customers move more quickly through the store, they tend to purchase less'' (Milliman, 1986, 90). As mentioned before, many studies had showed that the emotional responses help to facilitate a series of shopping beh aviors, yet there is inconsistency in arousal effects on behavior intentions. Some r esearchers suggested arousal ha d a positive effect on approach behavior (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982), spending intention (Sherman et al., 1997), and time spent in a store (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Sherman et al., 1997). On the contrary, some found arousal negatively affected spending intention (Milliman, 1982) and time spent in a store (Smith & Curnow, 1966), while others found no effect (Smith & Curnow, 1966; Sweeney & Wyber, 2002). Finally, Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) provided evidence proving that the effects of arousal on behaviors were moderated by shopping motives, and suggested store owners to determine arousal levels in their store environment s acco rding to shopping motivational orientation held by intended customers. Lighting in Retail Store s Kotler (1973 1974) introduced the term ''atmospheric'' to describe the conscious designing of space to create certain effects o n buyers (Kotler 1973 1974, p. 40). He defined atmospherics
19 consist of visual (color, brightness, size, and shape), aural (volume and pitch), olfactory (scent and freshness), and tactile (softness, smoothness, and temperature) dimensions, and pointed out these sensory stimuli c ould be m ore crucial in making purchase decision s than product s themselves (Kotler, 1973 1974). Empirical studies ha d provided understanding about contribution s of a wide array of physical stimuli, including music (Alpert et al., 2005; Baker et al., 1992; Hui, Dub & Chebat, 1997; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982), color (Belizzi, Crowley, & Hasty, 1983; Crowley, 1993), scent (Chebat & Michon, 2003; Mattila & Wirtz, 2001; Morrin & Ratneswhar, 2000; Spangenberg, Crowley, & Henderson, 1996), crowding (Eroglu, Ma chleit, & Barr, 2005; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Machleit, Kellaris & Eroglu, 1994), and lighting (Baker et al., 1992; Golden & Zimmerman, 1986; Magnum, 1998; Park, Pae & Meneely, 2010; Quartier et al., 2008). Among all these elements, lighting has been proved t o be a significant variable to create a desired store environment. Retail lighting is multi function al and should help reflect a s image, well present merchandise s and attract customer s (Rea, 2000). Two studies had suggested th at lighting ha d an inf luence on sales performance. Cuttle and Brandston (1995) studied the relationship between light and profit of two furniture stores. They employed an energy efficient lighting solution and replaced filament spotlights with fluorescent and halogen lamps as a mbient and accent lighting. Over a five month period, the energy cost had f a ll en by 25% in both stores and sales had increased 35% in one store. Boyce, Lloyd, Ekhund, and Brandston (1996) investigated the effect of renewed lighting systems on sales of a su permarket. Customers completed questionnaire s for the evaluat ion of their perception of the store before and after the improvement. The results showed that new lighting made the store a more pleasant space to shop and sales increased substantially.
20 Custers et al. (2010) conducted a field study with 57 fashion shops to assess the impact of light within a retail setting on perceived atmosphere. Brightness was found to be strongly related to coziness, tenseness, and detachment. A shop with brighter lighting wa s evaluated as less cozy, but tense r and more detached. In addition, more contrast lighting in a store was perceived as less tense. Glare and sparkle were perceived as livel ier and less detached. Areni and Kim (1994) were among the first to apply the Mehra bian Russell (M R) model to examine impact of lighting on purchase behavior s in a wine store. They conducted a field research, collected data by directly observing the participants' responses to the cellar under two different lighting conditions, soft and bright. The results of the test showed that products were examined and touched by customers more often under the bright lighting condition than the soft lighting condition. These implied that cognitive needs should be considered as important as emotional n eeds when using lighting as a tool to create atmosphere Based on the M R model, Summers and Hebert (2001) further examined the influence of display lighting on consumer s avoidance behavior s They installed supplemental lighting in the ceilings and recorded customers' involvement with merchandise. The videotapes were reviewed and they found that under the brighter display lighting, consumers touched more products and stayed longer. The results showed that supplemental lighting treatments had a po sitive effect on consumer s s with display ed merchandise. They suggested that further stud ies are needed to evaluate the relationship between contrast threshold and approach behavior. Park and Farr (2007) used the M R model to test the effects o f lighting on consumers' emotional states, behavioral intentions, and perceptions through a cross culture comparison between Korean and American people They used a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design to assess the
21 mutual effects of color temperature s color render ing properties and cultural differences. Two color temperature s (3000K and 5000K) and two color rendering properties (75CRI and 95CRI) were adopted to generate four lighting scenario s Participants were asked to experience the inside and outside of the st ore like cubicle in which different lighting conditions were employed and then complete a questionnaire for the purpose of evaluat ing the ir perception of arousal, pleasure and approach avoid intention. The finding showed that higher temperature (5000K) l ighting was considered more arousing and approachable than lower temperature (3000K) one Visual clarity was also rated higher with higher color temperature level. Besides, participants rated the lower temperature setting as more pleasant than the higher t emperature setting. The l ower color temperature lighting was also found to be more attractive than the higher one Many researches have established the importance of lighting as a mean to create a desired retail environment. While it has been agreed that l ighting is an influential part of a built environment, how shoppers with different motivational orientations react to different lighting conditions in retail context has not yet been addressed. This study is necessary to clarifying the role of retail light ing, specifically lighting contrast and color, on store experience s of shoppers with different motivational orientations. Lighting Contrast and Color of Light Contrast is related to the visibility to an object that makes it noticeable among others and its background. In other words, contrast is ''the difference between surface s that are lighted (focus or foreground) and those that are left in comparative darkness (surround ing or background)'' (Gordon, 2003, p.11). On the one hand, a higher contrast level ma y make a lighted target attract ive to people, and can help build a room where people feel energetic. On the other hand, a space without contrast makes people feel listless and depressed (Gordon, 2003).To determine the light contrast level of a space, desig ner s must identify the intended activity and
22 then create an agreeable stimulation to that space. Successful light contrast level may reinforce the activity and users' emotion, but inappropriate contrast level may hinder them (Gordon, 2003). A u niform envir onment is made up of mostly diffuse light and a small amount of focused light. Luminance is uniformly distributed throughout the room (Gordon, 2003; Steffy, 2002; Turner, 1998). This kind of environment is good for task performance, random circulation, and relocating work surfaces. However, it evokes emotion during a cloudy day. Non uniform environment consists of mostly focused light and a small amount of diffuse light which can draw people's attention and build an environment with the properties of a sunn y day (Gordon, 2003). Color temperature, or correlated color temperature (CCT) describes the color of light emitted from a light source, which can be measured in Kelvin (K). Warm light appears to be of orange yellow tone, with a CCT rating of 3500K or less Neutral light with a white appearance has a CCT rating between 3500K and 4000K. In addition, cool light with a blue white appearance has a CCT of 4000K or higher. Incandescent lamps are considered as warm light source s because they are located at the lon g end of the spectrum, with a yellowish color appearance. Fluorescent lamps are considered as cool white source s because they concentrate on the short end of the spectrum, with a bluish appearance (Gordon, 2003). Fleisher et al. (2001) examined the effe ct of intensity, color temperature and ratio of direct and indirect light on emotions. They adopted the PAD theory (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) to measure participants' emotional states. H igh intensity was found to be more pleasant compared with low intens ity. Cool white light was found to be more arousing compared to warm white light. Furthermore, dominance was affected by intensity. H igh illuminance levels with an indirect component of 50% may lead to a feeling of dominance. Inversely, lower illuminance l evels, especially with direct light, may cause a feeling of weakness.
23 Park et al. (2010) conducted a cross culture study to explore the impact of different recruited from two universities in the U.S. and South Korea respectively. The findings showed American participants and Korean ones reported different responses toward lighting preferences, arousal levels, and behavioral intention s American participants preferred low intensity and warm color lighting condition whereas Korean participants preferred high intensity and warm color lighting one Dim lighting was found more arousing for American participants, while Korean participants considered bright lighting more arou sing. In addition, for American participants dim lighting condition enhanced their hotel loyalty, while for Korean participants bright lighting condition would lead to a longer stay in the hotel guestroom. Van Erp (2008) conducted a research in an experi mental room to explore the effect of lighting, intensity levels (low vs. high), color temperature s, (cool vs. warm) and spatial distribution s (diffuse vs. directional), on perceived atmosphere. He proposed that atmosphere perception can be described with f our items: coziness, liveliness, tenseness and detachment. The results indicated atmosphere perception was affected by different lighting characteristics. Lighting of higher intensity and low CCT level was perceived as livelier, less cozy, and less tense. At the same brightness, directional light was considered as cozier, livelier, and less tense compared to diffuse light. Additionally, participants had clear preferences for particular levels of intensity, CCT levels, and spatial distribution s In general high intensity, low CCT level and directional light were preferred over their counterparts. Perception of a lighted setting is the result of a reactions to the lighted setting (Steffy, 2008). Several researches ha ve discussed the effects of lighting on people's mood s and emotion s Baron, Rea and Daniels' (1992) study showed no
24 effects of luminous conditions on mood s However, it provided some indication that specific lighting conditions generated positive e ffects and influenced work related behavior s McCloughan, Aspinall, and Webb (1999) manipulated illuminance levels and CCT levels to s at two moments. One moment was within 5 minutes after first entering the room, t he other was after at least 30 minutes in the room. An interaction effect of illuminance and CCT on anxiety and hostility was obtained, but aesthetic ratings showed no difference. Kller, Ballal, and Laike (2006) conducted a cross cultural study and invest igated the intensity on mood in a n office setting. They found the mood was low when presented lighting was too dark or too bright. When the lighting was considered as just right, the mood reached its highest level. Yet these researches lack for integrated measurement scales, and this fact makes it difficult to make comparisons Flynn (1992) provided several design guidelines to establish specific perception toward a given space. He suggested uniform ligh ting can enhance the perception of spaciousness while non uniform lighting is associated with a n impression of pleasantness and privacy. Flynn, Spencer, Martyniuk, and Hendrick (1973) were among the first to investigate the effect of lighting conditions on users' impressions and judgments. In this study, 34 s emantic differential scales were used to measure responses on six different lighting conditions. They identified five ugly), 2) perceptual clarity (e.g., clear hazy), 3 ) spaciousness (e.g., large small), 4) spatial complexity (e.g., simple complex), and 5) formality (e.g., rounded angular) (Flynn et al., 1973). The follow up examination showed three factors had significant difference. These factors were evaluative impres sions, perceptual clarity, and spaciousness (Flynn et al., 1973). The evaluative impression is about the judgment of preference, and perceptual clarity and spaciousness describe the visual
25 perception of an environment. In the second part of the test, multi dimensional scaling (MDS) was used and three dimensions were found to be useful for rating similarities and differences of lighting conditions. The three were peripheral overhead, uniform non uniform, and bright dim. Flynn (1992) summarized this work and later studies and suggested that lighting design can influence or modif y at least six categories of human impression s which were 1) perceptual clarity, 2) spaciousness, 3) relaxation and tension, 4) public versus private space, 5) pleasantness, and 6) spa tial complexity (sometimes liveliness). Based on these impressions, several design guidelines were offered. Firstly, to achieve perceptual clarity, a designer has to apply 'higher luminance on horizontal plane and central part of the room along with usage of 'cool tone' light source s Secondly, an impression of spaciousness is elicited when stressing 'uniform lighting on vertical surfaces and ceiling'. As well, impressions of relaxation and pleasantness are influenced by 'non uniform' wall lighting and usag e of 'warm tone' light sources. Finally, if a private impression is desired, the designer has to 'use non uniform lighting away from the occupant zone'. Two or more impression factors can be used in one space. For example, relaxation and visual clarity tog ether can help create a cozy and productive home office (Steffy, 2002). Mehrabian (1976) suggested that level of arousal influences environmental preference s and varies by intensity of the environmental stimuli. According to Mehrabian(1976), lighting is a Biner, Butler, Fischer depended on the social situat ion as well as task demands This finding was consistent with the arousal optimization theory. Individuals' preferred lighting levels are lower for situations involving a romantic partner than a platonic friend or a group of friends, whereas lighting level
26 preferences were higher for visual activities than non visual activities (Biner et al., 1989). This suggested lighting levels influenced individuals' arousal levels, preferences, and visual ability. A base level of lighting sufficient for the specific act ivity resulted in positive attitudes. Although many studies have investigated effects of lighting on emotion s the finding s have showed small or no effects. However, no research has investigated effects of lighting contrast in a retail store, which is a ke y issue of lighting dimensions. Given that research es and knowledge regarding lighting impacts on shopping motivations are insufficient, the current study aims to provide a comprehensive and explicit explanation specifically in the area of light contrast a nd color. Shoppers' Motivational Orientations Back to 1940s, the reason underlying people's retail preference s and choice s has gained its attention in marketing literatures (Blankertz, 1949 1950; Heidingsfield, 1949). Understand ing and fulfill ing custo mers' desire leads to store patronage (Jolson & Spath, 1973). It help s retailers to map out marketing strategies and an effective implementation of retailing mix, which helps a store to gain competitive advantages, ultimately rais ing profit s and attain hig her market share (Lazer & Kelley, 1961). Subsequent researches have suggested that consumers' shopping motivational orientations play a leading role in consumption model s ( Bellenger, Robertson & Greenberg, 1977; Darden & Ashton, 1974). A variety of shoppin g motivations has been discussed in literature. In his earlier study Stone (1954) investigated urban shopping orientation s through interviews with adult female residents. Based on their responses, four types of shoppers ha d been discovered: economic consu mers, personalizing consumers, ethical consumers, and apathetic consumers. Darden and Reynolds (1971) replicated Stone's research using a different methodology and the same results were obtained. Moschis (1976) applied the same rating measure as Darden and Reynolds, studied
27 shopping orientations of cosmetic buyers and confirmed that different types of shoppers d id have different shopping habits. He stated four types of shoppers, which were 1) store loyal consumers, 2) compulsive and recreation consumers, 3 ) convenience consumers, and 4) price bargain conscious consumers. With regard to shopping orientations of grocery buyers, Appel's (1970) study introduced innovative shoppers and conventional shoppers. Having taken this one step further, Darden and Ashton (1975) suggested seven types of grocery shoppers, which were 1) quality oriented shoppers, 2) fastidious shoppers, 3) convenience shoppers, 4) demanding shoppers, 5) trading stamp shoppers, 6) stamp avoider shoppers, and 7) apathetic shoppers. Similarly, W illiams, Painter and Nichols (1978) analyzed the shoppers' preference rating s of grocery stores and proposed four shopper types: low price consumers, convenience consumers, involved consumers, and apathetic consumers. Bellenger and Korgaonkar (1980) disc ussed two motivational typolog ies recreational shoppers and functional economic shoppers, in term of the amount of time consumers are willing to spend on accomplishing shopping task. The results of the test indicated that compare d to economic shoppers, r ecreational shoppers contribute d more impulsive purchase. On the contrary, economic shoppers minimize d the time spending on shopping and wouldn't spend extra time in shopping trip as soon as their goal is accomplished. From the demographic view, recreation al shoppers were mostly females and engage in social activity. They care more about store aesthetic than economic shoppers (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980). Westbrook and Black (1985) reviewed and summarized the motivations for shopper typology. They stated that three essential factors elicited shopping behavior: to acquire desired product (product oriented), to shop for reasons other than the need for product (experience oriented), or a combination of product
28 acquisition and non product related fulfillment. They suggested that shopping motivation can be a competitive tool in managing customer s While numbers of studies have examined shopper typology toward retail outcome, most did not look into specific shopping motivations that c ould have influenced consumers' emotions. Dawson, Bloch, and Ridgway (1990) linked the shopping motives to emotion s by investigating their relationship using the M R model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). They conducted a survey to identify shopping motivation s and behavioral patterns of consumers in an open marketplace. oriented motives changed with the temporary feeling of pleasure generated on site, while shoppers with experience orie nted motives were relatively uninfluenced. With n o surprise, purchase behavior was found to be affected by shopping motives, while transient feeling didn't influence it which is contradicted to the earlier finding s (Hill & Gardner, 1987; Sherman & Smith, 1986). They suggested future research should be conducted with consideration of different types of retail setting s and consumers. Babin et al. (1994) developed a measure to assess consumer s value characterized by utilitarian and he donic attributes. They argued shopping can produce either extrinsic rewards (e.g., monetary and prizes) or intrinsic rewards (e.g., playfulness and fun). In some cases, both rewards can be obtained together at one time. A u tilitarian consumer behavior was described as task oriented, mean ing the value may rely on whether a purchase is complete in an efficient and timely manner. In contrast, hedonic consumer s may find value s when they feel entertained without achievement of planned purchase goal s A recent ex amination of effects of shopping motivations on consumer s store behavior s by Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) showed how shopping motives influence shoppers' emotional
29 states, which in turn influence retail related appraisals and outcomes. Participants in t he study were asked to imagine they were visiting a store with a task oriented or recreational motivation. Then they were presented with images of retail store environments that have different arousal levels. High arousal environment was with faster and lo uder music, higher complexity, warmer colors, and higher color saturation, in contrast, low arousal was presented in an opposite way. The study found that motivational orientation significantly moderated the effect of arousal on pleasantness (Kaltcheva & W eitz, 2006). Recreation oriented consumers found high arousal environments are pleasant because they can obtain rich shopping experiences. On the contrary, a low arousal environment was pleasant for task oriented consumers for they can complete their task s efficiently. This research indicate d that shopping motivation is an important consideration for retailers to determine the level of excitement in their stores. Retailers can infer their customers' major motivational orientations, and then use different de sign dimensions of the ir store s to influence their customer s theme of their study provided a new direction for adapting the M R model to investigate the connection between physical surrounding s and consumers' affective responses. This suggested the motivational orientation, as a mediator, change s the relationship between arousal and pleasantness as well as subsequent shopping behaviors. Conceptual Framework Mehrabian and Russell's (1974 ) model (M R model) and Kaltcheva and Weitz's (2006 ) framework served as this study's theoretical bases to examine the effects of different CCT and light contrasts on emotional states (arousal and pleasure), behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior), and lighting preference s by comparing two shopper typo logies, task oriented one and recreation oriented one
30 The M R model postulates a stimulus organism response (S O R) process from an environmental psychology perspective. According to this model, physical environment (S) influences emotional states of ind ividual s (O) to the environment, which affect their behavior s (R). Applying the S O R paradigm to a retail setting, the response represents the approach or avoidance behaviors of consumers (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Sherman & Smith, 1986; Sherman et al., 19 97). The a pproach behavior is the intention to stay in move toward or explore an environment, while the avoidance one is the opposite responses (Bitner, 1992; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Mehrabian and Russell (1974) identified three underlying dimensions of emotional states to an environment arousal, pleasure, and dominance (PAD) which in turn induce approach and avoidance behaviors of individuals. Pleasure is defined as the degree to which a person feels contented, happy, satisfied, or hopeful in a situ ation. Arousal exhibits the extent to which a person feels stimulated, excited, or active. Dominance presents the level to which a person feels in control, influential, or important. Basically, the hypothesis of the M R model is that pleasure positively in creases the possibility of one's approach behaviors, whereas moderate arousal level produce s maximized positive attitudes toward physical approach. Subsequent researchers have found that while pleasantness and arousal showed significant influence s on appro ach/avoidance behaviors, dominance did not have a ny significant effect in store environments. Therefore, researchers ha d focused on those two variables (Russell 1978; Russell & Pratt 1980; Ward & Russell, 1981). For theoretical reasons, the dominance dimen sion had usually been eliminated in studies that adopted the M R model. A number of marketing studies ha d used the M R model to investigate the relationship between physical in store stimuli and retail outcomes (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Donovan et al., 1994; Kaltcheva & Weitz 2006; Summers & Hebert, 2001). However, there has been little research focus ing on effects of lighting
31 1994; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Hebert 2001). Until Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) adapted the M R model to study shopping motives T hey proposed consumer motivational orientation moderates the relationship between arousal and pleasantness. Their framework showed environmental stimuli affect cons umers' arousal, and which influence s perception of whether the environment is pleasant or not. The degree of pleasantness determines the final outcome, consumers' shopping behaviors. For consumers with a recreational motivational orientation, ar ousal has a positive effect on pleasantness. Recreational consumers consider a high arousal environment as a pleasant space. In contrary to task oriented consumers, they perceive that a low arousal environment is pleasant. They examined this framework by m anipulating two visual elements (environment complexity and color) and one audient element (background music) to produce different level s of arousal in a retail environment. This research suggested that level s of excitement of their store s depend on shoppi ng motivation s of their targeted customers (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). After a retailer determines the dominant motivational orientation of its customers, it should create a high arousal environment for recreational consumers and a low arousal environment f or task oriented consumers (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). Studies investigating the relationship between lighting attributes in a built environment and users' behaviors have relied on the M R model. However, they did not pay much attention to how CCT and light contrast affect consumers' behaviors nor consider how motivational orientation moderates the relationship between arousal and pleasantness. The conceptual model (Figure 2 1) follows the S O R framework p roposed by Mehrabian and Russel l (1974) and extends the empirical work of Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006).
32 Figure 2 1 Theoretical framework
33 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS This chapter presents the research methods of this study. First, the study participa nts is presented Then it explains the rationale for sel ecting experimental s ettings and lighting conditions. Finally, it addresses the study instruments, pilot study data collection and methods of data analysis. Participants The sample was recruit ed through the Behavior al Research Lab in the Marketing Depart ment at the University of Florida The behavioral lab research pool is administered in conjunction with the Principles of Marketing (MAR3023) and/or Statistics for Business Decisions (QMB3250) classes. F emales between the ages of 18 and 35 were invited in this study. The participants were undergraduate business students who volunteered to participate in the studies in return for an extra credit point toward their course grade. The purpose of this study is to understand the differences of the lighting percep tions between task oriented shoppers and recreation oriented shoppers. Therefore to minimize possible distractions that influence the outcome, the experimental setting was confined to a women 's handbag store. Otherwise, o ne of the major independent variab les of this study is the manipulation of shopping motivations. Before testing subjects' responses to store lighting, they were assigned to either task oriented motivation or recreatio n oriented motivation. Considering r ecreational shoppers tend to be mainl y females (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980) who are more likely to deem shopping as a recreational activity than men (Campbell, 2000) as a result, are more possible to adapt themselves to both scenarios (recreation oriented motivation or task oriented motiva tion) than men. Taken together, only female students were asked to participate in the study.
34 This study requires subjects' ability to perceive colors. To ensure that, all participants were asked whether they have any visual impairment or color deficiency that cannot be corrected by eyeglasses or contact lenses. Prior to contacting participants, the researcher applied for and was Institutional Review Board ( Appendix A). Experim ental Settings In order to understand how lighting affect shoppers' emotional states, behavioral intentions, and preferences in a retail store environment according to different shop ping motives, computer rendered color images of four different lighting co nditions in a theoretical handbag store environment were created to show the research participants Although conducting real world experiments provides a more nuanced assessment simulated experiments are replications of actual situations which provide rea l world information with more control for isolating variables (Groat & Wang, 2002; Sheppard, 1989; Sommer & Sommer, 1997) This research technique is designed to obtain measurable and reliable data in ways of showing drawings, photographs, videos, or model s of spaces which is useful for ''studying the subjective dimensions of human behavior in relation to built environment'' (Groat & Wang, 2002, p.277). Also this approach is more affordable than constructing and modifying an existing store. Several research studies have successfully used images as visual stimuli to derive information for actual environments. Hendrick Martyniuk, Spencer, & Flynn, (1977) replicated the early work (Flynn et al. 1973) to test the comparability between subjects' perceptions of v iewing slides of built environments and those of observing real spaces. Their results suggested two dimensional images had the potential to represent actual scenes and semantic differential ratings were reliable measure of lit environments. In the later st udies, computer generated images of spaces were accepted to be a reasonable replacement for lighting evaluation of interior
35 environments (Mahdavi & Eissa, 2002; Newsham, Richardson, Blanchet & Veitch, 2005) Rendered images, as a research tool, were effici ent in evaluating the light quality features of real spaces in certain aspects: dim vs. bright, non uniform vs. uniform, boring vs. interesting, private vs. public, dull vs. shiny, and cool vs. warm (Mahdavi & Eissa, 2002). Subjects' lighting preference s g ained from rendered image were consistent with those gained from real scenes, which indicated rendered scenes of lit environments were perceived as si milar as real spaces (Newsham et al., 2005). This method has widely used to study people's responses to lu minous environment. For example, to investigate the differences among generations in evaluating living room lighting (Oi, 2005), different cultures' preference of hotel guestro om lighting (Park et al. 2010) The size of the theoretical handbag store was ap proximately 139 m ( 1,500 sq.ft.) with a rectangular floor plan which re flecting a typical medium size store found along a street or in a mall (Karlen & Benya, 2004). Functional and aesthetic design elements, such as lighting solutions ( Figure 3 1), color scheme, finish materials, and furniture arrangements were chosen in light of current trend s The objective is to minimize the discrepancy between created images and typical handbag stores design. This was done by conferring with lighting professionals, int erior design professionals, and marketing professionals during production stage. Revit Architecture 2010 and 3ds Max 2010 were used to build the physical features, give textures, and place light sources. Mental Ray was used to render the final images.
36 Figure 3 1. The lighting plan for an experimental handbag store ( 1500 sq.ft. / Not to Scale) Lighting Conditions The study's objective is to understand the effects of contrast levels and C orrelated C olor T emperature (CCT) of lighting on preferences Light contrast is a term that describes '' the luminance difference between the two parts of the field'' (Turner, 1998, p.158). According to Gordon (2003), uniform lit environment consists of a large portion of diffuse light and a small
37 amount of focused light. Non uniform lit environment can be achieved with a large portion of focused light and a small amount of diffuse light. CCT is the color of light emitted by a light source measured by Kelvin (K) (Gordon, 2003). The CIE Chromaticity diagram was applied to de fine the color of light. International Commission on Illumination developed the triangular shaped diagram on which colors ranging from red to violet A black curved line in the center of the triangle demonstrate the progression of light color. The color ap pearance progress from warm to cool (Winchip, 2008). Warm light ha s a CCT rating of 3500K or less, cool light has a CCT of 4000K or higher. In this study's experimental setting, uniform ligh ting was created by turning down the focused light with an approx imate luminance ratio of 8 to 1to maintain a general lighting with even foot candle level. Non uniform lit environment was achieved by emphasizing merchandise with spotlights and reducing the background lighting with an approximate luminance ratio of 50 to 1. of the image approximated 3,000K and for r temperature approximated 5,000K was used. Day lighting was excluded from the study to focus solely on artificial lighting within the re tail store environment. 3ds Max 201 0 and Mental Ray were used to generate the experimental lighting conditions. Lighting conditions in this study were in accordance with the guidelines of retail design and lighting design handbooks (Diamond & Diamond, 2004 ; Karlen & Benya, 2004; Rea, 2000). Four computer rendered images of handbag stores were created into the following lit scenes: 1) Scene one warm color and high contrast lighting, 2) Scene two warm color and low contrast lighting, 3) Scene three cool co lor and high contrast lighting, and 4) Scene four cool color and low contrast lighting. Figures 3 2 to 3 5 are four scenes presented in PowerPoint to collect data for this study.
38 Figure 3 2 Scen e o ne (w arm color and non uniform lighting condition) Figure 3 3 Scen e two (w arm color and uniform lighting condition)
39 Figure 3 4 Scen e three (c ool color and non uniform lighting condition) Figure 3 5 Scen e four ( c ool color and uniform lighting condition)
40 Instruments The data collection instrumen t for this study was a se lf administered questionnaire, presented in t wo parts Part one ( Appendix C) introduced two types of hypothetical shopping experience (visiting the store with a task oriented or recreation orie nted motivation). Part two ( Appendix D ) included a series of questions accompanied three slides, which was used to understand the effects of lighting with designated CCT and light contrasts on emotional states, behavioral intentions, and preferences. Questions regarding the effectiveness of st udy manipulations demographic and background information were asked in the following section. For hypothetical shopping environments, t he res earcher developed two scenarios. E ach was with either of the following visiting purposes: a) task oriented shopper : looking for the handbag for their job interview, and b) recreation oriented shopper: to relieve the sense of boredom. The descriptions of two scenarios are as follows: Task oriented situation: Imagine that you have a very important job interview in New Y ork city. You arrive one day before your interview to buy a professional looking suit and a handbag for your job interview. You go to a nice shopping mall. Because you need to prepare and have a good rest, all you want to do is to find one suit and one bag and leave. Recreation oriented situation: watch. You feel very, very bored. So, you decide to visit some stores to relieve your boredom. You stop by a nice shopping mall. You find new stores just opened a few days ago. You are curious about these stores. Participan ts were asked to imagine themselves under the situation and write down what they imaged in the scenario in order to reinforce their recogn ition of being in a task oriented or a recreation oriented shopping occasion. The principles were adapted from empirical study
41 concerning consumers' shopping motivations ( Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Babin et al. ,1994; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Mass ara, Liue, & Melara, 2009). Measures for emotional states (arousal and pleasure) were selected from Mehrabian and arousal scales ( Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987 ). Arousal was measured using four bipolar semantic dif ferential scales: wide awake/sleepy, stimulated/ relaxed, excited/calm, and aroused/unaroused. The pleasure scale also used four bipolar semantic differentials: comfortable/uncomfortable, satisfied/dissatisfied, pleasant/unpleasant, and happy/unhappy. 7 po int Likert scales were used to score the bipolar adjectives. The behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior) were assessed using a 7 point L ikert scale s score ranged from Participants were a sked to provide their level of agreement with statements: ''I definitely would shop in this store''; ''I would be willing to buy merchandise at this store''; and ''I would be willing to spend more time.'' These questions were adapted from previous store pa tronage intentions st udies (Bitner, 1992 ; Singh, 2006; Wakefield & Baker, 1998 ). Lighting preference was also measured using a 7 point L ikert scale s Participants rated their preference for each of four lighting conditions respectively with the statement: '' How much do you like this store lighting condition ?'' Moreover, participants were shown four lighting conditions in one slide to compare and select the most and least preferred handbag store lighting among four lighting conditions in a handbag store. Ma nipulation checks were conducted using 7 point Likert scales ranging from 3 as being to following statements: ''be task oriented''; ''be recreation oriented''; ''try to get things done''; and '' try to h ave fun'' based on the shopping
42 motivation they were allocated. Lighting perception also measured by using a 7 point L ikert scale s with three bipolar semantic differential scales: warm/cool, bright/dim, and uniform/non uniform These questions were sugge sted by the previous consu mers' shopping motivations study (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Westbrook & Black, 1985) and lighting study (Babin Hardest y, & Suter, 2003; Flynn et al. 1973). Demograp hic questions were asked to determine participants' background inf ormation and whether they were qualified for this study. Two multiple choice questions were provided. One was to answer ''yes'' or ''no'' about the statement: '' Do you have a visual impairment (such as color blindness) that cannot be corrected by your glas s or contact lenses? '' Another was to choose either ''a task oriented shopper'' or ''a recreation oriented shopper'' regarding the following: ''In general, do you consider yourself as? '' Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted prior to the main study for t he purpose of evaluating the study instrument and procedure as well as check ing the experimental procedu sequencing The test was administered to undergraduate students from the Principles of Marketing (MAR3023) and/or Statistics for Busines s Decisions (QMB3250) classes at the same location, Behavior al Research Lab in the Marketing Department at the University of Florida A total of 30 females were recruited through four experimental sessions on February 2011. Since each student was only all owed to participate each test once, there was no duplicate research participant in the main study. T he pre test included two types of stores, clothing store and handbag store, as experimental settings. Feedback from participants indicated that stores with non uniform lighting were too dark to see the merchandise and warm lighting were too yellowish. Other comments showed the format of the questionnaire was confusing and time consuming and t he handbag store setting was more convincing than the clothing store Based on
43 those suggestions and collected d ata from the pre test, the researcher modified the lighting conditions, reformatted the questions, and included only handbag store environmental setting in the major study. The data collected from the pilot study were not included in the main study. Data Collection The main experiment was conducted at Behavior al Research Lab in the Marketing Department at the University of Florida in the month of April, 2011. The study was posted o n CB Central a website for sche duling experimental sessions and tracking research participation and students signed up through the interface ( http://bear.warrington.ufl.edu/experiments/ ) Behavioral Research Lab Located in the Bryan Hall at UF, the behavioral lab was a neutral designe d room of 8 10 square feet (7 5 m The concrete wall and ceiling were painted in white and the floor was covered with gray carpet. There are two sources of lighting in the behavioral lab. The first is daylight from two wind ows o n the left side of the room ( Figure 3 6 ). T he second is down light ing from linear pendant light fixtures. To prevent lighting effects from disturbing visual presentation, all lighting were turned off and the natural light was blocked out by blind to m aintain the minimum general lighting ( 20 f c on each desk ) throughout sessions. The room consisted of 24 stations and each contained a PC and 15 inch flat screen monitor ( Figure 3 7 ). Only 17 stations were used to conduct the research in order to minimized the influences of daylight ( Figure 3 8).The size of each c ar rel was about which allowed both pen cil and paper surveys and physical stimu lus materials to be performed simultaneous ly. Carrels also had a noise dampe ning constructio n that minimized cross participant interference. An experimenter station was positioned on a riser at the back of the room The researcher monitored each participant's workstat ion through central computer system.
44 Figure 3 6 View of the behavioral lab fr om the back Figure 3 7. View of the research participants' station
45 Figure 3 8. Behavioral Research L ab floor plan Procedure Prior to the start of each session, the experimental packages for each station were reset and alternated in order to randomize the data collection. All computer screens were adjusted to ensure each participant watch ed their screens with the same color contrast and from the same angle. Upon arriving at the lab, participants sign ed up the attendant sheet then were randomly assigned to one station. Based on randomization, 104 task oriented assignments and 104 recreation oriented assignments were distributed respectively. Each participant was randomly
46 assigned to view only one of four lighting conditions of handbag stores. The computer s remained locked before the procedure of the experiment was explained to participants. The subjects read the scenario on the first page and completed the questionnaire which was organized to answer each page of questions for each lighting condition. Each subject was randomly viewed a visual experimental package which included three slides: the first and second slide presented single lighting condition, and the third slide presented four lighting conditions altogether. The average length of time participant s spent in the behavior al lab was 15 minutes with a range from 10 to 30 minutes. Data Analysis Raw data coding and cleaning were performed before fulfilling data processing task Prior to inferential analyses, Cronbach's alpha test was performed on three dependent variables including behavioral intentions, arousal, and pleasure. Descriptive statistics summarized the collected data and described the characteristics of each variable. A 2 (CCT) 2 (light contrasts) 2 (motivational orientations) mixed betwee n subject factorial experimental design was the n utilized for four evaluation dimensions, including arousal, pleasure, behavioral intentions and preferences For the most and least preferred lighting out of four lighting conditions associated with two dif ferent CCT and light contrasts based on two different motivational orientations was analyzed by using the Chi square analysis. Furthermore, for the preference of each lighting condition, a 2 (CCT) 2 (light contrasts) 2 (motivational orientations) mixed between subject analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also conducted to test the effectiveness of the manipulations of lighting perception and motivational orientations The final set of analyses explored sources of the most and least lighting preferences throu gh a content analysis of the open ended responses. A p value of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
47 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents findings from the data analysis of the study. First, it begins with an introduction of the chara cteristics of the participants and the results of the reliability test. The second section presents findings on emotional states of arousal and pleasure, behavioral intentions, and lighting preference. Final section is manipulation checks for testing the e ffectiveness of lighting perceptions and motivational orientations. Characteristics of the Participants A total of 208 women participated in the study. The participants were undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 35 and recruited through the B ehavior al Research L ab in t he Marketing Department at the University of Florida The B ehavior al L ab research pool is administered in conjunction with the Principles of Marketing (MAR3023) and/or Statistics for Business Decisions (QMB3250) classes Partici pants were volunteered to participate in the study and offered an extra credit point toward their course grade. All participants were first asked to adopt either a task oriented motivational orientation or a recreation oriented motivational orientation In order to obtain even number for comparison of two motivational orientations, 104 task oriented motivational orientation (50%) and 104 recreation oriented motivational orientation (50%) were assigned respectively. Each participant was randomly assigned to view one of four lighting conditions. Therefore, among 104 participants assigned to task oriented motivation, each lighting condition was view ed by 26 task oriented participants. Likewise, among 104 participants assigned to recreation oriented motivation, each lighting condition was view ed by 26 recreation oriented participants. In the demographic questions, participants were asked whether they consider themselves as task oriented or recreation oriented shopper. The results showed t he 208 subjects compris ed 78
48 who considered themselves as task oriented shoppers (37.5%) and 130 who considered themselves as recreational shoppers (62.5%). All participants met the requirement because they listed themselves not visual impaired. Table 4 1 presents the frequency and percentage distributions for the participant demographic characteristics. Table 4 1. Characteristics of the p articipants Characteristics n % Recreation oriented motivational orientation assigned 104 50 Task oriented motivational orientation assign ed 104 50 Total 208 100 Task oriented shoppers 78 37.5 Recreation oriented shoppers 130 62.5 Total 208 100 Visual impaired 0 0 Not visual impaired 208 100 Total 208 100 Reliability of Measures formed to verify the measuring variables: behavioral intention s (purchasing behavior), arousal and pleasure. The acceptable range limit recommended by George and Mallery (2003, p.231) is as follows: > .9 Excellent, > .8 Good, > .7 Acceptable, > .6 Questionable, > .5 Poor, and < .5 To measure the s (purchasing behavior), the levels of agreement with three statements were used: I definitely would shop in this store; I would be willing to buy merchan dise at this store; I would be willing to spend more time. The internal consistency of the states of arousal were measured using four bipolar adjectives: wide awake/sleepy, relaxed/stimulated, excited/calm and unaroused/ar oused. The reliability
49 four bipolar adjectives: uncomfortable/comfortable, satisfied/dissatisfied, pleasant/unpleasant and unhappy/happy with a reliability of 0.88. Arousal States A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used to assess lighting arousal states for the interaction effects of shopping orientations by CCT and by light contrast Table 4 2 shows the mean and standard deviation scores. As c an be seen in Table 4 3 no three way interaction was obtained. However, a two way interactions, CCT by l ight c ontrast, approached significance ( F (1, 200) = 3.56, p = .061). All participants rated cool/uniform lighting ( M = 5.16, SD = .96) as more arousing than warm/non u niform lighting ( M = 3.37, SD = 1.32) There were two significant main effect namely CCT ( F ( 1, 200) = 15.99, p < .001) and light contrast ( F ( 1, 200) = 50.27, p < .001). For CCT, all participants perceived cool lighting ( M = 4.44, SD = 1.30) as more arou sing than the warm lighting ( M = 3.79, SD = 1.30). Rega rding light contrast, all participants perceived uniform lighting condition ( M = 4.69, SD = 1.16) as more arousing than non uniform lighting condition ( M = 3.54, SD = 1.26) Table 4 2 Mean and standar d deviation ( SD ) scores for s states Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .645 Task oriented 104 4.15 1.41 Recreation oriented 104 4.08 1.26 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .000 Warm 104 3.79 1.30 Cool 104 4.44 1.30 Light Contrast .000 Non uniform 104 3.54 1.26 Uniform 104 4.69 1.16 MO by CCT .523 Task oriented x Warm 52 3.88 1.29 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.42 1.49 Recre ation oriented x Warm 52 3.70 1.32 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.45 1.09
50 Table 4 2. Continued Source n Mean* SD p value MO by Light Contrast .432 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 3.51 1.38 Task oriented x Uniform 52 4.79 1.14 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 3.57 1.14 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.59 1.17 CCT by Light Contrast .061 Warm x Non uniform 52 3.37 1.32 Warm x Uniform 52 4.21 1.15 Cool x Non uniform 52 3.71 1.18 Cool x Uniform 52 5.16 .96 MO by CCT by Light Contrast .350 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.47 1.38 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.29 1.07 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 3.56 1.40 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.29 1.00 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.27 1.27 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.13 1.24 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 3.87 .92 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.04 .92 *7 poi nt Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree Table 4 3 Source df SS MS F p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) 1 .289 0.289 .212 .645 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) 1 21.743 21.743 15.987 .000 *** Light Contrast 1 68.368 68.368 50.268 .000 *** MO x CCT 1 .556 .556 .409 .523 MO x Light Contrast 1 .844 .844 .621 .432 CCT x Light Contrast 1 4.846 4.846 3.563 .061 MO x CCT x Light Contrast 1 1 .193 1.193 .877 .350 Error 200 272.012 1.360 Total 20 8 3890.563 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 Pleasure States A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used to assess lighting pleasure states for the interaction effects of m otivational orientations by CCT by light contrast. Table 4 4 shows the mean and standard deviation scores. As can be seen in Table 4 5 no significant two way or three way interactions were obtained. The only one significant main effect on pleasure was light contrast ( F
51 ( 1, 200) = 10.49, p = .001). All participants perceived uniform lighting condition ( M = 5.11, SD =1.29) as more pleasant than the non unif o r m lighting ( M = 4.52, SD = 1.33). Table 4 4 Mean and standard deviation (SD asure states Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .647 Task oriented 104 4.86 1.41 Recreation oriented 104 4.77 1.27 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .906 Warm 104 4.83 1.30 Cool 104 4.81 1.38 Ligh t Contrast .001 Non uniform 104 4.52 1.33 Uniform 104 5.11 1.29 MO by CCT .865 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.88 1.28 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.83 1.54 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.77 1.33 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.78 1.21 MO by Light Contrast .196 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 4.44 1.44 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.27 1.27 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.60 1.22 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.95 1.31 CCT by Light Contrast .927 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.54 1.26 Warm x Uniform 52 5.12 1.30 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.50 1.41 Cool x Uniform 52 5.11 1.29 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .803 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.50 1.2 5 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.27 1.22 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.38 1.63 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.28 1.33 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.58 1.29 Recreation oriented x Warm x Unifo rm 26 4.96 1.38 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.62 .17 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.94 .26 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
52 Table 4 5 lighting evaluation of pleasure states Source df SS MS F p value Motivational Orientation (M O ) 1 .368 .368 .211 .647 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) 1 .024 .024 .014 .906 Light Contrast 1 18.332 18.332 10.492 .001 ** MO x CCT 1 .051 .051 .02 9 .865 MO x Light Contrast 1 2.945 2.945 1.686 .196 CCT x Light Contrast 1 .015 .015 .008 .927 MO x CCT x Light Contrast 1 .108 .108 .062 .803 Error 200 349.435 1.747 Total 208 5195.813 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Behavioral Intenti ons (Purchasing Behavior) A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was conducted to assess behavioral intentions for the interaction effects of moti vational orientations by CCT by light contrast. Table 4 6 shows the mean and standard deviation scores. The results of t he ANOVA analysis ( Table 4 7 ) revealed that there was no three way interaction or main effect. O nly a significant two way interaction, motivational orientations by light contrast, was obtained with a calculated F ( 1, 200) = 7.37, p = .007. As illustrated i n Figure 4 1, participants were assigned to task oriented motivation condition ( M = 5.41, SD = 1.64) had a more positive evaluation toward uniform lighting on their behavioral intentions, while participants were assigned to the recreation oriented motivati on condition ( M = 4.81, SD = 1.48) considered non uniform lighting had more pos itive influence on their behavioral intentions. Table 4 6 Mean and standard deviation (SD ) behavioral intention (purchasing behavior ) Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .236 Task oriented 104 4.94 1.74 Recreation oriented 104 4.67 1.56 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .888 Warm 104 4.79 1.63 Cool 104 4.82 1.69
53 Table 4 6. Co ntinued Source n Mean* SD p value L ight Contrast .143 Non uniform 104 4.97 1.69 Uniform 104 4.63 1.61 MO by CCT .631 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.87 1.68 Task oriented x Cool 52 5.01 1.82 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.71 1.59 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.63 1.55 MO by Light Contrast .007 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 4.46 1.73 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.41 1.64 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.81 1.48 Recreation oriente d x Uniform 52 4.53 1.64 CCT by Light Contrast .932 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.63 1.52 Warm x Uniform 52 4.94 1.73 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.64 1.71 Cool x Uniform 52 4.99 1.66 MO by CCT by Light Contrast .324 Task or iented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.51 1.67 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.22 1.64 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.41 1.82 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.60 1.64 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.74 1.38 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.67 1.80 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.87 1.60 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.38 1.48 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree Table 4 7 (purchasing behavior) Source df SS MS F p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) 1 3.769 3.769 1.410 .236 Color Temperatures (CCT) 1 .053 .053 .020 .888 Light C ontrast 1 5.778 5.778 2.162 .143 MO x CCT 1 .618 .616 .231 .631 MO x Light Contrast 1 19.692 19.692 7.367 .007 ** CCT x Light Contrast 1 .019 .019 .007 .932 MO x CCT x Light Contrast 1 2.618 2.618 .979 .324 Error 200 534.573 2.673 Tota l 208 5362.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
54 Figure 4 1. Interaction effect for motivational orientations by light contrast on behavioral intentions (purchasing behavior) Lighting Preference In order to investigate lighting preference, two di fferent statistical analyses were performed based on the types of questions. First, participants were asked to rate their preference by showing independent lightin g conditions. A 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design was used to assess lighting preference for the int eraction effects of motivational orientations by CCT by light contrast. Table 4 8 shows the mean and standard deviation scores. No two way or three way interactions were obtai ned. As can be seen in Table 4 9 one significant main effect on preference was l ight contrast ( F ( 1, 200) = 18.97, p < .001). Regardless motivational conditions, all participants evaluated uniform lighting condition ( M = 4.9 3, SD = 1.66) as their most preferred lighting than the non uniform lighting ( M = 3.88, SD = 1.81). Behavioral Intentions score Motivational Orientations
55 Table 4 8 Mean and standard deviation ( SD preferences Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .693 Task oriented 104 4.45 1.75 Recreation oriented 104 4.36 1.87 Correlated Col or Temperatures (CCT) .527 Warm 104 4.33 1.81 Cool 104 4.48 1.81 Light Contrast .000 Non uniform 104 3.88 1.81 Uniform 104 4.93 1.66 MO by CCT .477 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.46 1.61 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.44 1.89 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.19 2.00 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.52 1.73 MO by Light Contrast .527 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 3.58 1.81 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.06 1.47 Recreation oriented x N on uniform 52 3.90 1.82 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.81 1.83 CCT by Light Contrast .812 Warm x Non uniform 52 3.83 1.86 Warm x Uniform 52 4.83 1.64 Cool x Non uniform 52 3.92 1.77 Cool x Uniform 52 5.04 1.68 M O by CCT by Light Contrast 1.000 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.88 1.68 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.04 1.34 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 3.81 1.96 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.08 1.61 Recreati on oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.77 2.05 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.62 1.90 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.04 1.59 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.00 1.77 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Stro ngly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
56 Table 4 9 Source df SS MS F p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) 1 .481 .481 .157 .693 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) 1 1.231 1.231 .401 .527 Light Contrast 1 58.173 58.173 18.973 .000 *** MO x CCT 1 1.558 1.558 .508 .477 MO x Light Contrast 1 1.231 1.231 .401 .527 CCT x Light Contrast 1 .173 .173 .056 .812 MO x CCT x Light Contrast 1 .000 .000 .000 1.000 Error 200 613.231 3.066 To tal 208 4710.000 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Second, four different lighting conditions were simultaneously showed to participants in one slide view in order to select the most and least preferred lighting among four lighting condition The Chi square analysis was utilized and the results of the analysis are shown in T able 4 10 Table 4 10 Results of the chi Lighting c ondition A (warm / non uniform) Lighting c ondition B (warm / un iform) Lighting c ondition C (cool / non uniform) Lighting c ondition D (cool / uniform) Total The Most Preferred Lighting Task 8 (3.8%) 40 (19.2%) 10 (4.8%) 46 (22.1%) 104 (50.0%) Recreation 15 (7.2%) 40 (19.2%) 18 (8.7%) 31 (14.9%) 104 (50.0%) Total 23 (11.1%) 80 (38.5%) 28 (13.5%) 77 (37.0%) 208 (100%) 7.338 p value .062 The Least Preferred Lighting Task 55 (26.4%) 10 (4.8%) 27 (13.0%) 12 (5.8%) 104 (50.0%) Recreation 62 (29.8%) 10 (4.8%) 7 (3.4%) 25 (12 .0%) 104 (50.0%) Total 117 (56.3%) 20 (9.6%) 34 (16.3%) 37 (17.8%) 208 (100%) 16.751 p value .001 ** ** p < .01 For the most preferred lighting conditi on as illustrated in Figure 4 2 there was a statistical p = 062). Although the p value was at 0.06 that was approaching significance of 0.5, it is important to mention that. Participants in task oriented motivation
57 condition evaluated Lighting Condition D (cool /uniform ) as their most preferred lighting (22.1%) and Lighting Condition B (warm/uniform) as their second preferred one (19.2%). Participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition selected Lighting Condition B (warm/uniform) as their most preferred lighting (19.2%) and Lighting Condition D (cool/un iform) as their second preferred one (14.9%). Comparing two motivational conditions, a greater proportion of participants in the task oriented motivation condition (22.1%) evaluated Lighting Condition D (cool / uniform ) as their most preferred lighting than did participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition (14.9%). However, a greater proportion of participants in the task oriented motivation condition (8.7%) selected L ighting Condition A (warm / non uniform) as their most preferred lighting tha n did participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition (4.8%). Also, a higher percentage of participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition (7.2%) selecte d Lighting Condition C (cool / non uniform) as their preferred lighting than d id participants in the task oriented motivation condition (3.8%). Figure 4 2 Number of Participants
58 For the least preferred lighting conditi on as illustrated in Figure 4 3 motivational orientation shows statisti cal difference between task oriented and recreation oriented shoppers p = .001). Participants in task oriented motivation condition evaluated Lighting Condition A (warm /non uniform ) as their least preferred lighting (26.4%) and Lighting Condi tion C (cool/non uniform) as their secondly least preferred one (13.0%). Participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition selected Lighting Condition A (warm/non uniform) as their most preferred lighting (29.8%) and Lighting Condition D (cool/u niform) as their second preferred one (12.0%). Comparing two motivational conditions, a greater proportion of participants in the task oriented motivation condition (13.0%) evaluated Lighting Condition C (cool / uniform ) as their least preferred lighting th an did participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition (3.4%). However, a greater proportion of participants in the recreation oriented motivation condition (12.0%) selected Lighting Condition D (cool /non uniform) as their least preferred lig hting than did participants in the task oriented motivation condition (5.8%). Figure 4 3 Number of Partic ipants
59 Manipulation Checks A 2 ( CCT) 2 (light contrast ) 2 (motivational orientation s ) mixed between s ubjects ANOVA was conducted to test the effect iveness of the manipulations. CCT (warm/cool) light contrast ( uniform/non uniform ), and motivational orientations (task oriented/recreation oriented) were measured in order to ascertain if they were sufficient ly controlled. Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) T he CCT manipulation had a significant main effect on CCT manipulation check ( F ( 1, 200) = 25.98, p < .001), while there was no other significant main or interaction effects on the CCT manipulation check ( Appendix E) All p articipants perceived cool color lighting condition as cool (M = 4.38, SD = 2.10) while rated warm color lighting as warm (M = 2.98, SD = 1.83). Light Contrast Uniform vs. N on uniform One independent variable was measured in order to a scertain if light contrast was suf ficiently controlled. O ne significant main effect on uniform/non uniform manipulation check ( F ( 1, 200) = 16.45, p < .001), and one two way interactions, motivational orientations by light contrast ( F ( 1, 200) = 5.71, p = .018) were obtained ( Appendix E).. Participants rated low contrast lighting condition as uniform (M = 5.13, SD =1.78) and high contrast lighting condition as non uniform (M = 4.06, SD =2.06). As illustrated in F igure 4 4, participants in the task oriented considered low contrast lighting condition as uniform ( M = 5.42, SD =1.58), and perceived high contrast lighting as non uniform ( M = 3.71, SD =2.11). Participants in the recreation oriented considered low contrast lighting condition as uniform ( M = 4.85, S D =1.93), and perceived high contrast lighting as non uniform ( M = 4.40, SD =1.97).
60 Figure 4 4. Interaction effect for motivational orientation by light contrast on manipulation check of uniform/non uniform light Light C ontrast Bright vs. D im T he signi ficant main effect on light contrast manipulation were obtained with a calculated F(1, 200) = 196.70, p < .001. All participants rated low contrast lighting condition (M = 5.20, SD = 1.81) as bright lighting, but they did not strongly feel the high c ontrast lighting (M = 2.38, SD = 1.43) was dim lighting ( Appendix E) Task oriented Motivational Condition T he significant main effect of motivational orientations on task o riented (be task oriented) manipulation checks was obtained with a calculated F ( 1 200) = 9.45, p = .002 ( Appendix E) The participants in the task oriented motivation condition rated their motivatio nal orientation as more task oriented (M = 5.08, SD=1.82) than recreation oriented (M = 4.33, SD=1.72). Another significant main effect of motivational orientations on task oriented (try to get things done) manipulation checks ( Table 4 20) was obtained with a calc ulated F ( 1, 200) = 16.94, p < .001. Behavioral Intentions score Motivational Orientations
61 Th e participants in the task oriented motivation condition felt on this shopping occasion, th ey would try to get things done (M = 5.17, SD =1.62). Recreation oriented Motivational Condition T he significant main effect of motivational orientations on recreation oriented (be recreation oriented) manipulation check were obtained with a calculated F (1 200) = 4.00, p = .047 ( Appendix E) The participants in the recreation oriented motivation rated their motivational orientation as more recreation oriented ( M = 4.88, SD =1.71) than task oriented ( M = 4.39, SD =1.90 ) Another main effect of motivational orientations on recreation oriented (try to have fun) manipulation check s ( Table 4 24) approaching significan ce were obtained with a calculated F (1, 200) = 3.68, p = .057. The participants in the recre ation oriented motivation rated on this shopping occasi on, they would try to have fun ( M = 5.09, SD =1.71). Qualitative Findings of Lighting Preferences In order to understand the specific factors of lighting preferences, participants were asked to make additional comments on their most and least preferred lig hting choices among four lighting conditions Responses to the open ended questions on the questionnaire were reviewed to identify emerging categories that could be used to classify lighting factors of the most and least preferences These categories were then used in a thematic content analysis, quantifying the number of participants mentioning each lighting condition in their responses. Two raters read and coded all of for the remaining analyses. Table 4 11 shows six major themes emerged in the data, which included: 1) lighting factors, 2) shopper (task oriented/recreation oriented) focused, 3) store atmosphere, 4) Flynn's five subjective impressions, 5) product (handbag) focus ed, and 6) store image. Narratives relating to lighting factors included illuminance, color appearance, distribution, and
62 glare/shadow. References to store atmosphere primarily regarding space appearance s hopper focused references included shopping experi ence, attraction, emotion, and visual comfort. Responses relating to Flynn's five subjective impressions included visual clarity, relaxation, pleasantness, spaciousness, and privacy. Product focused references included product evaluation and modeling of pr oduct. At last, narratives concerning store image included high end image, just right image, and low end image. Table 4 11 also shows examples of respondents' reasons for their most preferred and least preferred lighting choices. Table 4 11. Qualitative t h emes development used to analyze participants' responses Examples of responses Theme Most preferred Least preferred Lighting factors Illuminance (brightness) Color appearance (warm/cool); daylight look Distribution (uniform/non uniform) Glare; shadow ''Not too bright, not too dark.'' '' I like the warm color of the lighting. '' '' The lighting is even. '' '' Not glaring. '' ''Too dark; too bright.'' '' Too yellow. '' '' Light contrast too much with the dark background. '' '' Too many weird shadows .'' Shopper (task oriented/recreation oriented) focused Shopping experience Attraction Emotion Visual comfort ''Puts me in the mood to get the job done, lit can enhance the shoppin g experience.'' ''Very welcoming.'' ''I feel it is uplifting.'' ''Doesn't hurt my eyes.'' ''Not feel comfortable shopping in this store, irritating lights to shop in.'' ''Looks uninviting.'' ''Annoying, darkens my mood.'' ''Honestly hurts my eyes .'' Store atmosphere Space appearance ''The most comfortable looking a tmosphere. It is much more natural looking.'' ''It seems a little boring. Everything look plastic like and just not appealing.'' ns Visual clarity Relaxation Pleasantness Spaciousness Privacy ''I can see what I am buying.'' ''More relaxing mood.'' ''Most happy.'' ''Looks bigger and more spacious.'' ''I feel like nobody is always watching you.'' ''I can hard ly see anything.'' ''Too relaxing.'' ''It is unpleasant to the eye.'' ''Looks like a cave.'' N/C Product (handbag) focused Product evaluation Modeling of product ''Light allows you to see the true colors.'' ''It highlights the merchandise.'' ''Colors are distorted.'' ''Lighting is unflattering to the handbags.''
63 Table 4 11. Continued Examples of responses Theme Most preferred Least preferred Store image High end image Low end image Just right image '' A chic and luxurious feeling.'' ''It looks more affordable.'' ''It is just right.'' ''Too exclusive and luxurious.'' ''Does not give a sense of class or luxury.'' ''Doesn't match the luxury of the displays.'' Note. N/C indicates no comment. Th e six themes were then used to num ber participants mention of each theme in their responses. As shown in Table 4 12 about 38% of the participants mentioned lighting factors; about 19% of the participants mentioned shopper focused factors or store atmosp here; about 12% mentioned Flynn's five subjective impressions; about 7% mentioned product focused factors ; and about 5% mentioned store image. Table 4 12. Frequency for lighting preference Number of mentions ( n=208) Task oriented ( n=104 ) Recreation oriented ( n=104 ) Theme M ost preferred L east preferred M ost preferred L east preferred Total Lighting factors Illuminance Color appearance Distribution Glare; shadow 38 22 0 1 63 23 5 1 61 23 4 1 65 17 0 0 324 227 85 9 3 Shopper focused (task oriented/recreation oriented) Shopping experience Attract ion Emotion Visual comfort 30 24 1 2 11 10 11 3 15 10 9 2 13 11 12 3 167 69 55 33 10 Store atmosphere Space appearance 31 43 44 4 2 160 160
64 Table 4 12 Continued Number of mentions ( n=208) Task oriented ( n=104 ) Recreation oriented ( n=104 ) Theme Most preferred Least preferred Most preferred Least preferred Total Visual clarity Re laxation Pleasantness Spaciousness Privacy 21 3 5 3 3 15 1 1 2 0 26 7 2 1 2 13 0 0 1 0 106 75 11 8 7 5 Product (handbag) focused Product evaluation Modeling of product 8 8 14 2 9 9 5 5 60 36 24 Store image High en d image Low end image Just right image 11 3 3 1 3 0 13 1 0 4 5 1 45 29 12 4 The findings of written comments were summarized based on participants' most and least preferred lighting choices. Each theme was discussed below to reveal new inform ation beyond that obtained from the quantitative results. The example s of participants' statements were quoted in brackets. All written comments are included in Appendix F. These results are discussed further in the next chapter for compar ison with the qua ntitative results and contradictions are explained Lighting Factors A total of 324 comment phrases were made on lighting factors. Of the m 227 (70%) were about illuminance, 85 (26%) were about color appearance, 9 (3%) were about distribution, and 3 (1%) were about glare/shadow. For the most preferred lighting, in the majority of statements illuminance was the favorite brightness/darkness choice or the space was not perceived as too bright/dark [ Like the bright light; Love the dim lighting; It's bright but with a cool darkness; It's
65 not too bright to the extent where you feel blinded ]. Responses to color appearance involved preferences for warm/cool tones [ Warm glow softens the sharp angles; Like cool color; Edginess with white lighting ]. Comments about dis tribution were related to the presentation of spotlights [ Like the products are in some kind of spotlight; The lighting is even ], and glare/shadow was related to the existence of glare [ It isn't too much lighting that it glares ]. For the least preferred l ighting, the participants raised objection to the brightness/darkness and they felt the space was too bright or too dark [ Don't like the darkness; Way too dim; Awkwardly bright; Intense bright light ]. Also the participants reported dislikes for lighting o f warm/cool tones [ Don't like the warmness; Prefer yellow light than white; Feeling is t oo cold ]. There were also s everal cases of dissatisfaction with the spotlights [ The bright light is contrasting too much with the furniture and shelving; Lighting is w ay too uneven ] and glare/shadow [ Too many weird shadows ]. Shopper Focused Factors (task oriented vs. recreation oriented) A total of 167 comment phrases were about the shopper focused factors. Of the m 69 (41%) were about shopping experience s 55 (33%) we re about attraction, 33 (20%) were about emotion, and 10 (6%) were about visual comfort. T he most preferred lighting choice based on the statements regarding shopping experience was the lighting of the store motivated and promoted their shopping activity [ Kept me motivated to look around; It makes me want to go through all of the handbags, not just a few display ed ones ; It would score high in customer experience; Easy to understand and still fun; Puts me in the mood to ''get the job done'' ]. The r eported attraction was from the store which appeared inviting and welcoming [ Very welcoming; Invites you in to wander around; Attract my attention ]. Besides, emotion and visual comfort comments were associated with creation of positive emotions [ I feel it is uplif ting without the annoying dark mood ] and visual comfort [ Enough lighting doesn't hurt my eyes ].
66 In the aspect of the least preferred lighting, participants' comments on store experience s show that they would not stay and buy anything under the lighting c ondition [ The yellow tone makes the lighting horrible to shop in; Not a fun exciting shopping experience; It's not effective ]. Participants reported dissatisfaction with store attraction by stating the store was uninviting and unwelcoming [ Looks uninviting ; It would not catch my eye at all ]. The comments about emotion and visual comfort show that negative emotion s [ It darkens my mood; It is annoying and depressing ] and visual discomfort [ Gives me a headache; Honestly hurts my eyes ] were generated. Store Atm osphere A total of 160 comment phrases were about store atmosphere related to store ambience and appearance. For the most preferred lighting, comments included the presentation of the store was clean, elegant, modern, calm, cozy, interesting, mysterious, natural, lively, exciting, unique, professional, and sophisticated [ Lights make the store colors look nicer and more elegant; A very modern look; The lighting blends well with the surrounding; A comfortable atmosphere for browsing ]. In contrast for the le ast preferred lighting, comments included dull, gloomy, indistinctive, old, snobby, creepy, boring, cold, morbid, artificial, empty, intense, awkward, and sterile [ Very grim and secretive like; Too night club and relaxed; It reminds me of a prison/police i nterrogation room; Everything looks plastic and just not appealing; Too traditional and very standard; No personality, shows no attempt in merging the designs of the purse in the room ]. Flynn's Five Subjective Impression s A total of 106 comment phrases wer e about Flynn's five subjective impression s Of the m 75 (71%) were about visual clarity, 11 (10%) were about relaxation, 8 (8%) were about pleasantness, 7 (7%) were about spaciousness, and 5 (4%) were about privacy. For the most
67 preferred lighting choice comments on visual clarity is that there was enough light to see all items [ The lighting allows you to be able to browse openly; You can see exactly what is in the store clearly; Easiest to navigate through ;]. Participants' descriptions regarding relaxati on, pleasantness, spacious, and privacy were the store was relax ing and calm [ It allow you to relax; calm feeling ], pleasant and happy [ Aesthetically pleasant; Most happy ], looked bigger and spacious [ Not cluttered; A lot of light makes the store looks mo re spacious ], and not being under surveillance [ It is dark so I could shop without people watching me ] respectively. For the least preferred lighting choice comments on visual clarity is that customers could not accurately see merchandise [ The intricate lighting gets annoying when you can't see things throughout the whole store; Hardly see what I'd be buying ]. Descriptions related to relaxation, pleasantness, spacious ness and privacy were the store was too relax ing [ I may fall asleep ], unpleasant [ It is unpleasant to the eye ], and looked like a cave [ Like you are in a cave ] respectively. No comment was made on privacy. Product (handbag) Focused Factors A total of 60 comment phrases were about product focused factors. Of the m 36 (60%) were about product evaluation and 24 (40%) were about modeling of product s For the most preferred lighting, comments on product evaluation were that lighting allowed them to see the true colors and details of the items [ It helps to identify the color of the merchandise; I want to be able to examine the merchandise ]. Regarding modeling of product s participants showed satisfaction with the presented handbags [ The bags look more luxurious and emphasizes the quality of them ]. For the least preferred lighting, participants' comments on product evaluation were that customers could not really see and tell the color s of the handbag s [ It is hard to see the products features specifically its true color; Lighting distort the color ]. Also, on modeling of product
68 participants showe d dissatisfaction with the presented handbags [ Lighting is unflattering to the handbags ]. Store Image s A total of 45 comment phrases were about store image s Of the m 29 (64%) were about high end image, 12 (27%) were about low end image, and 4 (9%) were a bout just right image. For the most preferred lighting choice participants reacted positively to the high end image [ It looks very chic; dim lights make the store seem more luxurious ], low end image [ It looks more affordable ], and just right image [ It's j ust right ]. On the contrary, participants reacted negatively to high end image [ Too exclusive and cold ], low end image [ Doesn't give a sense of class or luxury; Seems cheap ], and just right image [ Doesn't match the luxury of the displays ] when it came to t he least preferred lighting choice
69 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The main goal of this study was to investigate the impact of different lighting conditions and pre ferences in relation to the two different shopping motivations, task oriented one and recreation oriented one in a handbag store setting. Each variable is discussed with previous theories and findings of this study This chapter will end with the limitati ons of this study, a general conclusion, and suggestions for further research. Arousal States The results were against the expectation for showing that the effects of lighting contrast/CCT on arousal states were not mediated by shoppers' motivations in a h andbag store environment However, participants' arousal states for different lighting conditions were significantly affected by CCT and light contrast. Both groups of participants perceived cool lighting and uniform lighting as more arousing than warm lig hting and non uniform lighting. Additionally, there wa s a two way interaction, CCT by light contrast wa s approaching statistical significance (p = 0.061). Cool/ low contrast lighting was rated as the most arousal, while warm/ low contrast lighting was rate d as the second. The findings of this study support the idea of that arousal levels are influenced by lighting which as described in the previous studies (Baumstarck & Park, 2010; Fleisher et al., 2001; Flynn, 1977; Gifford, 1988; Meharibian, 1976; Park & Farr, 2007; Park et al., 2010). However, the lighting characteristics of these studies were limited to illunination levels (Flynn, 1977; Gifford, 1988; Meharibian, 1976; Park et al., 2010), correlated color temperature (Flynn, 1977; Gifford, 1988; Mehari bian, 1976; Park & Farr, 2007; Park et al., 2010), and lighting direction (Baumstarck, 2008; Fleisher et al., 2001). Only Flynn's (1977) study looked specifically at the
70 uniform/non uniform lighting by using relaxation as an emotional scale to assess the d ifferent lighting conditions. The current study found non uniform lighting to be less arousing which partially confirmed Flynn's (1977) conclusion that non uniform lighting wa s more relaxed than uniform lighting because one of the four word pairs, relaxed /stimulated, was used to evaluate the arousal states. color and emotional states (Baron et al., 1992; Park & Farr, 2007; Park et al., 2010) which described that cool color lighting is more arousing than warm color lighting. Moreover, based on the findings of manipulation checks (Appendix E), non uniform lighting in the experiment was rated as a bright condition by participants compared to uniform lighting which was i dentified as a dark condition. It can be said the finding s also agree with previous studies suggesting that people feel more aroused in bright lighting conditions (Flynn, 1977; Gifford, 1988; Meharibian, 1976; Park et al., 2010). The results also align wit h that obtained by Custers et al. (2010) that a store with more non uniform lighting was perceived as less tense. T he relaxation versus tense ness in the M R model's scale was suggested to be the same as the tenseness dimension, which concluded that non un iform lighting is less arousing. Yet, based on the finding of this study, the performance of light contrast was not correspondent with Gordon's (2003) implication that non uniform spaces increase stimulation which produce s more arousal. This may be due to the reason that Gordon's (2003) discussion is about general interior spaces, but this study looked into the spac e with a specific purpose (handbag store). Also, participants perceived the non uniform lighting in the handbag store as an overall dim and calm condition instead of an excit ing and energetic space. Furthermore, lighting is only one of the numerous element s contribut ing to the perceived ambience, and contrast level
71 is just one component of the lighting designs. Lighting characteristics contain illumination level s CCT, CRI, direction s and contrast level s any of them may have an effect on enhancing or impa iring arousal levels and they should be considered as a whole. Possible reasons for absent evidence that shoppers' motivations serve as a mediator between lighting contrast/CCT and arousal states may be that the current study only tested part of the enviro nmental stimuli (light contrast/CCT) and the prejudices in personal variables (personal interest and preferences). Lighting contrast/CCT may not account for the most assessments of arousal states in store experience s but may be a small part of the overall assessment. Lighting in retail stores may be unlike any previously studied environmental physical stimuli. Results from marketing studies regarding the effects of store atmospherics on arousal states have been inconsistent (Machleit & Eroglu, 2000). The s emantic scales of arousal states may be low coefficient and need to be revised to measure two different types of arousal states: physical (cognitive) one and emotional (mental) one A higher level of statistical significance may be observed between the two test groups when two types of semantic scales are used. Future research es had appl ied the M R model to investigate environmental stimuli and behavior s need ed to tailor their semantic scales according to their stud ies foci. Pleasure States The relationsh ip between the color and contrast level s of the light source as environmental stimuli and shoppers' pleasure states were not mediated by their motivations in a handbag store environment The results were contradict ory to the findings of Kaltcheva and Weitz 's (2006) study which suggested that motivational orientation moderates the effect of environmental stimuli on pleasantness. One s pecific reason for this may be that different methodologies had been used in their study and this study. Kaltcheva and Weitz ( 2006) used color, complexity, and
72 music as physical environment stimuli, but this study focused on lighting. Also Kaltcheva and Weitz's (2006) used a clothing store and a music store as their experimental settings, whereas the current study looked into a handbag store. It is possible that different types of store s may administer different evaluation criterion. The light contrast did have an effect on participants' pleasure states. Participants felt more pleasant in a uniform lighting condition (this study' s results indicated it is arousing), which is consistent with the statement made by Gordon (2003): ''the more stimulation (arousal) provided, the more pleasant the task becomes''. According to the finding, the participants reported that the uniform lightin g condition was bright (high illuminance), while the non uniform lighting condition was dim (low illuminance). From this point of view, this study's findings are in line considered to be more pleasant'' ( Fleisher et al., 2001) and ''bright light is a correlate of pleasantness' (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), but is contradict ory to the statement of ''non uniform lighting was rated as more pleasant'' (Flynn et al., 1977). One s pecific reason for this may be the differen t experiment context. Flynn (1977) examined lighting pleasantness in general interior settings which may not be directly comparable to the retail interior setting in this study. In spite of those debates, the strong connection between lighting s is consistent with the Mehrabian Russell model that suggested state s of pleasure are related to environmental stimuli (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Although Park & Farr's (2007) study suggested the color s of light affect state s of pleasure, this study ha d not found any connection between light color s and pleasure states. Park and Farr (2007) focused on impact s of cultural differences on lighting perception of pleasure, and they did not consider light contrast in th eir test They used a real site to present a clothing store setting.
73 The current study did not consider the cultur al influence s and used a simulated handbag store environment. Thus the influence s of light color s on pleasure states may be weak in the handba g store setting compared to the clothing store. It is likely that other dimensions of lighting (illumination levels, CRI, or light direction) may have a stronger influence on states of pleasure in the handbag store. Behavioral Intentions (Purchasing Behavi or) motivational orientation as a mediator of that the CCT and contrast level s of lighting as an environmental stimul us affect s behavior). Only one significant two way interaction was found in this study, which is the one between motivational orientation and light contrast. The p articipants assigned to the task oriented motivation responded that uniform lighting enhanced their spen ding intention while those assigned to the recreation oriented motivation believed they will buy merchandise in the store in a non uniform lighting condition. The results support previous studies that stated various behaviors were produced through manip ulations of lighting characteristics (Areni & Kim, 1994; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Hebert, 2001). However, this fact is contradict ory to Kaltcheva and Weitz's (2006) study that indicated that arousal had a negative effect on task oriented shoppers' beha viors but had a positive effect on recreation oriented shoppers. Their findings explained the interactive effect between arousal and motivation was that a low arousal store environment provided efficiencies, while a high arousal store environment enhanced shopping experiences. The requirement of the task oriented scenario was to complete the task within a limited period of time, thus task oriented shoppers would try to shop as efficiently as possible. In this situation, task oriented shoppers considered a low arousal environment could achieve this goal, because it would require
74 less energy to complete their shopping task s In contrast, in the recreation oriented scenario participants had to kill their time, so that the main goal of their shopping activit ie s was to seek some intrinsic satisfaction, in other words, playfulness and fun (Babin et al., 1994), and to be entertained. Accordingly, they would patronize a store that increased stimulation and create rich experiences is high arousal. Yet, Kaltcheva an d Weitz's (2006) study did not take a specific look at lighting variable s. Previously, Park and Farr (2007) ha d specifically explored the relationship between CCT and behavioral intentions and found higher CCT encouraged approach behaviors. Yet, this stu dy found CCT was not a significant factor that affect ed behavioral intentions. As mentioned before, this may be due to the difference between the methods adopted by this study and those by Park and Farr's (2007) study. They explored the differences between cultures and used actual environments while the current study used simulated environment. Their study also used an apparel store setting and the current study address ed a handbag store. Participant s a key focus in the retail store. Comments on visual clarity and product evaluation (more than 30% participants had made comments) highlight ed the importance of the functional aspects of lighting. Most of the comments on uniform lighting were positive, rev eal ing that all the participants require d the store lighting to fulfill the basic needs to see and evaluate the products. Non uniform lighting received a lot of negative responses in the aspect of visual clarity, most participants perceived it hinder ed the ir ability to see the products and distort ed the color of the handbags. Despite the argument about the effectiveness of arousal levels in store environments, according to the results, retailers can use different contrast levels of lighting to attract custo mers and cater to their tastes with different shopping motives. Supposing that a retail store's major
75 customers are task oriented, the store designer should adopt uniform lighting to create the appearance so the merchandise presentation in the store is cl ear at a glance. Conversely, when customers are principally recreation oriented, the store designer can adopt non uniform lighting to build a more complex and excited shopping environment. Moreover, if a retail store aims at customers with both motivationa l orientations, the lighting conditions should vary across store departments according to their dominant motivation s of customers. Lighting Preference s To investigate the overall lighting preferences of two types of shoppers (task oriented vs. recreation oriented) with different motives in a retail store, the participants were asked to rate how much they like each presented lighting condition separately. The lighting preference s were re examined by selecting the most and least preferred lighting condition s when four lighting preferences were significantly affected by light contrast but not significantly by CCT and their motivational orientations. For both groups the handbag store with uniform lighting was rated as more preferable than that with non uniform lighting. Regarding the most and least preferred retail lighting, 44.20% of the task oriented group selected the store with cool/uniform lighting as the most favorite one, and 52.90% of them rated the warm/non uniform lighting as the least preferred one. Comparing with the task oriented group rated the warm/uniform lighting as the most favorite one, and 59.60% of them rated the warm/non uniform lighting as the least preferred one. Although both groups preferred store lighting to be warm/uniform and cool/uniform than warm/non uniform and cool/non uniform, it seem ed that recreation oriented participants showed hi gher preference for store with warm/non uniform and cool/ non uniform lighting than task oriented participants. Interestingly, the task oriented group
76 considered cool/ non uniform lighting as their second least preferred on e while cool/uniform was the sec ond least preferred lighting condition for the recreation oriented group. Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) applied the M R model to study shoppers' motives and discovered a strong connection with states of arousal and pleasure, which in turn affected behavior in tentions. They suggested that task oriented shoppers found a low arousal retail environment to be pleasant, this type of environment positively affected behavior intentions w hereas recreation oriented shoppers found a high arousal retail environment to be pleasant. Hence by associat ing the finding s of this study, it is found that both group s perceived uniform lighting as high arousal In oriented shoppers would prefer uniform lighting and recreation o riented ones would prefer non uniform lighting. Now it appears that the findings of this study did not reinforce Kaltcheva and Weitz's (2006) study. One possible reason may be that Kaltcheva and Weitz manipulat ed environmental stimuli involv ing complexity, color s and music, while this study focused on lighting. The role of lighting in a retail store is more complicated than other environmental characteristic s Lighting entail s the accomplishment of visual clarity, ambient production, emotional satisfaction and product evaluation (Gordon, 2003; Quartier et al., 2008; Rea, 2000). According to Rea (2000), the three primary goals of lighting in a retail environment are to attract customer s to allow customers to evaluate merchandise, and to facilitate completi on of sale s Cognitive needs could not be neglected while emotional needs were fulfilled during purchase process. Also their store settings were a clothing store and a music store, whereas current study is associated with a handbag store. Regardless of mot ivational orientation consumers all felt uncomfortable when they assumed the consumptive environment was not in a sound circumstance to examine products.
77 Finally, individuals may have specific preference s for different lighting conditions and products (ha ndbags). For example, some commented that the non uniform lighting was chic and cool ; while others said it made their eyes hurt and they did not prefer it Warm light was perceived as having a nice yellow tone but also bring a sense of being unnatural and out of date to things under it The same result was observed for uniform lighting and cool lighting. Participants' comments showed some awareness of the effects of light contrast and preference for uniform lighting. Uniform lighting received a plurality i n the positive comments whereas comments for non uniform lighting were more negative. The findings suggest ed that if retailers and designers would like to employ non uniform lighting to create a lively store environment, the lit environment should be main tained perfectly visible. Park and Farr's (2007) study suggested cool color lighting was more preferable than warm one However, this study revealed no effect of CCT on preferences. Again, this may be resulted from the differen ce in methods between this s tudy and Park and Farr's (2007) study (store types, experimental settings, and cultural difference s ). No empirical study had been conducted to determine the relationship between the motivational orientations and lighting preferences within a retail store s etting. The present study showed there was no significant connection between th ose two. Although there was no quantitative support for the connection between motivational orientations and lighting preferences according to the comments, participants with recreation oriented motivation showed higher preference for non uniform/white lighting than those with task oriented motivation. Some participants said this lighting condition wa s very modern, exciting, and unique. The dim light helped them to relax. In co ntrast, participants with task oriented motivation perceived it as lighting in a jail, and being very pretentious and superficial.
78 People may focus on different variables with a stronger effect on their perception and preference s Thus further study may in vestigate effect s of lighting on preferences along with other influence s in the store in order to determine whether there is a strong difference between shoppers with different shopping goals. Limitations There were some limitations in this study regardi ng the research methods. First, in this study the test was conducted using a simulated environment instead of a real retail store. Although many studies have successfully used photographs and digital images to assess people's reactions to a built environm ent (Chayutsahakij, 1998; Hendrick et al., 1977; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Marsden, 1999; Park et al., 2010), this method could have impl ied some drawbacks. For instance, it wa s possible that people may experience the physical attributes of slides in one wa y and perceive that in real physical environments in another way. Also, there may be a discrepancy between being in a lit environment and simply observing a lit scene. The second limitation is that this study only looked into consumers' reactions o n one si ngle site; the study did not include other handbag stores to evaluate differences in store s Participants' appreciations of particular product styles may affect ratings they give as well as their life style s It may not be proper to assert that self repor ted emotion in the store is as a result of the lighting characteristics only. Third ly the current study manipulated participants' shopping motivational orientations by requesting them to imag ine themselves as either a task oriented or recreation oriented shopper. To increase their cognition of having the respective motivations, participants wrote down their presumptive situations of the hypothetical shopping occasions. These two manipulations were further tested and the result s h owed reasonable effectivene ss (Appendix E). However, it cannot be sure that each participant remained in the hypothetical situation constantly throughout the
79 process. It wa s likely that more powerful results would be obtained by assigning them to the motivational orientation s inher ent in their nature. Furthermore, the sample population may have affected the results. Due to the nature of the lab's recruitment, participants were mostly business school students, meaning that the sample diversity was limi ted In addition, this study onl y examined the reactions of young female students; different results may be obtained for shoppers who are older, male, with different cultural backgrounds, or of other occupations. Conclusion s and Implication s This study provides a preliminary understandi ng of the role s of CCT and light contrast within a retail setting. The results clearly show that light contrast had a significant effect on people's arousal states, pleasure states, retail preferences and purchasing behavior s Generally, uniform lighting was preferred and was more arousing and pleasant in the handbag store. It is assumed that this is why the lighting strategy of existing high end handbag stores is to use neutral color s and uniform lighting to create a clean looking and easy browsing enviro nment. Although uniform lighting is the most favorite lighting for both shopper typologies, recreation oriented consumers were more likely to shop in a store with non uniform lighting whereas task oriented shoppers would shop in a store with uniform light ing. This finding is contradict ory to studies that had proposed pleasant shopping environments positively affect the shopping behavior (Baker et al., 1992; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Sherman et al., 1997). The reason could be be applicable to evaluate consumers' behaviors within a retail setting without considering motivational orientations. This information could be useful if it is adapted by retailers to create their store en vironment s according to shopping motivation s of their targeted customers. For example, customers in an office supply store may be mostly task oriented. Owner of this store
80 should adapt a uniform lighting solution to clearly present their merchandise. In c ontrast, motives of customers of a high fashion store may be recreational. Owner of t his store should use non uniform lighting to create an excited ambient where consumers can still evaluate products. Besides, the results of this study could benefit design er s and retailers by offering a direction of evaluating existing store environment s and future store design s in terms of lighting arrangement In order to investigate the ef fects of retail lighting on consumers' behaviors, this study created a simulated environment, a replication of real world context with manipulated factors, to observe reflective interactions which would actually occur in the real world (Groat & Wang, 2002) Indeed the simulation research design brought several strengths to this study. For example, simulation wa s more economical and more control lable comparing with conducting a test in a real retail store. It helped to eliminate the unwanted distractions and accomplish the manipulation of study variables. Secondly this research method allowed the experiment to be conducted in the behavioral lab which provided a systematic and organized setting throughout the one month research period. It also allowed the res earcher to acquire a sample of satisfying size in an efficient and flexible manner. The researches and knowledge in lighting's effects on human responses are scarce (Davis, 2011). Also, affective and behavioral responses to light contrast are a new topic and require more future research attention. On the other hand environmental stimuli have been investigated in a retail context to explore the relationships among store atmosphere, customers' emotions, and buying behaviors, but only few of the studies inv olv e in customers' shopping motives. This study is limited by one of the environmental factors 'lighting' and its relationship to consumers. For
81 these reasons, motivational orientations and other aspects of store atmosphere should be considered in futur e research es Future studies adopting the M R model in a retail store context must consider various retail settings (e.g., apparel store, grocery store, and electronic store) and target population (e.g., gender, age, and work status) which are differ ent f rom the present one s There is also a need to investigate the same product categories (e.g., women's clothing) in different price ranges (e.g., low end and high end). In addition this research was conducted at the UF Behavioral Research Lab, meaning that the same procedure could lead to different results if the test was performed in another experimental setting. Therefore, further research may be conduct ed in actual environments with on site shoppers to capture more real world characteristics. As suggested by Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006), other aspects of lighting (e.g., CRI, direction, and intensity) and sensory cues (e.g., scent and color) can be tested in future studies to further explore their relationship with nal responses and retail outcomes. It is recommended that further compara tive researches can be conduct ed in different contexts (e.g., hospitality workplace, and healthcare) and different demographics (e.g., different gender s ages, cultures, income, an d locations). Knowing the involvement and influence of those variables may help to produce more significant results which can contribute to the body of knowledge of interior design.
82 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL
83 APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM Customer Preference of Retail Store Lighting Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: The study is to understand the effects of store lighting on consumers' preferences. The results will be use d to make recommendations to retailers to improve the retail shopping experience. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will view eight lighting conditions of store environment in PowerPoint presentation format. After that, you will be asked to complete a set of questionnaire which is organized to answer each page of questions for each store lighting condition. Overall, the study should take no more than 20 minutes to complete. Risks and Benefits: There are no expected risks or benefits associa ted with the study. Compensation: You will receive one point of extra credit in the approved class of your choice ( MAR3023 or QMB3250) for your participation Extra credit for participation you can earn will be n o greater than 2% of your final grade of each course The alternative to earn extra credit is to submit a summarizing report of an academic journal regards marketing and/or c onsumer behavior You will receive one extra credit point for each paper report you submit. Confidentiality: You will NOT be asked to give your name or contact information. Any personal demographic information will only be used to compare your answers to other participants. Your responses will be anonymous. Voluntary participation: Your p articipation is completely voluntary and you are under no obligation to complete this survey. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. If you choo se to withdraw, please inform the survey administrator and your survey will be destroyed. If you have questions about the study, please contact: LeeHsuan Liao, Graduate Student Department of Interior Design 313 Architecture Building, (352) 222 3887 Nam Kyu Park, Assistant Professor, Department of Interio r Design, Graduate Thesis Chair 344 Architecture Building (352) 392 0252 ext.338 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florid a, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; ph 392 0433.93 If you agree to participate, please click the continue button below. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Signature (Lee Hsuan, Liao)
84 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT 1 Instruction: In this study, you will be asked to evaluate a couple of stores within an imagined scenario. Please read the following scenario and try to imagine yours elf in this situation. Task oriented situation Imagine that you have a very important job interview in New York city. You arrive one day before your interview to buy a professional looking suit and a handbag for your job interview. You go to a nice sh opping mall. one suit and one bag and leave. Recreation oriented situation It is a weekend. None of your friends are around. You find wh bored. So, you decide to visit some stores to relieve your boredom. You stop by a nice shopping mall. You find new stores just opened a few days ago. You are curious about these stores. Please write what you imagined with this scenario.
85 APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT 2 Scene#1&2 Please answer the following questions under your imagined scenario. 1. What would you do if you entered this store? Strongly Disagree Strongl y Agree I definitely would shop in this store. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would be willing to buy merchandise at this store. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would be willing to spend more time. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 2. How would you feel in this lighting condition? Wide awake 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sleepy Relaxed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calm Unaroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aroused Uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comfortable Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dissatisfied Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant Unhappy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Happy 3. Please rate your perception of lighting in this store. Warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cool Bright 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dim Uniform 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non uniform 4. On this shopping occasion, I would: Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree be task oriented. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 be recreation oriented. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 try to get things done. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Try to have fun. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 5 How much do you like this store lighting condition? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very m uch
86 Scene#3 1. Which lighting condition do you MOST prefer? (1) Store A (2) Store B (3) Store C (4) Store D 1.2 Please, explain why you do you most prefer this. 2. Which lighting condition do you LEAST prefer? (1) St ore A (2) Store B (3) Store C (4) Store D 2.1 Please, explain why do you least prefer this. Background Information 1. Do you have a visual impairment (such as color blindness) that cannot be corrected b y your glass or contact lenses? (1) Yes (2) No 2. In general, do you consider yourself as? (1) a task oriented shopper (2) a recreation oriented shopper
87 APPENDIX E MANIPULATION CHECKS RESULTS Table E 1. Mean and standard deviation (SD correlated color temperatures Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .530 Task oriented 104 3.77 1.99 Recreation oriented 104 3.60 2.19 Correl ated Color Temperatures (CCT) .000 Warm 104 2.98 1.83 Cool 104 4.38 2.10 Light Contrast .486 Non uniform 104 3.59 2.07 Uniform 104 3.78 2.11 MO by CCT .944 Task oriented x Warm 52 3.06 1.61 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.48 2.08 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 2.90 2.04 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.29 2.14 MO by Light Contrast .210 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 3.85 1.96 Task oriented x Uniform 52 3.69 2.03 Recreation orie nted x Non uniform 52 3.33 2.16 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 3.87 2.21 CCT by Light Contrast .676 Warm x Non uniform 52 2.83 1.72 Warm x Uniform 52 3.13 1.94 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.35 2.12 Cool x Uniform 52 4.42 2. 10 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .577 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.00 1.55 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 3.12 1.71 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.69 2.00 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.27 2.18 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 2.65 1.90 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 3.15 2.19 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.00 2.23 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.58 2.04 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
88 Table E 2 Mean and standard deviation (SD uniform/non uniform Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .828 Task oriented 104 4.5 7 2.04 Recreation oriented 104 4.62 1.96 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .220 Warm 104 4.43 2.04 Cool 104 4.76 1.95 Light Contrast .000 Non uniform 104 4.06 2.06 Uniform 104 5.13 1.78 MO by CCT .664 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.35 2.09 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.79 1.99 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.52 2.01 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.73 1.92 MO by Light Contrast .018 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 3.71 2.11 Tas k oriented x Uniform 52 5.42 1.58 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.40 1.97 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.85 1.93 CCT by Light Contrast .348 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.02 2.14 Warm x Uniform 52 4.85 1.86 Cool x N on uniform 52 4.10 2.00 Cool x Uniform 52 5.42 1.66 M O by CCT by Light Contrast 1.000 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.62 2.28 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.08 1.60 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 3.81 1.96 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.77 1.51 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.42 1.94 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.62 2.10 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.38 2.04 Recreation oriented x Coo l x Uniform 26 5.08 1.77 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
89 Table E 3 Mean and standard deviation (SD bright/dim Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orien tation (MO ) .041 Task oriented 104 4.00 2.22 Recreation oriented 104 3.59 2.07 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .000 Warm 104 3.32 1.93 Cool 104 4.27 2.27 Light Contrast .000 Non uniform 104 2.38 1.43 Uniform 104 5.20 1.81 MO by CCT .198 Task oriented x Warm 52 3.65 2.09 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.35 2.32 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 2.98 1.71 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.19 2.24 MO by Light Contrast .026 Ta sk oriented x Non uniform 52 2.37 1.39 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.63 1.61 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 2.40 1.49 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.77 1.91 CCT by Light Contrast .000 Warm x Non uniform 52 2.42 1.51 Warm x Uniform 52 4.21 1.89 Cool x Non uniform 52 2.35 1.36 Cool x Uniform 52 6.19 1.01 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .272 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 2.42 1.42 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.88 1.93 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 2.31 1.38 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 6.38 .64 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 2.42 1.63 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 3.54 1.63 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non un iform 26 2.38 1.36 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 6.0 0 1.27 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
90 Table E 4 Mean and standard devia tion (SD task oriented motivational or ientation (on this shopping occasion, I would be task oriented) Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .002 Task oriented 104 5.08 1.82 Recreation oriented 104 4.33 1.72 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .060 Warm 104 4.93 1.78 Cool 104 4.47 1.81 Light Contrast .529 Non uniform 104 4.62 1.96 Uniform 104 4.78 1.64 MO by CCT .345 Task oriented x Warm 52 5.19 1.86 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.96 1.79 Recreation orient ed x Warm 52 4.67 1.67 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 3.98 1.71 MO by Light Contrast .529 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 5.08 1.96 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.08 1.69 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.17 1.88 Recrea tion oriented x Uniform 52 4.48 1.54 CCT by Light Contrast .694 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.81 1.93 Warm x Uniform 52 5.06 1.61 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.44 1.99 Cool x Uniform 52 4.50 1.63 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .099 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 5.35 1.83 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.04 1.91 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.81 2.08 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.12 1.48 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.27 1.91 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.08 1.29 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.08 1.88 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 3.88 1.56 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agre e
91 Table E 5 Mean and standard devia tion (SD task oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would try to get things done) Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .000 Task orient ed 104 5.17 1.62 Recreation oriented 104 4.27 1.61 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .015 Warm 104 4.99 1.74 Cool 104 4.45 1.57 Light Contrast .256 Non uniform 104 4.60 1.80 Uniform 104 4.85 1.54 MO by CCT .861 Task oriented x Warm 52 5.46 1.73 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.88 1.46 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.52 1.64 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.02 1.57 MO by Light Contrast .138 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 5.21 1.79 Task oriented x Uniform 52 5.13 1.46 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 3.98 1.60 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 4.56 1.59 CCT by Light Contrast .600 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.92 1.79 Warm x Uniform 52 5.06 1.71 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.27 1.76 Cool x Uniform 52 4.63 1.34 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .024 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 5.81 1.67 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.12 1.75 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.62 1.72 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.15 1.12 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.04 1.46 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.00 1.70 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 3.92 1.77 Recreation ori ented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.12 1.37 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
92 Table E 6. Mean and standard deviation (SD oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occas ion, I would be recreation oriented) Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .057 Task oriented 104 4.39 1.90 Recreation oriented 104 4.88 1.71 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .284 Warm 104 4.50 1.94 C ool 104 4.77 1.70 Light Contrast .093 Non uniform 104 4.42 1.84 Uniform 104 4.85 1.78 MO by CCT .592 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.19 1.96 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.60 1.84 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.81 1.88 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 4.94 1.54 MO by Light Contrast .939 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 4.17 1.94 Task oriented x Uniform 52 4.62 1.86 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.67 1.72 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 5.08 1.69 CCT by Light Contrast .444 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.38 1.92 Warm x Uniform 52 4.62 1.96 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.46 1.78 Cool x Uniform 52 5.08 1.57 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .251 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 3.92 1.98 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.46 1.94 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.42 1.90 Task oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 4.77 1.80 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.85 1.78 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.77 2.01 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.50 1.68 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5.38 1.27 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
93 Table E 7. Mean an d standard deviation (SD oriented motivational orientation (on this shopping occasion, I would try to have fun) Source n Mean* SD p value Motivational Orientation (MO ) .047 Task oriented 104 4.61 1.81 Recre ation oriented 104 5.09 1.71 Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT) .380 Warm 104 4.74 1.84 Cool 104 4.95 1.70 Light Contrast .006 Non uniform 104 4.51 1.88 Uniform 104 5.18 1.60 MO by CCT .873 Task oriented x Warm 52 4.52 1.77 Task oriented x Cool 52 4.69 1.86 Recreation oriented x Warm 52 4.96 1.91 Recreation oriented x Cool 52 5.21 1.49 MO by Light Contrast .338 Task oriented x Non uniform 52 4.15 1.90 Task oriented x Unifo rm 52 5.06 1.60 Recreation oriented x Non uniform 52 4.87 1.79 Recreation oriented x Uniform 52 5.31 1.60 CCT by Light Contrast .151 Warm x Non uniform 52 4.58 1.85 Warm x Uniform 52 4.90 1.84 Cool x Non uniform 52 4.44 1.91 Cool x Uniform 52 5.46 1.28 M O by CCT by Light Contrast .576 Task oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.31 1.87 Task oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 4.73 1.66 Task oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.00 1.96 Task oriente d x Cool x Uniform 26 5.38 1.50 Recreation oriented x Warm x Non uniform 26 4.85 1.83 Recreation oriented x Warm x Uniform 26 5.08 2.02 Recreation oriented x Cool x Non uniform 26 4.88 1.80 Recreation oriented x Cool x Uniform 26 5. 54 1.03 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree
94 APPENDIX F PARTICIPANT WRITTEN COMMENTS Table F 1. Participant written comments MO Most Preferred Least Preferred T Store Store A rly stone cold white C It looks like lights they would have in jail. B It's somewhere in between too bright and too dim that doesn't hurt my eyes. It's most comfortable. C Lighting is way too uneven and hurts my eyes. B Because it is the most amount of brightness and it is the warmest and most comfortable looking atmosphere. C It is way to non uniform with the lighting, plus it looks cold and uninviting. D I like to see best when I shop. Though C's lighting is the coolest, when I shop I would prefer D A Too dark; warm dim colors. D It makes me more ''awake'' and ''aroused'' and puts me in the mood to ''get the job done.'' A It's too dark. I find it annoying. Plus it's hard to see the true colors of purses. B Bright, but not too bright. Feels welco ming but not overwhelming. C Too dark. C Because there is such a small number of merchandise on the shelves, I think a dimly lit setting is more appropriate. However, the white, bright light adds to a chic atmosphere. D The brightness makes the store loo k extremely empty to me. B Very warm colors, good lightings to observe the bags. A Although it looks very chic, it would be difficult to unders tand how the bags look in the da y time. D It has the brightest light so you can see the clothes. A You can't really see the clothes properly. D I think this lighting is open and inviting. C It reminds me of a prison/police interrogation room the light contrast too much with the dark background. A It looks more exclusive. D Looks like the lighting is boring, doesn't look exciting. D It is the brightest and easiest to browse and see details. A It is too dark to really see the collections. D The lighting in D is much more natural looking than the other rooms. It is not too dark and doesn't have a yellow tin t like B. C It is too dark. It makes ot difficult to see and is dim and sleepy. It feels uninviting. B I just feel most comfortable looking at this image it is a nice balance. C It is harsh light in certain area, but remains dim in others. D It is bri ght and welcoming and really accentuates the design of the store. In turn, it makes me want to look at all of the handbags, not just a few on display. B The lighting of the store makes the objects appear an unnatural color and I would not want to enter thi s store. B It is bright enough to see detail in the handbags and be awake. C Much too dark. B I like the warm color of the lighting and how it evenly fills the room. It is also the perfect level of brightness, not too bright such as store D and not too dim, like store C. C The lighting in store C is not only cold but it is too dim. This would put me to sleep in the store. A Store A's lighting is warm, comfortable and invites you in to wander around, browse and enjoy the ambience. D Store D's lighting is too bright. The store feels uninviting and cold. B I most prefer store B because it is lit enough to see the products and has a nice, warm yellow tone. A The darkness with the yellow tone makes the lighting horrible to shop in. Too dark. D I like to be bright, so I can see what I'm A I think it distorts the true colors, when you go
95 looking at. out in the sun it's going to look different than you thought. B I like that it's well lit, but still warm. Store D is too bright, it seems cold, like a hospi tal. B is bright but still welcoming. A It feels dark, and I feel like it would be alone. It doesn't feel welcoming. B Store B has just enough lighting. I liked D too become it looks really lively, but it is too bright that I'd feel intimidated buying th ere. C It looks dark and morbid. D I prefer this lighting condition most because the clean, bright light allows you to see the true colors and details of the handbags. A I least prefer this lighting condition because it has a dark orange hue to it that i s both unflattering to the handbags and the customers. A It just looks the nicest. You can clearly see all the merchandise, but the lighting adds something extra. D It's just too bright, makes everything look plastic like and just not appealing. B It h as a warm, comforting feeling while maintaining it's elegance. C It is too cold feeling. D I like lighting I am a bright person. A It is too dark. I can't see anything well. B It is warm, not too dark, but not really light like D. Allows to see the pro ducts from a distance. D It is too light, does not give a sense of class or luxury. D It's bright and lively and keeps me awake and alert while I'm browsing. C The bright light is contrasting too much with the furniture and shelving. B The lighting is suggestion of the important factors but still allows you to be able to browse openly. Very welcoming. C It does nothing extra for the store. It does not provide any welcoming feeling. D It's lighting and lively. A It's very dark and gloomy. B Because it is just right. It isn't too dark and it isn't too bright. A Because it is way too dark. You want something that is bright and cheerful. C The lighting is still bright, but it doesn't wash out the room. B The yellowish lighting is not very enticing to shop in. D The other stores just seemed too dark for me and I didn't like how it seemed only the merchandise had lights on them. I want to choose what I'm most attracted to. A I didn't like how everything had a spot light and it seemed sort of yellowish and not bright. D It is the brightest of the four lighting options. I would feel awake in this store and ready to buy a purse. It is definitely more welcoming, and I can see the handbag I would be purchasing. A Because I can hardly see anything in this t ype of store. I would feel very unmotivated to buy something in this store as well. D Brightest feels lively, more vibrant, and happier. A Much too dark. B It still looks luxurious because it is not cluttered but it's not as intimidating and pretentio us. C Seems very pretentious and superficial. B There is enough light for me to see clearly without being too harsh. A Way too dark. B I was between B & D, but because the furniture is such a streamlined look and more ''futuristic'', the extra bright w hite light would make it too trendy. Adding a warm glow softens the sharp angles and makes it look more inviting (B). A The warm lighting contrasted with the dark spots and furniture makes for too much darkness. Everything sort of blends in together and lo oks indistinctive (too little contrast). With the darker setting, the more sparse white light in D is much more attention grabbing. B Not too bright, not too dark. A It looks dark and it might distort the color visually. B A looks like a stage, not conducive to shopping. B is warm and inviting C same as A, too dark. D too bright and clean, not my taste. A It's so dark and could hardly see what I'd be buying. D It is easier for me to see what I'm purchasing. I hate shopping in dark store. A Y ou can't even tell the color of the handbag.
96 B The lighting in this store is just right. It is bright enough to strike interest but not too bright to create a discomfort. A The lighting is too dim in this store for my liking. I would not feel comfortable shopping in this store because although the lighting is relaxing, it is not welcoming. D I like the brightness of the store because it feels more inviting and stimulating. A It is too dark. It is hard to see the products and the store seems very unwelco ming. B The lighting is enough to see items but not too bright and artificial. It's a pleasant medium of lighting. A Too dark, wouldn't be able to see all items as I would use them in every life. D The use of lighting is better you can explore, and see the products better. B They use a yellow light that I don't really like this makes me feel sleeping and can't see very well the products. D Because it is brighter than the other store. B It looks dull. boring, and yellow. B It's light, but warm. C It' s gloomy. D Brighter looks cleaner outs me in a better mood. A Too dark, can't see anything well darkens my mood. D It makes everything look elegant, sophisticated yet young, lively, and classy. Sweet as well. A Dim, brown, old, dark, gloomy, too snobb y. C It looks very hip, exclusive, and fun. It's dark but not too dark, like store A. It has a calm feeling to it but also would keep me interested in browsing. A Too dark and dull. B The store is bright enough to see all the merchandise, but it is not overwhelming. Stores A&C are too dark. Store D is too bright. C The store is too dark. I feel like I couldn't see the detailing in the merchandise accurately. D It is what we are the most used to seeing it. It looks like there aren't lights and it's th e sun lighting the store. A It's way too dark, especially for shopping. It feels like a night club. D I like the brightness because I like seeing what I'm shopping in. I like knowing what color the item is, as opposed to being deceived by dim lighting. A Too dark, you can't see. Colors are distorted. D It is bright and makes me stimulated and excited to shop. It also looks more affordable. A It is too dark. It makes me think the store is too exclusive and luxurious. B It has warm lighting, which creat es a more relaxing mood and matches the professional and classy clothing. C It is too dark and doesn't provide a warm tone. D It's bright and clean looking. It provides the best lighting for the bags and wakes me up. The darker stores A&C make me want to go to sleep, store B makes me bored for some reason. I like that store D seems bright and fresh. A It makes me really tired and honestly hurts my eyes. It's almost like you are in a cave or something. D It is bright, balanced, easy to see everything and would allow me to use the bright lights everywhere to see the details of each handbag. A Hard to see detail of purposes. Not bright at all, very grim and secretive like. B Not too bright, but not too dark, very inviting. D Too many gray tones. I don't like how dead the store looks. D The lights are bright enough so I can take everything in and see which goods I am attracted to right away. A The lighting is way too dim, and I would have trouble viewing the merchandise clearly. D You can see everythin g perfectly so you can focus on the products as opposed to the lighting. And it is the most welcoming. A It is too dark, almost gloomy can't see the bags as well as most seems deceiving. D This is a very colorful and bright store. Therefore, the lights s hould be bright, too. A Too brown of a color. D It is the brightest, the rest put me to sleep. A It is way too dark. D It shows the merchandise the best and is the A I don't like the look of for the sepia
97 easiest to navigate through. merchandise. It a lters the actual color of the clothing once you see it in the natural light, it may appear different from when you purchased it. B I like the lights you can see the items clearly but it is not so bright that you feel unnatural. A The lighting is too dim and it would be difficult to see whether or not the color truly appears to you. D The brighter it is the easier it is to see the merchandise you are interested in buying. A I don't like the yellow tone and the darkness. I want to be able to see items that I am buying. D Because it's so bright. C Because it's so dim and dark. D Very well lit and does not make me sleepy and tired. Keeps me stimulated. A Too warm and dark. This would make me too relaxed making me fall asleep and not buying anything. C The bags are clearly highlighted so they appear very bright, but the dim lights make the store seem more luxurious. B You can't see the real colors of the bags. It looks old fashioned. B It reminds me of a department store spacious with nice merchandi se it's lively. The bags stand out and attract my attention. A Too dark, gloomy it doesn't highlight the handbag products. B Compared to A and C it is brighter, which I like more but the white brightness of D would hurt my eyes. Store B is the most welco ming and aesthetically pleasing. D It's too bright and lighting is irritating. C I feel like the purses are more lit up so you can see the product yet it still gives that chic feeling. B It's very plain, nothing really exciting about it. A No specific reason. C Least professional. B It's not too dark but not too bright. C Dark areas and light areas make weird shadows. C Still have dim lighting but more mystery, less prestige implied. A I didn't want to squint to see the bag. B Looks less intimida ting, but still luxurious. D Looks harsh and cheaper. D It makes me more awake and excited to shop. A The lighting, while calming and relaxing, seems a little boring. D It looks modern, clean, and happy. B The tint in the light almost makes it seem lik e you have sunglasses on. B The store is bright and nice, but not too space age. C Too dark and I can't see the merchandise. C The bags look beautiful and the store looks welcoming. A It is entirely too dark. A I really like the darkness in luxury st ores because I feel like nobody is always watching you. B It's all a yellow tint and that's one of my least favorite colors. D Bright ''cool'' lighting, looks bigger and more spacious. C Too dark. D It is bright and luxurious and you can see exactly wh at is in the store clearly. A It is not bright enough. It appears to be way too dim. B The lighting is warm not too dark, not too bright. D Way too bright. This lighting would make me want to leave the store quickly. D L like being in a room/ store whe re there is light so I can see what I am buying. A Too dim in there, it makes me feel strange. D The bright lights make me feel excited and realy for a day of shopping. They also make the merchandise appear much more approachable and ''down to earth''. A It is much too dark and the ''warmth'' of the lights distort the colors of the merchandise. The store seems ''stuck up''. B It's not too light, like D, that I would feel cold in, but with B there is a warm feeling about it that makes me want to shop. A This lighting is not only dark but is off sets the actual color of the purses which would out me in a very difficult position to shop in. D Store D seems more welcoming. The lighting in stores A and C are too dim. A The yellow lighting is annoying to me.
98 D It is bright, attractive and welcoming. A It is too dark and I would feel uncomfortable. C The darkness excites me, making em want to explore. A It's brown and too warm, not a fan at all. I would want to leave quickly. I like cool lighting. C A don't like the foggy, yellowish lighting. B don't like the yellowish lighting. D lighting is okay, but not the best pick. C creates a better shopping mood. A It's very bad lighting overall. C Because it is darker so I could shop without people watc hing me. B The bright and gloomy yellow. A Although it may be too dark to actually shop through, it certainly has a very elegant look to it. I would definitely shop through this store, just because I believe it would be fun. It would score high in custom er experience. D Too traditional and very standard. Lighting is just one level above Walmart. D It is lit up the most, allowing your eyes to focus on the products, rather than the mood lighting. C Everything is dark except for the area where a product is. It is unpleasing to the eye and dreary looking D It is very bright, not dull and keeps you awake. C Very dark, dull and kind of depressing. B I think this is the best lighting for this type of nice handbag store. It makes the bags look more luxuri ous and emphasizes the quality of them. it is warm and created a comfortable and atmosphere for browsing. It is not too dark and not too bright. A It is too dark and dim. This makes it look as though the store is hiding something. B It has a lot of light ing but it looks warm and comfortable. C It's too dark, and I like the yellow lights better than white. A It's bright but still tasteful. It really highlights the merchandise. C To dark in the room, too many weird shadows. B The lighting is slightly di mmed, but just enough so you get the dull appeal of the purses. Store A&C are too dark and do not accentuate and make the quality and look at the purses stand out. I would be most happy and productive at store B. D It looks too artificial, very black and w hite. Dull. D Exciting, pump me up for my interview, doesn't have the expensive feel. A Too night club and relax, not a fun exciting shopping experience. B Warm lighting, not too bright or too dim. D Intense, bright light. B Looking at them side by s ide, it's just the I was most drawn to. A Look a little creepy to me, and tasteless reminds me of Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister when I relate to being trashy. B It isn't too much lighting that it glares yet. It isn't too dark so you think it's right time, it's relaxed. A It looks like a cave. B Because it appears more welcoming and easier to browse. It's lively and I would spend much time in there. C It is too dark and seems a little complex. It would not catch my eye at all. D It is not too brigh t or too dark. It seems like a relaxing environment and isn't yellow lighting. B It is too bright and yellow. MO Most Preferred Least Preferred R Store Store D I feel the merchandise is really exhibited well and lit can enhance the shopping experie nce. A It feels too dark and takes away from the merchandise that is an display. C It is a very modern look. The dark furnishing and spot lighting makes the store unique and exclusive. Almost as if you'd feel special to be able to shop there. D The ligh ting is too bright for what the store is trying to accomplish. An exclusive high class store, I feel should be darker.
99 B The store is the most bright and the yellow tint of lighting is warming. C It is very dark and gloomy. B This feels the most natur al. A Too dark for the products. You can barely see them. D The lighting is bright making the store appear more ''clean'' and neat. A The store appears to be uninviting due to the dark yellow tinted lighting. B Not too harsh or too dark, but warmer tha n the others and well lit. D looks like harsh, ugly fluorescent lighting. A&C are just too dark. D Fluorescent makes everything look horrible, especially women. When I look in the mirror to model each bag, don't I want to feel attractive with the bag and t hus more likely to buy it? B The lighting is bright so it is easy to see merchandise, price tags, etc. A It is too dark to be able to see the merchandise clearly and easily which would lead to a stressful shopping experience. B Because it's bright but with a warm light to it which make it welcoming. C Because it looks very gloomy and scary. I wouldn't want to going a store like that. C Seems chic and exciting. Adding bonus is having white light so I can see colors clearly. Very unique. D Too bright/ i mpersonal feel. Looks blinding. A It dim yet I can clearly see the merchandise. D Much too bright. B The lighting seems welcoming and makes shopping for items enjoyable and easy. A The intricate lighting gets annoying when you can't see things througho ut the whole store. B This store has a significant amount of light. Although store D is brighter, this store has warmer, more calming lights. People are probably more willing to spend more money when they are calm and relaxed. A Too dark. B It's warm a nd lit make the store colors look nicer and more elegant. A It looks like the store is closed and might be difficult to see things. D Bright and shopping stimulating atmosphere. C Bright and cold. B It's not too dark but not too bright either. D N/C B It's comfortable, not too dark so i can't see things, but not too annoyingly light. A It's so dark, it almost looks dirty. D Although D can be seen as harsh, I feel like you can best see the product in which you're buying with this lighting. A You can see the product the least with this lighting while it looks high class, it's just not effective. A I imagined a pleasant, relaxing store, so I would prefer the first one. C It was bright and had annoying kids. B I prefer a lot of lighting. It makes the store look more spacious. A Too dark and morbid. B It's not too dark but not too bright makes me feel warm and comfortable. A Too dark and tinted. B It's not too bright to where you feel blinded and open to where everyone can plainly see you. When I s hop, I want to be able to see the merchandise and not stick out for everyone to see me as I browse. C The white lighting makes me feel like I'm at an art gallery and cannot touch any of the merchandise because it is only for display. B It is not too brig ht or dull. A It is too dark to see the merchandise. B The lighting just warm and bright enough to feel comfortable and stimulate my interests. I would more likely go in and buy something here. A It is too artificial for me. B I like how it is calm and relaxed, not too dark and no too bright. It's soothing to look at. A I really don't like the darkness at all, I think all stores should have a decent amount of light in them. The dark look makes me feel uncomfortable. B The lighting is not too bright an d not too dull. A That is too dull and boring. B I like the warm tone and it's brighter. A It's too dim. C I chose C because it's light enough for the shopper to enjoy the merchandise, but not too light to overwhelm them. D The lighting is too overwhel ming and would stress out the shopper.
100 C I like the edginess with white lighting. It is more modern. A It makes it seem more geared towards older women. B Great balance highlights the architecture, great floors, etc. A Too dark like a cave. A It seem s warm and energetic. The spot lights put more emphasize on the products than the entire store, which seems less snobby/ exclusive. B The monotone lighting and simple display make the entire store seemed aimed at ''high class'' audiences. It seems cold and exclusive. A It isn't too bright like Store B&D, and something about store C isn't as appealing to me. D It is too bright. None of the merchandise is as showcased as in STORE a. B It makes me feel the most comfortable and I think it is the most inviti ng. A The lighting is way too dark for my preference. B Warm and bright. A Too warm and dark. Not welcoming. D A&C are too dark and look like the store is closed. B looks like lighting would give me a headache or make me look bad in the dressing room. A It looks like the store is trying too hard to be exclusive and chic. Also it looks like it would be hard to really see the merchandise. B I hate darkness, it's unwelcoming. B is like normal good stores but not harsh. A Dark, unwelcoming, can't accurate ly see merchandise. D The lighting in this store is a lot brighter than the other three, and it would make me feel more invited into this store since I would actually be able to see the merchandise. A It has the dullest light compared to the other three. A Because most relaxing, chic and still has enough light to see everything while highlighting their products. D Too bright and irritating lights to shop in. Doesn't seem as high class and exclusive. A Not too bright. Cozy. D Super bright. D Bright, can see colors and options better. Lively instead of sleepy. A Too dark and gloomy to shop in. D Bright, light colors. A Gives me a headache. Too dark. B It is not too dim and not too bright. I want to be able to examine the merchandise in the light bu t not be blinded by it either. A This store looks too dim and not as inviting as the others. A It really highlights the merchandise. D It's way too bright. B It's not too dark nor too bright. I can see the merchandise clearly. Looks warm and inviting. A Way too dark to see the products. C It has burst of light that are bright but has a cool darkness to it. It's relaxed and elegant and young. A I feel like I'm in an oven, or wearing sunglasses inside. C It's not too bright, and I just like how the pr oducts seem as if they're in some kind of spotlight. A I don't like the tint, and how everything seems to be brown. C It lights up the merchandise nicely and makes the room have an elegant and distinctive feel. B It is unflattering light and doesn't make anything stand out. D I enjoy the bright lights make you feel warm and awake. A It is too dark and would make me feel sleepy. D I like that it is very bright. A The lighting is definitely way too dark. C lit makes it stand out and look luxurious. B Not very inviting. C I think the lighting blends well with the surrounding. It creates a luxurious feel while still being able to clearly see the product. B The tint makes everything look bland. Although it seems warm, I do not find it inviting. A B&D are lifeless. It was hard to choose between A&C, but I chose A because though I get tired by looking at it. It reminds me of the warm sun or a beach. B Boring, dull, lifeless, dim. C It looks very chic. The black brightens the rest of the room because t he handbags are different colors. A It is too hazy, can't really tell what is what in the store.
101 D So I can actually see the merchandise. A It is dark to walk around, and the lights placed on the items don't even show their true color. D I like bright when I'm doing a task so this is the best lighting. A This is not just dark but the yellow makes it dim and dark A weird felling. B Not too bright but easy to understand and still fun. A Way too dark. D Makes me feel like I would be more energized to shop. A Takes away from the merchandise and makes the store look boring. C It's not too warm or bright. B It is awkwardly warm and bright. It doesn't mix. C Brookstone is a ''comfort'' store so the lighting is a little more dim, allowing you to relax. B I do not prefer it, it is just less personal feeling, because of its brightness. D I can easily see everything and I don't have to guess what the items are going to look like in daylight. A It is dark and yellow. It doesn't present the products best. C The dim setting for the overall room is good because it creates a more professional and sophisticated look. However, the merchandise is highlighted providing the true colors and emphasis on the product. D Department store lighting shows no attempt in merging the designs of the purse with the room. There is no personality. A The lighting was bright enough so I could see every item in the store and kept me awake and motivated to look around. D This store had very dim lighting and wore me out to the poi nt where I didn't want to shop anymore. D Light, you can see merchandise. Not in a dark dungeon. A is more mood lighting for a club. A More like a date night lighting. A N/C D N/C C It isn't too bright or dim, and the light represents the colors well Scenes A&B might give things a yellow tint. B It makes things look yellow and dull. D It is bright and easy to see, as well as a happier atmosphere. A Too dark and warm. B Store D is too bright, it is no longer relaxing and comforting. Store A and C are a bit too dark to be able to see and the detail in the items. A It looks yellow and uninviting. It is hard to examine the detail of the products. It looks unwelcoming. D I like bright, cool colors. I like that the entire store is lit up, not just the handbags. A The store feels too dark and gloomy to me. I don't like the warmness of the colors. B Not too bright but it's warm and comfortable. Easy to see merchandise.. D Way too bright. Too casual feeling. B It's inviting, calm and warm lighting but bright enough to be able to properly see all of the items. D The lighting is too bright and makes the store feel very clinical and almost sterile. B Not too bright, but dim enough to feel comfortable and can still see all the products. A Really dark and tinted, makes me feel sleepy and a bit discouraged about shopping there. B There is enough light to see clearly, but is not too bright or glaring. D It is too bright and looks very artificial. A N/C D N/C A It is very warm and expensive looking. D I t is way too bright. D Has lot of light. A Too dark. B Bright enough while still warm looking C Way too dark and gloomy. D Bright, inviting, easy to see merchandise. A Dark. Uninviting. It feels too exclusive and almost as if they're hiding something D It's very bright, lively, and welcoming. The bright lights make the products stand out more. C Dark, depressing, boring. D I can see everything. Bright lighting makes me excited about buying something. A Too gloomy. B The lighting is bright enoug h to see while still being dim enough to relax the shopper. A With lighting like this, it is hard to see the products features, specifically its true color. D I like store D because it is brightly lit. I like A I don't like store A becau se it is very dark. The
102 the white light. yellowish tint is also unattractive makes me uncomfortable. D I think the bags should have more life to them. A Too dim for a bag store. C Because the light condition. Although it is dim, the items are highlighted well and are e asily seen. D It is too bright and makes the store look stiff. B It is not as bright as D, so there is still ''mood'' lighting present. The fact that it isn't as dim as A&C makes the merchandise more shoppable and less of an art exhibit. D It's too brigh t! It doesn't match the luxury of the displays. B The lighting adds some ambience without being too over or overwhelming. It seems most welcoming. D I feel like I wouldn't have the confidence to go into this store knowing I wouldn't buy anything. The sal es associates probably pester shoppers more with this lighting. Lighting seem s stiff. D Lights, lights, lights! Bright, modern, rewarding, uplifting white. A Nasty, dark, annoying, not welcoming. Show me the door! A I prefer warm tones and interesting lighting presentation. D It looks very unwelcoming, very sterile. C It is calm yet highlights its merchandise. B It is too yellow and bright. C It is dim but not too dim, it offers a bit or privacy and calming atmosphere. B It is an awkward stage or l ighting. It should either be well lit or dim, the in between seem cheap. D Bright stimulating. A Too dark. B Because there's not too much light to make it seem to lively, but it's dim enough to create a nice calm atmosphere. A It seems too dark, it rem inds me of Hollister. B It is a good in between among the four. If it is too dark, I would get tired and maybe get a headache. A It would give me a headache. It'd make it hard to see prices of merchandise. C Makes the store look exclusive and it focus on products only. A The colors do not seem to blend. B It's not too dark and not too light. A It's really dark. B Not too bright, not too dim. Just right. Seems lively and I can see everything crystal clear! A I would take a nap there. Too dark. I'd ba rely be able to see the difference in clothing. The fitting room would be unbearable. D It is easiest to see the merchandise. A Although C is just as dark, it's not darker. I do not like the warm color tones that distort the colors of the bags. D I mos t prefer this because it is easy to see the products. The lighting and presentation is still upscale without the annoying dark mood. I feel it is uplifting. A It is too different to see in this store. It makes me sleepy and irritated. D It helps to ident ify the color of the merchandise. A It is too dark and I can't see the items clearly. A It is warm and dark. It reminds me of the lighting situations. I would be wearing the handbags. D It reminds me of Kmart or Walmart. Cheap and not food quality. D N/C A N/C D It isn't too bright, like store B. The lighting is even, unlike store C. And it isn't romantic and weird like store A. A I feel like this is how lighting is done on a romantic restaurant, not a store! B It's not too dark, like A&C. Or too b right like D. D It is too bright. A Love the dim lighting, while areas where the items are lit up. D It looks the dullest. D N/C A N/C B I think the lighting is perfectly visible. Not too dark where you can't explore the merchandise, and not too brig ht where you A Too dark, feel like you're entering a cave.
103 can see every imperfection. Note. MO = motivational orientation, T = task oriented, R = recreation oriented, A = warm/non uniform, B = warm/uniform, C = cool/non uniform, D = cool/uniform, N/C ind icates no comment.
104 LIST OF REFERENCES Alpert, M.I Alpert, J.I., & Maltz, E. N (2005). Purchase occasion influence on the role of music in advertising. Journal of Business Research 58(3), 369 376. Appel, D.L. (1970). Market Segmentation A Response to Retail Innovation. Journal of Marketing 34, 64 66. Areni, C. & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11(2), 117 125. Arnold, M.J. & Rey nolds, K.E. (2003). Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing 79(2), 77 95. Babin, B.J. & Attaway, J.S. (2000). Atmosphere affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research 49(2), 91 99. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (4), 644 656. Babin, B.J., Hardesty, D.M., & Suter, T.A. (2003). Color and shopping intentions: the intervening effect of price fairness and perceived affect. Journal of Business Research, 56(7), 541 51. Baker, J. (1986). The role of environment in marketing services: the consumer perspective. In The Service Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage Eds. John A. C epeil et al. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 79 84. Baker, J., Grewal, D., & Parasuraman, A. (1994). The influence of store environment on quality inferences and store image. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 328 339. Baker J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4) 445 460. Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cu es on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions. Journal of Marketing 66(2), 120 141. Baron, R.A., Rea, M.S., & Daniels, S.G. (1992). Effects of indoor lighting (illuminance and spectral distribution) on the performance of cognitive tasks and i nterpersonal behaviors: The potential mediating role of positive affect. Motivation and Emotion, 1 1 33. Baumstarck, A. & Park, N.K. (2010). The Effects of Dressing Room Lighting on Consumers' Perceptions of Self and Environment. Journal of Interior Desig n 35(2), 37 49. Belizzi, J.A ., Crowley, A.E., & Hasty, R.W. (1983). The effects of color in store design Journal of Retailing, 59(1), 21 45.
105 Bellen ger, D.N. & Korgaonkar, P.K. (1980). Profiling the Recreational Shopper. Journal of Retailing 56 (4), 77 92. Bellenger, D.N., Robertson, D.H., & Greenberg, B. (1977). Shopping Center Patronage Motives. Journal of Retailing 53(2), 29 38. Bitner, M.J. (199 0). Evaluating Service Encounters: The Effects of Physical Surroundings and Employee Responses. The Journal of Marketing 54(2). 69 82. Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes : The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Market ing, 56(2) 57 67. Biner, P.M., Bulter, D.L., Fischer, A.R., & Westergren, A.J. (1989). An arousal optimization model of lighting level preferences; An interaction of social situation and task demands. Environmental and Behavior, 21 3 16. Blankertz, D.F. (1949 1950). Motivation and Rationalization in Retail Buying. Public Opinion Quarterly 18(4), 659 667. Boyce, P.R. (2003). Human Factors in Lighting Boca Raton : CRC Press LLC Boyce, P.R., Lloyd, C.J., Ekhund, N.H., & Brandston, H.M. (1996). Quantifying the effects of good lighting: the green hills farms project. Paper presented at the meeting of the Illumination Engineering Society of North America, Cleveland, OH. Buckley, P.G. (1991). An S O R Model of The Purchase of an Item in a Store. Advances in Co nsumer Research 18(1), 491 500. Campbell,C. (2000). Shopaholics, spendaholics, and the question of gender. In A. Benson (Ed.), I shop, therefore I am: Compulsive buying and the search for self ( pp. 57 75). NewYork: Aronson. Chayutsahakij, P. (1998). The e ffects of lighting design on preference in the retail interior Environment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY (IL; M). Chebat, J cognition, and spe nding: a test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research 56, 529 539. Childers, T.L., Carr, C.L., Peck, J., & Carson, S. (2001) Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for online retail shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing 77 (4), 511 5 35. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., &Mahajan, V. (2008). Delight by Design: The Role of Hedonic Versus Utilitarian Benefits. Journal of Marketing 72(3), 48 63. Clore, G.L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Cognitive causes and consequences of emotion. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 323 417). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106 Crowley, A.E. (1993). The two dimensional impact of color on shopping. Marketing Letters 4(1), 59 69. Custers, PJM., Kort, YAW.de., IJsselateijn, WA. & Kruiff, ME. de. (2010). Lighting in retail environments: Atmosphere perception in the real world. Lighting Research and Technology 42 (3), 331 343 Cuttle, C. & Brandston, H. (1995) Evaluation of retail lighting. Journal of Illuminating Engineering Society 24(2), 33 49. Darden & Ashton 1974 Dardin, W.R. & Ashton, D., (1974) Psychographic profiles of patronage preference groups. Journal of Retailing 50(4) 99 102. Darden, W.R., & Reynolds, F.D., (1971). Shoppin g Orientations and Product Usage Rates. Journal of Marketing Research 8(4), 505 508. Davis, R.G. (2011). This is your brain on lighting: the author reviews what we've learned and what we still don't know about cognitive and emotional responses to lightin g. Lighting Design + Application 41 (2), 52 56 Dawson, S., Bloch, P.H., and Ridway, N.M. (1990). Shopping motives, emotional states, and retail outcomes. Journal of Retailing 66 (4), 408 27. Diamond, J., & Diamond, E. (2006). Contemporary Visual Merchandis ing and Environmental Design (4th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58(1) 34 57. Donovan, R. J., Rossiter, J. R., Marcoolyn, G ., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. Journal of Retailing, 70(3) 283 294. Eroglu, S A., Machleit, K., & Barr, T. F (2005) Perceived retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: The role of shopping values. Journal of Business R esearch 58181, 1 146 1 153. Fleischer, S., Krueger, H., & Schierz C. (2001). Effect of brightness distribution and light colors on office staff, The 9th European Lighting Conference Proceeding Book of Lux Europa, 77 80. Flynn, J.E. (1977). Procedures for investigating the effect of light on impressions. Environment and Behavior, 9(4), 491 510. Flynn, J.E. (1992). Lighting design decisions as interventions in human visual space. In J.L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research and Application s (pp 156 170).New York: Cambridge University Press.
107 Flynn, J.E., Spencer, T. J. Martyniuk, O., & Hendrick, C. (1973) Interim study of procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression and behavior Journal of the Illumination Engineers Soc iety 3, 87 94. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gifford, R. (1988). Light, Dcor, Arousal, Comfort and Communication, Journal of Environmental Psyc hology, 8 177 189. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice (3rd Ed.) University of Victoria, Canada: Optimal Books. Golden, L.G. & Zimmerman, Z.A. (1986). Effective Retailing Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Gordon, G. (2003). Interior Lighting for Designers New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. Grewal, D. & Baker, J. (1994). Do Retail Store Environmental Factors Affect Consumers' Price Acceptability? An Empirical Examination. International Journal of Research in Marketing 11(2), 10 7 115. Grewal, D., Baker, J., Levy, M. & Voss, G.B. (2003). The effects of wait expectations and store atmosphere evaluations on patronage intentions in service intensive retail stores. Journal of Retailing 79(4), 259 268. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Ar chitectural Research Methods New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons Grossbart, S., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., & Lapidus, R.S. (1990). Environmental dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of Business Research 21(3) ,225 241. Heidingsfiel d, M.S. (1949). Why Do People Shop in Downtown Department Stores? The Journal of Marketing 13(4), 510 512. Hendrick, C., Martyniuk, O., Spencer, T.J., & Flynn, J.E. (1977). Procedures for investigating the effect of light on impression. Environment and B ehavior 9(4), 491 510. Hill, R.P. & Gardner, M.P ( 1987) The Buying Process: Effects of and on Consumer Mood States Advances in Consumer Research 14 408 410 Hui, M.K. & Bateson, J.E.G. (1991). Perceived control and the effect of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 174 184. Hendrick, Martyniuk Hui, M.K., Dub, L. & Chebat, JC. (1997). Waiting for Services. Journal of Retailing 73 (1), 87 104.
108 Jolson, M. A. & Spath, W.F. (1973). Understanding and Fulfilling Shoppers' Requirements. Journal of Retailing 49(2), 38. Kaltcheva, V.D. & Weitz, B.A. (2006). When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? Journal of Marketing 70, 107 118. Karlen, M. & Benya, J. (2004). Lighting design basics Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Kotler, P. (1973 1974). Atmospherics as a Marketing Tool. Journal of Retailing ,49(4), 48 64. Kller. R., Ballal. S., Laike. T., Mikellides. B., & Tonello, G. (2006). The impact of light and colour on psychological mood: a cross cultural study of indoor work environments, Ergonomics 49(14) 1496 1507. Lazer, W. & Kelley, E.J. (1961). The Retailing Mix: Planning and Management. Journal of Retailing 37, 34 41. Machleit, K.A. & Eroglu, S.A (2000). Describing and measu ring the emotional response to shopping experience. Journal of Business Research 49, 101 11. Machleit, K.A., Kellaris, J.J. & Eroglu, S.A. (1994). Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments : A note on their measurement and effects on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters 5 183 194. Magnum, S.R. (1998). Effective constrained illumination of three dimensional, light sensitive objects. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society 27, 11 5 31. Mahdavi, A. & Eissa, H. (2002). Subjective Evaluation of Architectural Lighting Via Computationally Rendered Images. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society 3 1(2), 11 20. Marsden, J. living. Environment and Behavior, 31(1) 8 4 106. Mattila, A.S.,& Wirtz, J. (2001). Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in store evaluations and behavior. Journal of Retailing 77(2), 273 289. Massara, F., Liue, S.S., & Melara, R.D. (2009). Adapting to a retail environment: modeling consum er environment interaction. Journal of Business Research 63(7), 673 681. Maxwell, S. & Kover, A. (2003). Negative affect: the dark side of retailing. Journal of Business Research 56, 553 559. McCloughan, C. L. B., Aspinall, P. A. & Webb, R. S. (1999). T he impact of lighting on mood. Lighting Research and Technology 31, 81 88. Mehrabian, A. (1976). Public Places and Private Spaces: The Psychology of Work, Play, and Living Environments New York, NY: Basic Books.
109 Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J.A. (1974). An a pproach to environmental psychology MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Milliman, R.E. (1982). Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing 46 86 91. Milliman, R.E. (1986). The Influence of Background Music on the B ehavior of Restaurant Patrons. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 286 289. Morrin, M., & Ratneswhar, S. (2000). The Impact of Ambient Scent on Evaluation, Attention, and Memory for Familiar and Unfamiliar Brands. Journal of Business Research 49(2), 157 165. Newsham, G.R., Richardson, C., Blanchet, C. & Veitch, JA. (2005). Lighting quality research using rendered images of offices. Lighting Research and Technology 37(2), 96 112. Oi, N. (2005). The Difference among Generations in Evaluating Interior Ligh ting Environment, Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 24(1), 87 91. Orth, U.R., Limon, Y., & Rose, G. (2010). Store evoked affect, personalities, and consumer emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Business Research 63(11 ), 1202 1208 Park, N. intentions in a retail environment: a cross cultural comparison. Journal of Interior Design, 33(1) 17 32. Park, N. K., Pae, J. Y. & Meneely, J. (201 0). Cultural Preferences in Hotel Guestroom Lighting Design. Journal of Interior Design 36(1), 21 34. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business a stage Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Quartier, K ., Christiaans, H. & van Cleempoel, K. (2008), Retail design: lighting as an commercial spaces. Conference Item: Design Research Society Conference, Sheffield, UK. Rea, M. S. (2000 ). IESNA Lighting Handbook: reference and application, (9th Ed.). New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Publications Department. Roush, M.L. (1994). The Retail Rx. Lighting Design and Application. 24, 27 31. Russell, J .A. (1978). Evidence of convergent validity on the dimensions of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(10), 1152 1168. Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality of environments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 311 322.
110 Russell, J. A., & Snodgrass, J. (1987). Emotion and the environment. In D.Stokols & I. Altman (Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology 245 280. New York: Wiley. Schlosser, A.E. (1998). Applying the functional theory of a ttitudes to understanding the influence of store atmosphere on store inferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7(4), 345 369. Sherman, E. & Smith, R.B. (1986). Mood states of shoppers and store image: promising interactions and possible behavioral effec ts. Advances in Consumers Research 14, 251 254. Sherman, E., Mathur, A. & Smith, R.B. (1997). Store environment and consumer purchase behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology and Marketing 14(4), 361 378. Sheppard, S. R. J. (1989). Visu al simulation: A user's guide for architects, engineers, and planners New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Singh, R. (2006). An Empirical Investigation into the Effects of Shopping Motivation on Store Environment Value Relationship. Unpublished Doctoral Disse rtation. The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Smith, P.C., & Curnow, R. (1966). ''Arousal hypothesis'' and the effects of music on purchasing behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 50(3), 255 256. Sommer, B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical gu ide to behavioral research; Tool and Techniques (4th Ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Sweeney & Wyber, 2002 Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E., & Henderson, P.W. (1996). Improving the Store Environment: Do Olfactory Cues Affect Evaluations and Beh aviors? The Journal of Marketing 60(2), 67 80. Steffy, G. R. (2008). Architectural Lighting Design (3rd Ed.) New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. Stone, G.P. (1954). City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observations on the Social Psychology of City Life. Ame rican Journal of Sociology 60 (1), 36 45. Summers, T.A. and Hebert, P.R. (2001). Shedding some light on store atmospherics: influence of illumination on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research 54(2), 145 50. Turner, J. (1998). Retail spaces: Light ing solutions for shops, malls and markets Switzerland: RotoVision. Turley & Milliman, 2000 Van Erp, T.A.M. (2008). The effects of lighting characteristics on atmosphere perception. Unpublished Master Thesis. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
111 Wakefield, K.L & Baker, J. (1998). Excitement at the mall: Determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing 74(4), 515 539. Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological represent of molar p hysical environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110 121 152. Westbrook, R.A. & Black, W.C. (1985). A Motivation Based Shopper Typology. Journal of Retailing 61(1), 78 103. Williams, R.H. Painter, J.J., and Nichols, H.R. (1978). A Policy Oriented Typology of Grocery Shoppers. Journal of Retailing 54 (1), 27 43. Winchip, S. (2008). Fundamentals of Lighting New York City: Fai rchild Publications Inc.
112 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lee Hsuan, L was born in Taipei, Taiwan in October 1982 In June of 2006 she obtained a Bachelor of Art in fashion design from Shih Chien University, Taipei, Taiwan. After working as an costume designer in Taipei, Taiwan Lee Hsuan decided to go to the U niversity of Florida to earn her Master of Interior Design. Her main research interest focuses on retail store environment but she is always interested in and eager for more knowledge relate d to the design field