THE EFFECT OF LIGHT CONTRAST ON IN A RETAIL ENVIRONMENT : A CROSS CULTURAL COMPARISON By AMANDA LE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2014
2 2014 Amanda Le
3 To my parents for all of their love and support
4 ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to my thesis c hair, Dr. Nam Kyu Park, for her patience, guidance and words of encouragement. Her confidence in me has helped me through out this entire process, especially during times when I doubted m yself. I would also like to thank my committee member, Candy Carmel Gilfilen, for her insight and con s tructive advice. My thesis would not have been successful if it w ere not for thei r wisdom and knowledge. For that, I am truly grateful. I would also like to thank my wonderful family and sweet friends for their continuous love and support. Without them, I would not be where I am today. They have given me the strength to persevere and I can only hope to make them proud.
5 T ABLE OF CONTEN TS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 LIST OF TERMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1 1 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1 2 CHAPTE R 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 4 2 LITERATURE REV IEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 8 Store Atmospherics and Lighting Design ................................ ................................ 1 8 Culture an d Design ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 4 Environmental Preference ................................ ................................ ...................... 33 Theoretical Framework for the Study ................................ ................................ ...... 39 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 41 Experimental Setting ................................ ................................ .............................. 41 Lighting Conditions ................................ ................................ ................................ 43 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 48 Instrument ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 52 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 53 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 56 Characteristics of Participants ................................ ................................ ................ 56 Reliability of Measures ................................ ................................ ........................... 58 Manipulation Checks ................................ ................................ .............................. 59 Store Type : Formalwear/Casualwear ................................ ............................... 59 Thinking Style : Analytic/Holistic ................................ ................................ ....... 60 Light Contrast: Uniform/Non Uniform ................................ ............................... 60 Understanding and Exploration ................................ ................................ .............. 61 Theory ................................ ....... 63 Coherence ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 63 Complexity ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 63 Legibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 64 Mystery ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 65
6 Correlations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 66 Understanding: Coherence and Legibility ................................ ........................ 66 Exploration: Complexity and Mystery ................................ ............................... 67 Lighting Perceptions ................................ ................................ ............................... 67 Emotional State: Arousal and Pleasure ................................ ................................ .. 72 Arousal State ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 72 Pleasure State ................................ ................................ ................................ 73 Behavioral Intentions ................................ ................................ .............................. 74 A ttention ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 75 Lighting Preferences ................................ ................................ ............................... 77 Comments on Lighting Preferences ................................ ................................ ........ 78 Light Factors ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 81 Preference Theory ................................ ................................ ........................... 82 Store Atmosphere ................................ ................................ ............................ 82 Emotional Response ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 84 Kapl ................................ ................................ 84 Understanding: Coherence and Legibility ................................ ........................ 84 Exploration: Complexity and Mystery ................................ ............................... 87 Lighting Preferences ................................ ................................ ........................ 89 Lighting Perceptions ................................ ................................ ............................... 91 Emotional State: Arousal and Pleasure ................................ ................................ .. 93 Arousal State ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 93 Pleasure State ................................ ................................ ................................ 95 Behavioral Intentions ................................ ................................ .............................. 97 Attention ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 98 Conclusions and Implications ................................ ................................ ................. 99 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 4 B IRB REVISION A PPROVAL ................................ ................................ ................ 10 5 C CONSENT FORM ENGLISH ................................ ................................ ............. 10 6 D CONSENT FORM CHINESE ................................ ................................ ............. 10 7 E INSTRUMENT ENGLISH ................................ ................................ .................. 10 8 F INSTRUMENT CHINESE ................................ ................................ .................. 11 3 G AMERICAN PARTI MENTS ................................ ....... 12 1 H CHINESE PARTIC ENTS ................................ .......... 12 6
7 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 1 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 2
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Demographic characteristics of the participants ................................ ................. 58 4 2 understanding ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 61 4 3 ......... 62 4 4 exploration ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 62 4 5 .............. 62 4 6 Mean and standard deviation coherence ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63 4 7 ............... 63 4 8 ighting evaluation of complexity ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 64 4 9 ............... 64 4 10 legibi lity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 65 4 11 ................... 65 4 12 mystery ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6 6 4 13 ................... 66 4 14 Correlation of understanding, legibility and coherence ................................ ....... 6 6 4 15 Correlation of exploration, complexity and mystery ................................ ............ 67 4 16 g perception ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 69 4 17 ................................ .... 70 4 18 Mean and standard devia arousal ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 72 4 19 .................... 73
9 4 20 lighting evaluation of pleasure ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7 3 4 21 .................. 74 4 22 behavi oral intentions ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 4 4 23 intentions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 75 4 24 attention ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 76 4 25 .................. 76 4 26 preference ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 77 4 27 Anal ................................ .... 77 4 28 Selected responses categorized by theme ................................ ......................... 78 4 29 ................................ ................... 81
10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Diagram of S O R model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) ................................ ...... 1 8 2 2 ................................ .............................. 34 2 3 Theoretical framework for the study ................................ ................................ ... 40 3 1 Lighting plan for hypothetical clothing boutique (1,700 sq. ft / Not to scale) ....... 45 3 2 Scene A (High end formalwear store with uniform lighting) ................................ 46 3 3 Scene B (High end formalwear store with no n uniform lighting) ......................... 46 3 4 Scene C ( High end c asual wear store with uniform lighting) ............................... 47 3 5 Scene D (High end c asual wear store with non uniform lighting) ........................ 47 4 1 Interaction effec t for culture by light contrast on perception of clear) .................. 71 4 2 Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on perception of interesting) ......... 7 1 4 3 Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on arous al state) ........................... 73 4 4 Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on attention) ................................ 76 4 5 Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on lighting preference) .................. 78
11 LIST OF TERMS The terms below ar e used in this study and are defined as follows: AROUSAL Arousal is the degree of stimulation and excitement as a result of the environment (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). COHERENCE preference theor scene hangs together or appears organized and unified (Nasar, 200 0 ). COM PLEXITY preference theory. It refers to the visual richness of scene or variety of elements (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). It is also defined as the amount of diversity in a scene (Nasar, 200 0 ). LE GIBILITY preference theory. It refers to the ability to understand a scene as one goes further (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). It is also defined as Martyniuk, 1979) MYSTERY theory. It is defined as the promise of new information, inference of future experience (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982). It is also referred to as Kaplan, 1982; Kellert, 2005). NON UNIFORM LIGHTING Non uniform lightin g is characterized as high contrast light that has mostly focused/spot lighting with little diffused background light (Gordon, 2003) PLEASURE Pleasure is the degree of happiness and satisfaction as a result of the environment (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). UNIFORM LIGHTING Uniform lighting is characterized as having high levels of diffused background light that is evenly distributed throughout a space (Gordon, 2003).
12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design A RETAIL ENVIRONMENT: A CROSS CULTURAL COMPARISON By Amanda Le May 2014 Chair: Nam Kyu Park Major: Interior Desig n With the help of atmospherics, r etail stores have since evolved from simply a place for shopping to a place for experiencing Lighting is a key feature in creating an environment conducive to a positive consumer experience. Although many studies have explored the effects of retail lighting on consumer behaviors, few have examined how lighting preferences and behaviors Furthermore, cultural thinking styles have been recognized as an important factor that affects how people react to their environment, yet few have examined cultural perceptions of lighting in a retail environment. T his study utilize d the S timulus O rganism R esponse (S O R) model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) and the E nvironmental Preference T heory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982) to explore the effects of light contrast (uniform and non perceptions, emotional states (arousal and p leasure), behavioral intentions, attention an d lighting preferences The research was conducted using four computer simulation s of a boutique store, where light contrast was the ma nipulated variable. The sample consisted of 222 participants (102 Americans and 120 Chinese), ranging from ages 18 35 y ears. All
13 participants reported zero vision deficiencies and had no prior knowledge of lighting and design. Participants were asked to view one of the four randomly assigned scenes and complete a self administered questionnaire that assessed the dependen t variables of perception, emotional states, behavioral intentions, attention and preferences. R esults indicated that l ight contrast had significant effects on Kaplan and per ception, emotional state (arousal and pleasure state), behavioral intentions, attention, and light preference Overall, the uniform lighting was more arousing, pleasant and most preferred and therefore was more favorable for shopping, spending money, and staying in the store. Additionally, the interaction of culture and light contrast revealed significant effects on lighting perception, arousal attention and light preference. Although the uniform lighting was generally more arousing and preferred withi n each group, a cross cultural comparison showed that the Americans perceived uniform lighting as more clear, interesting and arousing, and preferred it more than the Chinese These findings provide further insight on the effects of lighting, particularly light contrast, in a retail environment. from their competitors. It can also help designers create a tailored environment in hopes of eliciting positive experiences for the target consumer.
14 CH APTER 1 INTRODUCTION In a constantly cutthroat marketplace, and in a growing generation of online retailers, many brick and mortar stores must demonstrate their ability to stand out from their competition and increase profits (Hu & Jasper, 2006) In today versus Samsung, Walmart versus Target, and Abercrombie & Fitch versus Hollister retailers of all trades seek to be the best and meet the increasing demands of their consumers (Schaefer & VanTine, 2010) Traditional business models consi sted of finding solutions to improve the product and only later, did companies recognize that in order to remain competitive, they needed to consider the entire customer experience. Strategies have included advertising, services and packaging as well as t he physical environment in which the products are sold. Research has also shown that a retail environment can be more significant to the consumer than the product itself ( Ballantine, Jack & Parsons, 2010; Kotler, 1973 ). Furthermore, studies have illustra ted surroundings greatly affect his or her internal state of mind, primarily emotions and mood (Kller, Ballal, Laike, Mikellides & Tonello, 2006; Quartier, Christiaans & Van Cleempoel, 2008) From this, inferences are made that determine the i outward behavior (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Schlosser, 1998). Hence, retailers are now observing the in store atmosphere as a marketing strategy to influence consumer behaviors such as spending more time and money, a nd overall customer satisfaction (Babin & Darden, 1996; Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, & Voss, 2002; Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & Nesdale, 1994 ; Turley & Milliman, 2000 ). Since in store shopping requires consumers to evaluate products before buying, ret ailers must utilize visual merchandising practices to enhance the product as well as
15 the overall space. Lighting has been identified as a fundamental factor to the visual nature of shopping (Quartier et al. 2008). In terms of retail environments, lighti ng has also been found to influence product perception and spatial cognition (Custers, de Kort, IJsselateijn & de Kruiff, 2010; Quartier et al., 2008). However, limited research has assessed how lighting enhances retail spaces and what this means to the c onsumer and retailer Today, retailers have recognized the importance of directly engaging their target consumers (Mulhern, 1997). Understanding the target consumer and their needs are crucial to the process of creating positive shopping experiences to v ie for their business. Though many studies have compared consumer motivation types (Babin, Darden & Griffin, 1994; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Liao, 2011), other research has identified culture Lepore & Allen 2000 ; Kaya & Weber, 2003 ; Lee & Park, 2011 ; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001 ). These different groups are characterized based on their overall thinking styles which dictate their environmental experiences (Monga & John, 2007; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001 ) Retail studies have specifically compared cultural differences on in store experience (Park & Farr, 2007 ; Pons, Laroche & Mourali, 2006). For example, Pons et al. (2006) found significant differences in the perceptions of Middle Eastern and North Amer ican consumers in crowded retail settings. In contrast, Park and Farr (2007) found significant differences in the perceptions and behavioral intentions of Korean and American groups in a hypothetical clothing store. As the retail industry becomes increas ingly globalized, designers must be able to identify and understand different thinking styles in order to accommodate for different cultural consumer groups (Ham,
16 Guerin & Scott, 2004) Hence, lighting designers and retailers should consider cultural diff erences when creating desirable spaces for their target consumer. Purpose of S tudy Although most retail lighting research has focused on a multitude of lighting attributes such as color appearance ( Park & Farr, 2007 ), illumination levels ( Custers et al. 2010 ; Summers & Herbert, 2001 ), and direction (Baumstarck, 2008) few have considered light contrast as a possible influence on consumers. Even fewer had considered the interaction of culture and light factors (Park & Farr, 2007). However, these author s only examined the color appearance of light with no focus on light contrast. Thus, further analysis of additional lighting factors in a retail environment will provide a broader insight on how successful lighting design can positively affect the shoppin g experience. The current study seeks to understand the interrelations of culture and retail lighting on consumers. Specifically, the purpose of the study is to examine the effects of light contrast (uniform and non uniform) on American and Chinese cons preferences, lighting perceptions, emotional states, behavioral intentions and attention in a retail store. This study aims to answer the following research questions : 1. How does light contrast influence the preference need of understanding and explo ration of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment? a. What are the correlations, if any, between the two preference factors of b. What are the correlations, if any, betwe en the two preference factors of 2. How does light contrast influence the lighting perceptions of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment? 3. How does light contrast influenc e the emotional states (arousal and pleasure) of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment?
17 4. How does light contrast influence the behavioral intentions of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment? 5. How does light con trast influence the attention level of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment? 6. How does light contrast influence the lighting preferences of American and Chinese consumers in a retail store environment? It appears that even though many retail design and marketing studies have examined the influence of store atmospherics on consumer behavior, little is known about lighting on consumer preferences from an environmental psychology perspective. Even fewer studies have considered the in fluence of culture on preference. The questions for this study is intended to initiate further exploration into this area of research in the field of interior design.
18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the literature pertaining to the following topics: 1) store atmospherics and lighting design, 2) culture and design, 3) environmental preferences in various aspects of design and how it applies to retail spaces and 4) the development of the theoretical framework for this study S tore atmospherics, culture and environmental preference help shape the multi faceted nature of human experiences in an environment, which is why it is essential to understand each subject individually before understanding how they interact with one another Store Atmospherics and Lighting Design To understand the purpose of this study, it is essential to examine a fundamental concept of environmental psychology. Mehrabian and Russell (1974) developed the Stimulus Organism Response (S O R) model in ord er to explain how stimuli within an 1). They foun d that environmental cues can impact human emotions, which in turn dictate human behavior within a particular environment. Figure 2 1. Diagram of S O R model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). senses such as light, color, scent, tempe rature and noise. Kotler (1973 ) defined these timuli elicit independent emotional responses (O) in which Mehrabian and Russell defined as degrees of pleasure, arousal and dominance, and coined these emotional responses as the P A D model (1974). STIMULUS (S) : Environmental Cues ORGANISM (O): Emotional State (Pleasure Arousal Dominance) RESPONSE (R): Behavior ( Approach Avoidance )
19 g one dimension can occur Mehrabian, 1977). Pleasure state is defined as the degree of happiness and satisfaction as a result of the environment; arousal state is the degree of stimulation or excitement in a situation; finall y, dominance is the range from which an individual feels in control of events and surroundings (Park et al., 2010 ; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Mehrabian and Russell stated that human behavior (R), trigg ered by emotional responses (O) can be characterized as the ability to either approach or avoid a situation. These behaviors have four factors: 1) the desire to physically stay or leave a situation, 2) the desire to explore or not explore an environment, 3) the desire to interact with or ignore others in an environment, and 4) the degree of positive or negative task performance and overall satisfaction (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). the S O R model, atmospherics (in stimulation and alertness) and pleasure (level of happiness, satisfaction and comfort) which then influenced their behavior (preferen ce for store lighting). Although dominance is one of the three elements that define emotional state, it has been found to have little to no effect on approach and avoidance (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982). Other research has also indicated that the only signi ficant mediating variables (O) between the physical environment (S) and approach avoidance (R) are arousal and pleasure (Donovan, et al., 1994; Park & Farr, 2007). Hence, the current study dismisses the dominance factor and focuses on how arousal and plea sure states affect behavior as a
20 result of the store lighting. A series of bipolar adjectives relating to arousal and pleasure were used to measure emotional responses to two different lighting conditions (uniform and non uniform). Subsequent research has O R model. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) were one of the first to examine the relationship of Their results revealed that store in duced pleasure highly correlated with purchase behavior. Likewise, store induced arousal affected the time customers spent in the store and their willingness to interact with employees. Marketing researchers have also applied the S O R model to bett er understand how the physical environment influences consumer behavior such as customer loyalty (Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, 1997; Sirgy, Grewal, & Mangleburg, 20 00), purchase intentions (Baker, Levy & Grewal 1992), and time spent in a store (Barli, Aktan, Bilgili, & Dane, 2012; Summers & Herbert, 2001). As many retailers have stated, customer satisfaction is their number one priority. To achieve this, they must not only sell high quality products but they must sell positive shopping experience by manipul ating the store atmosphere (Kotler, 197 3 ; Moore & Lochhead, 1998). For example, Grewal and Baker, (1994) created two contrasting ambiances using classical music with soft lighting (high ambient) in one store and Top 40s music with bright lighting (low amb ient) in (1994) found that customers spent more time in environments that they consi dered pleasant. In turn, the more time they spent in the store, the more likely they were to
21 spend money as it means that consumers are so satisfied with their past experience that they are willing to choose this store over other competitors. Sirgy et al. (2000) identified will favor stores with images that are similar to their own self concep t or identity. Research has also shown that lighting plays a vital role in creating an atmosphere conducive to the psychological wellbeing of the users in various sectors of design, from corporate to healthcare to hospitality to retail (Dalke et al., 2006 ; Kller et al. 2006; Schweitzer, Gilpin & Frampton, 2004; Tonello, 2004; Veitch, 2006). Because the retail is particularly competitive by nature, retailers must create positive experiences for the consumer (Mulhern, 1997). Summers and Herbert (2001 ) examined the influence of lighting on desire to approach or avoid a display of products. They placed temporary display lighting in two different stores (hardware store and western apparel store) and alternated the lights (on and off) every ot her day. They observed the behaviors at each location and found that customers tended to examine more products when the display lights were on, especially at the western apparel store. The researchers also concluded re time at the displays under the On treatment than the Off Vaccaro, Yucetepe, Torres Baugarten, and Lee (2008) addressed other literary gaps recognized by earlier research on atmospherics and consumer behavior. They specifically examined lig
22 their perceptions and attitudes. The researchers discovered that bright lighting contributed to higher product involvement and a more positive store image. the role of in store satisfaction. They rand omly surveyed 388 shoppers after having completed their shopping experience at a grocery store and found that lighting was strongly related to satisfaction. Furthermore, image image, influenced the that store. atmosphere in 57 different apparel stores. The findings indicated that brightness had a stron g positive correlation with tenseness and detachment and a strong negative correlation with coziness. Furthermore, an increase in lighting contrast led to a decrease in perceived tenseness. In order to fully understand lighting effects on consumers in a r etail environment, researchers have considered a variety of factors that fundamentally define humans. Evans, et al. (2000) found that culture plays an integral role in environmental psychology, yet research on the interaction effects of retail lighting by culture on Park and Farr (2007) compared the effects of light color quality on arousal, pleasure, and approach avoidance behavior in shoppers in American and Korean cult
23 four cubicles to simulate a store like atmosphere complete with merchandise. With possible co nfounding variables controlled for, the researchers manipulated the color temperature and color rendering properties to create a different scenario for each cubicle. They asked participants to complete a questionnaire based on their experiences with each scenario. Park and Farr (2007) found that the American participants perceived the light with a high CRI as more pleasurable while the Korean participants perceived the light with a low CRI as more pleasurable. The participants perceived the higher color temperature (cooler light) as brighter as and therefore more arousing than the lower color temperature (warm light). In contrast to the effect on arousal, participants from both cultural groups perceived the lower color temperature light as more pleasant than the higher color temperature light. Park and Farr (2007) also found that both groups perceived the cooler light as more approachable than the warmer light but that the warmer light was more attractive. However, the American participants rated the li ghting overall as more attractive than the Korean participants Although existing retail lighting literature ha s examined the effects of color temperature, color rendering index and brightness little attention has been directed towards the effect of light contrast on cross cultural consumers. According to Gordon (2003), light contrast is defined as the difference between the luminance of an object and that of its surrounding. Luminance is considered the amount of light transmitted by an object Veitch (2006) equated luminance to the rate of water flowing from a shower head. Low contrast lighting, which can be de scribed as uniform, consists of mostly
24 even, diffused background light with little focused light. High contrast lighting, which can be described as non uniform, tends to have more focused light with less diffused background light (Gordon, 2003) Differen t contrast levels are expressed in terms of the luminance ratio of the higher to the lower luminance (Gordon, 2003; Philips, 2008). Gordon (2003) stated that applying appropriate light contrast levels should depend on the anticipated functions or visual t asks that will occur in the space. For example, low contrast or uniform lighting is generally best for spaces involving high v isual tasks (i.e. workplaces or educational facilities) and areas of circulation (Gordon, 2003) High contrast or non uniform li ghting is best appli ed when trying to draw focus to specific objects or areas (Gordon, 2003). O R model to study retail lighting and consumer behavior, very few have analyzed the reasons behind why people approach or avoid certain environments. Hence, this study explore s the relationship of store light contrast on the emotional states of pleasure and arousal and lighting preferences of consumers from different cultures Culture and Design Pa st researchers have theorized that humans and their environment have a symbiotic relationship to one another. Amos Rapoport (1998) cultivated the idea that described al l human groups as possessing some form of culture, which he defined as falling under one of three categories (Rapoport, 1998): 1) A way of life belonging to a method with the resources available to them.
25 Understanding what an intangible entity, such as culture, does and how is directs people how to behave within the group. Culture also give s meaning to the environment of the culture. These complimentary perspectives ultimately influence a 1998). Overall, culture helps explain how people of different societie s have different life experiences and thus, it provides new information on the psychological processes of groups (Oyserman & Lee, 2008; Triandis, 2011 ). Geert Hofstede (2011) was one of the first to observe the similarities and differences across various cultures. His most recent works explained his original development of the five cultural dimensions theory, which he believed influences all acceptance of inequality/hierarchy) individualism vs. collectivism (the degree of collaboration between individuals), masculinity vs. femininity (the degree of characteristically male values over characteristically female values in a group), uncertainty avoidance (how members of a group ma nage in the face of uncertainty), and long term vs short term orientation (the degree to which a society values future goals or preserving the past and present day). Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) later added a sixth dimension called indulgence vs. restraint (the degree of gratification or control of basic human desires). further illustrates the validity and rel iability of his previous works. T riandis (2011) examined the individu alism versus collectivism dimension and found variations of themes within each
26 cultural group across the world. In a broad definition of individualism, the author described people of this group, in general, as placing personal goals before the goals of th e entire group. These people are more open to meeting those outside of their group. The author found that western cultures, specifically North Americans, emphasize self reliance, competition, independence, and emotional detachment from the main group (Tri andis, 2011) On the contrary, those in collectivist groups for example East Asians, tend to place the wellbeing and goals of the group above their own personal goals, thus creating an overall stable environment (Hook, Worthington & Utsey, 200 9 ; Triandis 2011). Cooperation within each group is prevalent in collectivist cultures but is less likely when an outsider enters. A meta analysis conducted by Oyserman and Lee (2008) supported the perspective that culture organizes meaning in an environment and that the characteristics of individualist and collectivist cultures provide insight into psychological constructs like information processing and cognitive thinking style s ( Nisbett et al., 2001; Oyserman, Coon & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Oyserman & Le e, 2008) Choi, Koo and Choi (2007) examined the thinking styles of Koreans and Americans in hopes of bridging a gap between existing individualis t collectivis t culture research and that of thinking styles. Nisbett et al. (2001) examined East Asian and W estern groups and identified two different thinking styles : holistic and analytic According to the authors, Asian cultures tend to be holistic thinkers in which they process an entire field of information to better understand the context. Western cultur es tend to be analytic thinkers and pay more attention to objects and categories within a field of information (Nisbett et al., 2008).
27 The concept of thinking styles has been rooted in the studies of environmental and social psychology. Masuda and Nisbe tt (2001) first compared context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans and hypothesized that the Japanese would be more field oriented and thus recall such information more than the Americans The researchers first presented ten animated underwater scenes to 36 Americans and 41 Japanese Each scene contained some prominent fish as well as smaller background animals and objects. The participants then viewed a series of objects that had either previously appeared in the underwater scenes or were completely novel These original and new objects were juxtaposed into three different backgrounds : the original background, no background, and new background for a total of six conditions. The participants were asked to recall what they saw in the scenes. As hypo thesized, the Americans showed more frequent recalls of the focal objects, whereas the Japanese recalled field information more. original and new backgrounds, the Japanese showed greater ac curacy in recognizing the original objects when they were pair ed with the original background instead of the dependent on the field in which it appeared Choi et al. (2007) later developed the Analysis Holism Scale in order to quantitatively measure the two thinking styles and to better differentiate between two cultural groups. The 24 item scale was developed based on four key factors found in social and cognitive psycholog y: locus of attention (field versus parts), causality (interactionism versus dispositionism), perception of change (cyclic versus linear), and contradiction (nave dialecticism versus formal logic). They described attention as being
28 oriented towards the r elationship of an object to its field or simply the object alone. They explained causality as whether one focuses on the interaction of an object and the relationship. T he authors described perception of change as either cyclic (constant fluctuations due to the belief that all elements are interconnected as a whole) or linear (little effects between different elements due to the belief that objects are independent of one another). Lastly, they explained that when a contradictory phenomenon occurs, people either accept and compromise between the two opposites or they directly choose one of the situations. Choi et al. (2007) tested the validity of the A nalysis H olism S cale on Korean and American participants. They expected the Koreans to display more holistic thinking and the Americans to display more analytic thinking. Results confirmed the hypothesis, showing that the Koreans significantly paid more attention to the who le rather than details, maintained more interrelated causal beliefs, expected greater future change, and preferred to compromise in the event of conflict. In general, Choi et al. (2007) concluded that the Analysis Holism Scale was a valid and reliable too l to measure holistic (Asian culture) and analytic (Western culture) thinking. Masuda et al. (2008) also conducted several studies to observe how East Asians and Americans processed object context information. First, they examined artwork from both cultur es and found that Asian paintings had higher horizon lines and/or smaller human figures, thus emphasizing the larger context and deemphasizing the individual objects. In their second study, they asked participants from both cultures to draw a landscape pic ture that included various objects and elements. They later asked the participants to take a series of photographs of a model in different scenarios. Results
29 contextual i nformation than that of the Americans. Consistent with these results, the entire composition, whereas the Americans placed the model in the foreground. All studies consiste ntly validated their argument that East Asian cultures tend to think holistically and pay more attention to the entire context, w hile Western cultures tend to think analytically and pay more attention to objects within the field. Differentiating between cultures has helped psychologists better understand how people evaluat e and perceive certain environments ( Ji, Peng & Nisbett, 2000) In particular, cross cultural comparisons on the influence of the built environment on the people living and working in it have been applied to various market sectors of design. For example, Monga and John (2007) examined the cultural differences in analytic and process of judging how w ell one identifies with a brand (Monga & John, 2007). The authors hypothesized that thinking style (analytic or holistic) influenced how Eastern and Western consumers judged brand extension fit based on research stating that American (analytic) consumers tended to judge fit based on the degree to which an extension in a product category is similar to others related to the parent brand and if attributes of the parent brand could benefit the extension product category (Monga & John, 2007). In contrast, East ern (holistic) consumers tended to identify common characteristics between the parent brand (i.e. overall reputation) and the extension brand and therefore rely on this interrelationship to form their judgments on brand extension fit. Based on this, Monga and John (2007) hypothesized that Eastern consumers would perceive
30 higher levels of brand extension fit and thus would evaluate it more favorably than their Western counterparts. They asked American (representing Western cultures) and Indian (representin g Eastern cultures) participants to rate their opinions on the Kodak brand (associated with film and known for high quality), then evaluate hypothetical Kodak brand extensions (Kodak shoes, Kodak filing cabinets, and Kodak greeting cards), and then rate th e degree of fit or consistency of the brand extension to the parent brand. As hypothesized, the Indian participants rated higher brand extension fit and had more favorable evaluations than the Americans, thus providing further support that cultural differ ences in thinking style influences consumer perceptions. Similarly, Park and Farr (2007) researched the effects of lighting in retail intentions. The results indicated that th e American participants perceived the overall lighting as more arousing than the Korean participants. In contrast, the Americans perceived the lighting with a higher CRI level as more pleasurable, whereas the Koreans perceived the lighting with a lower CR I level as more pleasurable. The authors discovered several differences between the two groups and concluded that cultural approach avoidance behaviors in a store. As a result, understanding the cultural differences between consumers can be a useful tool for retail designers. Another area in which culture has played a significant role includes research on housing. For example, Kaya and Weber (2003) compared American a nd Turkish that were identical in size Compared to their Turkish counterparts (described as a contact culture that
31 engages in close direct contact), t he American students (a noncontact cul ture) perceived their living space as more crowded and reported a great er need for privacy Similarly, Lee and Park (2011) examined the perceptions of Koreans temporarily living in the United States. In general, the participants expressed negative opin ions about typical American housing features that they were not accustom to in Korea such as: carpeted floors, dim lighting, absence of central bathroom drains, foyer layout, and forced air heating systems. In particular, the interior lighting condition w as the second most negatively perceived (it received 15 total negative reviews) following carpeted flooring (this received 17 total negative reviews) among the five negatively perceived attributes (which had 56 total negative reviews). Findings illustrate d that lighting issues play a vital role in designing environments for different cultures. As a result, some participants either modified their behaviors to match the existing conditions or altered the conditions to suit their cultural practices. Other research on cultural groups has also proven beneficial to the healthcare design sector. To account for variations in social structure, Joseph, Keller, Taylor, and Quan (2011) suggested designing flexible spaces that promote a partnership between the provi der, patient, and family members. For example, waiting rooms and treatment areas at La Maestra clinic in San Diego, CA were designed to accommodate small and large families and encourage participation and interaction According to the authors, cultural g roups such as Asians and Hispanics often have larger family units who frequently accompany the patient to collectively make decisions. In contrast, Americans, who value independence and self care, oftentimes make health decisions on their own. Therefore, the authors suggested that designers consider providing larger
32 exam and consultation rooms, flexible partitions and positive distractions for patients and families (Joseph et al., 2011). Thus, t his culturally sensitive approach allows for greater communi cation between providers and patients of diverse backgrounds which ultimately improves the quality of care. In regard to hospital patient room design, Park and Park (2013) examined cross cultural perceptions of color in Korean and American pediatric patie nts. The participants, ranging from ages 7 11, were asked to view a scaled patient room model with interchangeable wall colors and then rate their preference level for each color (red, yellow, green, blue, purple, and white). The results indicated that b oth cultural groups in general showed the highest preferences for blue and green and the lowest preference for white. However, a comparison between both groups showed that the Korean participants had significantly higher preferences for white than the A merican participants Japanese, Chinese and Indonesians) had strong preferences for white Park and Park (2013) subsequently suggested that because white was least preferred overall by both such as blue and green would be better suited for both groups Understanding c ul tural differences have also helped designers and hotel owners better accommodate travelers of various backgrounds. Siguaw and Enz (1999) suggested that a successful hospitality environment should be comfortable and induce a application of design elements. In order to do so,
33 designers should understand the target guests (i.e. business travelers, vacationing families) and what their needs and ideas of comfort are. In a later study, P ark, Pae and Meneely (20 10 ) examined th e impact of the color temperature and intensity of guestroom lighting on Korean and American guests. Using computer simulated images, Park et al. (2010) found that the Americans preferred the low intensity and warm colored lighting, whereas the Koreans pr eferred high intensity and warm colored lighting. The Americans also perceived the dim lighting as more arousing and would recommend the hotel to their friends, whereas the Koreans perceived the bright lighting as more arousing and would therefore extend their stay at the hotel. In conclusion, the research of Park et al. (2010) supported the theory that environments and should therefore be considered during the desi gn process. In summary, cultural background, particularly thinking style, appeared to be the most applicable to the understanding of environmental psychology, especially as it pertains to the built environment. Designers should demonstrate a knowledge on cultural sensitivity and its vital role in designing spaces for different groups of people. For the current study, the differences between analytic and holistic cultures will be preferences, perceptions, emotional states, and behavioral intentions. Environmental Preference order to better understand how people process information how that influences envi ronmental preference. According to the authors, humans have a desire for
34 information that makes sense and, at the same time, maintains their interest and involvement in a scene by allowing them to collect new information, in an effort to renew and develop their cognitive maps. This balance of familiarity and unfamiliarity relies on consists of four dimensions from which human preference is measured: complexity, coherence, m ystery, and legibility (Figure 2 2). NEED UNDERSTANDING EXPLORATION TIME IMMEDIATE Coherence (organized, balance, unity, repetition, cohesive) Complexity (visual richness of scene, variety of elements) INFERRED Legibility (understanding scene as o ne goes further; clear paths and landmarks) Mystery (promise of new information, inference of future experience) Figure 2 Coherence refers to the degree of visual stimulation in an environment that has a sense o f balance, symmetry and order by means of repeated elements (Kaplan & (Nasar, Preiser, & Fisher, 2007). Complexity is the degree of visual richness in an environment by m eans of having diversity and variety of elements (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Nasar et al. 2007). Legibility refers to the ability to understand, read and orient oneself in the environment by means of clear paths and landmarks (Flynn et al., 1979; Kaplan & Ka plan, 1982; Lynch, 1960). Mystery involves the promise of new information as one goes further in an environment, allowing the person to make inferences about future experiences (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982).
35 Kaplan and Kaplan (1982) proposed that the degree to which people respond to (i.e. approach or avoid) their environment falls under two categories of inherent needs: the need to understand and the need to explore. These two needs corresponding with time (immediate or inferred/future) create the framework of the four dimensions of environment. For example, coherent environments are conducive to immediate understanding, whereas complex scenes are complex scenes encourage immediate exploration. In contrast, legible environments allow the individual to find their way around and have an inferred/future understanding of their involvement with the environment; mysterious environments encourage inferred/future exploration because new bu t related information is being presented in the environment. landscapes and urban environments with suggestions made to research the built For example, Ikemi (2005) explored the participants rated 12 photographs of a house flanked by two trees; each photograph conveyed different levels of mystery by revealin g no edges, one edge, or both edges of the house. Results showed that the houses that were perceived as most mysterious were the most preferred, suggesting the advantages of applying the mystery dimension to enhance environmental preference. Several studi interior environments and found promising results that can help interior designers understand how people interact with indoor spaces. For example, Weisman (1981)
36 rceptions of legibility or wayfinding for ten university buildings via a self administered questionnaire. Results showed that students reported being lost less frequently in the building that they evaluated as having simpler and more legible floor plans. T also a strong predictor of reported way finding behavior. In contrast, those who perceived the building as more complex reported greater levels of disorientation. research sugges ted that spatial legibility influences users in the built environment and should be considered an important factor in designing spaces. Kent (1989) examined the preferences for mall environments as it related to the perception of mystery. The author pre sented a series of images depicting malls of various levels of mystery (as determined by a panel of experts) and asked the participants to rate their preferences. Results indicated a moderately high positive correlation between the mystery dimension and p reference. The malls with design elements that evoked a sense of mystery were preferred more than the malls that were preference theory can be applied to the study of interior environments (Kent, 1989). Scott (1989) also assessed preference s for mystery but this time examined 80 different commercial interior spaces. The participants viewed photographs of the scenes and then subjectively rated the degree to which they liked it. Then a second group of participants were asked to objectively categorize photographs into five different levels of mystery ranging from low to high (after receiving a brief information session on the concept of mystery). Results showed a fairly stron g positive relationship between
37 Ham et al. (2004) also utilized the preference framewor k to compare cross of American participants. The authors specifically examined the role of preferences for coherent and complex scenes. The authors adopted their me thod and instrument from The researchers asked 312 Chinese subjects to view 80 black and white images of common commercial interiors and rate their preference for each interior. When the results were compared to study, the results showed that the Chinese participants consistently rated higher preference for the coherent scenes and lower preference for the complex scenes than the Americans (Ham et al., 2004). They also found similarities between the two groups; they also found that both cultural groups had similar perception and preferences for complex environments. The similarities in preference for complexity helped validate the idea of applying American cultural perspectives in other groups, b ut the differences in preference for coherence implied that interior designers should accommodate for cultural sensitivities. As the works of Scott (1989) and Ham et al. (2004) each examined a variety of commercial interior spaces (i.e. bank lobbies, cafe terias, university classrooms, conference rooms) at once they did not focus specifically focus on spaces with similar functions. For this reason, it could have weakened the validity of their study. Other research has focused solely on specific types of interior spaces. For example, Kller et al. (2006) analyzed the effects of lighting in office spaces on the moods of individuals
38 across four cultures. Participants from various work places reported their mood as a result of the lighting in their working thus suggesting a peak in mo od in certain lighting conditions. Van Erp (2008) investigated the effects of lighting on the perceptions and preferences of general indoor lighting. He specifically manipulated light intensity, color correlated temperature and distribution to create v arious scenes in which the participants had to rate their perceptions of the light appearance and their preferences. Results showed that the participants preferred the lighting conditions with higher intensities and also with lower correlated color temper atures; in combination, the lighting with low correlated color temperature and higher intensity levels were the most preferred. Furthermore, they rated slightly higher preference for the directional lighting versus the diffused l ighting. With such clear preferences, Van Erp did not clearly explain the relation of the results to any specific on the application of the framework to the study of interior lighting is suggested. The research of Gilboa and Rafaeli (2003) has also provided insight on the application of the preference theory to interior environments. They examined the dimensions of complexity and order in grocery stores behavioral tendencies and found that emotion was a mediating variable for the inverted U shaped relationship of complexity and approach behavior Results also suggested that the perception of order had a positive correlation wi th approach behavior. Thus,
39 the research of Gilboa and Rafaeli (2003) validated the dimensions of complexity and coherence as a predictor for preferences of retail environments. Chang (2012) also com emotional states in a retail environment. The participants viewed scenes with color combinations (in regular and irregular pattern arrangements) ranging in two different hues (purpl e and yellow), values (100% and 50%) and saturation levels (25% and 100%). The results revealed that the scenes with the two high color values were perceived as coherent and the scenes with one high and one low color value were perceived as incoherent. L ikewise, the scenes with low color saturation were perceived as simple, and the scenes with the highest saturation were perceived as complex. In general, the participants perceived the complex scenes as more arousing in both regular and irregular pattern sets. Further, the participants perceived the complex/coherent scene as most arousing in the irregular pattern set. Likewise, they perceived the scenes with the simple color combination (low saturation) as the most pleasing in both the regular and irregu lar pattern sets. In terms of preference, the participants rated higher levels of preference for the simple color combinations regardless of coherence levels (color value combinations). Thus, her research had thoroughly integrated the application of the preference framework throughout the study of consumer preferences in a retail environment. Theoretical Framework for the Study There have been few, if any, empirical studies that have carefully examined the onal states and preferences through
40 has compared the relationship of all four dimensions in a retail environment. Therefore, the field of retail design could benefit by ex ploring all four dimensions: coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery; especially in the area of retail lighting design due to the importance of good lighting on the shopping experience. Finally the influences of culture should also be considered, as a number of studies have shown significance including those on retail lighting. Therefore, the current study explored the effects of perceptions, emotional states, pref erences and behavioral intentions. The theoretical framework was developed as O R model and It was essential to combine both models as each provided a fundamenta l yet complementary explanation for basic human needs in a given environment. Therefore, this framework will serve as the basis for how the study will be constructed and how the research questions will be answered Figure 2 3. Theoretical f ramework for the study. Light Contrast Uniform Vs. Non Uniform Emotional State: Arousal Pleasure P reference Factors : Coherence Complexity Legibility Mystery Light ing Perceptions Behavioral Intentions: Shop Buy Stay Attention Lighting Preference Culture: American Chinese
41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Chapter 3 details the research methodology and provides justification for the decisions made regarding the experimental setting, the participants, the instrument, and the data collection procedure and data an alysis Study limitations are also presented at the end of this chapter. Experimental Setting To understand the effects of light contrast in retail spaces, the participants were asked to view a photorealistic computer rendered scene of either a hypothetic al high end formalwear boutique or a high end casualwear boutique with two different lighting conditions per store type. Previous studies have compared simulated versus actual environments and found that people responded similarly, thus supporting the val idity of computer generated images (Hendrick, Martyniuk, Spencer, and Flynn, 1977; Stamps, 1990). According to Sommer and Sommer (1997), an advantage of utilizing rendered scenes is that the environmental variables can be controlled and manipulated with p recision whereas controlling such variables in real world settings with the same precision would be difficult (Groat & Wang, 2002). Recent studies have supported the use of computer simulated environments to examine subjective evaluations of interior envi ronments. Mahdavi and Eissa (2002) stated that computer renderings are a consistent means of measuring evaluations of lighting conditions provided that the rendering software and display monitor are as accurate as possible. This method has been implement ed in other areas of design research such as examining the effects of color in retail environments on arousal, pleasure, and preference (Chang, 2012), and also the effects of hotel guestroom lighting on emotional states and behavioral
42 intentions of two d if ferent cultural groups (Park et al. 2010). Both of these studies used state of the art programs like AutoCAD and 3ds Max software to create the accurate and photorealistic renderings. The chosen store type for this study was a high end boutique Unlike department are smaller and offer highly specialized products Louis, 2005). Two types of boutiques were chosen, one offering formalwear and another offering ca sualwear, in an image ( Baker, Grewal, & Parasuraman, 1994) The physical design of both store types were kept simple, clean and neutral with white surfaces and light wood finishes as an attempt to prevent biased results based on personal preference for the dcor and to keep both store types consistent. The entire store footprint was approximately 1,700 sq. ft. ndise to the left, the the center of the scene. Due to this type of angle, only about 830 sq. ft. was shown in the scenes in order to display the products as clearly as p ossible (Figure 3 1) Changes in flooring material, type of merchandise, and background image were selected to enforce the formal or casual image and emulate retail stores market. The formalwear store was designed with a reflective m arble flooring and an ottoman in the center of the scene. Merchandise included dress shoes and handbags and an image of four individuals in suits and dresses hung on the wall behind the counter (Figure 3 2) The casual wear store was designed with semi ma tte flooring to resemble resilient flooring commonly found in retail stores today. In place of an ottoman
43 was an accessories display table. Merchandise included casual separates and sneakers and an image of four individuals in jeans, t shirts and leather jackets hung on the wall behind the counter (Figure 3 4) The objective was to create consistency between the renderings of the real life formal and casual clothing stores as much as possible. Consulting with interior design professionals, various retai l design and lighting literature ( Green, 2012; IESNA, 2011; Philips, 2008 ; Winchip, 2011 ) and analyzing precedents for each store type (Retail Design Blog) helped in the creation of the scenes. To c reate the most photorealistic scenes as possible, the sce nes were constructed in Revit Architecture 2013 and then rendered 3ds Max 2013 using Mental Ray. Lighting Conditions The goal of the study was to compare the effects of two different light contrasts, uniform and non uniform, ions, emotional states, preferences, and behavioral intentions. Light contrast is defined as the difference between the luminance of an object and that of the background; luminance is the amount of light reflected by an object (Gordon, 2003; Philips, 2008 ). Uniform lighting involves a majority of diffused background lighting with little focused light. On the other hand, non uniform lighting involves a majority of focused lighting with little diffused background light. For this study, the uniform lighting conditions were created with mainly diffused lighting and little focused light for an even foot candle level of about 50 fc and luminance ratio of 3 :1. The non uniform lighting conditions were created with mostly focused lighting on the products and very little diffused background light for a luminance ratio
44 ranging from 5:1 to 20:1 This was done by manipulating the percentage of intensity on 3ds Max; the uniform lighting condition had an intensity of 100% and non uniform lighting had an intensity of ap proximately 5% for the diffused background light and 100% for the focused light. Color temperature was controlled in all scenes at 4,100K CRI ( Gordon, 2003; IESNA, 2011; Ivanov, 2011; Philips, 2008 ; Winchip, 2011 ). Also, daylight was eliminated from the study in order to better control for the artificial lighting. These lighting conditions were selected after consulting with various lighting guides (Diamond & Diamond, 20 11; IESNA, 2011; Philips, 2008). Because the lighting design itself was kept consistent with the only manipulation being light contrast, one reflected ceiling plan (RCP) was created to represent both lighting conditions (Figure 3 1). Thus, a t otal of fou : 1) formalwear boutique with uniform lighting, 2) formalwear boutique with non uniform lighting, 3) casual wear boutique with uniform lighting, and 4) casualwear boutique with non uniform lighting (F igures 3 2 3 3, 3 4, and 3 5).
45 Figure 3 1. Lighting plan for hypothetical clothing boutique (1,700 sq. ft / Not to scale). LEGEND
46 Figure 3 2. Scene A (High end formalwear store with uniform lighting). Figure 3 3. Scene B (High end formalwear store with non uniform lighting).
47 Figure 3 4. Scene C ( High end c asual wear store with uniform lighting). Figure 3 5 Scene D (High end c asual wear store with non uniform lighting).
48 Participants Both American and Chinese subjects were recruited t hrough convenient sampling and snowball sampling methods Most of the American subjects were recruited through class announcements and email listservs at the University of Florida, while the rest were recruited via social media posts and peer referrals The Chinese subjects were also recruited through social media and peer referrals. According to Gifford (2002), those with design related backgrounds perceive the environment differently than those with no design background. Therefore, one of the main cri teria for eligibility was that participants could not have any lighting or design background. Age was limited to 18 35 years to control for declining vision due to aging (Winchip, 2011; American Optometric Association, 2014) One caveat was that if anyon e was under 18 years old, they had to be college students. This allowed for the inclusion of those who were not quite 18 at the exact time of data collection, but would turn 18 within the year. ive color and light, only those with zero vision deficiencies (unless otherwise fixed with corrective lenses) were eligible to participate. Each participant had to have been born and raised in the U.S. or China in order to be placed in their respective cu ltural group. This demographic information was later verified during the data collection process. Those who met the prerequisites and completed the questionnaire were compensated $5.00 in cash or the Chinese equivalent via Paypal. Prior to recrui ting th e participants, the researcher applied for and was granted permission to engage in research with human subjects by the University of Florida read and sign the consent form be fore continuing on to the questionnaire (Appendix C &
49 D). The consent form and questionnaire were translated into Mandarin, for the Chinese participants, by a third party translator. Instrument The instrument used to collect data was an online self admini stered questionnaire via Qualtrics (Appendix E & F). It consisted of two parts for a total of 11 questions : 1) de mographic information and global perceptions, and 2) main study questions. The questionnaire contained four question types: 1) Likert scales (to gage level of agreement to a given statement), 2) bipolar semantic differential scales ( position on a spectrum of two opposite adjectives), 3) one open ended question (to provide qualitative content to suppor t the quantitative data) and 4) multiple choice demographics) For both the Likert and bipolar semantic question types, 7 points were used along the scale to allow enough range and clarity for participants to better gage their responses without being redundant (Malhotra & Peterson, 2006) According to Dawes (2008), five to seven point scales showed greater reliability and validity than did those with less points and that those with more points did not necessarily improve such re sults. The advantage of utilizing this format for both question types was not only to measure which direction each participant leaned towards but also the strength of their response to each scale (Lavrakas, 2008). The first part of the questionnaire gage global perceptions and thinking styles through a set of eight statements each followed by a 7 point Likert scale ranging from 3 ( S trongly D is agree) to 0 (Neither) to +3 (Strongly A gree) Since E astern cultures tend to be holistic thinkers and W estern cultures tend to be analytical thinkers,
50 these questions were adapted from the Analysis Holism Scale developed by Choi et al. (2007) to measure the degree to which they pa id attention to the field versus obj ects within the field (Nisbe tt et al., 2001). Each statement varied slightly from one another but still related to the concept of analy tic versus holistic thinking This method helped to ensure the validity and reliability of the thinkin g styles and how they read the environment The ensuing main study questions regarded the following variables of interest: 1) preference need of understanding and exploration, 2) lighting perceptions, 3) emotional states, 4) behavioral intentions, 5) at tention, and 6) lighting preference. Kaplan and of understanding and exploration were measured using a 7 point Likert scale. Again, t he scale ranged from 3 (Strongly Disagree) to 0 (Neither) to +3 (Strongly Agree). This questio n consisted of four statements, two regarding the Understanding dimension and two regarding the Exploration dimension respectively the research of Kaplan and Kaplan (1982 ; 1987 ). Lighting perceptions w ere measured using a series of 7 point semantic differential scales with bipolar dimensions of coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery The researcher carefully incorporated statistically significant synonyms for each factor to ensure further reliability of t he questionnaire and validity of the related adjectives (Flynn et al. 1979; Ham et al., 2004; Kellert, 2005). The dimension of coherence was measured by
51 coherent/incoherent, balanced/unbalanced, harmonious/discordant, and similar/dissimilar bipo lar scales Complexity was measured by complex /simple and unusual/usual bipolar scales Legibility was measured by legible/non legible, clear/hazy, and distinct/vague bipolar scales. Lastly, mystery was measured by mysterious/non mysterious, interesting/uninteresting, curious/not curious, and public/private bipolar scales. The warm/cool, dim/bright, uniform/non uniform and high contrast/low contrast scales served as manipulation checks and variable controls to assess the effec tiveness of each scene particularly the lighting conditions. To measure emotional states of arousal and pleasure, the participants had to rat e how the lighting condition made them feel. There were eight sets of 7 point semantic differential scales with bipolar adjectives on a related to arousal and pleasure (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). Arousal was measured by: Excited/Calm, Aroused/Unaroused, Wide Awake/Sleepy, and Stimulated/Relaxed. Pleasure was measured by: Pleasant/Unpleasant, Happy/Unhapp y, Satisfied/Dissatisfied, and Comfortable/Uncomfortable. Behavioral intentions were measured with three sets of statements each followed by a 7 point Likert scale of Strongly Disagree ( 3) to Strongly Agree (+3) The statements were: were adapted from previous retail studies (Baker et al. 1992; Bitner, 1992; Wakefield & Baker, 1998). To measur e attention, the participants were asked to rate how strongly they disagreed (
52 environment rather categorizes background elements (walls, ceiling, floor) as one group and foreground 2011; Nisbett et al., 200 1). Finall y, lighting preference was measured by one 7 point semantic differential scale using the adjectives dislike/like In addition to this an open ended question asked the participants why they chose the response in hopes of gaining further insigh t on their overall opinion about the store and its lighting conditions. Data Collection The participants were recruited through various snowball and convenient sampling. The Americans were recruited through class announcements, and email listservs. Bo th the Americans and Chinese were also recruited through social media posts, and peer referrals T he study was conducted digitally via Qualtrics website. This allowed the participants to access the questionnaire at their convenience as well as forward i t to others who may be interested. This time and cost effective strategy also allowed the researcher to obtain data from Chinese participants actually living in China, which provided a more realistic comparison between eastern and western cultures. Upon opening the Qualtrics link, the participants were first asked to read the consent form and either agree or disagree to voluntarily participate. Those who disagreed were immediately prevented from continuing on with the questionnaire. Those who agreed wer e directed to a slide providing them with a set of questionnaire instructions Though the location of data collection and computer screen
53 specifications varied for each person, the following instructions helped to minimize any extreme variables that may affect the results: 1) Please sit in a dim or dark room 2) Screen must be standard laptop or desktop size (no mobile devices or tablets) 3) Tilt screen so that it is directly in front of and parallel to your face 4) Please adjust your screen to the brightest yet comfortable setting The participants were then directed to the main questionnaire, which took an average of 20 minutes to complete All questions on each slide had to be filled in before moving on to the next set of questions. If anything was left unansw ered a pop up message would remind them to complete all questions before they could continue. All questionnaires started with the global perception scales. The next part was designed to randomly yet evenly assign just one of the four scenes to each parti cipant to view and respond To do this, an automatic block randomization feature was used when creating the instrument on Qualtrics. Once the main study questions were filled in all participants were asked to complete their demographic information and we re reminded that all responses would remain anonymous. Once the questionnaire was completed, the participants were given a randomized participant ID number and instructed to present this number when redeeming their $5.00 compensation, at which point their responses were recorded into the Qualtrics system. Data Analysis Prior to analyzing the data the raw data was processed to eliminate the responses of participants who failed to meet the demographic criteria initially set forth.
54 Next, each response was systematically coded and inputted into the statistical software of understanding, exploration, arousal, pleasure, and behavioral intentions to determine the internal consistency of each set of q uestions. Descriptive statistics summarized the characteristics of each variable A 2 (culture) x 2 (light contrast) between subject lighting perceptions, arousal, plea sure, behavioral intentions, attention, and preference. A p value of .05 was used to determine statistical significance. test was also performed on the variables of understanding, coherence and legibility, as well as exploration, co mplexity and mystery to measure the strength of the ir relationships. Furthermore, an independent t test was performed on the perception of store type, thinking style and light contrast to ensure the efficacy of the study manipulations. A content analysis provided supporting evidence. Study Limitations Despite thoughtful consideration of each portion of the methodology, there were three limitations in the study. First, even though past research validated the use of ph environment, it was still possible that the experiential qualities in a physical settings may not translate into their experiences in virtual settings. In other words, a field study using an actual retail store could have produced stronger results that better reflect real life situations.
55 personal computers in their own environmental setting. Diff erences in screen size and resolution could have affected the appearance of details, color and contrast Because of the difficulty of recruitment for the laboratory experiments, the data collection process of pre questionnaire instructions attempted to control the individual environments as much as possible, there was a chance that the participants did not comply. Although the use of personal computers was not the ideal situation, it did allow the study to be accessible to those in China which would have otherwise been very timely and costly to replicate in a controlled laboratory setting in the foreign country. Finally, the participant demographics could have limited parts of the study. Many of the American participants were recruited from the University of Florida. Their educational background and personal interests may not have varied enough, and thus may not have provided an accurate representation of the entire p opulation of college aged Americans. Therefore, a larger and more consistent sample size for both cultural groups could improve the reliability and validity of findings. In summary, the current study involved computer generated renderings of a retail sto re, which participants viewed and completed an online questionnaire based on their perceptions. T hese questions were formulated based on literature on store atmospherics, culture and environmental preference. The data were then analyzed using multiple st atistical methods. These results are presented in the following chapter.
56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study after a complete data analysis. First, it describes the characteristics of the participants along with the results of the reliability test. Next, the results of the manipulation checks are presented. This section presents the results on the following variables: preference need of understanding and exploration, lighting perception, emotional states (arousal a nd pleasure), behavioral intentions, attention, and preference. The final section presents the content analysis of the open ended responses regarding lighting preference. Characteristics of Participants Data gathered for the study included 231 original c ompleted responses (107 Americans and 124 Chinese). However, after reviewing the data based on the demographic criteria set forth prior to data collection the final sample was 222. This process involved eliminating the responses of those who failed to m eet all of the following: 1) must be between ages 18 35 (if under 18 years old, they must be college students), 2) Americans must be born and raised in America and Chinese must be born and raised in China, 3) must have no lighting or design background, and 4) must have no visual impairments. Of the 222 participants, there were 102 (46%) Americans and 120 (54%) Chinese In the American sample, there were 38 (37%) males and 64 (63%) females. The Chinese sample consisted of 56 (47%) males and 64 (53%) fema les. In total, there were 94 (42%) males and 128 (58%) females. In terms of age distribution, t he American sample had 59 (58%) participants between ages 19 21, 23 (23%) between ages 22 25, 9 (8%) between ages 26 30, 0 (0%) between ages 31 35, and 0 (0%) over
57 age 35. Of the Americans, 11 (11% ) were under the age of 18 but these participants reported being students and were therefore considered college aged In comparison, t he Chinese sample had 0 (0%) participants under the age of 18, 4 (3%) between ages 19 21, 28 (23%) between ages 22 25, 67 (56%) between ages 26 30, 21 (18%) between ages 31 35, and 0 (0%) over age 35. In total, 11 (5%) were under age 18 but were college students, 63 (28%) were between ages 19 21, 51 (23%) were between ages 22 25, 76 (3 4%) were between ages 26 30, 21 (10%) were between ages 31 35, and 0 (0%) were over age 35 Of the American participants, 92 (90%) reported being born and raised in the United States, whereas 10 (10%) reported not being born in the U.S. but had been reside nts for the past 14 years on average All 120 (100%) Chinese participants reported being born and raised in China. Supplementary demographic questions revealed that 28 (23%) of these Chinese participants reported living abroad for a few months to several years in various Asian and European countries as well as the United States. In regard to student status, 86 (84%) Americans were enrolled in college while 16 (16%) were not. Twenty (17%) Chinese participants were enrolled in college while 100 (83%) wer e not. In total, 106 (47.7%) of the participants were students whereas 116 (52%) were not. All participants reported ha ving no previous lighting or design experience. In addition, no participants reported having serious visual impairments that could not be corrected with glasses or contact lenses. Table 4 1 presents the frequency and percentages of each demographic characteristic.
58 Table 4 1. Demographic characteristics of the participants. Characteristics American ( n = 102) Chinese ( n = 120) Total ( N = 222) n % n % n % Gender Male Female 38 64 37.0 63.0 56 64 47.0 53.0 94 128 42.0 58.0 Age Group < 18 years 19 21 years 22 25 years 26 30 years 31 35 years > 35 years 11 59 23 9 0 0 11.0 58.0 23.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0 4 28 67 21 0 0.0 3.0 23.0 56.0 18.0 0.0 11 63 51 76 21 0 5.0 28.0 23.0 34.0 10.0 0.0 Born & Raised In U.S. (102) In China (1 20) 92 (10 not in U.S.) 90.0 (10.0) 120 100.0 92 (10) 120 41.0 (5.0) 54.0 Student Status Yes No 86 16 84.0 16.0 20 100 17.0 83.0 106 116 48.0 52.0 Lighting/Design Experience Yes No 0 102 0.0 100.0 0 120 0.0 100.0 0 222 0.0 100.0 Visual Impairment Ye s No 0 102 0.0 100.0 0 120 0.0 100.0 0 222 0.0 100.0 Reliability of Measures following variables: behavioral intentions, emotional state (arousal and pleasu re), and understanding and exploration. Because tests revealed no significant differences between the perceptions of lighting across the different store types (high end and casual), reliability tests was performed with all four scenes combined. George an d Mallery (2003) provided a recommended range of alpha levels: > .9 Excellent; > .8 Good; > .7 Acceptable; > .6 Questionable; > .5 Poor; and < .5 Unacceptable.
59 For behavioral intentions, three items were tested for inter reliability: 1) willin gness to shop at the store, 2) willingness to buy merchandise there, and 3) excited/calm, un aroused/aroused, wide awake/sleepy, and relaxed/stimulated. The pleasant/unpleasant, unhappy/happy, satisfied/dissatisfied, and understand and describe the products in the store were categorized under the umbrella timulation and willingness to explore Manipulation Checks T o determine the efficacy of the study manipulations for culture by light contrast in a boutiq ue store perceptions of store type (formalwear/casualwear), thinking style (analytical/holistic) and light contrast (uniform/non uniform) were measured to ensure that the study was thoroughly and effectively constructed Color temperature was controlled Store Type : Formalwear/Casual wear To check for the perception of store type, an independent t test was performed. The results showed that there was no significant effect of store ty perception of lighting uniformity, t (220) = .361, p = .718; complexity, t (220) = .172,
60 p = .864; legibility, t ( 220) = 1.512 p = .132; coherence, t (220) = 1.564, p = .119; and mystery t (220) = .353, p = .724. There was als o no significant effect of store type on t (220) = .385, p = .701; understanding, t (220) = .653, p = .514; exploring, t (220) = .373, p = .710; arousal state, t (220) = 1.611, p = .109; pleasure state, t (220) = .356, p = .722; and lighting preference t (220) =.894; p = .372 Because store type showed no significant difference on any of these variables, the parameter was not included. Thinking Style : Analytic/Holistic To check for the thinking styles of each partici pant an independent t test was performed. The significant main effect of culture on the global perceptions manipulation was achieved with a calculated t (220) = 4.408, p < .001. The Chinese participants ( M = 4.61, SD = 0.79) were more context orient ed, whereas the American participants ( M = 4.16, SD = 0.72), were more detail or object oriented. Light Contrast: Uniform/Non Uniform An independent t test was performed to ensure that light contrast was effectively manipulated in each scene. The calcula tions showed a significant main effect on the uniform/non uniform manipulation t (220) = 9.732, p < .001). The participants rated the low contrast lighting conditions as uniform ( M = 5.52, SD = 1.23) and the high contrast lighting conditions as non uniform ( M = 3.34, SD = 1.97). The color temperature variable was controlled in all four scenes using 4 100K. The warm/cool manipulation revealed no significant difference t (220) = 1.636, p = .103, meaning that the participants perceived it as neutral; neithe r cool nor warm. This validates the methodology of controlling for color temperature throughout the study.
61 Understanding and Exploration A 2 x 2 between subject factorial design was used to measure the level of understanding and exploration for the inte raction effects of culture and light contrast. Table 4 2 and 4 4 show the mean and standard deviations for understanding and exploration respectively. Tables 4 3 and 4 5 show an analysis of variance for the ing and exploration respectively. According to this data, one effect on understanding was culture, which approached significance F (1, 218) = 4.027, p < .05. Thus, the American group ( M = 5.5, SD = 1.46) rated higher levels of understanding and ability t o describe the products than the Chinese group ( M = 5.11, SD = 1.32). However, according to Table 4 3 a significant main effect on understanding was light contrast F (1,218) = 34.694, p < .001. Here, all participants rated a greater ability to understand the scene and describe the products under uniform lighting ( M = 5.84, SD = 1.07) than under non uniform lighting ( M = 4.81, SD = 1.47). Table 4 2. Mean and standard deviation ( SD of understanding. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 5.5 0 5.11 1.46 1.32 .046 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 5.84 4.81 1.07 1.47 .000 Culture by Light Contrast America n x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 6.16 4.85 5.53 4.78 .88 1.63 1.16 1.35 .109 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
62 Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 6.672 6.672 4.027 .046 Light Contrast 1 57.485 57.485 34.694 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 4.283 4.283 2.585 .109 Error 218 361.212 1.657 Total 222 6648.500 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. In regards to exploration, light contrast had a significant effect, with a p value approaching significance F (1,218) = 6.427, p < .05. Hence, all partici pants had a greater need to explore the store with the uniform lighting condition ( M = 3.92, SD = 1.44) more than the non uniform lighting condition ( M = 3.42, SD = 1.51). Table 4 4. Mean and standard deviation ( SD luation of exploration. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 3.68 3.63 1.59 1.41 .907 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 3.92 3.42 1.44 1.51 .012 Culture by Lig ht Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 3.94 3.42 3.91 3.41 1.54 1.62 1.34 1.43 .951 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disa gree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 .030 .030 .014 .907 Light Contrast 1 14.106 14.106 6.427 .012 Culture by Light Contrast 1 .008 .008 .004 .951 Error 218 478.501 2.195 Total 222 3455.500 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
63 Coherence A 2 x 2 between subject factorial design was used to measure Kaplan a nd Table 4 standard deviation scores. Table 4 7 shows that light contrast F (1,218) = 47.555, p < .001 T he pa rticipants perceived the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 5.33, SD = 1.17) as more coherent than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.97, SD = 1.66). Table 4 6. Mean and standard deviation ( SD of coher ence. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 4.68 4.54 1.64 1.58 .771 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 5.33 3.97 1.17 1.66 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 5.37 3.98 5.28 3.96 1.20 1.73 1.15 1.63 .871 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. T able 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 .180 .180 .085 .771 Light Contrast 1 101.332 101.332 47.555 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 .057 .057 .027 .871 Error 218 464.522 2.131 Total 222 5272.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Complexity A 2 x 2 between subject factorial design was used to measure Kaplan and Table 4 8 presents the p
64 standard deviation scores. Table 4 9 shows that light contrast F (1,218) = 45.358, p < .001 T he participants perceived the non uniform lighting conditions as m ore complex ( M = 3.91, SD = 1.77) than the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 2.45 SD = 1.32). Table 4 8. Mean and standard deviation ( SD of complexity. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture America n Chinese 102 120 3.08 3.35 1.64 1.80 .395 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 2.45 3.91 1.32 1.77 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uni form Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 2.41 3.75 2.49 4.03 1.32 1.66 1.33 1.85 .630 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 9. Analysis of variance for part Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 1.810 1.810 .727 .395 Light Contrast 1 113.026 113.026 45.358 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 .581 .581 .233 .630 Error 218 543.225 2.492 Total 222 2972.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Legibility A 2 x 2 between subject factorial design was used to measure Kaplan and Table 4 standard deviation scores. T able 4 11 shows that light contrast F (1,218) = 36.117, p < .001 T he participants perceived the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 5.25, SD = 1.37) as more legible than the non uniform ligh ting conditions ( M = 4.02, SD = 1.67).
65 Table 4 10. Mean and standard deviation ( SD evaluation of legibility. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 4.59 4.60 1.60 1.71 .726 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 5.25 4.02 1.37 1.67 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chine se x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 5.31 3.86 5.19 4.13 1.30 1.55 1.44 1.77 .342 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df S S MS F p value Culture 1 .294 .294 .124 .726 Light Contrast 1 85.971 85.971 36.117 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 2.155 2.155 .905 .342 Error 218 518.924 2.380 Total 222 5292.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Mys tery A 2 x 2 between subject factorial design was used to measure Kaplan and Table 4 standard deviation scores. Table 4 13 shows that light contrast F (1,218) = 253.571, p < .001 had T he participants perceived the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 5.18, SD = 1.39) as more mysterious than the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 2.47, SD = 1.15).
66 Table 4 12. Mean a nd standard deviation ( SD evaluation of mystery. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 3.92 3.90 2.02 1.73 .345 Light Contrast Uniform N on Uniform 104 118 2.47 5.18 1.15 1.39 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 2.39 5.45 2.55 4.97 1.22 1. 40 1.08 1.35 .066 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 1.454 1.454 .896 .345 Light Con trast 1 411.595 411.595 253.571 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 5.538 5.538 3.412 .066 Error 218 353.857 1.623 Total 222 4160.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Correlations Understanding: Coherence and Legibility A As seen in Table 4 14 the results show a significant difference in the correlation between understanding and legibility r = 459 p < .01 ; and understanding and coherence r = .319, p < .01. Table 4 14. Correlation of understanding, legibility and coherence. Variable Understanding Legibility Coherence Understanding Legibil ity .459** Coherence .319** 453** ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed).
6 7 Exploration: Complexity and Mystery between exploration and Kapl The results in Table 4 15 indicate a significant difference in the correlation between complexity and mystery r = .353 p <.01 but no other correlation between exploration and complexity or exploration and mystery. Table 4 15. Correlation of exploration, complexity and mystery. Variabl e Exploration Complexity Mystery Exploration Complexity .012 Mystery .080 .353** **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2 tailed). Lighting Perceptions A 2 x 2 between perception of the lighting conditions. Lighting perception was measured using the following 10 adjectives: balance, public, clear, interesting, bright, distinct, unusual, harmonious, similar, and curious. The results in Table 4 17 show that significant effects on the perception of balance were culture F (1,218) = 7.731, p < .01 and light contrast F (1,218) = 54.911, p < .001. Thus, Americans ( M = 5.03, SD = 1.78) perceived the ligh ting as more balanced than the Chinese ( M = 4.36, SD = 1.69). Also, the participants perceived the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 5.51, SD = 1.21) as more balanced and the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.92, SD = 1.84) as less balanced. Culture F (1,218) = 6.684, p < .05 and light contrast F (1,218) = 188.135, p < .001 also had statistically significant effects on the perception of public versus private. According to Table 4 16, the Chinese ( M = 4.18, SD = 1.93) perceived the lighting as
68 more public than the Americans ( M = 3.86, SD = 1.80) did. Likewise, all participants perceived the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 5.38, SD = 1.48) as more public than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 2.85, SD = 1.31). The results indicate that sign ificant effects on the perception of clear were light contrast F (1,218) = 83.840, p < .001 and the two way interaction of culture by light contrast F (1,218) = 8.008, p < .01. Table 4 16 indicates that the participants perceived the uniform lighting con ditions ( M = 5.56, SD = 1.31) as clearer than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M =3.69, SD = 1.78). For the two way interaction, both Americans ( M = 5.78, SD = 1.25) and Chinese ( M = 5.34, SD = 1.33) who viewed the uniform lighting conditions perceive d it as clear, whereas the Americans ( M = 3.27, SD = 1.61) and Chinese ( M = 4.01, SD = 1.84) who viewed the non uniform lighting conditions perceived it as less clear. The only effect on the perception of interesting was the two way interaction of culture by light contrast F (1, 218) = 9.231, p < .01 As seen in Table 4 16, the Americans perceived the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.18, SD = 1.79) as more interesting than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.76, SD = 1.60), while the Chinese gro up perceived the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.19, SD = 1.29) as more interesting than the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.36, SD = 1.43). The results in Table 4 17 indicate that light contrast was the only significant effect on the perception of bright F (1, 218) = 228.899, p < .001 ; distinct F (1, 218) = 6.625, p < .05 ; unusual F (1, 218) = 114.952, p <.001 ; harmonious F (1, 218) = 35.884, p < .001 ; similar F (1, 218) = 46.211, p < .001 ; and curious F (1, 218) = 36.746, p < .001. Thus, the p articipants perceived the uniform lighting conditions as bright ( M = 4.97, SD =
69 1.67), distinct ( M = 5.01, SD = 1.32), harmonious ( M = 5.12, SD = 1.32), and similar ( M = 5.22, SD = 1.25), and the non uniform lighting conditions as unusual ( M = 5.03, SD = 1 .39) and curious ( M = 4.43, SD = 1.48). Table 4 16. Mean and standard deviation ( SD perception. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Balanced Pu blic Chinese Balanced Public 102 102 120 120 5.03 3.86 4.36 4.18 1.78 1.80 1.69 1.93 Balanced = .006 Public = .010 Light Contrast Uniform Bright Clear Distinct Unusual Balanced Harmonious Similar Curious Public Non Uniform Bright Clear Distinct Unusual Bal anced Harmonious Similar Curious Public 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 118 4.97 5.56 5.0 1 3.03 5.51 5.12 5.22 3.21 5.38 2.14 3.69 4.49 5.03 3.92 3.97 3.97 4.43 2.85 1.67 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.21 1.32 1.25 1.49 1.48 1.14 1.78 1.74 1.39 1.84 1.54 1.45 1.48 1.31 Bright = .000 Clear = .000 Distinct = .011 Unusual = .000 Balanced = .000 Harmonious = .000 Similar = .000 Curious = .000 Public = .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform Clear Interesting 51 51 5.78 4.18 1.25 1.79 Clear = .005 Interesting = .003
70 Table 4 16. Continued Source n Mean* SD p value Americ an x Non Uniform Clear Interesting Chinese x Uniform Clear Interesting Chinese x Non Uniform Clear Interesting 51 51 53 53 67 67 3.27 3.76 5.34 3.36 4.01 4.19 1.61 1.60 1.33 1.43 1.84 1.29 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disag ree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture Balanced Public 1 1 18.707 12.481 18.707 12.481 7.731 6.684 .006 .01 0 ** Light Contrast Bright Clear Distinct Unusual Balanced Harmonious Similar Curious Public 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 450.265 201.392 16.130 213.117 132.874 73.794 85.771 80.953 351.334 450.265 201.392 16.130 213.117 132.874 73.794 85.771 80.953 351.334 228.899 83.840 6.625 114.952 54.911 35.884 46.211 36.746 188.135 .000 .000 .011 .000 .000 .000 .000 .0 00 .000 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Culture by Light Contrast Clear Interesting 1 1 19.237 21.309 19.237 21.309 8.008 9.231 .005 .003 ** ** Error Bright Clea r Distinct Unusual Balanced Harmonious Similar Interesting Curious Public 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 218 428.826 523.656 530.739 404.165 527.516 448.309 404.623 503.255 480.265 407.105 1.967 2.402 2.435 1.854 2.420 2.056 1.856 2.309 2.203 1.867
71 5.78 5.34 3.27 4.01 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Chinese Clear Scores Culture Uniform Non-Uniform 4.18 3.36 3.76 4.19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Chinese Interesting Scores Culture Uniform Non-Uniform Table 4 17. Continued Source df SS MS F p value Total Bright Clear Distinct Unusual Balanced Harmonious Similar Interesting Curious Public 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 222 3552.000 5368. 000 5525.000 4342.000 5520.000 5036.000 5104.000 3892.000 3873.000 4385.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Figure 4 1. Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on perception of clear. Figure 4 2. Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on perception of interesting.
72 Emotional State : Arousal and Pleasure Arousal State A 2 x 2 between arousal levels for the interaction effects of culture and light contrast. Table 4 18 Table 4 19 show a significant effect on the perception of arousal was light contrast F (1,218) = 22.457, p < .001. Thus, all participants perceived th e uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.01, SD = 1.01) as more arousing than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.42, SD = 0.93). A significant two way effect on arousal was culture by light contrast F (1,218) = 6.199, p < .05. Here, both Amer ican ( M = 4.17, SD = 1.13) and Chinese ( M = 3.86, SD = 0.87) groups who viewed the uniform lighting conditions perceived it as more arousing than the Americans ( M = 3.24, SD = 0.96) and Chinese ( M = 3.57, SD = 0.88) who viewed the non uniform lighting c onditions. Table 4 18. Mean and standard deviation ( SD evaluation of arousal. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 3.70 3.70 1.14 0.88 .942 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 4.01 3.42 1.01 0.93 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 4. 17 3.24 3.86 3.57 1.13 0.96 0.87 0.88 .014 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.
73 4.17 3.86 3.24 3.57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Chinese Arousal Score Culture Uniform Non-Uniform Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 .005 .00 5 .005 .942 Light Contrast 1 20.641 20.641 22.457 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 5.697 5.697 6.199 .014 Error 218 200.374 .919 Total 222 3263.313 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Figure 4 3. Interaction ef fect for culture by light contrast on arousal state. Pleasure State As seen in Table 4 21, light contrast F (1,218) = 48.287, p < .001 had a significant effect on pleasure. The results in Table 4 20 show that the participants perceived the uniform light ing conditions ( M = 4.58, SD = 1.13) as more pleasant than the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.50, SD = 1.17). Table 4 20. Mean and standard deviation ( SD evaluation of pleasure. Source n Mean* SD p value Cultur e American Chinese 102 120 4.10 3.93 1.26 1.27 .486 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 4.58 3.50 1.13 1.17 .000
74 Table 4 20. Continued Source n Mean* SD p value Culture by Ligh t Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform 51 51 4.72 3.48 1.15 1.05 .308 Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 53 67 4.45 3.53 1.11 1.25 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly D isagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 .645 .645 .486 .486 Light Contrast 1 64.034 64.034 48.287 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 1.387 1.387 1.046 .308 Error 218 289.096 1.326 Total 222 3920.938 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Behavioral Intentions A 2 x 2 between behavioral intentions for the interaction effects of culture and light contrast. Table 4 22 As Table 4 23 shows the only significant effect was that of light contrast F (1,218) = 22.639, p < .001. U nlike the partic ipants who viewed the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.22, SD = 1.37), those who viewed the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.08, SD = 1.31) had more positive evaluations of their behavioral intentions. They were more willing to shop at the store, purchase merchandise and spend more time in the store with the uniform lighting. Table 4 22. Mean and standard deviation ( SD evaluation of behavioral intentions. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American 102 3.82 1.48 .070 Chinese 120 3.46 1.33 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 4.08 3.22 1.31 1.37 .000
75 Table 4 22. Continued Source n Mean* SD p value Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 4.35 3.30 3.83 3.16 1.34 1.43 1.24 1.33 .300 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 intentions. Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 5.924 5.924 3.323 .070 Light Contrast 1 40.367 40.367 22.639 .000 *** Culture by Light Contrast 1 1.924 1.924 1.079 .300 Error 218 388.710 Total 222 3354.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Attention A 2 x 2 between attention for the interaction effects of culture a nd light contrast. Table 4 24 presents the Table 4 25 shows that the significant effects on attention were light contrast F (1,218) = 6.186, p < .05 ; and culture by light contrast F (1,218) = 6.186, p < 05. T he non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.74, SD = M = 4.15, SD = 1.75). The two way interaction of culture by light contrast showed that the American participants perceived both uniform ( M = 4.61, SD = 1.85) and non uniform ( M = 4.61, SD = 1.79) lighting conditions as equally attention grabbing. In contrast, the non uniform lighting conditions ( M = 4.84, SD = 1.50) were more successful at drawing the ion than the uniform lighting conditions ( M = 3.72, SD = 1.55).
76 3.72 4.61 4.84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Chinese Attention Score Culture Uniform Non-Uniform Table 4 24. Mean and standard deviation ( SD evaluation of attention. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 4.61 4.34 1.81 1.62 .142 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 4.15 4.74 1.75 1.63 .014 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x U niform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 4.61 4.61 3.72 4.84 1.85 1.79 1.55 1.50 .014 *7 point Likert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 attention. Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 6.019 6.019 2.171 .142 Light Contrast 1 17.146 17.146 6.186 .014 Culture by Light Contrast 1 17.146 17.146 6.186 .014 Error 218 604.282 2.772 Total 222 5069.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Figure 4 4. Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on attention.
77 Lighting Preferences A 2 x 2 between lighting preference for the intera ction effects of culture and light contrast. Table 4 26 Table 4 27 show significant effect on preference was light contrast F (1,218) = 41.688, p < .001. A ll participants liked t he uniform lighting ( M = 4.55, SD = 1.61) more than the non uniform lighting ( M = 3.25, SD = 1.55). Also, a significant two way effect on preference was culture by light contrast F (1,218) = 10.128, p < .01. Here, both American ( M = 4.82, SD = 1.75) and Chinese ( M = 4.28 SD = 1.43) groups who viewed the uniform lighting rated higher levels of preference than the Americans ( M = 2.80, SD = 1.50) and Chinese ( M = 3.60, SD = 1.52) who viewed the non uniform lighting. Table 4 26. Mean and standard deviation ( SD preference. Source n Mean* SD p value Culture American Chinese 102 120 3.81 3.90 1.91 1.51 .547 Light Contrast Uniform Non Uniform 104 118 4.55 3.25 1 .61 1.55 .000 Culture by Light Contrast American x Uniform American x Non Uniform Chinese x Uniform Chinese x Non Uniform 51 51 53 67 4.82 2.80 4.28 3.60 1.75 1.50 1.43 1.52 .002 *7 point L ikert type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Table 4 Source df SS MS F p value Culture 1 .874 .874 .363 .547 Light Contrast 1 100.266 100.266 41.688 .000 *** Cultu re by Light Contrast 1 24.360 24.360 10.128 .002 ** Error 218 524.325 2.405 Total 222 3951.000 p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
78 4.82 4.28 2.8 3.6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 American Chinese Lighting Preference Score Culture Uniform Non-Uniform Figure 4 5. Interaction effect for culture by light contrast on lighting preference. C omments on Lighting Preferences In order to further examine lighting preference in retail spaces, the participants were asked to explain why they liked or disliked the scene that they viewed. A thorough content analysis revealed four major themes: 1) lig preference theory, 3) store atmosphere, and 4) emotional response. The results in Table 4 28 show the most and least preferred responses pertaining to each theme. The comments about lighting factors included light c ontrast, lighting appearance, illumination levels, and color appearance. Comments about the preference theory included understanding (coherence and legibility) and exploration (complexity and mystery). Store atmosphere included store design, store image and product perception. Lastly, emotional responses included arousal and pleasure. Table 4 28. Selected responses categorized by theme. Uniform Lighting Non Uniform Lighting Theme Most Preferred Least Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred 1) Light ing Factors Light Contrast (distribution, direction, focus light, relation to product touch the products because It is very focused and a ttracts my attent ion too high so it is not the kind I
79 Table 4 28. Continued Uniform Lighting Non Uniform Lighting Theme Most Preferred Least Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred Lighting Appearance (luminance) lighting is Illumination Levels (brightness/intensity) brightness and the amount of shadowing is appropriate. harsh and very would be harsh Color Appearance it to be creates a mysterious 2) Preference Theory Understanding: Coherence Legibility the merchandise so I know exactly distinguish the products and find your way that they are trying to show case the products available in this see things from far away and it path you are supposed to to recognize the Exploration: Complexity Mystery a little and mysterious and makes you want to find out what the store people to explore this store because it loo ks mysterious and has especially dark, which might cause safety closed in and lost in this 3) Store Atmosphere Store Design arranged the stor e are placed in a harmonious and welcoming design lacks
80 Table 4 28. Continued Uniform Lighting Non Uniform Lighting Theme Most Preferred Least Preferred Most Preferred Least Preferred Store Image of the store has gives off a pompous look expensive, and has a cool too high of Hollister and I hate that Product Perception merchandise looks more sophisticated and people feel that the merchandise look very high class and expe frustrated if I got home and the color looked 4) Emotional Response Arousal lively with the interesting to ambiance arises curiosity from Pleasure because it is not space comfortable and expensive which intimidates it very aggravating to shop in a very people feel As see n in Table 4 29, the frequency in which each theme was referenced in the responses allowed for tangible and measureable data. Out of the 364 (100%) total mentions, approximately 45% of the responses involved lighting factors; 14% mentioned aspects of the preference theory; 20% mentioned store atmosphere; and 21% mentioned emotions. The responses for each theme were categorized by lighting condition and then subcategorized by the most and least preferred. The following section further explains
81 each theme with direct quotes placed in brackets. A full transcript of all responses can be viewed in Appendix H. Table 4 Number of Mentions ( N = 364) Uniform Non Uniform Theme Most Preferred Least Pref erred Most Preferred Least Preferred Total ( Theme %) Tota l % 1) Lighting Factors Light Contrast (distribution, direction, focus light, relation to product) Lighting Appearance (luminance) Illumin ation Levels (brightness/intensity) Color Appearance 20 2 34 0 6 8 14 2 20 0 0 0 4 0 54 0 164 (100.0) 50 (31.0) 10 (6.0) 102 (62.0) 2 (1.0) 45.0 2) Preference Theory Understandin g: Coherence/Legibility Exploration: Complexity/Mystery 24 0 0 0 2 6 18 2 52 (100.0) 44 (85.0) 8 (15.0) 14.0 3) Store Atmosphere Store Design Store Image Product Perception 2 14 16 10 16 4 0 6 0 0 2 2 72 (100.0) 12 (16.0) 38 (53.0) 22 (31.0) 20.0 4) Emotional Response Arousal Pleasure 4 16 8 16 0 6 6 20 76 (100.0) 18 (24.0) 58 (76.0) 21.0 Light Factors Of the 164 (100%) responses about lig hting factors, approximately 50 (31%) pertained to light contrast, 10 (6%) pertained to lighting appearance, 102 (62%) pertained to illumination levels, and 2 (1%) pertained to color appearance. Positive comments about light contrast included mentions of relationship of the lighting to the products. Comments about lighting appearance explained how the lighting made the overall space look. Favorable comments about the illumination levels mostly focused on the preferred brightness or dimness. A few
82 comments about the preferred color appearance talked about the coolness of the lighting although it was controlled at 4 100K. Those who did not prefer the lighting contrast commented on their dislike of uniformity or unevenne ss. Comments expressing dislike of the light appearance discussed the naturalness of the lighting. Negative comments about the illumination levels focused on the excessive brightness or lack of lighting. Some commented on their dislike for the color app earance of the lighting. Preference Theory approximately 44 (85%) pertained to the coherence and legibility, under the umbrella category of understanding, and about 8 (15%) pertain ed to complexity and mystery, under the umbrella category of exploration. Positive comments about understanding the scenes included the ease of viewing the products and wandering through the space. Positive comments regarding exploration included having a sense of uniqueness and curiosity because of the lighting conditions. In contrast, most negative responses about uniform scenes as well as feelings of insecurity. Store Atmosphere Of the 72 (100%) comments about store atmosphere, 12 (16%) pertained to store design, 38 (53%) pertained to store image and 22 (31%) pertained to product perception. For the most preferred lighting the participants commented on the layout of the space. They a elegant, hip, and modern. In regards to product perception, they linked their perception
83 the partic ipants commented on the creativity level of the interior as well as the finishes. the participants mentioned that the lighting did not properly display the products and t hat it turned them against the product. Emotional Response Of the 76 (100%) comments about emotional response, 18 (24%) focused on arousal and 58 (76%) focused on pleasure. For the most preferred lighting conditions the participants commented on positiv e feelings that the lighting elicited, either high or low arousal. In regards to pleasure, they mentioned comfort and a sense of belonging. In contrast, for the least preferred lighting conditions the participants commented on personally undesirable lev els of arousal. For pleasure, the participants commented on discomfort, frustration and a sense of coldness.
84 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The objective of this study was to explore the effects of light contrast to determine American and Chinese consume states, behavioral intentions and attention in a retail environment. This chapter expand s upon findings described in Chapter 4 with theoretical explanation. Further, it describe s implications and conclusions, as we ll as suggestions for future research in regard to lighting design in retail environments. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of light contrast on light preference of American and Chinese consumers in a retail environment. A pplying this study explored the effects of light contrast on the preference need to understand and explore in a retail environment by comparing the two different cultures The relationship of understanding, coherence and legibility as well as the relationship of exploration, comp lexity and mystery were examined in the context of a retail store. Understanding: Coherence and Legibility As hypothesized, light contrast was found to have a positive relationship on the (Wertheimer, 192 3 Nasar, 2000). In this study, the participants were asked to evaluate the four dimensions of coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery, along with the need of understanding and exploration. erence was linked to evenly shaded elements across a scene. The results showed that the uniform
85 lighting conditions was perceived as more coherent than the non uniform lighting conditions. Assuming a relationship between light contrast and brightness, t h ese results aligned with the research of Hiday e toglu, Yildirim and Akalin (2012), which concluded that lighting factors, particularly cool bright light, positively influenced al understanding or coherence and legibility. E xpanding research to understand the relationship of l ight contrast and brightness would help clarify the findings of the current study. Contradicting findings by Ham et al. (2004), the results indicated that culture did not have a significant influence on the perception of coherence. Their findings indicated that Chinese participants perceived and therefore preferred scenes with higher levels of coherence than their American counterparts. Reasons for this contradiction may be that the participants in Ham e t al. s (2004) study viewed a variety of scenes ranging in function, spatial size, directional emphasis, and lighting type. The authors acknowledged that due to the lack of control for the scene nments could have affected their perceptions and preferences. In the current study, both Chinese and American groups viewed the same exact scene of a hypothetical clothing store with two different lighting conditions. The high end store image and the cas ual store image did not yield any significant differences; store type did not factor into their ability to understand the scene. Therefore, all scenes with the uniform lighting (Scenes A and C) and all scenes with the non uniform lighting (Scenes B and D) were combined. The open higher levels of coherence under the uniform lighting conditions. For example, a look
86 he overall store of disconnect or incoherence between the lighting and the rest of the store design. The results of this study revealed that light contrast also signi ficantly influenced et al. 1979) and compris ed s perceived the uniform lighting conditions as more legible than the non uniform lighting conditions. These findings supported the research of Oyama (2004) who found that bright daylighting with fluctuations of uniformity and non uniformity was ideal for tasks such as meeting and that non uniform lighting conditions provided enhanced legibility in regard to wayfinding via defined paths and landmarks (Arthur & Passini, 1992; Liljefors, 2005 ). Reasons for this contradiction may be that illumination levels in the current study may have had a and D. The results of Van Erp ( 2008 ) also showed the dependency of light contrast perception on illumination levels This work suggested further exploration to clarify the relationship between these two lighting factors. As illustrated in Chapter 4, Table 4 29 shows a higher frequency of commen ts related to illumination levels (87) as compared to light contrast (60). Participants also consistently commented that the lighting conditions for Scenes B and D were too dark. One participant who viewed Scene D
87 ce the rest of the store is so dark it is hard to see things from far away and it isn't clear what path you are supposed to follow around the (1982) categories of understanding: coherence and legibility. Understanding was positively correlated with both coherence and legibility. Thus, as the perception of coherence or legibility incr understanding of the scene. C oherence was also positively correlated with legibility; as the perception of coherence increased, so did the perception of legibility. The se outcomes support the environmental preference theory which state that coherent environments evoke the need for im mediate understanding and legible environments evoke the need for inferred understanding. Both factors help the viewer make sense of the scene in current encounters as well as future encounters (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1998). These results also validated previo us research which found similar positive correlations between coherence and legibility (Anderson, 1978; Herzog, 1992; Herzog & Leverich, 2003; Kaplan, Ka p lan & Brown, 1989). Exploration: Complexity and Mystery According to previous studies, light contra st had been found to influence the impression of complexity within a scene (Ham et al. 2004; Vogels, 2008; Custers et al. 2010 uniform lighting can be utilized to a certain exten t to induce a sense of excitement in a space. In this study, the manipulation of light contrast yielded similar results, and thus strengthen e d
88 preference theory (1987). Participants perceived n on uniform lighting as more complex than uniform lighting. However, culture did not have a significant influence on (2004) who found that both American and Chinese groups had similar perceptions and preferences for complex environments. The results of this study also revealed that light contrast significantly influenced (Flynn e t al. 1979; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Kellert, 2005). The participants perceived the non uniform lighting conditions as more mysterious than the uniform lighting conditions. Similar to the study of Herzog and Miller (1998), the open ended responses reveale d that the participants perceived the mysterious lighting as either intriguing or curiosity from consumers... however, this area is especially dark, which might cause safety Several other comments related to the perception of privacy. Flynn et al. (1979) compiled a list of scales measuring subjective impressions of lighting and categorized the publi c/private scale under the concept of social prominence. One participant that he or she perceived high levels of mystery as being private. Another participant who viewed uniform lighting and the mystery factor in terms of interest, safety, and privacy levels.
89 Further analysis of the dat a revealed a significant positive correlation between complexity and mystery, but no correlation between complexity or mystery and e xploration Thus, as the perception of complexity increased, so did the perception of mystery. This result aligned with t he findings o f Scott (1993) which was one of the first studies to i ndicate a high correlation between c omplexity and mystery specifically in interior environments As Hanyu (2000) suggested, non uniform lighting can be used to create excitement in retail environments to draw people in to the environment Although no significant correlation was found between complexity or mystery and exploration, designers can use non uniform lighting to add visual richness to a store environment which will al low customers to make inferences for future shopping experiences. Lighting Preferences Research on retail lighting has confirmed the significance of various lighting ity to understand and explore the environment and thus, their lighting preferences (Areni & Kim, 1994; Biner, Butler, Fischer, & Westergren, 1989; Chang, 2012; Park & Farr, 2007). However, these studies did not consider all light factors The current stu dy supplemented existing research by examining the effects of light contrast on Overall, the results for preference revealed that the uniform (coherent) lighting was preferred by all participants, Chinese and American. Th is was further validated by qualitative data obtained from the open ended responses, which indicated participants had more positive things to say about the uniform lighting conditions : the merchandise so I know exactly what I am buying; I Previous
90 research had indicated tendencies for Americans to be analytic thinkers and object oriented, whereas Chinese and other East Asian cultures tend to be holistic thinkers and context oriented (Hofstede, 2011 ; Lee & Park, 201 1; Masuda et al., 2008; Park & Farr, 2007). Based on these findings, it was confirmed that there was an overall positive relationship between uniform lighting and lighting preference in the Chinese group because the lighting was distributed throughout the entire scene. Interestingly, there was also a positive relationship between uniform lighting and preference in the American group despite previous research stating that Americans were more object oriented (Masuda et al., 2008) A cross cultural compariso n revealed that the Chinese group h ad higher preference s for the non uniform (complex) lighting compared to the American group Likewise, the American group h ad higher preference s for the uniform (coherent) lighting compared to the C hinese group This challenged the findings of Ham et al. (2004) which found that the Chinese group preferred uniform ( coherent ) environments and h ad low preference for non uniform (complex) s cenes compared to the American group T his contradiction ca in which the Americans rated the uniform lighting as more interesting whereas the Chinese rated the non uniform lighting as more interesting Results also indicated the Chinese group rated the non uniform lighting as more interesting than the uniform lighting and the American group rated the uniform lighting as more interesting than the non uniform lighting.
91 this study, b oth cultural groups may have preferred the lighting condition that was less common in their own culture and therefore, they thought the unfamiliar scene was more uniform scene negatively commented on how it reminded them of existing American clothing stores that they dislike. lighting is too dark for a retail store. It reminds me of One Chinese participant who also viewed the non very In conclusion, since the retail industry is becoming increasingly globalized, there is no definitive lighting solution for every culture. R etail designers can use light contrast as an interest factor to entice shoppers to enter the store. For example, uniform ambient lighting may interest American (analytic thinking ) shoppers whereas non uniform accent lighting may interest Asian (holistic thinking ) shoppers. Alt hough non traditional light factors can create a sense of interest and excitement designers should carefully consider the purpose of the store they are designing because not all retailers have the same go al of generating excitement. Rather, some may place function over aesthetic, such as hardware stores, where the consumer only shops there with a specific task in mind and places less value on his or her interest level On the other hand, c lothing stores and other recreational st ores especially those targeted towards young adults can especially benefit by creating edgy and hip environments. Lighting Perceptions Light factors such as correlated color temperature, illumination levels, direction, and contrast have consistently been found to influence environmental perceptions
92 especially in retail environments where positive perceptions are vital to customer satisfaction (Baumstarck, 2008; Flynn, 1988 ; Park & Farr, 2007; Van Erp, 2008). Sinc e few studies have considered culture as a variable, the current study investigated the effects of light contrast on perception and found several cultural differences between Americans and Chinese. Further analysis revealed significant effects on the perception of balance, public, brightness clarity, distinctness, unusualness, harmony, similarity, curiosity, and interest. Overall, the participants perceived the uniform lighting conditions as brighter, clearer, and more distinct, harmonious, similar and more public than the non uniform ligh ting. In contrast, the participants perceived the non uniform lighting conditions as more unusual and curious; the Chinese group perceived non uniform lighting as more interesting, whereas the American group did not. These results validated previous lite perception of lighting conditions (Flynn et al. 1979; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1982; Kellert; 2005). These results were further supported by the qualitative data from the ope n ended questions. The majority of the comments about the uniform lighting included the exact Likewise, the majority of the comments about the non uniform lighting included phrases unique Again, designers should consider the purpose of the retail store when determi ning the most appropriate lighting solutions. Uniform ly lit stores would be suitable for customers
93 who prefer a consistent shopping environment and want to see the products easily. Non uniform lighting would be suitable for stores that want to evoke curi osity and lure the customer in. Emotional State: Arousal and Pleasure In the context of retail environments, there is a plethora of research on the effects of lighting on the emotional states of arousal and pleasure (Areni & Kim, 1994; Baker et al., 1992 ; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Herbert, 2001). This research recognized the importance of color temperature and illumination levels on emotional state but few had considered the effects of light contrast (Flynn, 1988 ) on consumers, let alone those of diff Chinese Arousal State Previous literature has found that lighting strongly influences states of arousal and pleasure which, in turn, influence consumer behavior such as purchase intentions and store patronage (Baker et al. 1992; Fleisher, Krueger, Schierz, 2001; Hendrick et al. 1977; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Herbert, 2001). With the exception of the r esearch of Hendrick et al. these stud ies did not specifically explore the impact of light contrast. This study examined the effects of uniform and non uniform lighting on state of arousal and pleasure. stimulation and ex citement (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Mehrabian & Russell, 1974). way (light contrast) and two way (culture by light contrast) effect on arousal. Overall, the participants perceived the uniform
94 lighting as m ore arousing than the non uniform lighting. This validated the results of Hendrick et al. current study, the American group rated a higher level of arousal as compared to the Chinese p articipants. This finding aligns with the results of Park and Farr (2007) whose American participants perceived the overall lighting as more arousing than their Korean participants. Likewise, out of the participants who viewed the non uniform lighting co nditions, the American group rated the lowest level of arousal compared to the Chinese group. This observation revealed that the American group was more sensitive to the lighting conditions than the Chinese group. These results partially contradicted th e findings of Ting Toomey & Kurogi (1998) who stated that Chinese consumers were very sensitive to stimuli, especially those relating to social versus personal image. arousal were ide al for optimal shopping experiences and spending behavior. Subsequent research even concluded that depending on the scenario, high levels of arousal may also enhance consumer behavior (Baker et al. 1992; Fiore, Yah & Yoh, 2000; Rompay, Tanja Dijkstra, Ve rhoeven, & Es, 2012; Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, conditions that they rated as most arousing to them. S inc e the Chinese group perceived the non uniform (complex) li ghting as interesting their level of arousal increased, thus influencing their preference for it (Loe Manfield & Rowlands, 1994; Newsham, Richardson, Blanchet, & Veitch 2005; Veitch & Newsham, 2000) Furthermore, the Americans who least preferred the n on uniform lighting rated lower arousal levels and commented that they felt like they were in a bedroom and that
95 Besides cultural effect s, other atmospheric factors may have contributed to the different perceptions of arousal. Sources of stimulation come from a variety of elements including color, material finishes and lighting and could have affected the participants differently (Babin, Hardesty & Suter, 2003; Chebat & Michon 2003; Quartier, Vanrie, Van Cleempoel, n.d.). In addition, even though light contrast was the only variable being examined, other light factors such as color appearance, illumination levels, and luminance could have influenced arousal. Therefore, f uture research on arou sal states should consider the interactive relationship of these variables, especially light contrast and brightness Pleasure State A second component to emotional state consists of pleasure (Mehrabi an & Russell, 1974). It is defined as the amount of happiness or satisfaction one feels as a result of his or her environment (Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Park et al. 2010). The t on pleasure. Overall, the participants perceived the uniform (coherent) lighting conditions as more pleasant than the non uniform lighting conditions Though the results yielded similar relationships, these findings only partially reinforced prior rese arch regarding the effects of lighting on emotional state (Areni & Kim, 1994; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Herbert, 2001). These studies did not examine light contrast but rather, other related light factors such as illumination levels and light color. F urther, Areni et al. (1994) and
96 Summers and Herbert (2001) both conducted field studies in non clothing type stores, whereas Park and Farr (2007) conducted a clothing store mock up in a laboratory. Furthermore, since the participants rated the uniform lighting as both pleasant and arousing, this study expected to find a positive relationship between pleasure and arousal. The findings were consistent with prior research (Baker et al. 1992; Gordon, 2003) indicating that increased arousal led to increase d pleasure. Overall, the participants perceived the uniform lighting as most arousing, which subjected them to increased feeli ngs of pleasure. Likewise, they perceived the non uniform lighting as least arousing, which subjected them to decreased feelings of pleasure. According to the results, light contrast was a significant main effect on the the uniform lighting as bright and pleasant, and the non uniform lightin g as dim and unpleasant. Therefore, a correlation between illumination level and degree of pleasure was expected. For the uniform lighting conditions, the positive correlation between brightness and pleasure was supported by the findings of Mehrabian and Russell (1974) as well as Fleischer et al. (2001). For the non uniform lighting conditions, the positive correlation between dimness and displeasure was partially supported by the findings of Park et al. (2010) who reported that their Korean participants ranked warm/dim lighting as unpleasant. However, this relationship did not apply to their American participants who rated the dim lighting as pleasant Thus, retailers and designers who want to induce customer pleasure can use lighting to create enviro nments with moderate levels of arousal, as extremely high levels of arousal could eventually have a negative impact (Berlyne, 1974)
97 Behavioral Intentions Of the existing research on the effects of lighting on consumer behavior, none had discussed light c ontrast as a n independent variable. In addition it was rare to find retail lighting studies such as that of Park and Farr (2007) that implemented cultural differences. Therefore, the current study considered how both issues related to behavioral intenti ons in a retail environment. The results of this study showed that light who viewed the uniform lighting conditions reported a greater willingness to shop at the sto re and spend more time and money there than in the non uniform lighting conditions. This finding supported previous research on the effects of lighting on consumer behavior (Areni & Kim, 1994; Barl et al. 2011; Park & Farr, 2007; Summers & Herbert; 2001 ). Sinc e in store shopping is a visual task, it requires the consumer to see and evaluate the product in order to determine if they want to purchase it. Upon analyzing the four emerging themes in the content analysis (light factors, preference theory, store atmosphere, and emotional response) it became apparent that the partic ipants were most outspoken about the lighting factors affecting their ability to see. Many of the participants left positive responses for T he lighting is vibrant; i t is well l it, bright, lively, and clear; the amount of shadowing is appropriate. Most of the negative comments were directed at the non unif orm lighting conditions: t is too dim and dark. Thus, it makes sense that the participants were more willing to shop and spend more time a nd money at the uniformly lit store versus the non uniformly lit store. As a result, designers can use uniform
98 lightin g for stores that require high visual tasks such as reading in a bookstore or product evaluation such as a clothing or grocery store St ores that want to incorporate non uniform lighting to create interest should at least consider using uniform lighting in the areas where consumers make most of their shopping decisions such as the dressing room and transaction area. Attention Understandin g how people focus their attention is crucial for designers and retailers who want to appeal to their target consumer. The research of Masuda et al. (2008) and Masuda and Nisbett (2001) compared the attention to context of Japanese, Chinese, Korean and Am ericans but did not apply this to a retail setting. On the other lighting affected this. Thus, the current study compared light contrast on the attention levels of Chinese and Americans. The results of this study indicated that the significant effects on attention included light contrast and culture by light contrast. The participants perceived the non uniform lighting conditions as more attention grabbing than the unifo rm lighting conditions. Likewise, the two way interaction showed that the non uniform lighting conditions more conditions. A cross cultural comparison revealed that the Ameri can group perceived the uniform lighting as more attention grabbing as compared to the Chinese group. Furthermore, the Chinese group perceived the non uniform lighting as more attention grabbing than the American group did. These results related back to the concept of T he Americans showed more
99 interest for the uniform scene, while the Chinese group showed more interest for the non uniform scene Therefore, retail designers can utilize light contr ast as a method of Conclusions and Implications In the retail industry, companies constantly evolve their marketing strategies to enforce their brand, remain competitive and increase profit (Mo ore & Lochhead, 1998). Hence, good store design along with quality products is crucial to attracting and retaining customers and accomplishing these business goals As this study and previous research shows, lighting is an essential component to creati ng tailored (Custers et al., 2010) The results support the and suggests that designers, retailers and marketers should accommodate ds in all aspects of the interior design process. Furthermore, because cultural thinking style was preference, designers should consider whether the target shopper s are a nalytical or holistic thinkers. However, due to the increased globalization of the retail industry, it may be difficult to come up with def initive solutions Therefore, designing retail environments should be on a case by case basis in terms of the type of retail store (i.e. clothing store, grocery store, or electronic store) and the type of consumer that would benefit from the environment. This study provides initial insight on the effects of light contrast on consumer preferences in a retail clothing store. Light contrast was digitally manipulated to create a hypothetical store. The results indicated that light contrast significantly affected the
100 need for understanding (coherence and legibility) and exploration (complexity and mystery) lighting perc eption, arousal and pleasure states, behavioral intentions, attention and lighting preference In general, uniform lighting was perceived as more understandable and conducive to exploration. It was also perceived as more coherent, legible, balanced, pub lic, clear, bright, distinct, harmonious, and similar. Thus, the uniform lighting was more arousing and pleasurable. As a result, the participants preferred the uniform lighting and were more likely to shop, spend money and stay longer in this environmen t. In general, non uniform lighting was percei ved as more complex, mysterious and attention grabbing by both cultural groups In conclusion, designers should consider the type and function of the store and the goals of the retailer. Uniform lighting cou ld be more beneficial for functional and task related stores tasks like wayfinding (Weisman, 1981; Hidayetoglu et al., 2012) reading and examining products. In the se cases, designers should create coherent and legible environments to encourage users need for understanding designers can incorporate diffused lighting that is consistently spread out across the store. On the other hand, non uniform lighting could benef it stores that want to evoke feelings and create an exciting visual experience (Hanyu, 2000). In these cases, designers should enhance environmental complexity and mystery. Based on the framework, accent lighting can highlight products and textures that infer information about the rest of the store. However, b ased on t he result s of this study l ight contrast by itself did not support the correlatio nal relationship of complexity an d mystery w ith the need for exploration, as Kaplan and Ka plan had suggested in their preference theory
101 Therefore, future studies can validate this study s conclusion by exam ining the interaction of light contrast with other light factors on complexity, mystery and consumers need to explore a retail s tore F urthermore, studies could also replicate this study s methodology of isolating the light contrast variable in d ifferent interior settings to determine whether or not it i nfluence s exploration of o ther types of environment s The two way effect of culture by light contrast influenced lighting perception, arousal, attention and light preference. The American participants thought the uniform lighting was more attention grabbing and arousing and therefore preferred it more than the Chinese. This can be explained by their greater interest for the uniform lighting than the non uniform lighting. On the other hand, t he Chinese participants thought the non uniform lighting was more atten tion grabbing and arousing and therefore preferred it more than the Americans. This can be explain ed by their greater interest for the non uniform lighting than the uniform lighting. Despite literature that says Eastern cultures are more field oriented a nd Western cultures are more ob ject oriented (Choi et al., 2007; Masuda & Nisbett, 2001), designers can incorporate design elements to stimulate interest in cultural groups that are not accustom to experiencing certain lighting conditions in stores. This advantage. Based on the results of this study, uniform lighting may be ideal for American retail stores and non uniform lighting may be ideal for East Asian retail stores. However designers should psychological needs to produce a detailed program that will guide the design decisions. psychological wellbeing in that it can positively or negatively influence their arousal and pleasure states Quality
102 lighting creates optimistic experiences in the store, which encourages positive behavior such as spending and customer loyalty. In turn, this continuous relationship between the consumer and retailer generates profit. Thus, the role of the designer is to create solutions that would perpetuate this cycle in the retail industry. An understanding of cultural similarities and differences can also help designers be more sensitive to the needs of international clients. Furthermore design students and clients can better understand the impact of environmental psychology on everyday lives. In conclusion, future exploration in the topic of retail lighting design appears promising. T he goals of ret ail lighting design are to create a positive shopping atmosphere, to attract customers and to allow them to evaluate the product. Based on to those of different cultur es and thinking styles. In this case, designers should carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using uniform versus non uniform lighting. Also, s ubsequent research can expand this current study into an examination o f the interrelationship of multiple light factors (i.e. light color, distribution, illumination levels) rather than just one which is most applicable to real life situations. Since this study used a hypothetical store setting, a field study c ould provide more accurate and tangible results. Due to the fact that this study specifically looked at a fashion clothing store, other types of retail stores should be considered like grocery stores, technology stores, and bookstores. Another suggestion for future research is to observe various other consumer types such as different cultural backgrounds, the middle age to elderly population and men and women. Lastly, a comparative study between other market sectors of design (i.e. education, corporate,
103 healthcare, and hospitality) can be beneficial, as these entail different needs and functions than retail design. Understanding the influences of these design elements in a broader sense can contribute to the body of knowledge in the field of interior des ign.
104 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL
105 APPENDIX B IRB REVISION APPROVAL
106 APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM ENGLISH The effects of lighting on consumer perceptions & preferences of a retail environment **Please read this consent form carefully before you decide to participate in this study.** Purpose of the research study: preferences. The results will be used to help interior designers and store owners create more des irable shopping environments for their target customers. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to view a scene of a boutique store. Based on this image, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire about your opinions. Time required : The questionnaire is expected to take no more than 20 minutes. Risks and benefits: There are no expected risks or benefits associated with the study. If you have any visual impairment (i.e. color blindness) that cannot be fixed with corrective lenses, yo u will be excluded from the study. Compensation: You will be paid $2.50 compensation for participating in this research. Confidentiality: You will NOT be asked to give your name or contact information. Any personal demographic information will only be used to compare your responses to other participants. All responses will remain anonymous. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are not obligated to complete the questionnaire. 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 wish to answer. If you choose to withdraw, ple ase inform the survey administrator and your survey will be destroyed. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Amanda Le Dr. Nam Kyu Park Graduate Student Asst. Professor, Grad. Coordinator, Thesis Chair Department of Interior Design Department of Interior Design Architecture Building Architecture Building Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, UF, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; T: (352) 392 0433 Agreement: I have read the pr ocedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. _____________________________ __________________ Date _____________________________ __________________ Signature Date
107 APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM C HINESE The effects of lighting on consumer perceptions and preferences of a retail environm ent ** ** $2.50 Amanda Le (Graduate Student) Dr. Nam Kyu Park (Thesis Cha ir) Department of Interior Design Department of Interior Design 313 Architecture Building 354 Architecture Building IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; T: (352) 392 0433 ________________________________ __________________________ ________________________________ __________________________
108 APPENDIX E INSTRUMENT ENGLISH 1. Please read the following statements and rate how much you agree or disagree. STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE s behavior, the consideration of the situation that a person is faced with should precede his/her personality. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The whole, rather than its parts, should be considere d in order to understand a phenomenon. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 It is impossible to understand the parts without considering the whole picture. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 It is more important to pay attention to the whole than to its parts. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I like situations or tasks in which I am not concerned with details. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I care more about the details of a task I have to do. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 We should pay attention to the whole context rather than the details. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 You will be shown a n image of a retail store Please answer the following questions. 2. What would you do if you entered this store? STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE I would definitely shop at 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 at this store. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3
109 3. Please read the following statem ents and rate how much you agree or disagree. STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE It is easy to understand what the products are in this store. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I co uld describe types of products displayed in this store. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 This store stimulates my interest. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would like to explore this store more. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would say the price of merchandise in this store would be h igh 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 4. Please read the following statements and rate how much you agree or disagree. STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE The lighting condition draws my attentio n to the merchandise. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I initially pay more attention to the entire environment rather than on the products when I first see this scene. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 My vision categorizes background elements (walls, ceiling, floor) as one gro up and foreground elements (displays, merchandise) as another group. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The lighting condition in this store is appropriate. 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 5. Based on the lighting condition in this store, I would be more likely to: Avoid 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Approach 6. Please rate how the lighting condition in this store makes you feel: Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant Unhappy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Happy Excited 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calm Unaroused 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aroused Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dissatisfied
110 Wide Awake 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sleepy Uncomfortable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comfortable Relaxed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated 7. Please rate your overall impression of the lighting condition in this store: Warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cool Dim 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bright Uniform 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non uniform Complex 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Simple Legible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No n l egible Hazy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Clear High contrast 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low contrast Distinct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vague Unusual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Usual Low quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High Quality Be autiful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ugly 8. Please rate your perception of the lighting condition in this store: Coherent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Incoherent Unbalanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Balanced Harmonious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Discordant Diss imilar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S imilar Mysterious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non mysterious Uninteresting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting Curious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not curious Public 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private 9. Please rate how much you agree or disagree with the following adjectives STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE Modern 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Welcoming 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 + 3
111 Lively 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Dynamic 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Chic 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Elegant 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Luxurious 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Exclusive 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 High Class 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Youthful 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Economical 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Sophisticated 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Annoying 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Expensive 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Superficial 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Irritating 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Traditional 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 10. Overall, how much do you like this store lig hting condition ? Dislike 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Like 10a. Please explain why you chose this response above 11. DEMOGRAPHICS What is your gender? Male Female What is your age? Less than 18 19 21 21 25 26 30 31 35 More than 35
112 Were you born and raised in the United States? Yes No If no, where were you born and raised? __________________________________________ How long have you lived in the United States? Less than 1 year 1 3 years 4 7 years 8 1 0 years More than 10 years What is your race or ethnic background? White Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Native American or American Indian Asian / Pacific Islander Other, please specify: ______________________________________________ Have you taken any lighting courses or worked as lighting professional? Yes No If yes, please specify: _________________________________________________________ Do you have any visual impairments (example: color blindness) that cannot be corrected by your g lasses or contact lenses? Yes No Do you usually wear glasses or contact lenses to correct your vision? Yes No If yes, are you wearing them now? Yes No Thank you for your participation! Amanda Le University of Florida College of Design, Construction & Planning Department of Interior Design
113 APPENDIX F INSTRUMENT CHINESE 1. Please read the following statements and rate how much you agree or disagree. ( ) STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE consideration of the situation that a person is faced with should precede his/her personality. ( / / ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The whole, rather than its parts, should be considered in order to understand a phenomenon. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 It is impossible to understand the parts without considering the whole picture. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 It is m ore important to pay attention to the whole than to its parts. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I like situations or tasks in which I am not concerned with details. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I care more about the details of a task I have to do. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 We should pay attention to the whole context rather t han the details. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 You will be shown a store image. Please answer the following questions. ( )
114 2. What would you do if you entered this store? ( ) STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE I would definitely shop at 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 at t his store. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 3. Please read the following statements and rate how much you agree or disagree. ( ) STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AG REE It is easy to understand what the products are in this store. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I could describe types of products displayed in this store. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 This store stimulates my interest. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would like to explore this store more. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I would say the price of merchandise in this store would be high. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3
115 4. Please read the following statements and rate how much you agree or disagree. ( ) STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE The ligh ting condition draws my attention to the merchandise. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 I initially pay more attention to the entire environment rather than on the products when I first see this scene. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 My vision categorizes background elements (walls, ceiling, floor) as one group and foreground elements (displays, merchandise) as another group. ( 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 The lighting condition in this store i s appropriate. ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 5. Based on the lighting condition in this store, I would be more likely to: ( ) Avoid ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Approach ( ) 6. Please rate how the lighting condition in this store makes you feel: ( ) Pleasant ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unpleasant ( ) Unhappy ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Happy ( ) Excited ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calm ( ) Unaroused ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Aroused ( )
116 Satisfied ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Dissatisfied ( ) Wide Awake ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sleepy ( ) Uncomfortable ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Comfortable ( ) Relaxed ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Stimulated ( ) 7. Please rate your overall impression of the lighting condition in this store: ( ) Warm ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cool ( ) Dim ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bright ( ) Uniform ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non uniform ( ) Complex ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Simple ( ) Legible ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No n l egible ( ) Hazy ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Clear ( ) High contrast ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low contrast ( ) Distinct ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Vague ( ) Unusual ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Usual ( ) Low quality ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High Quality ( ) Beautiful ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ugly ( )
117 8. Please rate your per ception of the lighting condition in this store: ( ) Coherent ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Incoherent ( ) Unbalanced ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Balanced ( ) Harmonious ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Discordant ( ) Diss imilar ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S imilar ( ) Mysterious ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Non mysterious ( ) Uninteresting ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Interesting ( ) Curious ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not curious ( ) Public ( ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Private ( ) 9. Please rate how much you agree or disagree with t he following adjectives ( ) STRONGLY STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE Modern ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Welcoming ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Lively ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Dynamic ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Chic ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Elegant ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3
118 Luxurious ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Exclusive ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 High Class ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 + 2 +3 Youthful ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Economical ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Sophisticated ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Annoying ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Expensive ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Superficial ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Irritating ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Traditional ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 10. Overall, how much do you like this store lighting condition ? ( ) Dislike ( ) 3 2 1 0 +1 +2 +3 Like ( ) 10a. Please explain why you chose this response above ( )
119 11. Demographics What is your gender? ( ) Male ( ) Female ( ) What is your age? ( ) Less than 18 years old ( 18 ) 19 21 years old (19 21 ) 21 25 years old (21 25 ) 26 30 years old (26 30 ) 31 35 years old (31 35 ) More than 35 years old ( 35 ) Were you born and raised in China? ( ?) Yes ( ) No ( ) Have you ever lived abroad? ( ?) Yes ( ) No ( ) What countries? For how long? ( ? ? ) Are you a student? ( ?) Yes ( ) No ( ) Have you taken any courses related to lighting or design? ( ) Yes. Please specify ( ) :_____________________________ No ( ) Do you have any visual impairments (ex: color blindness) that cannot be corrected with glasses or contact lenses? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( )
120 Do you usually wear glasses or contact lenses to correct your vision? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, are you wearing glasses or contact lens es now? ( ) Yes ( ) No ( ) Thank you for your participation! Amanda Le University of Florida College of Design, Construction & Planning Department of Interior Design
121 APPENDIX G AMERICAN Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred A Because it's very easy to see everything in the store so it would take me less time to gauge whether or not I want to go in. The lights in the center focus my eyes to the picture of the models in the back so I know the type of image the store is going for. The brightness also s uggests that they welcome everyone to come in even if you can't really afford the merchandise. A The lighting gives off a pompous look to the store. The first thing I noticed was the pic t ure in the background with the four models and we all know that not everyone can look like them. The message it sends it that "You should look like us." The lighting also shows the awkward placing of the cushioned seat at the center and the likely overpri ced products which seem to be in short supply too. The lighting affects the entire image of the store and it is much too bright for my liking. A I am able to see the merchandise so I know exactly what I am buying. It is not overly bright and feels classy. A It seems clean which is good but also it seems very expensive which intimidates me, I would never shop here. A I like the lighting because it fits the look of the store well. A It is bright and clearly displays the products, but kind of gives off a col d, distant feeling. A It is easy to distinguish the products and find your way around A It's very boring, nothing here stands out to me. A it is very bright, does not give the appearance of anything hidden allowing you to inspect and examine the quality of the product, the lights are arranged symmetrically which is pleasing A The lighting is too cool, I'd like it to be warmer. I do like the brightness, and the amount of shadowing is appropriate. But it just looks and feels expensive and exclusive, not wel coming at all. I feel like the employees would be snooty. A bright and clear, I can see everything at the best lighting possible and it gives a feeling of how new clothe s should feel. Brand spanking new. A It looks unnatural. A It's okay, but I don' t care too much about a store's lighting condition unless it's truly offensive (overly bright or dark). B I do not like the dim lighting and how they try to emphasize certain products. I do not like the overall presentation of the store since it doesn't f eel like it would fit my personality. A Lighting is directed at the merchandise, which should draw the customer's attention to first. B I don't hate it, but it could be a bit brighter. A Lighting is not too dim, which would be bad to showcase the product s. It is bright enough to show the seemingly luxurious items, yet is not an obnoxious level of brightness that would cause irritation. B I don't like the focused lighting, I like the fun boutiques that have all the little trinkets sitting out and the fun, playful welcoming lighting. Not this lighting that makes me feel like I have to whisper when I'm the one giving them business.
122 Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred A Overall it is plain, simple but tasteful. B I feel like it's too dark, and it pressures you to buy specific items in the light. A Simple layout and no clutter of items. B There is not enough lighting in the other parts of the store, for example the register is too dark. A The bright lighting is appropriate for shopping and analyzi ng merchandise before buying it. You are able to see more details in bright light than you would be in dimmer light, thus making the shopping experience transparent and straightforward; you know what you're buying. B It is hard to see the items and would b e hard to look at things against yourself in merchandise clothing stores need more lighting overall to keep customers upbeat and spending money, rather than wanting to take a nap. A The bright lighting is vibrant a nd shows off the items well. For what the store is selling, I think the lighting works for this type of environment. I feel awake and lively with the brightness of the lights. B It's too dark. I would probably not go into this store if I passed this from t he outside. It also looks too high class for me. A The environment of the store has elegance and avoids clutter. It invites guest to browse in an open environment that is well lit and welcomes you to relax and enjoy the shopping experience. It is divided clearly in men and women apparel and navigate. B I understand that they are trying to showcase the products available in this store, but I feel that the total darkness in the middle of the store is a little extreme. A The items are all clearly visible and look well made. B trying to create. A The lighting is bright but makes the space comfortable and approachable but also elegant. B I like it a little; it has a little mystery in what i s being sold, but it might not have enough in the darker areas for what I would prefer. A The lighting is very effective on highlighting the merchandise. For example the back row has the hand bags and suitcases highlighted and contrasted with the space in between the lights. This emphasizes the products and makes them look very high class and expensive. The atmosphere screams sophistication. B It is too dark for a clothing accessory store. Colors are very important when shopping and I would be frustrated i f I got home and the color looked completely different in every day lighting. A The lighting makes it the merchandise look more sophisticated and high quality. B It is too dark overall and difficult for me to focus on why I am in the store. A The whole s tore is bright and items are easy to see. B It's too dark, there is uneven lighting.
123 Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred A There is clear distinction between merchandise. The lighting ensures the consumer can see the merchandise, making the merc handise itself more and feel it because I can see it. B I assimilate dim lighting with exclusivity and high price. If this company was trying to appeal to the average American, the room would be well lit, but it's cl ear that that is not the aim. I have 20/20 vision and stilI find it very aggravating to shop in a poorly lit store. B I like it because each item is emphasized however I fell like there is not enough lighting. The furniture is placed in a harmonious and welcoming manner. B I am not a fan of it because I think that the light only focuses on the merchandise and that it would be difficult for people to see other things such as each other. B It looks very unique and mysterious that make you want to find out what the store is like. B B I feel like it forces me to look at certain highlighted products rather than overwhelming me. B C It is bright and easy to see. It also is flattering to the interior design. B It nee ds more lighting. C I do like the interesting lights showcasing the products on the walls -definitely draws my attention to the products. B It's hard to see anything. C It has a calming effect. B It is way too dark. It's hard to see the products and the store doesn't feel alive or welcoming. C I like the lighting because it is not overly bright and not obnoxious, and it highlights the products in an appealing manner. B Way too dark. I feel like I'm in a bedroom. C It is not too bright and it allows the customer to be relaxed in the store. B I prefer stores with brighter lighting. C It's open and well lit. It doesn't provide any hidden elements which I prefer. B merchandise. C It's well lit and you can easily see everything C Everything just seems dull. C The lighting in this space seems very standard to a retail space. It serves it purpose well and allows for adequate display of merchandise. C For me, I feel like the lighting is all the same and it is uninteresting. It is also boring because everything is so symmetrical. C The lighting is not too bright and it moves my eyes towards the merchandise. C It makes the space and clothes look bland and not interesting to the consumer. C The lighting provides a clear illuminatio n of the store and its products, without being overbearing. C I don't think the lighting matches with the wood paneling. The wood paneling is warm while the lights are cold.
124 Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred D I like the lighting, but this sto re looks exactly like an Abercrombie and Fitch store, so maybe my prior knowledge is affecting the way I perceive the store and my like/dislike for certain aspects of the store. \ the lighting highlights the merchandise in a cool, modern way. It's very "hip and has a cool vibe. C The lighting is not inviting and would be harsh on my eyes. It also draws my eye to the picture behind the counter and not to the merchandise in the store. I don't feel that the lighting above the shelves in the back would adequate ly illuminate the details of the clothing. D It's a little dark, but you can see the different products easily. C It is okay, nothing special. D I've worked for the Abercrombie and Fitch family of companies for four years and this is the environment I am used to working in. C It seems pretty boring. C It seems to look like a catwalk on the ceiling rather than displaying the clothes it's displaying the walk to the register. C The focus is on the picture, but it doesn't accent the clothes in the store C The lighting combined with the colors makes the store look very bland and boring. C The type of light seems a little too artificial. C The lighting is harsh and very bright, it makes me feel anxious and uneasy. C I think it needs more light ing. C Not lively. Would not shop here. D I am personally not a fan of dark places in general. Therefore, any kind of store that is not lit would seem odd to me. D Dark, uninviting, seems mysterious. D For shopping, this lighting is too dim. D I don't really prefer lighting when I shop at a store. D I don't like shopping in dark stores D I don't like the dark, light contrast D I just don't like dark things. D I think that the store is designed to make your eyes move towards the pr oduct which I think is ideal for a store such as this. However, it is a little too dim for my taste. I prefer stores to be more lit in the background which was why I didn't choose the most extreme "like" option.
125 Note: A = Formal/Uniform; B = Formal/Non uniform; C = Casual/Uniform; D = Casual/Non uniform Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferre d D I understand that the lighting is done to highlight the specific items, but as a consumer I like to see the other options the store has to offer rather than searching for non defined merchandise in the dark. D I would feel closed in and lost in t his store. I couldn't see where I was walking and I cannot see the merchandise in the back of the store. D It is too dark for me to WANT to browse around in there D It makes me feel more into the shopping experience rather than what is in the shop it self. Sometimes I feel like I wouldn't find appropriate clothes for me in these types of stores because it is too "posh." I am an economical shopper and spend my money in a way that justifies the quality. D It reminds me of Hollister, Abercrombie, etc. D It's fine for the product in the front that they obviously want highlighted but the jeans and other clothing in the back would be annoying to look at. I'd probably use the flashlight app on my phone in this store. D It makes me a little nervous. D The items are lit up well but since the rest of the store is so dark it is hard to see things from far away and it isn't clear what path you are supposed to follow around the store. D too dark D The lighting is too dark for a retail store. It rem inds me a Hollister and I hate that stores because the lighting is always to dark and the perfume scent is too strong in there D With the lighting so dim, it's hard to focus on the merchandise at hand. I go shopping not only for the merchandise but also for the experience. If I can't see anything, it is not very fun to shop in that store.
126 APPENDIX H Scene Most Preferred Sc ene Least Preferred A Bright and neat. At the first glance you will know it is a business apparel flagship store. It is modern and fashionable. A The lighting is too monotonous. The store is too symmetrical, lack of layering. Unfocused and superficial. A Bright A I cannot focus on the merchandise. A Clear and distinct A Not interesting to me A Decoration is general; merchandise is pretty good. A I feel that the merchandise is upscale; no need to shop here if I cannot afford to buy things. A I like the space created by linking the ceiling, the counter and the rug. A It feels relatively cold and suitable for selling business apparel. A You can see all merchandise at a glance instead of looking piece by piece. It saves consumers' time. A The lighting is t oo bright so it causes a sense of unwelcoming. It is not relaxing. A Merchandise are clearly displayed. A It is too empty in the center. The seating is too small. A Neat. Bright. Fashionable. A It is very rigid and it makes people feel anxiety. A It loo ks pretty good. A It feels very monotonous. A Simple and high end. A My entire focus is the picture. A The store is consistent with the quality of merchandise. A The tone is on the cool side. It is too bright and public. There is no sense of privacy. A Women always like shopping. A It feels too bright. B The color tone creates a mysterious feeling. It attracts people to explore more. The lights focus on the merchandise, making the merchandise like a star on a stage. I want to look at it more carefully. A The store design lacks in creativity. Firstly, the seating is the first thing seen in the store. It feels like people come in to rest and just look at the merchandise, instead of walking into the store for the merchandise. Secondly, the display is very n ormal and monotonous. There's nothing eye catching. Thirdly, the store doesn't have variation in lighting design. It is too bright for a high end clothing store. Lastly, the wall finishes are monotonous, which makes people feel that the merchandise are che ap. B It is focused. B It is dim. B It looks high end. B I do not like the color tone. B Noble, neat, and expensive and classy. B I do not like the overall style.
127 Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred B It looks chic and feels quite. I might not buy merchandise but I am willing to look around here. B I feel that the lighting is not very carefully thought out. B It is easy to focus on the merchandise if you are inside the store. But in this lighting condition, I would think it is closed if I am o utside this store. B I feel that the merchandise are more suitable for mature women. The price may be relatively high and beyond my budget. B The lighting emphasizes the selling point. B I like to go shopping in brighter environments. B I would like to e xplore this store because it looks mysterious and has personality. B It feels just normal. C Bright and lively B It has clear focus but overall it seems a little dim. C I can see everything at a glance B It is dim and uncomfortable. C The store feels ne at and clean, just slightly monotonous. B It is entirely focused on the merchandise. It feels more of a museum. C I feel the shopping environment is good. It is spacious, bright and orderly. B It looks too high end. Those stores selling men's and women's clothing together do not fit me. C It is simple, elegant and refreshing. B It makes people feel depressed. C The overall feeling is good. B It is not the style I like. C I like the 3 dimensional store image and bright colors. B The lighting is on the da rk side for a boutique store. It does not feel welcoming. C Neat, clean and orderly B taken seriously and not comfortable. C Open plan is very acceptable for people. It shows the whole store and all merchandise. B The bright/dark contrast is very high. However, if the central area is dark, my view is blocked; if I stand in the bright area, I do not feel comfortable because I feel focused on. So I do not like this store. It does not feel high end as well. C Overal l it feels clean and comfortable, but a little monotonous. B The lighting makes me feel uncomfortable because of my OCDs. The center area is too dark. I am scared to look at the image again. D Chic and youthful B The lighting seems a little dim. D I am i nterested in this store. B The focus seems lost. The color tone is on the cool side and the light is dim. I think the merchandise looks of good quality but at the same time I do not expect how I wear them.
128 Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred D I can accept any casual clothing. B The merchandise area is bright, but other than that, the overall feeling of the store is too cool, simple and gloomy. It is not very welcoming. And too much shadow gives insecurity. If it is a real store, I would not dare to go shopping there. D It feels simple and direct. B The merchandise here does not fit me. D I like delicate design myself, especially interior decoration. I like this store very much. I can see the store owner's hard work, so I feel that the merchandi se are of high quality. B The tone is too dark. It is not easy to recognize the merchandise. And the merchandize does not look pretty under this tone. D I do not like the merchandise but the decoration and lighting is pretty good. B Very dark D It is ele gant and high class. B Too quiet D The mysterious ambience arises curiosity from consumers, while the highlighting of the product counter leads straight to the goods. The dark wood furniture works well with the lighting system. C For the merchandise and d ecoration in this store, the combination of grey tone and white lighting makes it dim and pale. The brown color of the ceiling and shelving does not integrate to the overall store. It lacks in liveliness. Lighting is too uniform and not bright enough. The focus is lost, so it is not very attractive as a store. D Merchandise is the key. C I do not like the decoration very much. D The lighting highlights the merchandise so that shoppers options are more clearly displayed. The dim ambient makes me feel very calm. C It is just a regular store, not attractive at the first sight. D The lighting increases the sense of quality of the merchandise. C It is not very attractive. D This kind of lighting is very focused which attracts my attention to the merchandise. I want to enter the store to explore more. It is very different than regular stores, making me very curious. This kind of lighting design should not relate to merchandise price. It is more of a shopping experience. I think it's new to me and pretty good. C It is plain. C It is too dark to see the merchandise clearly. C It is unfocused and unable to generate the desire to shop. C It only shows the whole picture of a few merchandise.
129 C Looks like an anc ient Chinese courtroom. C Not very attractive but I would go shopping in there. C Not very creative C Overall the store feels just common. There is nothing special in display or ambient lighting. C Simple, bright and legible. But perhaps it is too legible, I am not very interested in exploring more. C The environment is not very comfortable. The merchandise is neat. C The store seems very grey and dim. It does not match the style of the clothing or the picture at the counter. C There is nothing special. The lighting attracts my attention to the register counter but not the merchandise. C The lighting is too simple and a bit dull. products. D Dim and pale D Grey and dark D I do not like to shop in a store when it is sometimes bright and sometimes dark. It affects my vision. D It feels very quiet. D It is difficult to determine store sales style by the overall store atmosphere. D It is unwelcoming. D Not the style I like D Sim ple but not very creative D The contrast is too high so it is not the kind I like. D The lighting in the central area is on the dark side. D enough. D The lighting is dim. I have no desire to shop. D The lighting is too dark. The categories of merchandise are not very clear. Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred
130 D The store is too dark and unattractive to me. The merchandise look pale and dark because of the light. The lighting feels unlucky. It i s acceptable if the store sells religious items such as incense. But as a clothing store, it doesn't attract me to shop or try on the outfits. I do not look good under this kind of light. I don't feel like trying clothes. D The store is too dark. I don' t dare to walk in and I don't feel the desire to shop. The good thing is the emphasis on merchandise. You can see the display shelves at first sight (because you cannot see anything else). D The store is too dark. I don't feel very comfortable. D The store is too dim. I don't have desire to shop in here. D The way of display merchandise is monotonous. It doesn't make the merchandise feel new and refreshing. D The only thing is the contrast level. It is better to have a little lower contrast. If it is too dark, it would be hard to see the color of merchandise. And it would be not very safe. The shoppers might knock to somewhere, or each other. D Too dark. D Too dark and feels scary D The poster of the store indicates a brand for the young Also the clothes are mostly informal. So the lighting and dcor is supposed to be more youthful and lively. But now this lighting creates a high end feel. The contrast is strong but the atmosphere feels on the cool side. Note: A = Formal/Uniform; B = Fo rmal/Non uniform; C = Casual/Uniform; D = Casual/Non uniform Scene Most Preferred Scene Least Preferred
131 LIST OF REFERENCES American Optometric Association. (2014). Adult vision: 41 to 60 years of age. Retrieved from http://www.aoa.org/patients and public/good vision throughout life/adult vision 19 to 40 years of age/adult vision 41 to 60 years of age Anderson, E. (1978). Visual resource assessment: Local perceptions of familiar natural environments. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Areni, C. S. & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in store lighting on consumers' examination of merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11 (2), 117 125. Arthur, P. & Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding: People, signs, and architecture New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1996). Good and bad shopping vibes: Spending and patronage satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 35 (3), 201 206. Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measu ring 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 Busin ess Research, 56 (7), 541 551. 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 (4), 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 cues on perceived merchandise value a nd patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 66 (2), 120 141. Ballantine, P. W., Jack, R., & Parsons, A. G. (2010). Atmospheric cues and their effect on the hedonic retail experience. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 38 (8), 641 653. Barl I ., Aktan, M., Bilgili, B., & Dane, S. (2012). Lighting, indoor color, buying behavior and time spent in a store. Color Research & Application, 37 (6), 465 468.
132 Baumstarck, A. (2008). Effects of dressing room lighting direction on consumers' pe rceptions of self and environment of Florida. Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0024065 Bearden, W. O. e., Haws, K. L. e., & Netemeyer, R. (2011). Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi item Measu res for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Berlyne, D. E. (1974) Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation New York: Wiley. Biner, P. M., Butler, D. L., Fischer, A. R., & Westergren, A. J. (1989). An arousal optimization model of lighting level preferences and interaction of social situation and task demands. Environment and Behavior, 21 (1), 3 16. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 57 71. Chang, Y. T. (2012). The effect of two color combinations on consumer preference dimensions in a retail environment of Florida. Retrieved from http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044249 Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (5), 691 705. Chebat, J., & Michon, R. (2003). Impac t of ambient odors on mall shoppers' emotions, cognition, and spending: A test of competitive causal theories. Journal of Business Research, 56 (7), 529 539. Custers, P., de Kort, Y., IJsselsteijn, W., & de Kruiff, M. (2010). Lighting in retail environment s: Atmosphere perception in the real world. Lighting Research and Technology, 42 (3), 331 343. Dalke, H., Little, J., Niemann, E., Camgoz, N., Steadman, G., Hill, S., & Stott, L. (2006). Colour and lighting in hospital design. Optics & Laser Technology, 38 (4 6), 343 365. d'Astous, A., & Saint Louis, O. (2005). National versus store brand effects on consumer evaluation of a garment. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9 (3), 306 317. Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5 point, 7 point and 10 point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 51 (1), 1 19.
133 Diamond, J., & Diamond, E. (2011). Contemporary visual merchandising and environmental design Prentice Hall. Do novan, 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 Re tailing, 70 (3), 283 294. Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Allen, K. M. (2000). Cross cultural differences in tolerance for crowding: fact or fiction?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (2), 204 210. Fiore, A. M., Yah, X., & Yoh, E. (2000). Eff ects of a product display and environmental fragrancing on approach responses and pleasurable experiences. Psychology and Marketing, 17 (1), 27 54. Fleischer, S., Krueger, H., & Schierz, C. (2001). Effect of brightness distribution and light colours on off ice staff. European Lighting Conference Proceeding Book of Lux Europa Flynn, J. E. (1988). Lighting design decisions as interventions in human visual space. Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application, 156 172. Flynn, J. E., Hendrick, C., Spencer, T., & Martyniuk, O. (1979). A guide to methodology procedures for measuring subjective impressions in lighting. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 8 (2), 95 110. George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simp le Guide and Reference. 11.0 update (4 th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Gordon, G. (2003). Interior lighting for designers (4th ed.). New York: Wiley. Green, W. (2012). Store design: A complete guide to designing successful retail stores. United States: Zip py Books. 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), 107 115. Groat, L. N., Wang, D., & Wang, D. (2002). Arc hitectural research methods New York: J. Wiley. Ham, T. Y., & Guerin, D. A. (2004). A cross cultural comparison of preference for visual attributes in interior environments: America and China. Journal of Interior Design, 30 (1), 37 50.
134 Hanyu, K. (2000). Visual properties and affective appraisals in residential areas in daylight. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20 (3), 273 284. Hendrick, C., Martyniuk, O., Spencer, T. J., & Flynn, J. E. (1977). Procedures for investigating the effect of light on impre ssion simulation of a real space by slides. Environment and Behavior, 9 (4), 491 510. Herzog, T. R. (1992). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban spaces. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12 (3), 237 248. Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mys tery and preference in within forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39 (6), 779 796. Herzog, T. R., Herbert, E. J., Kaplan, R., & Crooks, C. (2000). Cultural and developmental comparisons of landscape perceptions and preferences. Environment and Behav ior, 32 (3), 323 346. Herzog, T. R., & Leverich, O. L. (2003). Searching for legibility. Environment and Behavior, 35 (4), 459 477. Herzog, T. R., & Miller, E. J. (1998). The role of mystery in perceived danger and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 30 (4), 429 449. Hidayetoglu, M. L., Yildirim, K., & Akalin, A. (2012). The effects of color and light on indoor wayfinding and the evaluation of the perceived environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32 (1), 50 58. Hoare, R. & Butcher, K. (2008). Do Chinese cultural values affect customer satisfaction/loyalty? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (2), 156 171. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (Eds.). (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2 (1), 1 26. Hook, J. N., Worthington, E. L., & Utsey, S. O. (2009). Collectivism, forgivenes s, and social harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37 (6), 821 847. Hu, H., & Jasper, C. R. (2006). Social cues in the store environment and their impact on store image. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 34 (1), 25 48. IESNA. (2011 ). In DeLaura D. L., Houser K., Mistrick R. and Steffy G. (Eds.), Lighting Handbook (10th ed.)
135 Ikemi, M. (2005). The effects of mystery on preference for residential faades. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25 (2), 167 173. Janiszewski, C. (1998). Th e influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (3), 290 301. Jay, P. (2002). Review: Subjective criteria for lighting design. Lighting Research and Technology, 34 (2), 87 96. Joseph, A., Kelle r, A., Taylor, E., & Quan, X. (2011). Designing safety net clinics for cultural sensitivity. Kaltcheva, V. D. & Weitz, B. (2006). When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 107 118. Kao, S. (n.d.). The effec Perceived Value, and Purchase Intention A Case of Grid Shop in Taiwan. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., & Brown, T. (1989). Environmental preference a comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ ment and Behavior, 21 (5), 509 530. Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19 (1), 3 32. Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1982). Humanscape: Environments for people Ann Arbor, Mich: Ulrich's Books. Kaya, N., & Weber, M. J. (2003). Cross cultural differences in the perception of crowding and privacy regulation: American and Turkish students. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23 (3), 301 309. Kellert, S. R. (2005) Building for life: Designing and Understanding the Human Nature Connection Washington, DC: Island Press. Kim, W., & Koga, Y. (2005). Glare constant gw for the evaluation of discomfort glare from windows. Solar Energy, 78 (1), 105 111. Kotler, P. (1973) Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49 (4), 48 64. Kller, R., Mikellides, B., Ballal, S., Laike, T., & Tonello, G. (2006). The impact of light and colour on psychological mood: A cross cultural study of indoor work environments. Ergo nomics, 49(14), 1496 1507. Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
136 Lee, E., & Park, N. (2011). Adapting to cultural differences in residential design: The case of Korean families visiting the United States. Journal of Interior Design, 36 (2), 1 19. Liao, L. H. (2011). Retail lighting design preferences between recreational and task oriented shoppers Retrieved from http://purl.fcla.edu /fcla/etd/UFE0043788 Liljefors, A. (2005). Lighting Visually and Physically. Revised edition. Stockholm: KTH Lighting Laboratory. Loe, D.L., Mansfield, K.P. & Rowlands, E. (1994) Appearance of lit environment and its relevance in lighting design: Exper imental study. Lighting Research and Technology 26 119 133. Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Mahdavi, A., & Eissa, H. (2002). Subjective evaluation of architectural lighting via computationally rendered images. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 31 (2), 11 20. Malhotra, N., & Peterson, M. (2006). Basic Marketing Research: A Decision Making Approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holi stically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 922. Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing t he attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (9), 1260 1275. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., & Fontaine, J. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world the relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 39 (1), 55 74. Matsumoto, D., & Ekman, P. (2004). The relationship among expressions, labels, and descriptions of contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 ( 4), 529 540. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five factor theory perspective (2 nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An Approach to Environmental Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
137 Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2007). Cultural differences in brand extension evaluation: The influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research 33 (4), 529 536. Moore, C. M., & Lochhead, M. (1998). The manag ement of retail design: Demystifying the activity. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 22 (3), 121 130. Mulhern, F. J. (1997). Retail marketing: From distribution to integration. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (2), 103 124. Na sar, J. (2000). The Evaluative Image of Places. In K. Craik, R. Price & B. Walsh (Eds.), Directions in person environment psychology (2 nd ed., pp. 117 168) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Nasar, J. L. (1987). The effect of sign complexity and coherence on the perceived quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53 (4), 499 509. Nasar, J. L., Fisher, T., & Preiser, W. F. E. (2007). Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned From Schools of Architecture New York: Fairchild Publi cations. Newsham, G.R., Richardson, C., Blanchet, C. & Veitch, J.A. (2005) Lighting quality research using rendered images of offices. Lighting Research and Technology 37 (2), 93 115. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture an d systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291 310. Osterhaus, W. K. (2005). Discomfort glare assessment and prevention for daylight applications in office environments. Solar Energy, 79 (2), 140 158. Oyama, Y. (2004). Psychological effect of daylighting on behavior. Journal of Light and Visual Environment, 28 (1), 70 71. Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta an alyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3 72. Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (2), 311 342. Park, J. G., & Park, C. (2013). Colo r perception in pediatric patient room design: American versus Korean pediatric patients. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 6 (4), 10 26.
138 Park, N., & Farr, C. A. (2007). The effects of lighting on consumers' emotions and behavioral intentions i n a retail environment: A cross cultural comparison. Journal of Interior Design, 33 (1), 17 32. Park, N., Pae, J. Y., & Meneely, J. (2010). Cultural preferences in hotel guestroom lighting design. Journal of Interior Design, 36 (1), 21 34. Philips Lighting Academy. (2008). Basics of light and lighting. 1 54. Pons, F., Laroche, M., & Mourali, M. (2006). Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Cross cultural differences between North America and the Middle East. Psychology and Marketing, 23 (7), 555 57 2. Quartier, K., Christiaans, H., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2008). Retail design: Lighting as an behaviour in commercial spaces. Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK. perception of atmosphere on emotions and behavior. Housing and Socie ty, 25 (1/2), 1 20. Reddy, N., Reddy, T. N., & Azeem, B. A. (2011). Role of in store lighting in store satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management Tomorrow, 1 (3), 1 8. Retail Design Blog. (2013). Store Design. Retrieved from http://reta ildesignblog.net/ Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal of Personality and Social Psy chology, 76 (4), 574 586. Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11 (3), 273 294. Rutes, W. A., Adams, L. & Penner, R. H. (2001). Hotel planning and design. Hotel design, planning, and development New York: W.W. Norton. Saito, M. (1996). A comparative study of color preferences in Japan, China and Indonesia, with emphasis on the preference for white. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 115 128.
139 Schlosser, A. E. (1998). Apply ing the functional theory of attitudes to understanding the influence of store atmosphere on store inferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (4), 345 369. Schweitzer, M., Gilpin, L., & Frampton, S. (2004). Healing spaces: Elements of environmental desi gn that make an impact on health. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 10 (Supplement 1), S 71 S 83. Scott, S. B. (1989). Preference, mystery and visual attributes of interiors: A study of relationships. (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconsin, Madison. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Scott, S. C. (1993). Complexity and mystery as predictors of interior preferences. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1) 25 33. Schaefer, M., & VanTine, L. (2010). Meeting the demands of the smarter consumer. IBM Institute for Business Value. Sherman, E., Mathur, A., & Smith, R. B. (1997). Store environment a nd consumer purchase behavior: Mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology & Marketing, 14 (4), 361 378. Siguaw, J. A. & Enz, C. A. (1999). Best practices in hotel architecture. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 40 44 49. Sirgy, M J., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. (2000). Retail environment, self congruity, and retail patronage: An integrative model and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 49 (2), 127 138. Sommer, B. B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A Practical Guide to Behavio ral Research: Tools and Techniques (4 th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Stamps III, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71 (3), 907 913. Stamps III, A. E. (2004). Mystery, compl exity, legibility and coherence: A meta analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24 (1), 1 16. Summers, T. A., & Hebert, P. R. (2001). Shedding some light on store atmospherics: Influence of illumination on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Rese arch, 54 (2), 145 150. Teng, C. (2011). Commercial hospitality in restaurants and tourist accommodation: Perspectives from international consumer experience in Scotland. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30 (4), 866 874.
140 Tonello, G. (2004). How is workers' mood affected by workplace lighting? Journal of Light and Visual Environment, 28 (3), 139 147. Triandis, H. C. (2011). Culture and self deception: A theoretical perspective. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 39 (1), 3 14 Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: a review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research 49 (2), 193 211. Vaccaro, V., Yucetepe, V., Torres Baumgarten, G., & Lee, M. (2008). The relationsh ip of music retail consistency and atmospheric lighting on consumer responses. Review of Business Research, 8 (5), 214 221. Van Erp, T. (2008). The effects of lighting characteristics on atmosphere perception (Unpublished master thesis) Eindhoven Universit y of Technology. Available Online: http://alexandria.Tue.nl/extra2/afstversl/tm/Erp, 202008. Van Rompay, T. J., Tanja Dijkstra, K., Verhoeven, J. W., & van Es, A. F. (2012). On store design and consumer motivation spatial control and arousal in the retail context. Environment and Behavior, 44 (6), 800 820. Veitch, J. A. (2006). Lighting for high quality workplaces. In D. Clements Croome (Ed.), Creating the Productive Workplace (2nd ed., pp. 206 222). London: Taylor & Francis. Veitch, J.A. & Newsham, G.R. (2000) Preferred luminous conditions in open plan offices: Research and practice recommendations. Lighting Research and Technology 32 199 212. Veryzer, J., R. W, & Hutchinson, J. W. (1998). The influence of unity and prototypicality on aesthetic response s to new product designs. Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374 385. Vogels, I. (2008). Atmosphere metrics: Development of a tool to quantify experienced atmosphere. Probing experience (pp. 25 41) Springer Netherlands. Wakefield, K. L., & Baker, J. (1 998). Excitement at the mall: Determinants and effects on shopping response. Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 515 539. Weisman, J. (1981). Evaluating architectural legibility. Environment and Behavior 13 189 204. Wertheimer, M. (1923). Untersuchungen zur le hre von der gestalt. II. Psychological Research, 4 (1), 301 350.
141 Winchip, S. (2011). Fundamentals of lighting (2 nd ed.) New York City: Fairchild Publications Inc. Winterbottom, M., & Wilkins, A. (2009). Lighting and discomfort in the classroom. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29 (1), 63 75. Yang, B., & Brown, T. J. (1992). A cross cultural comparison of preferences for landscape styles and landscape elements. Environment and Behavior, 24 (4), 471 507.
142 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Amanda Le was born and raised in Jacksonville, FL. In May of 2010, she obtained her Bachelor of Science in psychology at the University of Florida. She returned to the University of Florida to pursue her Master of Interior Design. Her main research interest focu ses on retail lighting design, though she is inspired by all things design related Following her May 2014 graduation, Amanda plans to work for a commercial design firm.
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ES6V36G9H_P7G765 INGEST_TIME 2014-10-03T22:13:15Z PACKAGE UFE0046743_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC