The effect of motivational orientation over arousal-shopping response relationship

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser

The effect of motivational orientation over arousal-shopping response relationship$ Valter Afonso Vieira a,n, Claudio Vaz Torres b a b

Maringá State University, Av Colombo 5.790, Maringá, PR, CEP 87020-900, Brazil University of Brasília, Brazil

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 8 July 2013 Received in revised form 23 November 2013 Accepted 24 November 2013 Available online 17 December 2013

This paper enlarges extant theory on environmental retail by providing evidence that motivational orientation moderates the relationship between arousal and response. Our conceptual model focuses on the phenomenon of motivational orientation as moderator on the relationship between arousal and shopping intention. We extend Kaltcheva and Weitz model, since their focus was on the association between arousal and pleasure. We measured shopping behavior, as consequence variable in the framework, in six different formats (e.g. satisfaction, loyalty, money $, minutes, products). We did four studies in a 2
3 design with motivational orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and arousal (high vs. moderate vs. low levels). After the procedures, the questionnaire listed the scales. The four studies did provide enough evidence that motivational orientation moderates the relationships proposed by Mehrabian and Russell's theoretical framework and those ones proposed by our model. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Arousal Shopping Orientation Response Motivation Consumer

1. Introduction Mehrabian and Russel (1974) projected that sensory variables in the environment, information rate of the environment and individual differences in emotional experience influence the affective responses to the environment (arousal, pleasure and dominance), which, in turn, induces persons to approach or avoid the environment, which is shopping response variables. Environmental Theory proposes that environmental factors affect consumer arousal, which subsequently affects pleasure and consumer shopping behaviours (e.g. buying intention). Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) assumed that an important situational variable – consumer motivational orientation in the store – moderates the effect of arousal on pleasure. The moderating effect means that when consumers have a hedonic motivational orientation, arousal has a positive effect on pleasure. On the other hand, when

☆ The authors would like to thank the editor, associate editor and the three reviewers for their feedback and guidance at various stages of this project. The authors also would like to thank you Tomás de Aquino Guimarães, Renato Zancan Marchetti, Jorge Mendes de Oliveira-Castro Neto, Claudio Zancan, Maria Luiza Mallu and Luiz Guilherme de Oliveira for their comments, University of Brasília for supporting in data collection and the CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level or Education Personnel, Brazilian Government) for providing financial support. The paper is based on first author doctoral dissertation. n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 55 4498523351. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (V. Afonso Vieira).

0969-6989/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.11.008

consumers have a utilitarian motivational orientation, arousal has a negative effect on pleasure. Fig. 1 presents the framework. Initially, Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006, p. 108) “justified research on arousal-response relationship, but empirically tested arousalpleasure association”. The authors used the Cunha-Jr. et al. (2003) argument as justification to investigate the moderation hypothesis on the association between arousal and pleasure. According to Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006, p. 108), “since there is need for more evidence, we cannot conclude that prior empirical research reported an inconsistent relationship between the levels of arousal produced by a shopping environment and consumer feelings of pleasure in the environment”. Furthermore, based on Fig. 1, we can elaborate other additional question: Does the motivational orientation moderate the relationship between pleasure and response? Consequently, the paper contributes with retail atmosphere literature showing that motivational orientation moderates other non-researched association. We focus on this specific point, expanding Mehrabian and Russel (1974) framework. According to literature review, the effects of arousal on shopping behaviour are inconsistent, making empirical generalizations difficult. These mixed results justify research in specific points of the framework. In particular, the literature review presents evidences of the positive (Dubé et al., 1995; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Sherman et al., 1997; Babin and Darden, 1995, Wang et al., 2007; Milliman, 1982), negative (Donovan et al., 1994; Holbrook and Gardner, 1998; Milliman, 1982; Mano and Oliver, 1993) or even

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

non-significant (Ridgway et al., 1990; Smith and Curnow, 1966; Sweeney and Wyber, 2002; Wirtz and Bateson, 1999) associations between arousal and response. Consequently, the overall pattern of results suggests that the impact of arousal on response varies across studies (in addition to the impact of arousal over pleasure). In that sense, motivational orientation might also moderate varied effects of arousal on shopping behaviour. Based on these concerns, the literature review seems to play an important role in the subsequent development of the research hypothesis, since some gaps were not researched. In that sense, we enlarge extant theory by providing evidence that motivational orientation moderates the arousal-response association. The next section reviews research that investigates the impact of arousal over shopping behaviour. Then, we propose a theoretical framework that focuses on the moderating effect of motivational orientation and resolves some of the inconsistent findings. We describe four experiments that test our theoretical framework. The article concludes with a discussion of the limitations of our research and its managerial implications.

2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Mehrabian and Russell's conceptualization of the environmental impact on behaviour The seminal conceptualization of store environment suggested by Mehrabian and Russel (1974) is the foundation of most marketing research studying the impact of store environmental on shopping behaviour (Dubé et al., 1995; Donovan and Rossiter, 1982; Sherman et al., 1997; Babin and Darden, 1995, Wang et al., 2007; Milliman, 1982). Kaltcheva and Weitz (2003, 2006) commented that in the Mehrabian and Russell framework, the sensory variables in the environment, the information rate of the environment (a construct that reflects the level of overall uncertainty in the environment), and individual differences in emotional experience influence the affective responses to the environment, which, in turn, induce individuals to approach or avoid the environment. KALTCHEVA AND WEITZ (2006) THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Environment Characteristics

Arousal

Pleasant

Shopping Behavior

Motivational Orientation

Fig. 1. Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) Theoretical framework. Source: Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006, p. 109).

Research relies on the S-O-R paradigm to explain and present evidence pertaining to numerous environmental cues (e.g., colour, lighting, sound, crowding and fragrance) and their related effects on buyers' internal states and external responses. Despite numerous studies on store environment, their findings are not enough to provide a detailed understanding of the specific atmospheres' cues that influence shopping behaviour. Specifically, the literature review indicates positive, negative and even null results in the S-O-R model, producing doubts about its generalization capacity in the retail field. Based on this concern, we look to fulfill this gap by conducting a meta-analysis of empirical results on the predictors and consequences of the S-O-R framework. Mehrabian and Russel (1974) identify three dimensions of affective response: pleasure, arousal, and dominance. However, subsequent research has found that pleasure and arousal explain most of the variance in affect and behaviour, and thus research has focused on these two variables (Russell and Pratt, 1980). Fig. 2 presents Mehrabian and Russel's (1974)theoretical framework.

2.1.1. Arousal-shopping behaviour inconsistency According to the literature review, the effects of arousal on shopping behaviour are inconsistent, making empirical generalizations complicated. For instance, the literature review illustrates evidence that arousal has a positive impact on money spent (Babin and Darden, 1995), hedonic value (Wang et al., 2007), utilitarian value (Babin and Darden, 1995), flow (Wang et al., 2007), time inside store, products, money spent (Sherman et al., 1997), sales (Milliman, 1982), behavioural intention (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Baker et al., 1992), positive and negative affect (Mano and Oliver, 1993), interaction and store exploration (Ridgway et al., 1990). In contrast to the positive effect, arousal has no impact on pleasure, unplanned spending, and unplanned extension of the visit, satisfaction and attitude (Donovan et al., 1994). Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) also reported that arousal did not influence shopping behaviour. Wang et al. (2007) found that arousal and utilitarian value were not associated. Sherman et al. (1997) reported that arousal did not influence liking. Wirtz et al. (2000), Wirtz and Bateson (1999) and Mattila and Wirtz (2001) found null results of arousal on satisfaction. Donovan and Rossiter (1982) found that arousal did not affect approach-avoidance; specifically affect, time, affiliation and money spend. On the other hand, some researchers found that arousal had negative association with time listening to music (Holbrook and Gardner, 1998), store peace (Milliman, 1982), unplanned spending (Donovan et al., 1994) and satisfaction (Wirtz et al., 2007). In order to examine these dissimilar results, we hypothesized that motivational orientation moderates these relationships, explaining arousal and shopping behaviour (Ang et al., 1997).

S-O-R FRAMEWORK PROPOSED BY MEHRABIAN AND RUSSELL (1974) The Environment (S) Sense modality variables (e.g., color and temperature) Information rate (Characterizing the spatial and temporal relationships among the stimulus components of an environment)

Primary Emotional Responses (O)

Behavioral Responses Approach-Avoidance (R)

Emotions

Responses (Includes physical approach, exploration, affiliation, performance, or other verbal and non-verbal communications of preference)

Pleasure-displeasure Arousal-non-arousal Dominance- submissiveness

Characteristic emotions associated with personality Fig. 2. S-O-R framework proposed by Mehrabian and Russel (1974). Source: Mehrabian and Russell (1974, p. 8).

159

160

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

2.2. Motivational orientation as moderator According to Action-Control Theory (Kuhl, 1978, 1981, 1982; Lunardo and Mbengue, 2009), in the state-oriented activities, state-related cognitions follow exposure to uncontrollable events. State orientation may have a similar effect on subjective task motivation as low perceived importance-lower motivation on the training task during the phase of perceived control and a smaller decrease of motivation during the no-control phase compared to action orientation. As a result, state orientation should be associated with lower resistance against substitution during the phase of perceived control and lower substitute motivation during the no-control phase (Kuhl, 1981). In that sense, we assume that stateorientation is similar to hedonic. On the other hand, Expectancy-Value Theory regards parameters of expectancy and value as necessary and sufficient determinants of action tendencies (Kuhl, 1978). It has been argued recently that action state orientation serves as an additional determinant of performance (Kuhl, 1982). If subjects did not transfer any feelings of helplessness from training to test task and if they were sufficiently motivated on the test task due to substitute motivation, a performance deficit on the test task would present a paradox to an expectancy-value theory of motivation unless an additional factor were introduced to the theory (Kuhl, 1981). In that situation, we assume that action-orientation is similar to utilitarian. Consumers have a utilitarian motivational orientation when their behaviours are directed towards activities that they perceive they have to do and are not intrinsically rewarding (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Since activities undertaken with a utilitarian motivation (as a means to an end) typically are not personally gratifying, the energy, or resources mobilized in pursuit of these activities has an opportunity cost. Consequently, consumers with a utilitarian motivational orientation try to complete their task as efficiently as possible, with the minimum expense of physical or mental energy (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). In these situations, such consumers would find that the high-energy demands in high-arousal environments require more effort to complete the shopping activity and therefore would find such an environment to be unpleasure (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). In contrast, consumers who have a hedonic motivational orientation are pursuing an activity that they do not “have to do” and find personally gratifying. These consumers desire to derive richer and fuller experiences from the activity, which is realized when the consumer allocates more energy to the activity (Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Thus, in these situations, such consumers find the opportunity to mobilize more energy offered by a rich environment, and therefore would find the highenergy demands in high-arousal environment as pleasant. Why should attitudes influence intentions more strongly for action-oriented as opposed to state-oriented people? Bagozzi et al. (1992) believe that a favourable attitude implies that an act is good or desirable from an actor's point of view. However, a positive evaluation does not necessarily imply that one will act. Attitudes reveal that particular things are valued or not valued, but they do not provide the energy needed for action. What is missing is an explicit motivation force to transform an attitude into the will to act (Bagozzi, 1991). Once an attitude is formed, we hypothesize that action-orientation function plays a motivational role. A favourable attitude signals that action would lead to valued consequences, but the decision to act also requires that one be motivated to act (Bagozzi et al., 1992). Based on the preceding discussion and empirical evidence, we propose that orientation (Lunardo and Mbengue, 2009) influences, as moderator, the relationship between arousal and satisfaction (Mattila and Wirtz, 2000), loyalty (Ridgway et al., 1990), impulse (Donovan et al., 1994), products, minutes inside store (Sherman et al., 1997) and

money spent inside (Babin and Darden, 1995), Therefore, motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and shopping response. It means that when consumers have a hedonic motivational orientation, arousal has a positive effect on response. When consumers have a utilitarian motivational orientation, arousal has a negative effect on response. H1a: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and satisfaction. H1b: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and loyalty. H1c: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and impulse. H1d: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and products purchased. H1e: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and minutes inside store. H1f: Motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and money spent inside store. Fig. 3 presents our theoretical framework. We assume that motivational orientation moderates the association between arousal and shopping response. In terms of shopping response definition, we use the following variables: satisfaction, loyalty, impulse, minutes inside store, products purchased, and money spent. Shopping behaviour is the dependent construct in our model.

3. Constructs definition In this section, we define the constructs of primary interest in this research: motivational orientation, emotions and response. Then, in the next section, we discuss the four experiments. 3.1. Motivational orientation Motivation is the intensity, persistence, and direction of effort allocation. Utilitarian consumer behaviour has been described as ergic, task-related and rational (Batra and Ahtola, 1991). Often, utilitarian motivation means a product that is purchased in a deliberate and efficient manner. Otherwise, hedonic value is more subjective and personal than its utilitarian counterpart and results are more fun and playfulness (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). Hedonic value reflects the potential entertainment and emotional worth of shopping. To measure motivational orientation, we used the 10-item-scale from Babin et al. (1994). 3.2. Emotions Mehrabian and Hines (1978) defined temperament as the average of an individual's emotional state across a representative sample of everyday situations. Thus, a general formulation of emotional states could provide the foundation for corresponding general descriptions of emotional traits or temperament. Mehrabian and Russel (1974) suggested that the Osgood et al. (1957) factors of Evaluation, Activity, and Potency were highly THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK PROPOSED Environment Characteristics

Arousal

Pleasure

Motivational Orientation

Fig. 3. Theoretical framework proposed. Source: Author.

Shopping Behaviour

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

suggestive of emotional responses of pleasure–displeasure, arousal–non-arousal, and dominance–submissiveness. Mehrabian and Russel (1974) defined arousal as an affective property (dimension) ranging from sleep to frantic excitement (p. 18). The second factor, pleasure comprehends the hedonic valence of an affective response to a stimulus that is based on the extent to which the stimulus (the target of the affective response) enables individuals to achieve their salient goals. Mehrabian and Russel (1974) developed the semantic-differential scale to assess the dimensions and offered empirical support for the three-dimensional affective structure. However, subsequent research has consistently found that pleasure and arousal explain most of the variance in approach-avoidance behaviours (Russell and Pratt, 1980). In that sense, we did not use dominance domination in this study. In order to measure emotions, we used the Mehrabian and Russel (1974) P-A-D scale. Arousal had six items in a semantic scale. Pleasure had six items, but we excluded satisfied-unsatisfied because this item might be confounded with satisfaction response, as indicated by Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006).

161

Stimuli Study 1

3.3. Shopping behaviour We used the response term to represent shopping behaviour. Satisfaction, loyalty, impulse, products purchased, minutes inside store and money spent inside store measured response. Thus, six variables correspond to response, but they were intentional since we are working with experiments. In order to measure satisfaction, we used three items from the Oliver (1981) scale. We used three items from Baker et al. (1992) scale to measure loyalty. To assess impulse, we used four items from the Youn (2000) scale. Products purchased, minutes inside store and money spent inside store used one open question each. For instance, “how many products you could buy in a store like in the photo”? Appendix B shows all shopping behaviour measures.

4. Experiment 1 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Design and procedure The first empirical study was a 2
3 design with motivational orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) and arousal (high vs. moderate vs. low), all manipulated between subjects. We exhibited the shopping contexts in a web site attached to the questionnaire. We presented the instructions and the motivational orientations. After these procedures, the questionnaire listed the scales. We sent the link to employees of the top-three national banks. Participants indicated the intensity with which they experienced arousal, pleasure, motivational orientation (moderator), and shopping behaviour (consequences). The sample feature was a snowball. Three hundred forty-one subjects participated in study 1 (57% female; Mage ¼34; SD¼10.21) 4.1.2. Manipulation of arousal We manipulated arousal by varying the complexity and colours of the stimulus shopping environments. Following Wirtz et al. (2007) procedure, we create three groups according to percentile. Initially, we assume that individuals look for environments that have, among other features, moderate arousal and extreme pleasure. We edited the photos from a retailing and alter the colours; putting more red and orange in the high arousal environment and putting more light blue and white in the low arousal (see Fig. 4). We follow the Mehrabian and Russel (1974) independence hypothesis of arousal-pleasure to create three groups according to their answers. All respondents viewed the low or high arousal environment stimuli. We created the moderate arousal group using the thirty three percent of the respondents.

Fig. 4. Stimuli study 1. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

4.1.3. Manipulation of motivational orientation The subjects were instructed to read a hypothetical scenario that described a fictional situation in which an individual, similar to them, went shopping either for a task orientation (utilitarian motivation) or for diversion (hedonic motivation). Approximately half of the subjects were randomly assigned to each condition. Utilitarian scenario. (Study 1) It is Saturday afternoon and you are leaving for a three-day trip on the next day. You have already started packing and you find out that you need one more T-shirt. So you think of a store where you can obtain what you need. You drive to the mall and enter the Store. You pass by a couple of sections and head straight for where the T-shirts are. You start looking through the available stock and examine a T-shirt. (Study 2: buy clothing for a wedding; Study 3: buy books for self-esteem; Study 4: buy shoes to practice sports). Hedonic scenario. (Study 1) It is shortly after noon on a Saturday and none of your friends are around, but you do not feel like staying at home the whole day. It is raining, so you do not want to do anything outdoors either. Therefore, you decide to go to a store to spend a couple of enjoyable hours and have a nice time. You drive to the mall and visit various shops. You enter a Store and slowly start browsing through the sections. You find some T-shirts and begin considering one of them. (Study 2: buy clothing for a wedding; Study 3: just buy books for reading; Study 4: occasionally buy shoes for walking)

4.2. Results 4.2.1. Manipulation checks The manipulation check treatment supported that subjects in the hedonic motivation condition (α ¼.85) reported a greater inclination for diversion-recreation than the subjects in the utilitarian motivation situation (Mutilitarian ¼3.92 vs. Mhedonic ¼ 3.41; t(3 3 9) ¼3.91; p o.000). On the other hand, the subjects in the utilitarian motivation condition (α¼ .73) reported a greater inclination for objectivity-task than the subjects in the hedonic motivation situation (Mutilitarian ¼ 3.12 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.22; t(3 3 9) ¼  .72; p¼ NS). These results were as expected, although the last one was not significant. Because of that, we created a new check-

162

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

up question to analyze the stimulus. The alternative manipulation question, “Are you visiting this store by necessity or recreation?” presented a significant result. People in the utilitarian motivation condition reported a greater inclination for objectivity than the subjects in the hedonic motivation situation (Mnecessity ¼ 3.88 vs. Mrecreation ¼3.08; t(3 3 9) ¼5.15; po .000). About the store atmosphere, the subjects who received arousal manipulations answered the arousal global measure (αarousal ¼.88) and we created a summated scale with three groups with 33% of the answers. The psychometric properties of the emotion scale and motivational orientation scale were supported, using Promax exploratory factorial rotation. Motivational orientation and arousal-pleasure scales showed two factors each (eigenvalues 3.65 and 2.07; correlation between factors ϕ¼  .30, and 7.06 and 2.07; ϕ¼.49; respectively). 4.2.2. Outcomes In order to test the moderating role of motivational orientation over the arousal-shopping association, we used a GLM univariate analysis of variance (see Appendix A) with a customized model (interactive effect only). The dependent variables in the equation were the six shopping responses and the exogenous variable was the arousal (three levels)
motivational orientation interaction (two levels). The MANOVA did discover the hypothesized moderating effect of motivational orientation on the relationships between arousal and satisfaction (F(2, 340)¼17.34; po.000; H1a), arousal and loyalty (F(2, 340)¼ 17.24; po.000; H1b), arousal and items (F(2, 340)¼ 3,28; po.007; H1d), arousal and money spent inside store (F(2, 340)¼2.58; po.03; H1f), and arousal and minutes inside store (F(2, 340)¼12.00; po.000; H1e). We did not find a significant result on the relationship between arousal and impulse (F(2, 340)¼1.24; po.28; H1c). The fact that the impulse is not affected by the level of arousal might be due to the measurement. We did not measure the level of impulse buying, but rather we addressed the impulse buying tendency, which is a consumer trait. This is similar to the propensity behaviour used in Donovan et al. (1994). Hoch and Loewenstein (1991) also analyzed impulse as a consumer trait and as an inclination of buying. Hence, we can note that 5 from the 6 associations were supported, according to proposed by Mehrabian and Russell's theoretical framework. 4.3. Discussion This first experiment provides evidence that arousal moderates the motivational state. The interaction between arousal and motivational orientation suggests that the effect of the explanatory variable (i.e. response) has been modified by the interactive term. According to the results, in the utilitarian orientation, we found a U shaped inverted traditional relationship. It means that in the moderate arousal environment, consumers presented higher scores on shopping response variables. The quantity of money spent presented the greatest gap between the two groups. However, in the hedonic orientation we found a U shaped relationship. It means that in the moderate arousal environment, consumers presented lower scores on shopping response variables.

5. Experiment 2 5.1. Method 5.1.1. Procedure The second empirical study was a 2
3 design with motivational orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) manipulated between subjects and arousal (high vs. moderate vs. low), with three groups created. Since the inclusion of appropriate covariates in the model

specification is critical to establish the validity of the hypothesized effects and rule out competing explanations, we added in this experiment a covariate with two items, denominated Looking for Exciting Environment (e.g. “I like to visit exciting stores”; r ¼ .55; po .000; α¼.71). One hundred sixty-five subjects participated in this study (68% female; Mage ¼25; SD ¼5.48). We applied the questionnaires to the employees of a Call Center Company. 5.1.2. Manipulation of motivational orientation The subjects were instructed to read a hypothetical scenario that described a fictional situation in which an individual, similar to themselves, went shopping either for a needed product (utilitarian motivation) or for diversion (hedonic motivation). In the utilitarian scenario, they should buy clothing just to attend a wedding ceremony. In the hedonic scenario, they should visit Hugo Boss Store to buy clothing to be the best man in the ceremony. 5.1.3. Manipulation of arousal For high arousal environment, we showed two photographs attached to the questionnaire. The photos are from Hugo Boss Orange Collection. For low arousal environment, we also showed two Hugo Boss Black-And-White photos attached to the questionnaire. We got both photos from the internet. The photos are from Hugo Boss Concept Store. Note that we did not edit or alter the colours in the photos, as done in Study 1. Fig. 5 presents the photos. 5.2. Results 5.2.1. Manipulation checks The subjects in the hedonic motivation condition (α¼.82) reported a greater inclination for diversion than the subjects in the utilitarian motivation condition (Mutilitarian ¼ 3.75 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.74; t(1 6 3) ¼.06; p ¼ NS). The subjects in the utilitarian motivation state (α¼.84) reported greater inclination for objectivity than the subjects in the hedonic motivation situation (Mutilitarian ¼4.53 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.34; t(1 6 3) ¼7.98; p o.000). Note that we did not capture the motivational orientation differences using the Babin et al. (1994) scale. Thus, we proposed a new scale to measure motivational orientation, containing six items, different from Study 1, in which we used one item. This new instrument supported the manipulation check. Individuals in the task orientation had greater averages than those in the hedonic situation (Mutilitarian ¼5.03 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.28; t(1 6 3) ¼ 10.55; p o.000). Individuals in the recreational orientation had greater averages than those in the utilitarian condition (Mutilitarian ¼ 3.01 vs. Mhedonic ¼4.07; t(1 6 3) ¼  6.39; p o.000). The arousal measure achieved high reliability (α ¼.89). Motivational orientation and arousal-pleasure scales were discriminated in the dimensionality assessment (eigenvalues 3.24 and 3.01; ϕ ¼  .02, and 6.80 and 1.83; ϕ¼.57). 5.2.2. Outcomes The MANCOVA did expose the hypothesized moderating effect of motivational orientation on the relationship between arousal and response. Motivational orientation moderated the effect of arousal on satisfaction (F(2, 164) ¼3.92; po .002; H1a), on impulse (F(2, 164) ¼13.05; p o.000; H1c), partially on loyalty (F(2, 164) ¼ 2.05; p o.07; H1b), on products (F(2, 164) ¼4.73; po .000; H1d), on money spent inside store (F(2, 164) ¼2.67; p o.02; H1f), and partially on minutes inside store (F(2, 164) ¼1.87; p o.10; H1e). 5.2.3. Discussion This second experiment provided more evidence that arousal plays an interactive role in motivational state, which influences the shopping response.. According to the results, in the utilitarian

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

Stimuli Study 2

163

utilitarian scenario, consumers were introduced to a bookstore and the main goal was to buy a book to enhance professional skills. In the hedonic scenario, consumers were introduced to a bookstore and the main goal was to buy a book to just read. 6.1.3. Manipulation of arousal We manipulated arousal by varying the complexity and colours of the stimulus shopping environments. For high arousal environment, we showed two colours photos from Cultura Library, São Paulo, Brazil. For low arousal environment, we showed two blackand-white photos from Boekhandel Selexyz Dominicanen Library, Maestric, Holland (Lensvelt de Architect Interior Award Winner). We did not manipulate or edited the photos. We know that different objects were presented (different environments) from two libraries and the effects might, in part, result from these distinct elements1. For such limitation, we use in experiment 1 the same pictures, environment and products. Fig. 6 presents the photos. 6.2. Results

Fig. 5. Stimuli study 2.

orientation we found a U shaped relationship. It means that in the moderate arousal environment, consumers presented higher scores on shopping response variables, as expected. However, in the hedonic orientation, we found mixed results.

6. Experiment 3 6.1. Method 6.1.1. Procedure The third empirical study was a 2
3 design with motivational orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian) manipulated between subjects and arousal (high vs. moderate vs. low). It was similar to the other two experiments. We used three covariates with two items each, denominated Looking for Exciting Environment (e.g. “I intend to look for different and innovative stores”; r ¼.31; po .001; α¼ .46), Liking Visiting Stores (e.g. “I like to visit stores”; r ¼.48; p o.000; α¼ .64) and Liking Brand Products (e.g. “Brand stores have better quality”; r ¼.65; p o.000; α¼.79). One hundred twenty-seven subjects participated (64% female, Mage ¼30; SD 10). We attached the shopping contexts to the questionnaire, similar to Study 2. We applied the questionnaires to people before a job interview offer in the same Call Center Company of Study 2. All respondents were different. 6.1.2. Manipulation of motivational orientation The subjects were instructed to read a hypothetical scenario that described a fictional situation. Approximately half of the subjects were randomly assigned to each condition. In the

6.2.1. Manipulation checks In the third study, we used our scale to represent motivational orientation, which was created in study 2. The subjects in the hedonic motivation (α¼.67) condition reported a greater inclination for diversion than the subjects in the utilitarian motivation condition (Mutilitarian ¼ 3.03 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.72; t(1 2 5) ¼ 3.35; po .000). The subjects in the utilitarian motivation (α¼ .75) condition reported a greater inclination for objectivity than the subjects in the hedonic motivation (Mutilitarian ¼4.80 vs. Mhedonic ¼ 3.86; t(1 2 5) ¼4.93; p o.000). The arousal scale had a reliability of α ¼.68. The dimensionality assessment presented two dimensions for motivational orientation and for the arousal-pleasure scale (eigenvalues 3.24 and 3.01; ϕ¼.01; and 5.10, 2.21 and.83; ϕ ¼  .04 respectively), although the last one mixed arousal-pleasure items. We excluded some items from the arousal-pleasure scale and the new exploratory factor analysis confirmed two dimensions (eigenvalues 3.79 and 2.04; ϕ¼  .07). 6.2.2. Results The MANCOVA did expose the hypothesized moderating effect of motivational orientation on the relationship between arousal and shopping response. Motivational orientation moderated the effect of arousal on satisfaction (F(2, 125)¼ 4.59; po.001; H1a), loyalty (F(2, 125)¼4.25; po.001; H1b), money spent inside store (F(2, 125)¼3.13; po.01; H1f), and minutes inside store (F(2, 125)¼3.95; po.002; H1e). Again we did not find the effect on impulse (F(2, 125)¼.88; po.49). In this study, the results are very clear, showing that in the utilitarian orientation, there is a U shaped trend. Specifically, in the utilitarian orientation, the high-arousal environment creates the greatest score. Otherwise, in the hedonic orientation, the relationship was ordinal (i.e. linear for products purchased and money spent inside store) and sometimes U shaped inverted. 6.2.3. Discussion This experiment provided more evidence that arousal has an interactive effect on motivational state, which influences the shopping response. In the utilitarian orientation we found a U-shaped relationship. It means that in the moderate arousal environment, consumers presented higher scores on shopping response variables. On the other hand, in the hedonic orientation we did not find clear a mean direction, since in some variables (loyalty and minutes) we found a U shaped relationship and in 1

We thank the comments of the reviewer in this point.

164

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

Stimuli Study 3

7.1.2. Manipulation of motivational orientation The subjects were instructed to read a hypothetical scenario that described a fictional situation in which an individual, similar to them, went shopping either for a needed product (utilitarian motivation) or for diversion (hedonic motivation). Approximately half of the subjects were randomly assigned to each condition. 7.1.3. Manipulation of arousal We manipulated arousal by varying the complexity and colours of the stimulus shopping environments. For high arousal environment, we showed two colours photos from Mi Adidas Innovation Center, Champs-Elysées, Paris. For low arousal environment, we showed two photos from Nike ID Studio, New York, USA. Both environments represent concept stores from international retailing brands. Fig. 7 presents the photos. 7.2. Results 7.2.1. Manipulation check In the fourth study, we again used our scale created to represent motivational orientation. The subjects in the hedonic motivation (α¼ .77) condition reported a greater inclination for diversion than the subjects in the utilitarian motivation condition (Mutilitarian ¼3.05 vs. Mhedonic ¼3.69; t(1 3 1) ¼  2.79; p o.006). The subjects in the utilitarian motivation (α¼ .80) condition reported a greater inclination for objectivity than the subjects in the hedonic motivation situation (Mutilitarian ¼ 4.57 vs. Mhedonic ¼ 3.87; t(1 3 1) ¼ 3.203; p o.002). The arousal measure had high reliability (α¼ .76). Exploratory factor analyses showed two Stimuli Study 4

Fig. 6. Stimuli study 3.

other (products purchased, money spent inside store and satisfaction) we found a U shaped inverted relationship.

7. Experiment 4 7.1. Method 7.1.1. Procedure The fourth empirical study was a 2
3 design with motivational orientation (hedonic vs. utilitarian), manipulated between subjects, and arousal (high vs. moderate vs. low), with three groups. The shopping contexts were attached to the questionnaire. We used four covariates with two items each, denominated Looking for Exciting Environment (r ¼.73; p o.001; α ¼.89), Liking Visiting Stores (r ¼.48; p o.000; α¼ .65), Liking Brand Products (r ¼.66; p o.000; α¼.74) and Liking Different Stores (r¼ .58; p o.001; α¼ .73). We applied the questionnaires in MBA business administration classes. One hundred thirty-three subjects participated (female 51%; Mage ¼31; SD ¼ 9.42).

Fig. 7. Stimuli study 4.

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

dimensions for motivational orientation and arousal-pleasure scales (eigenvalues 3.21 and 2.08; ϕ ¼  .23 and 5.15 and 1.68; ϕ¼ .67; likewise). 7.2.2. Results In order to test the moderating role of motivational orientation over the arousal-shopping association, we use a GLM univariate analysis of variance with customized model (only interactive). The MANOVA did discover the hypothesized moderating effect of motivational orientation on the relationship between arousal and satisfaction (F(2, 131) ¼3.46; p o.006; H1a), arousal and loyalty (F(2, 131) ¼3.92; p o.002; H1b), arousal and products (F(2, 131) ¼ 4.40; po .001; H1d), and arousal and minutes inside store (F(2, 131) ¼2.44; p o.04; H1e). We did not find an expressive effect on the relationship between arousal and impulse (F(2, 131) ¼.52; p o.78; H1c) and arousal and money spent inside store (F(2, 131) ¼ 1.52; p o.18; H1f). 7.2.3. Discussion This last experiment provided more evidence that arousal plays an interactive role in motivational state, which influences the shopping response. According to the results, not only in the utilitarian orientation, but also in the hedonic orientation, we found an ordinal relationship. It means that lower scores exist in low arousal, increasing in the moderate and high arousal environments. Thus, greater scores exist when the level of arousal increases (see Figs. 8 and 9).

8. General discussion The four studies provide consistent support for the proposition that motivational orientation moderates the effect of arousal on shopping response. In these studies, there is a

165

significant crossover interaction, in which both simple effects are significant. The generalizability of the results is strengthened by the use of different manipulations of arousal and motivational orientation across these studies. As we proposed, task-oriented consumers view shopping primarily as a means for obtaining a needed outcome (product, service, or information) and wish to complete their shopping as efficiently as possible. Therefore, task-oriented consumers find high-arousal retail environments to be unpleasant. Conversely, recreational consumers derive inherent satisfaction from the shopping activity itself and therefore like high-arousal retail environments that create rich shopping experiences. When the dominant motivational orientation of customers varies over time, the retailer faces a more challenging task in designing the store environment. The elements of the store environment that are more difficult to modify frequently (e.g., the store's layout and wall colour) should be designed to induce moderate arousal (i. e., intermediate levels of complexity and saturation). More variable elements, such as the background music, can be used to increase arousal at the times when customers are predominantly recreationally oriented, and to decrease arousal when customers are predominantly task-oriented.

9. Future research Future research, using regulatory focus theory (Brendl and Higgins, 1996) could analyze the hedonic and utilitarian benefits recurrent from products (vs. for shopping) (Okada, 2005; Voss et al., 2003). For instance, people might look for a cell phone with hedonic benefits (high design, fashion, expensive). This point of view can introduce a 2
2
2 factorial design, in which we can manipulate atmosphere, motivational orientation and products benefits. For the group with a hedonic motivational orientation,

GROUPS AND VARIABLES MEANS (part a)

Fig. 8. Groups and variables means (Part A). Notes: Study 1: When motivational orientation is utilitarian, the results are: Satisfaction (F(2, 210) ¼ 26.77; po .000, diference among the three groups); impulse (p ¼ NS); loyalty (F(2, 210) ¼ 25.79; p o.000; diference among the three groups); products (F(2, 210) ¼5.57; p o.004; diference between high and low); money spent $ (F(2, 210) ¼ 3.18; p o.04; no difference between groups); minutes (F(2,210) ¼ 18.19; p o .000; difference among the three groups); When motivational orientation is hedonic, the results are: Satisfaction (F(2, 127) ¼15.75; p o .000, diference among the three groups); impulse (p ¼NS); loyalty (F(2, 127) ¼16.30; p o .000; difference among the three groups); products (F(2, 127) ¼2.33; p o .104; no significant); money spent $ (F(2, 127) ¼ 2.61; p o .07; no significant); minutes (F(2, 127) ¼8.77; p o .000; difference among the three groups). Study 2: When motivational orientation is hedonic, satisfaction (F(2, 87) ¼ 1.75; p o .18, difference among the three groups); loyalty (F(2, 87) ¼ .24; p ¼ NS); impulse (F(2, 87) ¼ 17.65; po .000; difference among three groups); money spent $ (F(2, 87) ¼ 4.93; p o.009, no difference between groups); minutes (F(2, 87) ¼ .24; p ¼NS); items (F(2, 87) ¼ 6.62; p o .000 no difference between groups); difference between high and low); When motivational orientation is utilitarian, satisfaction (F(2, 76) ¼ 6.44; p o .003; difference between high and low); loyalty (F(2, 76) ¼4.06; p o 0.02; difference between high and low); impulse (F(2, 76) ¼ 7.17; p o .001 difference between moderate and high); money spent $ (F(2, 76) ¼ 2.16; p o .12); minutes (F(2, 76) ¼ 6.65; p o 0.002); items (F(2, 76) ¼ 2.97; p o .05).

166

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

Fig. 9. Groups and variables means (part b). Notes: Study 3: When motivational orientation is utilitarian, the results are: Satisfaction (F(2, 62) ¼5.44; p o .007 difference between high and low); impulse (p¼ NS); loyalty (F(2, 62) ¼ 25.79; p o .000 difference between high and low); products (p ¼ NS); money spent $ (F(2, 62) ¼7.64; p o .001, difference between high and moderate); minutes (p¼ NS); loyalty (F(2, 62) ¼ 5.23; po .008); When motivational orientation is hedonic, the results are: Satisfaction (F(2, 127) ¼15.75; p o.000, difference among the three groups); impulse (p¼ NS); loyalty (F(2, 127) ¼16.30; p o .000; difference among the three groups); products (F(2, 127) ¼ 2.33; p o .104; no significant); money spent $ (F(2, 127) ¼2.61; p o .07; no significant); minutes (F(2, 127) ¼ 8.77; p o .000; difference among the three groups). Study 4: When motivational orientation is hedonic, satisfaction (F(2, 68) ¼ 4.41; p o .01, difference between high and low); loyalty (F(2, 70) ¼ .4.33; p o .017 difference among three groups); impulse (F(2, 68) ¼ 1.92; po .15; no difference among three groups); money spent $ (F(2, 68) ¼ 1.43; p o .25, no difference between groups); minutes (F(2, 70)¼ 2.494; p o 0,09 no difference between groups); items (F(2, 70) ¼ 4.04; p o .02; difference between high and low); When motivational orientation is utilitarian, satisfaction (F(2, 59) ¼2.84; p ¼ NS; no difference between groups); loyalty (F(2, 61) ¼1.61; p ¼NS; no difference between groups); impulse (F(2, 61) ¼ 7.17; p ¼NS no difference between groups); money spent $ (F(2, 59) ¼1.62; p ¼ NS no difference between groups); minutes (F(2, 61) ¼ .45; p ¼ NS no difference between group.

high-arousal atmosphere generates greater averages on pleasure and response. Second, research studies using Expectancy Theory have been measuring whether expectations are congruent with the performance from product benefit in order to generate greater intentions (Chitturi et al., 2007, 2008). In practice, consumers elaborated previous expectations about attribute performance; after using, they analyzed the trade-off between expectation and performance. Literature suggests that when congruency exists between expectations and performance, there are greater consumer responses. Thus, a coherent alignment should exist in order to generate more shopping behaviour. That alternative explanation can launch a 2
2
2
2 factorial design. Next, in order to explain mixed shopping behaviour based on arousal, Mattila and Wirtz (2001, 2000) Mattila and Wirtz (2006) suggested Optimal Level Theory (Raju, 1980). They showed that when ambient scent and music are congruent with each other in terms of their arousing qualities, consumers rate the environment as expressively more positive, exhibit higher levels of approach and impulse buying behaviours, and experience enhanced satisfaction than when these environmental cues were at odds with each other. Fourth, in the Kaltcheva and Weitz (2003, 2006) paper, participants saw the photos on a PC monitor and then answered the questions. We supposed that since the researchers manipulated the length of time seeing photos (20 s for study 1 and 60 s for study 2), the stimulus become more salient to consumers. In addition to this extended item, students should write five sentences from a shopping experience describing one of the four existing conditions. This task also helped the stimulus to become more significant to respondents. Since the time processing the stimulus was noteworthy, we hypothesized that the moderating effect became present.

Appendix A. Explained variance of dependent variables (partial eta square).

Variables

Study 1 (%)

Study 2 (%)

Study 3 (%)

Study 4 (%)

Satisfaction Impulse Loyalty Itens $ Spent Minutes inside Average

20 2 21 5 4 15

11 29 6 13 8 6

16 3 15 3 11 14

10 5 9 12 5 8

11

12

10

8

Appendix B. Summary of construct measures Arousal: Stimulated-relaxed; excited-calm; frenzied-sluggish; jittery-dull; wide awake-sleepy; aroused-unaroused. (Study 1: χ2/ d.f. ¼7.84; GFI ¼.88; RMSEA ¼ .14; Study 2: χ2/d.f. ¼3.69; GFI¼.77; RMSEA¼ .18; Study 3: GFI ¼.89; RMSEA ¼.12; Study 4: GFI¼ .82; RMSEA¼ .14). Pleasure: Happy-unhappy; pleased-annoyed; satisfied-unsatisfied; contented-melancholic; hopeful-despairing; relaxed-bored. (Study 1: α¼.95; Study 2: α¼.93; Study 3: α ¼.91; Study 4: α¼.88). Hedonic: This shopping trip was truly a joy; Compared to other things I could have done, the time spent shopping was truly enjoyable; During the trip, I felt the excitement of the hunt; This shopping trip truly felt like an escape; I enjoyed this shopping trip for its own sake, not just for the items I may have purchased; I continued

V. Afonso Vieira, C. Vaz Torres / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 21 (2014) 158–167

to shop, not because I had to, but because I wanted to; I had a good time because I was able to act on the spur of the moment; While shopping, I was able to forget my problems; While shopping, I felt a sense of adventure; This shopping trip was not a very nice time out; I felt really unlucky during this trip; I was able to do a lot of fantasizing during this trip. (Study 1: χ2/d.f.¼4.88; GFI¼.91; RMSEA¼ .11; Study 2: χ2/d.f.¼ 5.33; GFI¼.81; RMSEA¼.16; Study 3: GFI¼ .93; RMSEA¼.08; Study 4: GFI¼.93; RMSEA¼ .07). Utilitarian: I accomplished just what I wanted to on this shopping trip; I couldn't buy what I really needed; While shopping, I found just the item(s) I was looking for; I was disappointed because I had to go to another store(s) to complete my shopping; I felt this shopping trip was successful; I feel really smart about this shopping trip; This was a good store visit because it was over very quickly. Task: I went shopping with an established goal; I went shopping to do my task; I went shopping looking for efficiency (Study 2: α¼.93; Study 3: α¼.75; GFI¼.95; RMSEA¼ .10; Study 4: α¼ .80; GFI¼ .96; RMSEA ¼.10). Recreational: I went shopping to feel good; I went shopping to look for entertainment; I went shopping without an established goal (Study 2: α ¼.75; Study 3: α¼ .67; Study 4: α¼ .77). Loyalty: I would like to buy at this store again; I would like to come back to this store in the future; The probability of buying at this store once is high (Study 1: α ¼.91; Study 2: α ¼.96; Study 3: α¼ .91; Study 4: α¼ .94). Satisfaction: I am satisfied with the decision of buying at this store; The decision-making process makes me satisfied; Overall, I am satisfied (Study 1: α ¼.89; Study 2: α ¼.88; Study 3: α¼.90; Study 4: α¼.87). Impulse: I often buy things spontaneously; I often buy things without carefully planning; I often buy products that I do not need (Study 1: α¼ .83; Study 2: α¼.92; Study 3: α ¼.82; Study 4: α¼ .88). How many products could you buy in this store? __ (Study 1: M ¼2.22; SD ¼1.37; Study 2: M ¼2.84; SD ¼2.16; Study 3: M¼3.08; SD ¼8.41; Study 4: M ¼2.09; SD ¼1.24). How long could you be inside this store? __ minutes (Study 1: M ¼33.70; SD¼ 24.02; Study 2: M ¼45.21; SD ¼48.49; Study 3: M ¼59; SD ¼59.33; Study 4: M¼ 39.33; SD ¼33). How much money could you spend in this store? __ (Study 1: M ¼279.69; SD ¼404.09; Study 2: M ¼318.20; SD ¼315.23; Study 3: M ¼111.92; SD ¼123.83; Study 4: M¼363.57; SD¼ 443). References Ang, S.H., Leong, S.M., Lim, J., 1997. The mediating influence of pleasure and arousal on layout and signage effects: comparing more and less customized retail services. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 4 (1), 13–24. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., Griffin, M., 1994. Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. J. Consum. Res. 20 (4), 644–656. Babin, B.J., Darden, W.R., 1995. Consumer self-regulation in a retail environment. J. Retail. 71 (1), 47–71. Bagozzi, R.P. 1991. Enactment Process in the Theory of Reasoned Action. Working Paper, School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109. Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H., Yi, Y., 1992. State vs. action orientation and the theory of reasoned action: an application to coupon usage. J. Consum. Res. 18 (4), 505–518. Baker, J., Levy, M., Grewal, D., 1992. An experimental approach to making retail store environmental decisions. J. Retail. 68 (4), 445–460. Batra, R., Ahtola, O.T., 1991. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Market. Lett. 2 (1), 159–170. Brendl, M.C., Higgins, T.E., 1996. Principles in judging valence: what makes events positive or negative. In: Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Adv. Exp. Social Psychol., 28. Academic Press, New York, pp. 95–160. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., 2008. Form versus function: how the intensities of specific emotions ekoved in functional versus hedonic trade-offs mediate product preferences. J. Market. Res. 54 (2), 48–63. Chitturi, R., Raghunathan, R., Mahajan, V., 2007. Delight by design: the role of hedonic versus utilitarian benefits. J. Market. 72 (4), 702–714.

167

Cunha-Jr., M.V.M., Chakravarti, A., Weitz, B.A. 2003. Consumer Search, Design Preferences and Internet Search Behaviors. Working Paper, Marketing Department, Warrigton College, University of Florida. Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., 1982. Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach. J. Retail. 58 (1), 34–57. Donovan, R.J., Rossiter, J.R., Marcoolyn, G., Nesdale, A., 1994. Store atmosphere and purchasing behavior. J. Retail. 70 (3), 283–294. Dubé, L., Chebat, J.C., Morin, S., 1995. The effects of background music on consumers' desire to affiliate in buyer-seller interactions. Psychol. Market. 12 (4), 305–319. Hoch, S., Loewenstein, G., 1991. Time-inconsistent preferences and consumer selfcontrol. J. Consum. Res. 17 (1), 492–507. Holbrook, M., Gardner, M.P., 1998. An approach to investigating the emotional determinants of consumption duration: why do people consume what they consume for as long as they consume it? J. Consum. Psychol. 2 (2), 123–142. Holbrook, M.B., Hirschman, E.C., 1982. The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies, feelings and fun. J. Consum. Res. 9 (4), 132–140. Kaltcheva, V.D., Weitz, B.A., 2006. When should a retailer create an exciting store environment? J. Market. 70 (1), 107–118. Kuhl, J., 1978. Standard-setting and risk-preference: an elaboration of the theory of achievement motivation and an empirical test. Psychol. Rev. 85 (3), 239–248. Kuhl, J., 1981. Motivational and functional helplessness: the moderating effect of state vs. action orientation. J. Personality Social Psychol. 40 (1), 155–170. Kuhl, J., 1982. The expectancy-value approach within the theory of social motivation: elaborations, extensions, critique. In: Feather, N. (Ed.), Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-value Models in Psychology. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.. Lunardo, R., Mbengue, A., 2009. Perceived control and shopping behavior: the moderating role of the level of utilitarian motivational orientation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 16 (6), 434–441. Mano, H., Oliver, R.L., 1993. Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling and satisfaction. J. Consum. Res. 20 (3), 451–466. Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2000. The role of pre-consumption affect in post-purchase evaluation of services. Psychol. Market. 17 (7), 587–606. Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2001. Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store evaluations and behavior. J. Retail. 77 (2), 273–289. Mattila, A.S., Wirtz, J., 2006. Arousal expectations and service evaluations. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage. 17 (3), 229–244. Mehrabian, A., Hines, M., 1978. A questionnaire measure of individual differences in dominance-submissiveness. Educational Psychol. Meas. 38 (2), 479–484. Mehrabian, A., Russel, J.A., 1974. An Approach to Environmental Psychology. MIT Press, Cambridge, M.A. Milliman, R.E., 1982. Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. J. Market. 46 (3), 86–91. Okada, E.M., 2005. Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods. J. Market. Res. 42 (1), 43–53. Oliver, R.L., 1981. Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction process in retail settings. J. Retail. 57 (3), 25–48. Osgood, C.E., Suci., G.J., Tannenbaum, P.H., 1957. The Measurement of Meaning. University of IIlinois Press, Urbana. Raju, P.S., 1980. Optimum stimulation level: its relationship to personality, demographics and exploratory behavior. J. Consum. Res. 7 (3), 272–283. Ridgway, N.M., Dawson, S.A., Bloch, P.H., 1990. Pleasure and arousal in the marketplace: interpersonal differences in approach-avoidance responses. Market. Lett. 1 (2), 139–147. Russell, J.A., Pratt, G.A., 1980. Description of the affective quality attributed to environments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 38 (2), 311–322. Sherman, E., Mathur, A., Smith, R.B., 1997. Store environment and consumer purchase behavior: mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychol. Market. 14 (4), 361–378. (1997). Smith, P.C., Curnow, R., 1966. Arousal hypothesis' and the effects of music on purchasing behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 50 (3), 255–256. Sweeney, J.C., Wyber, F., 2002. The role of cognitions and emotions in the musicapproach avoidance behavior relationship. J. Serv. Market. 16 (1), 51–69. Voss, K.E., Spangenberg, E.R., Grohman, B., 2003. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian dimensions of consumer attitude. J. Market. Res. 40 (3), 310–320. Wang, L.C., Baker, J., Wagner, J.A., Wakefield, K., 2007. Can a retail web site be social? J. Market. 71 (3), 143–157. Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S., Tan, R.L.P., 2007. The role of arousal congruency in influencing consumers' satisfaction evaluations and in-store behaviors. Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manage. 18 (1), 6–24. Wirtz, J., Bateson, J.E.G., 1999. Consumer satisfaction with services: integrating the environment perspective in services marketing into the traditional disconfirmation paradigm. J. Bus. Res. 44 (1), 55–66. Wirtz, J., Mattila, A.S., Tan, R.L.P., 2000. The moderating role of target-arousal on the impact affect on satisfaction—an examination' in the context of service experiences. J. Retail. 76 (3), 347–365. Youn, S. 2000. The Dimensional Structure of Consumer Buying Impulsivity: Measurement and Validation. Minnesota (USA), Doctoral Dissertation. University of Minnesota, 2000.