- Email: [email protected]
With or without you: Interactive effects of retail density and need for affiliation on shopping pleasure and spending
Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
With or without you: Interactive effects of retail density and need for affiliation on shopping pleasure and spending Thomas J.L. van Rompay a,⁎, Janna Krooshoop a, Joost W.M. Verhoeven b, Ad T.H. Pruyn a a b
University of Twente, Dept. of Marketing Communication & Consumer Psychology, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands The Foundation for Scientific Research on Commercial Communication (SWOCC), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 April 2011 Received in revised form 1 July 2011 Accepted 1 July 2011 Available online 4 September 2011 Keywords: Retail density Social needs Shopping pleasure Spending Impression management
a b s t r a c t A shopping trip is a not only a goal-directed activity for acquiring a desired product but also a social experience involving fellow shoppers. Crowding research generally considers retail density a negative influence and ignores any positive effects of the presence of others. Considering that consumers vary in the extent to which they value the presence of others, two studies document retail density's effects on shopping experiences and spending as a function of affiliation needs. In addition to demonstrating that density does not harm the shopping experiences of consumers with strong affiliation needs, the findings indicate these shoppers spend more money in dense settings in order to present a positive image to other customers. The discussion integrates these findings with social influence research highlighting the role of impression management behaviors. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Shopping's social aspects receive increasing attention in the literature (e.g., Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Haytko & Baker, 2004; He, Chen, & Alden, 2011; Verhoef, Lemon, Parasuraman, Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Schlesinger, 2009). Hence, shopping is no longer solely a means to an end (i.e., acquiring a desired product), but a social experience. Researchers generally consider density in retail settings a negative experience that reduces shopping pleasure (e.g., Eroglu & Machleit, 1990). Density effects vary in strength depending on, for example, store or service type (e.g., goods versus service settings; see Pan & Siemens, 2011) and dispositional differences (e.g., shoppers' need for control over events and situations; see Van Rompay, Galetzka, Pruyn, & Moreno-Garcia, 2008). Retail density's effects vary as a function of shoppers' affiliation needs. More specifically, this proposal implies shoppers in need of social contact entertain social shopping goals (e.g., they shop for social interactions). For them, retail density increases shopping pleasure and spending. Conversely, shoppers indifferent to social contact may perceive fellow shoppers as a nuisance and consider fellow shoppers an impediment to their shopping pleasure and related behaviors. To address these research questions this paper documents two studies: a controlled study using slides of a retail environment and a field study. This research's contribution is threefold. Firstly, by taking into account social consumer needs, the present research advances understanding how customer density affects the shopping experience. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.J.L. van Rompay), [email protected] (J. Krooshoop), [email protected] (J.W.M. Verhoeven), [email protected] (A.T.H. Pruyn). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.005
Secondly, by incorporating an implicit behavioral measure (i.e., spending) in addition to self-report measures, this research shows retail density not only impacts managerially relevant behaviors, but also demonstrates that density impacts consumer behavior in an automatic fashion (i.e., without shoppers being aware of the relationship between density and purchase behavior; see Dijksterhuis, Smith, Van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005). Finally, by pinpointing the specific social needs relevant in the retail context, this paper integrates findings from crowding research and impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) and social presence (Argo, Dahl, & Manchanda, 2005; Luo, 2005). 1. Retail density and the shopping experience Shopping is a social event in which customers with different goals and preferences partake. Being with others may or may not be a pleasurable experience. Sometimes the presence of others can be stimulating and appreciated; at other times (and sometimes simultaneously), the presence of others frustrates (shopping) tasks, and negatively affects (shopping) pleasure (Grove & Fisk, 1997). Such opposing effects indicate that the need for both social contact and solitude shape consumer experiences, just as social life implies finding the right balance between these opposing needs (Leary, Herbst, & McCrary, 2003). This conflict is salient in situations involving crowds such as in dense retail settings. Retail density, that is the number of people occupying a limited space, is the primary antecedent of crowding perceptions (i.e., perceived retail density; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Stokols, 1972). The observation that retail density impacts the
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
shopping experience and buyer behavior inspires a considerable body of research addressing factors such as store atmospherics (Eroglu, Machleit, & Chebat, 2005), store or service type (Hui & Bateson, 1991; Pan & Siemens, 2011), crowding expectations and adaptation strategies (Harrell, Hutt, & Anderson, 1980; Machleit, Eroglu, & Mantel, 2000; Machleit, Kellaris, & Eroglu, 1994), cultural differences (Pons, Laroche, & Mourali, 2006), and dispositional differences (Van Rompay et al., 2008). Many research projects assume retail density inspires a negative experience involving an element of restraint or lack of space, reducing freedom of movement and control over the environment (Stokols, 1972). This (traditional) notion implies shoppers enter a retail setting with practical goals in mind and that density hinders attainment of these goals (e.g., location of products in the store five minutes before closing time). The assumption that density frustrates attainment of shopping goals finds support in research addressing the role of perceived control, that is the degree to which the environment thwarts or facilitates goal achievement (Ward & Barnes, 2001). For instance, Hui and Bateson (1991) report high density in a service setting lowers perceptions of control thus reducing the pleasantness of the service experience. In line with density's negative effects in service settings, research in retailing indicates high density negatively impacts customer satisfaction (e.g., Eroglu & Machleit, 1990). However, in other settings where social contact is an important part of the service (or even a goal in itself) positive effects of density are more common. For instance, Pons et al. (2006) show that conditions of high density enhance, rather than harm, consumer experiences in leisure services (e.g., a bar or a disco). In this type of service, density facilitates goal achievement (e.g., interactions with other people), and is functional, as opposed to situations where one does not value social contact and density is dysfunctional (Eroglu & Harrell, 1986). These findings suggest a distinction between practical behavioral consequences of density (in line with the traditional definition of retail density as involving an element of restraint; Stokols, 1972), and experiential social consequences of density (i.e., the notion that interactions with other customers are rewarding). The next section argues the relative importance of such social consequences in the retail context varies with consumers' affiliation needs, and suggests density increases spending of customers with strong social needs. 2. Affiliation needs in the retail context Retail density's effects may vary with consumer needs; some consumers go shopping at rush hour for the social interaction, whereas others prefer to shop alone. Of particular importance to the retail context is the need for affiliation or social contact, a fundamental human motivation involving the urge to seek and enjoy relationships with other people (Hill, 1987; Murray, 1938). Consumers desire to affiliate with others for at least four different reasons. Specifically, (1) shoppers may find social contact stimulating or exciting (positive stimulation), (2) social contact may generate attention or praise of others (attention), (3) emotional support when feeling gloomy or down (emotional support), and (4) opportunities for social comparison (social comparison; Hill, 1987). Research addressing consumers' affiliation needs in relation to retail density is non-existent. On a more general level, the retailing literature suggests shoppers consider a shopping trip exciting and stimulating, or an appropriate means to combat gloom or negative affect (Haytko & Baker, 2004; Underhill, 2000). Furthermore, impression management research indicates people adjust their behavior in the presence of others (Argo et al., 2005; Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001; Luo, 2005). For instance, Argo et al. (2005) report consumers in a retail setting more likely purchase expensive luxury brands when other shoppers are present, whereas shoppers who are alone more likely select cheaper bands. Such findings suggest consumers in dense settings feel they are at the center of other people's attention and consequently adapt their
1127
behavior (e.g., spend more on luxurious, high-status brands) in order to generate a positive, socially-desirable image. This research proposes shoppers have different social needs. Shoppers with strong social needs value retail density's social consequences and respond positively (i.e., report more pleasure and approach behaviors). Retail density allows them to present a positive image to the outside world. For shoppers with low social needs (i.e., shoppers who are not concerned with others' opinions), high density negatively affects shopping pleasure and approach behaviors owing to its negative practical consequences. H1a. Retail density affects pleasure and approach behaviors for shoppers with low affiliation needs negatively. H1b. Retail density affects pleasure and approach behaviors for shoppers with strong affiliation needs positively. To test these propositions, the next section reports on a laboratory study addressing density effects on pleasure and approach behaviors. 3. Study 1 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Design and participants This study employed a design with “retail density” (low vs. high) as a dichotomous between-subjects variable and participants' ‘need for affiliation’ as a continuous independent variable. One hundred and seventeen students (77 female and 40 male) from a Dutch university participated for extra course credit. 3.1.2. Procedure The instructions of the computer-administered task stated that participants should imagine they were browsing in a consumer electronics store for a CD or DVD for a friend, and that they were walking down the aisle presented on screen. Participants were assigned randomly to either low density or high density conditions, and asked to imagine themselves in the situation depicted. After this projection procedure, participants filled out the computer-administered questionnaire comprising the dependent measures and the need for affiliation scale. After completing the questionnaire, participants were thanked for their cooperation and dismissed. 3.1.3. Density manipulation This study manipulated retail density using photos of a consumer electronics store (taken after shopping hours). The pictures depicted a walkthrough view of an aisle with displays of products on both sides. In the low density condition, one person was visible in the aisle; in the high density condition six persons were visible. Positioning and posture of these individuals were controlled to avoid confounding effects of other variables. A manipulation check showed the density manipulation was successful (M = 3.1, SD = 1.36 versus M = 5.7, SD = .94; F (1,115) = 128.95, p b 0.001). 3.1.4. Measures The questionnaire assessed shopping pleasure with items derived from Mehrabian and Russell's pleasure dimension of their PAD model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; cf. Machleit et al., 2000). Respondents indicated to what extent they felt happy, pleased and contented during the imagined shopping trip (alpha = .92). The questionnaire assessed approach behaviors with the items “I would readily buy something in this store”, “I would like to return to this store”, and “I would leave this store as soon as possible (reverse coded)” (alpha = .87). Participants indicated their responses for both measures on 7-point rating scales (anchored with ‘not at all’ and ‘very much so’).
1128
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
The questionnaire assessed affiliation motivation with the interpersonal orientation scale (Hill, 1987). This scale includes 26 items describing situations that tap into participants' need for social contact as indicated by items such as “Just being around others and finding out about them is one of the most interesting things I can think of doing”, and “I find that I often look to certain other people to see how I compare to others” (alpha = .86). Participants indicated their responses on seven-point rating scales anchored with ‘not at all true’ and ‘completely true’. High scores indicate participants positively value social situations for the incentives they provide whereas low scores are indicative of indifference with respect to these rewards. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Shopping pleasure A regression analysis with ‘retail density’ (dummy coded), ‘need for affiliation’ (mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘retail density’ on shopping pleasure (ß = −.22, t = −2.42, p b 0.05), indicating participants in the low-density condition report more pleasure (M = 3.8, SD = 1.29) than participants in the highdensity condition (M = 3.3, SD = 1.27). The relationship between ‘need for affiliation’ and pleasure also is significant (ß = −.65, t = −2.29, p b 0.05), indicating participants with low affiliation needs generally experience the shopping situation as less pleasurable than participants with high affiliation needs. In line with predictions, the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .71, t = 2.50, p b 0.05; see Fig. 1). Simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) reveal (in line with H1a) high density levels affect reported pleasure for participants low in need of affiliation (b = − 1.17, t = −3.46, p b 0.01). Simple slope analyses failed to demonstrate the predicted positive effect (H1b) of retail density on pleasure for participants high in need of affiliation (b = .02, t = .07, p N 0.05). 3.2.2. Approach behaviors Similar to the results for pleasure, a regression analysis with ‘retail density’ (dummy coded), ‘need for affiliation’ (mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘retail density’ on approach behaviors (ß = −.25, t = −2.68, p b 0.01). This finding indicates participants in the high-density condition show less approach behaviors (M = 4.3, SD = 1.49) than participants in the low-density condition (M = 4.9, SD = 1.24). Again, participants low in need of affiliation report overall less approach behaviors than participants high in need of affiliation (ß = −.63, t = − 2.23, p b 0.05). The predicted significant
4,5
density low high
pleasure
4 3,5 3 2,5
low
high
need for affiliation Note: The variable ‘need for affiliation’ is dichotomized for descriptive purposes only. Regression analysis with the continuous variable is used throughout. Fig. 1. The interactive effect of ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on pleasure.
interaction (ß = .74, t = 2.64, p b 0.01) between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (H1a) indicates, similar to the results for pleasure, high density negatively affects approach behaviors of participants low in need of affiliation (b = − 1.29, t = −3.54, p b 0.01). Analyses fail to support the predicted positive effect (H1b) of retail density on approach behaviors for participants high in need of affiliation (b = −.12, t = −.33, p N 0.05). 3.3. Discussion These findings support the notion that density's effects on shopping pleasure and approach behaviors vary with shoppers' affiliation needs; negative effects are only apparent for shoppers with low affiliation needs (H1a). These results stress the necessity to consider individual differences in explaining density's effects. Density neither negatively nor positively impacted responses for participants high in need of affiliation (see H1b). Several limitations and additional research questions also deserve attention. The results merit further investigation in a field setting in which customers are in the presence of fellow shoppers. Moreover, findings from consumer research indicate consumers usually are unaware of how atmospheric factors influence shopping behaviors (Dijksterhuis et al., 2005). Self-report measures (i.e., participants' ratings on pleasure and approach behaviors) may thus paint a different story than actual shopping behavior. For instance, do shoppers consider retail density an opportunity for impression management (i.e., consumers high in need of affiliation) and spend more? This latter question is important given the research showing how the presence of others enacts impression management behaviors (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), and studies showing shoppers are more likely to purchase expensive luxury brands when other shoppers are present in the store (Argo et al., 2005). 4. Study 2 Study 2 aims to address density's effects on a behavioral measure indicative of consumers' attempts to present a positive image to fellow shoppers. Previous research suggests spending is a type of impression management behavior (indicative of social status or selfpromotion), and thus reflects social concerns. H2. Retail density increases spending for shoppers with high versus low affiliation needs. If retail density boosts spending for shoppers with strong affiliation needs because they desire to present a positive image to others, the attention and social comparison subscales in particular should be involved. These scales tap shoppers' needs for impression management; the attention reward centers on the wish that others hold a positive view about oneself (Hill, 1987; Murray, 1938), and social comparison involves the search for self-relevant information from others (Festinger, 1954; Hill, 1987). Luo (2005) reports shoppers high in social susceptibility (a measure closely related to these two subscales) express a higher urge to purchase during an imagined shopping trip when in the presence of peers. Van Rompay, Vonk, and Fransen (2009) show approval seeking consumers also display impression management behaviors as the result of an anonymous social presence, indicating social presence effects extend beyond influences related to peers and significant others (cf. Argo et al., 2005). These notions imply shoppers scoring highly on the attention and social comparison subscales spend more trying to generate a positive image among people to whom they compare themselves. H3. Retail density increases spending for shoppers with high versus low scores on the social comparison and attention subscales of the need for affiliation construct.
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
4.1. Method 4.1.1. Design and participants This study employed a design with ‘perceived density’ and shoppers' ‘need for affiliation’ as continuous independent variables. One hundred and fifty five shoppers at a medium-sized Dutch clothing store (all female, mean age 42.6 years) participated in the experiment in exchange for a small reward (i.e., a box of chocolates). 4.1.2. Procedure During three consecutive weeks, comprising weekdays and Saturdays, participants were randomly intercepted on leaving the store, and asked to fill out a questionnaire comprising the dependent measures and the need for affiliation scale. 4.1.3. Measures For practical purposes, this study used perceived retail density (rather than the exact number of shoppers present in the store at each moment) as the independent variable. The questionnaire assessed perceived density with items derived from Machleit et al. (1994): “This store seemed very crowded to me”, “This store was a little too busy”, “There wasn't much traffic in this store during my shopping trip (reverse coded)”, and “There were a lot of shoppers in this store” (alpha = .76). This study comprised a shopping satisfaction measure (rather than the more general pleasure measure used in study 1). The questionnaire assessed shopping satisfaction with items derived from Machleit et al. (1994) and three additional items. Examples of items were “I enjoyed shopping at this store”, “I am satisfied with my shopping experience at this store”, and “Given the choice, I would probably not come back to this store (reverse coded)” (alpha = .77). The questionnaire assessed spending by prompting participants to copy the amount of euros spent in the store from their store receipts. As in study 1, the questionnaire assessed participants' social needs with the interpersonal orientation scale (Hill, 1987) (alpha = .94). This study also takes into account the four original subscales (i.e., ‘positive stimulation’, e.g. “I think I get satisfaction out of contact with others more than most people realize”, alpha = .85; ‘attention’, e.g., “I often have a strong desire to get people I am around to notice me and appreciate what I am like”, alpha = .85; ‘emotional support’, e.g., “If I feel unhappy or kind of depressed, 1 usually try to be around other people to make me feel better”, alpha = .87; and ‘social comparison’, e.g., “I prefer to participate in activities alongside other people rather than by myself because I like to see how I am doing on the activity”, alpha = .81). Participants indicated their responses on 7-point rating scales.
1129
4.2.2. Spending A regression analysis with ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (both mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields non-significant main effects of ‘perceived density’ (ß = .05, t = .55, p N 0.05) and ‘need for affiliation’ (ß = −.02, t = −.25, p N 0.05) on spending, indicating ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ do not influence spending directly. However, in line with H2, the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .17, t = 2.13, p b 0.05; see Fig. 2). Simple slope analyses reveal ‘perceived density’ has a (marginal) positive effect on spending for participants high on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = 8.38, t = 1.74, p = 0.08). For those low on ‘need for affiliation’, ‘perceived density’ does not affect spending (b = − 4.26, t = −.91, p N 0.05). The interactive effect of ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on spending indicates density effects vary with social needs, and perceived density stimulates spending for participants with strong social needs. In order to further pinpoint these needs and test the predicted centrality of the ‘attention’ and ‘social comparison’ subscales (see H3), regression analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, the four separate subscales (‘positive stimulation’, ‘emotional support’, ‘attention’, and ‘social comparison’; Hill, 1987) should reveal the relative importance of these subscales for explaining the relationship between perceived retail density and spending (see Table 1). Regression analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, ‘positive stimulation’ and ‘emotional support’ do not yield significant main and interaction effects (Table 1), indicating these social rewards do not explain the effects of perceived retail density on spending. In line with predictions (see H3), analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, ‘attention’ and ‘social comparison’ show strong effects on spending. Whereas the main effects are (as in the overall analysis) non-significant, the interactions between ‘perceived density’ and ‘attention’, and ‘perceived density’ and ‘social comparison’ are significant (Table 1). Simple slopes analyses reveal ‘perceived density’ positively affects spending for participants with high scores on the ‘attention’ subscale (b = 11.10, t = 2.27, p b 0.05). For those with low scores, ‘perceived density’ does not affect spending (b = −7.32, t = − 1.52, p N 0.05). For the ‘social comparison’ subscale, simple slopes analyses likewise indicate perceived density positively impacts spending for participants with high scores (b = 10.54, t = 2.14, p b 0.05), and that perceived density does not affect spending for participants with low scores on the ‘social comparison’ subscale (b = −6.61, t = − 1.34, p N 0.05). In line with H3, these findings show shoppers appreciate the presence of others mainly because they are a source of attention and social comparison, and that the increase in spending for shoppers
4.2. Results 4.2.1. Shopping satisfaction A regression analysis with ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (both mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction (ß = −.24, t = − 3.01, p b 0.01), indicating ‘perceived density’ negatively affects shopping satisfaction. The relationship between ‘need for affiliation’ and shopping satisfaction is not significant (ß = .01, t = .17, p N 0.05). In line with predictions (H1a), the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .17, t = 2.13, p b 0.05). Simple slopes analyses reveal the negative effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction only appears for participants low on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = −.24, t = −3.79, p b 0.01). Again, analyses do not support the predicted positive effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction for those high on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = −.07, t = −1.06, p N 0.05).
Note: The variables ‘need for affiliation’ and ‘perceived retail density’ are dichotomized for descriptive purposes only. Regression analysis with the continuous variables is used throughout.
Fig. 2. The interactive effect of ‘perceived retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on spending.
1130
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
Table 1 Regression analyses results for the effects of ‘need for affiliation’ dimensions (study 2). Variable Dependent variable: Positive stimulation Perceived density Positive stimulation Perceived density × Positive stimulation Dependent variable: Emotional support Perceived density Emotional support Perceived density × Emotional support Dependent variable: Attention Perceived density Attention Perceived density × Attention Dependent variable: Social comparison Perceived density Social comparison Perceived density × Social comparison
β
t
p
.042 .008 .117
.517 .094 1.426
0.606 0.925 0.156
.044 −.033 .094
.537 −.402 1.144
0.592 0.688 0.254
.040 −.013 .233
.502 −.165 2.888
0.616 0.869 0.004
.044 −.026 .210
.543 −.317 2.612
0.588 0.752 0.010
with strong social needs is a type of impression management behavior. 5. General discussion The results from the two studies corroborate the notion that retail density's effects not only vary with situational variables or store type but also with social consumer needs. Negative effects on the shopping experience are only apparent for participants low in need of affiliation. Density positively affects spending of shoppers high in need of affiliation because fellow shoppers in the retail environment are a source of attention and social comparison, and spending is a means to impress others. These combined findings qualify the dominant conception of retail density as a negative influence. These studies underline the diverse effects other consumers exert on the shopping experience. Specifically, these effects suggest that dispositional differences co-determine the value shoppers place on density's different consequences. The findings from both studies indicate shoppers with strong affiliation needs value the presence of others in terms of the opportunities for impression management behaviors, whereas shoppers with low affiliation needs perceive the presence of others as a burden or constraint. Ratings on the self-report measures from both studies (i.e., pleasure and approach behaviors in study 1; shopping satisfaction in study 2) do not support density's predicted positive effects for shoppers with strong social needs. However, density's effect on spending indicates the presence of others only stimulates spending of participants with strong affiliation needs. Arguably, shoppers with low affiliation needs are task-oriented and enter retail settings with well-defined shopping goals that they bring to completion regardless of store atmosphere (cf. Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Korgaonkar, 1981), a prediction future research could take into account. For shoppers with strong affiliation needs, the results indicate dense conditions stimulate spending. Previous research suggests a relationship between social susceptibility and spending (Luo, 2005). Social susceptibility is a construct that closely resembles the social comparison and attention subscales that present research indicates are the most important social needs in explaining the relationship between retail density and spending. The increase in spending for participants with strong affiliation needs follows from a social approval motivation (i.e., purchasing more in order to impress attentive others in relation to whom these shoppers compare themselves) and is a type of impression management behavior indicative of spontaneity, good taste, and financial independence (cf. Argo et al., 2005; Luo, 2005). These results show impression management behaviors not only result from the presence of role models or peers (Luo, 2005) but also from an anonymous crowd.
The findings also stress the importance of incorporating explicit and implicit measures in density research. The finding that retail density (automatically) activates impression management concerns indicates self-report measures do not reveal the full range of consumer behaviors density conditions inspire. In addition, self-report measures require participants to consciously evaluate the relationship between the retail setting and, for instance, shopping pleasure, introducing demand characteristics. As participants in the field study filled out the spending measure after completion of the shopping trip, there was no opportunity for demand characteristics to influence purchase behavior (e.g., participants spending more because they anticipate filling out a questionnaire). In terms of practical implications, a pertinent question is how to counteract density's negative effects (e.g., reduced space leading to congestion and reduced accessibility of product displays) and preserve density's positive effects (e.g., opportunities for social contact that meet social consumer needs). Of interest is the relationship between spaciousness and (perceived) density. Changes in store layout (e.g., broadening of aisles or creating open areas throughout the store) result in perceived spaciousness and may reduce perceptions of retail density. Variations in atmospheric variables such as usage of bright colors and bright lighting may likewise reduce perceived density by fostering spaciousness perceptions (cf. Haytko & Baker, 2004; Stamps, 2010). For instance, store management may select brighter than average lighting levels at peak hours to reduce perceived density (Stamps, 2010). Such dynamic adjustments reduce density's negative effects (by fostering perceptions of a more spacious environment) but leave opportunities intact for social interactions that fulfill social consumer needs. 5.1. Limitations and future research Several limitations deserve attention. Firstly, the extent customers value density's social consequences may vary depending on store type. For instance, fashion stores may more readily enact impression management concerns compared to consumer electronics stores. Crowding levels vary across different types of settings. This may account for need for affiliation's (negative) main effect in study 1 (addressing density's effects in a consumer electronics store). Shoppers low in need of social contact may expect high density in this type of store and report less shopping pleasure compared to stores where density is (on average) lower. Research could explore how customers with different social needs appraise crowds in retail settings (i.e., whether they perceive the presence of others as an opportunity for impression management or as a barrier to practical goal fulfillment) and explore whether different store types vary in the extent to which they enact impression management concerns. Although no gender differences surface in study 1, the variations in demographics (i.e., male and female students in study 1 versus exclusively female shoppers in study 2) may influence density's effects. The results do also not warrant any specific conclusions on how spacious or empty a store should be. For instance, an environment that is too spacious may inspire feelings of aloneness or isolation. Argo et al. (2005) demonstrate how a store environment devoid of other shoppers induces negative emotions, suggesting being alone in a social setting is, regardless of social needs, not an enjoyable experience. In addition to incorporating target group characteristics (e.g., age) that may qualify social presence effects, future research could explore whether impression management concerns vary with fluctuating levels of retail density. Finally, density perceptions may also vary with dispositional differences. For instance, shoppers with low affiliation needs may more readily perceive a store environment as dense. This suggests followup research should take into account objective and subjective density measures (cf. Hui & Bateson, 1991). To conclude, the findings demonstrate it is critical to incorporate social needs in density
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
research and warn against a simplified conceptualization of retail density as a negative influence. With the advent of the experience economy and related focus on creating memorable shopping episodes (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), shopping's social aspects will take on increased importance. These developments warrant future studies that seek to unravel how situational and consumer-related factors interact to shape the shopping experience. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions for improvements by Diane Ricketts, Martijn Veltkamp and Peter de Vries (University of Twente), and two anonymous reviewers. References Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. Argo JJ, Dahl DW, Manchanda RV. The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research 2005;32:207–12. (September). Arnold MJ, Reynolds KE. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing 2003;79(2):77–95. Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 1994;20:644–56. (March). Dahl DW, Manchanda RV, Argo JJ. Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research 2001;28: 473–81. (December). Dijksterhuis A, Smith PK, Van Baaren RB, Wigboldus DHJ. The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005;15(3):193–202. Eroglu SA, Harrell GD. Retail crowding: Theoretical and strategic implications. Journal of Retailing 1986;62(4):346–63. Eroglu SA, Machleit KA. An empirical study of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing 1990;66(2):201–21. Eroglu SA, Machleit KA, Chebat JC. The interaction of retail density and music tempo: Effects on shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing 2005;22(7):577–89. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954;7(2): 117–40. Grove SJ, Fisk RP. The impact of other customers on service experiences: A critical incident examination of “getting along”. Journal of Retailing 1997;73(1):63–85. Harrell GD, Hutt MD, Anderson JC. Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research 1980;17:45–51. (February). Haytko DL, Baker J. It's all at the mall: Exploring adolescent girls' experiences. Journal of Retailing 2004;80(1):67–83.
1131
Hill CA. Affiliation motivation: People who need people… but in different ways. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;52:1008–18. (May). Hui MK, Bateson JEG. Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 1991;18:174–84. (September). Korgaonkar PK. Shopping orientations of catalog showroom patrons. Journal of Retailing 1981;57(1):78–90. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Impression management: A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin 1990;107(1):34–47. Leary MR, Herbst KC, McCrary F. Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences 2003;35:59–68. (July). Luo X. How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005;15(4):288–94. Machleit KA, Kellaris JJ, Eroglu SA. Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: A note on their measurement and their effect on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters 1994;5:183–94. (April). Machleit KA, Eroglu SA, Mantel SP. Retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: What modifies this relationship? Journal of Consumer Psychology 2000;9(1):29–42. Mehrabian A, Russell JA. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1974. Murray HA. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1938. Pan Y, Siemens JC. The differential impact of retail density: An investigation of goods versus service settings. Journal of Business Research 2011;64:105–12. (February). Pine JP, Gilmore JH. The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1999. Pons F, Laroche M, Mourali M. Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Crosscultural differences between North America and the Middle East. Psychology and Marketing 2006;23(7):555–72. Stamps AE. Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior 2010;42(6):864–86. Stokols D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review 1972;79(3):275–7. Underhill P. Why we buy: the science of shopping. New York: Touchstone; 2000. Van Rompay TJL, Galetzka M, Pruyn ATH, Moreno-Garcia J. Human and spatial dimensions of retail density: Revisiting the role of perceived control. Psychology and Marketing 2008;25(4):319–35. Van Rompay TJL, Vonk DJ, Fransen ML. The eye of the camera: Effects of security cameras on helping behavior. Environment and Behavior 2009;41(1):60–74. Verhoef PC, Lemon KN, Parasuraman A, Roggeveen A, Tsiros M, Schlesinger LA. Customer experience: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing 2009;85(1):31–41. Ward JC, Barnes JW. Control and affect: The influence of feeling in control of the retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior. Journal of Business Research 2001;54(2):139–44. Yi H, Chen Q, Alden DL. Consumption in the public eye: The influence of social presence on service experience. Journal of Business Research 2011. doi:10.1016/j.busres.2011.03.014.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
With or without you: Interactive effects of retail density and need for affiliation on shopping pleasure and spending Thomas J.L. van Rompay a,⁎, Janna Krooshoop a, Joost W.M. Verhoeven b, Ad T.H. Pruyn a a b
University of Twente, Dept. of Marketing Communication & Consumer Psychology, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands The Foundation for Scientific Research on Commercial Communication (SWOCC), University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 April 2011 Received in revised form 1 July 2011 Accepted 1 July 2011 Available online 4 September 2011 Keywords: Retail density Social needs Shopping pleasure Spending Impression management
a b s t r a c t A shopping trip is a not only a goal-directed activity for acquiring a desired product but also a social experience involving fellow shoppers. Crowding research generally considers retail density a negative influence and ignores any positive effects of the presence of others. Considering that consumers vary in the extent to which they value the presence of others, two studies document retail density's effects on shopping experiences and spending as a function of affiliation needs. In addition to demonstrating that density does not harm the shopping experiences of consumers with strong affiliation needs, the findings indicate these shoppers spend more money in dense settings in order to present a positive image to other customers. The discussion integrates these findings with social influence research highlighting the role of impression management behaviors. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Shopping's social aspects receive increasing attention in the literature (e.g., Arnold & Reynolds, 2003; Haytko & Baker, 2004; He, Chen, & Alden, 2011; Verhoef, Lemon, Parasuraman, Roggeveen, Tsiros, & Schlesinger, 2009). Hence, shopping is no longer solely a means to an end (i.e., acquiring a desired product), but a social experience. Researchers generally consider density in retail settings a negative experience that reduces shopping pleasure (e.g., Eroglu & Machleit, 1990). Density effects vary in strength depending on, for example, store or service type (e.g., goods versus service settings; see Pan & Siemens, 2011) and dispositional differences (e.g., shoppers' need for control over events and situations; see Van Rompay, Galetzka, Pruyn, & Moreno-Garcia, 2008). Retail density's effects vary as a function of shoppers' affiliation needs. More specifically, this proposal implies shoppers in need of social contact entertain social shopping goals (e.g., they shop for social interactions). For them, retail density increases shopping pleasure and spending. Conversely, shoppers indifferent to social contact may perceive fellow shoppers as a nuisance and consider fellow shoppers an impediment to their shopping pleasure and related behaviors. To address these research questions this paper documents two studies: a controlled study using slides of a retail environment and a field study. This research's contribution is threefold. Firstly, by taking into account social consumer needs, the present research advances understanding how customer density affects the shopping experience. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.J.L. van Rompay), [email protected] (J. Krooshoop), [email protected] (J.W.M. Verhoeven), [email protected] (A.T.H. Pruyn). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.08.005
Secondly, by incorporating an implicit behavioral measure (i.e., spending) in addition to self-report measures, this research shows retail density not only impacts managerially relevant behaviors, but also demonstrates that density impacts consumer behavior in an automatic fashion (i.e., without shoppers being aware of the relationship between density and purchase behavior; see Dijksterhuis, Smith, Van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005). Finally, by pinpointing the specific social needs relevant in the retail context, this paper integrates findings from crowding research and impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) and social presence (Argo, Dahl, & Manchanda, 2005; Luo, 2005). 1. Retail density and the shopping experience Shopping is a social event in which customers with different goals and preferences partake. Being with others may or may not be a pleasurable experience. Sometimes the presence of others can be stimulating and appreciated; at other times (and sometimes simultaneously), the presence of others frustrates (shopping) tasks, and negatively affects (shopping) pleasure (Grove & Fisk, 1997). Such opposing effects indicate that the need for both social contact and solitude shape consumer experiences, just as social life implies finding the right balance between these opposing needs (Leary, Herbst, & McCrary, 2003). This conflict is salient in situations involving crowds such as in dense retail settings. Retail density, that is the number of people occupying a limited space, is the primary antecedent of crowding perceptions (i.e., perceived retail density; Hui & Bateson, 1991; Stokols, 1972). The observation that retail density impacts the
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
shopping experience and buyer behavior inspires a considerable body of research addressing factors such as store atmospherics (Eroglu, Machleit, & Chebat, 2005), store or service type (Hui & Bateson, 1991; Pan & Siemens, 2011), crowding expectations and adaptation strategies (Harrell, Hutt, & Anderson, 1980; Machleit, Eroglu, & Mantel, 2000; Machleit, Kellaris, & Eroglu, 1994), cultural differences (Pons, Laroche, & Mourali, 2006), and dispositional differences (Van Rompay et al., 2008). Many research projects assume retail density inspires a negative experience involving an element of restraint or lack of space, reducing freedom of movement and control over the environment (Stokols, 1972). This (traditional) notion implies shoppers enter a retail setting with practical goals in mind and that density hinders attainment of these goals (e.g., location of products in the store five minutes before closing time). The assumption that density frustrates attainment of shopping goals finds support in research addressing the role of perceived control, that is the degree to which the environment thwarts or facilitates goal achievement (Ward & Barnes, 2001). For instance, Hui and Bateson (1991) report high density in a service setting lowers perceptions of control thus reducing the pleasantness of the service experience. In line with density's negative effects in service settings, research in retailing indicates high density negatively impacts customer satisfaction (e.g., Eroglu & Machleit, 1990). However, in other settings where social contact is an important part of the service (or even a goal in itself) positive effects of density are more common. For instance, Pons et al. (2006) show that conditions of high density enhance, rather than harm, consumer experiences in leisure services (e.g., a bar or a disco). In this type of service, density facilitates goal achievement (e.g., interactions with other people), and is functional, as opposed to situations where one does not value social contact and density is dysfunctional (Eroglu & Harrell, 1986). These findings suggest a distinction between practical behavioral consequences of density (in line with the traditional definition of retail density as involving an element of restraint; Stokols, 1972), and experiential social consequences of density (i.e., the notion that interactions with other customers are rewarding). The next section argues the relative importance of such social consequences in the retail context varies with consumers' affiliation needs, and suggests density increases spending of customers with strong social needs. 2. Affiliation needs in the retail context Retail density's effects may vary with consumer needs; some consumers go shopping at rush hour for the social interaction, whereas others prefer to shop alone. Of particular importance to the retail context is the need for affiliation or social contact, a fundamental human motivation involving the urge to seek and enjoy relationships with other people (Hill, 1987; Murray, 1938). Consumers desire to affiliate with others for at least four different reasons. Specifically, (1) shoppers may find social contact stimulating or exciting (positive stimulation), (2) social contact may generate attention or praise of others (attention), (3) emotional support when feeling gloomy or down (emotional support), and (4) opportunities for social comparison (social comparison; Hill, 1987). Research addressing consumers' affiliation needs in relation to retail density is non-existent. On a more general level, the retailing literature suggests shoppers consider a shopping trip exciting and stimulating, or an appropriate means to combat gloom or negative affect (Haytko & Baker, 2004; Underhill, 2000). Furthermore, impression management research indicates people adjust their behavior in the presence of others (Argo et al., 2005; Dahl, Manchanda, & Argo, 2001; Luo, 2005). For instance, Argo et al. (2005) report consumers in a retail setting more likely purchase expensive luxury brands when other shoppers are present, whereas shoppers who are alone more likely select cheaper bands. Such findings suggest consumers in dense settings feel they are at the center of other people's attention and consequently adapt their
1127
behavior (e.g., spend more on luxurious, high-status brands) in order to generate a positive, socially-desirable image. This research proposes shoppers have different social needs. Shoppers with strong social needs value retail density's social consequences and respond positively (i.e., report more pleasure and approach behaviors). Retail density allows them to present a positive image to the outside world. For shoppers with low social needs (i.e., shoppers who are not concerned with others' opinions), high density negatively affects shopping pleasure and approach behaviors owing to its negative practical consequences. H1a. Retail density affects pleasure and approach behaviors for shoppers with low affiliation needs negatively. H1b. Retail density affects pleasure and approach behaviors for shoppers with strong affiliation needs positively. To test these propositions, the next section reports on a laboratory study addressing density effects on pleasure and approach behaviors. 3. Study 1 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Design and participants This study employed a design with “retail density” (low vs. high) as a dichotomous between-subjects variable and participants' ‘need for affiliation’ as a continuous independent variable. One hundred and seventeen students (77 female and 40 male) from a Dutch university participated for extra course credit. 3.1.2. Procedure The instructions of the computer-administered task stated that participants should imagine they were browsing in a consumer electronics store for a CD or DVD for a friend, and that they were walking down the aisle presented on screen. Participants were assigned randomly to either low density or high density conditions, and asked to imagine themselves in the situation depicted. After this projection procedure, participants filled out the computer-administered questionnaire comprising the dependent measures and the need for affiliation scale. After completing the questionnaire, participants were thanked for their cooperation and dismissed. 3.1.3. Density manipulation This study manipulated retail density using photos of a consumer electronics store (taken after shopping hours). The pictures depicted a walkthrough view of an aisle with displays of products on both sides. In the low density condition, one person was visible in the aisle; in the high density condition six persons were visible. Positioning and posture of these individuals were controlled to avoid confounding effects of other variables. A manipulation check showed the density manipulation was successful (M = 3.1, SD = 1.36 versus M = 5.7, SD = .94; F (1,115) = 128.95, p b 0.001). 3.1.4. Measures The questionnaire assessed shopping pleasure with items derived from Mehrabian and Russell's pleasure dimension of their PAD model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; cf. Machleit et al., 2000). Respondents indicated to what extent they felt happy, pleased and contented during the imagined shopping trip (alpha = .92). The questionnaire assessed approach behaviors with the items “I would readily buy something in this store”, “I would like to return to this store”, and “I would leave this store as soon as possible (reverse coded)” (alpha = .87). Participants indicated their responses for both measures on 7-point rating scales (anchored with ‘not at all’ and ‘very much so’).
1128
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
The questionnaire assessed affiliation motivation with the interpersonal orientation scale (Hill, 1987). This scale includes 26 items describing situations that tap into participants' need for social contact as indicated by items such as “Just being around others and finding out about them is one of the most interesting things I can think of doing”, and “I find that I often look to certain other people to see how I compare to others” (alpha = .86). Participants indicated their responses on seven-point rating scales anchored with ‘not at all true’ and ‘completely true’. High scores indicate participants positively value social situations for the incentives they provide whereas low scores are indicative of indifference with respect to these rewards. 3.2. Results 3.2.1. Shopping pleasure A regression analysis with ‘retail density’ (dummy coded), ‘need for affiliation’ (mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘retail density’ on shopping pleasure (ß = −.22, t = −2.42, p b 0.05), indicating participants in the low-density condition report more pleasure (M = 3.8, SD = 1.29) than participants in the highdensity condition (M = 3.3, SD = 1.27). The relationship between ‘need for affiliation’ and pleasure also is significant (ß = −.65, t = −2.29, p b 0.05), indicating participants with low affiliation needs generally experience the shopping situation as less pleasurable than participants with high affiliation needs. In line with predictions, the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .71, t = 2.50, p b 0.05; see Fig. 1). Simple slope analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) reveal (in line with H1a) high density levels affect reported pleasure for participants low in need of affiliation (b = − 1.17, t = −3.46, p b 0.01). Simple slope analyses failed to demonstrate the predicted positive effect (H1b) of retail density on pleasure for participants high in need of affiliation (b = .02, t = .07, p N 0.05). 3.2.2. Approach behaviors Similar to the results for pleasure, a regression analysis with ‘retail density’ (dummy coded), ‘need for affiliation’ (mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘retail density’ on approach behaviors (ß = −.25, t = −2.68, p b 0.01). This finding indicates participants in the high-density condition show less approach behaviors (M = 4.3, SD = 1.49) than participants in the low-density condition (M = 4.9, SD = 1.24). Again, participants low in need of affiliation report overall less approach behaviors than participants high in need of affiliation (ß = −.63, t = − 2.23, p b 0.05). The predicted significant
4,5
density low high
pleasure
4 3,5 3 2,5
low
high
need for affiliation Note: The variable ‘need for affiliation’ is dichotomized for descriptive purposes only. Regression analysis with the continuous variable is used throughout. Fig. 1. The interactive effect of ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on pleasure.
interaction (ß = .74, t = 2.64, p b 0.01) between ‘retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (H1a) indicates, similar to the results for pleasure, high density negatively affects approach behaviors of participants low in need of affiliation (b = − 1.29, t = −3.54, p b 0.01). Analyses fail to support the predicted positive effect (H1b) of retail density on approach behaviors for participants high in need of affiliation (b = −.12, t = −.33, p N 0.05). 3.3. Discussion These findings support the notion that density's effects on shopping pleasure and approach behaviors vary with shoppers' affiliation needs; negative effects are only apparent for shoppers with low affiliation needs (H1a). These results stress the necessity to consider individual differences in explaining density's effects. Density neither negatively nor positively impacted responses for participants high in need of affiliation (see H1b). Several limitations and additional research questions also deserve attention. The results merit further investigation in a field setting in which customers are in the presence of fellow shoppers. Moreover, findings from consumer research indicate consumers usually are unaware of how atmospheric factors influence shopping behaviors (Dijksterhuis et al., 2005). Self-report measures (i.e., participants' ratings on pleasure and approach behaviors) may thus paint a different story than actual shopping behavior. For instance, do shoppers consider retail density an opportunity for impression management (i.e., consumers high in need of affiliation) and spend more? This latter question is important given the research showing how the presence of others enacts impression management behaviors (Leary & Kowalski, 1990), and studies showing shoppers are more likely to purchase expensive luxury brands when other shoppers are present in the store (Argo et al., 2005). 4. Study 2 Study 2 aims to address density's effects on a behavioral measure indicative of consumers' attempts to present a positive image to fellow shoppers. Previous research suggests spending is a type of impression management behavior (indicative of social status or selfpromotion), and thus reflects social concerns. H2. Retail density increases spending for shoppers with high versus low affiliation needs. If retail density boosts spending for shoppers with strong affiliation needs because they desire to present a positive image to others, the attention and social comparison subscales in particular should be involved. These scales tap shoppers' needs for impression management; the attention reward centers on the wish that others hold a positive view about oneself (Hill, 1987; Murray, 1938), and social comparison involves the search for self-relevant information from others (Festinger, 1954; Hill, 1987). Luo (2005) reports shoppers high in social susceptibility (a measure closely related to these two subscales) express a higher urge to purchase during an imagined shopping trip when in the presence of peers. Van Rompay, Vonk, and Fransen (2009) show approval seeking consumers also display impression management behaviors as the result of an anonymous social presence, indicating social presence effects extend beyond influences related to peers and significant others (cf. Argo et al., 2005). These notions imply shoppers scoring highly on the attention and social comparison subscales spend more trying to generate a positive image among people to whom they compare themselves. H3. Retail density increases spending for shoppers with high versus low scores on the social comparison and attention subscales of the need for affiliation construct.
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
4.1. Method 4.1.1. Design and participants This study employed a design with ‘perceived density’ and shoppers' ‘need for affiliation’ as continuous independent variables. One hundred and fifty five shoppers at a medium-sized Dutch clothing store (all female, mean age 42.6 years) participated in the experiment in exchange for a small reward (i.e., a box of chocolates). 4.1.2. Procedure During three consecutive weeks, comprising weekdays and Saturdays, participants were randomly intercepted on leaving the store, and asked to fill out a questionnaire comprising the dependent measures and the need for affiliation scale. 4.1.3. Measures For practical purposes, this study used perceived retail density (rather than the exact number of shoppers present in the store at each moment) as the independent variable. The questionnaire assessed perceived density with items derived from Machleit et al. (1994): “This store seemed very crowded to me”, “This store was a little too busy”, “There wasn't much traffic in this store during my shopping trip (reverse coded)”, and “There were a lot of shoppers in this store” (alpha = .76). This study comprised a shopping satisfaction measure (rather than the more general pleasure measure used in study 1). The questionnaire assessed shopping satisfaction with items derived from Machleit et al. (1994) and three additional items. Examples of items were “I enjoyed shopping at this store”, “I am satisfied with my shopping experience at this store”, and “Given the choice, I would probably not come back to this store (reverse coded)” (alpha = .77). The questionnaire assessed spending by prompting participants to copy the amount of euros spent in the store from their store receipts. As in study 1, the questionnaire assessed participants' social needs with the interpersonal orientation scale (Hill, 1987) (alpha = .94). This study also takes into account the four original subscales (i.e., ‘positive stimulation’, e.g. “I think I get satisfaction out of contact with others more than most people realize”, alpha = .85; ‘attention’, e.g., “I often have a strong desire to get people I am around to notice me and appreciate what I am like”, alpha = .85; ‘emotional support’, e.g., “If I feel unhappy or kind of depressed, 1 usually try to be around other people to make me feel better”, alpha = .87; and ‘social comparison’, e.g., “I prefer to participate in activities alongside other people rather than by myself because I like to see how I am doing on the activity”, alpha = .81). Participants indicated their responses on 7-point rating scales.
1129
4.2.2. Spending A regression analysis with ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (both mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields non-significant main effects of ‘perceived density’ (ß = .05, t = .55, p N 0.05) and ‘need for affiliation’ (ß = −.02, t = −.25, p N 0.05) on spending, indicating ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ do not influence spending directly. However, in line with H2, the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .17, t = 2.13, p b 0.05; see Fig. 2). Simple slope analyses reveal ‘perceived density’ has a (marginal) positive effect on spending for participants high on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = 8.38, t = 1.74, p = 0.08). For those low on ‘need for affiliation’, ‘perceived density’ does not affect spending (b = − 4.26, t = −.91, p N 0.05). The interactive effect of ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on spending indicates density effects vary with social needs, and perceived density stimulates spending for participants with strong social needs. In order to further pinpoint these needs and test the predicted centrality of the ‘attention’ and ‘social comparison’ subscales (see H3), regression analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, the four separate subscales (‘positive stimulation’, ‘emotional support’, ‘attention’, and ‘social comparison’; Hill, 1987) should reveal the relative importance of these subscales for explaining the relationship between perceived retail density and spending (see Table 1). Regression analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, ‘positive stimulation’ and ‘emotional support’ do not yield significant main and interaction effects (Table 1), indicating these social rewards do not explain the effects of perceived retail density on spending. In line with predictions (see H3), analyses with ‘perceived density’ and, respectively, ‘attention’ and ‘social comparison’ show strong effects on spending. Whereas the main effects are (as in the overall analysis) non-significant, the interactions between ‘perceived density’ and ‘attention’, and ‘perceived density’ and ‘social comparison’ are significant (Table 1). Simple slopes analyses reveal ‘perceived density’ positively affects spending for participants with high scores on the ‘attention’ subscale (b = 11.10, t = 2.27, p b 0.05). For those with low scores, ‘perceived density’ does not affect spending (b = −7.32, t = − 1.52, p N 0.05). For the ‘social comparison’ subscale, simple slopes analyses likewise indicate perceived density positively impacts spending for participants with high scores (b = 10.54, t = 2.14, p b 0.05), and that perceived density does not affect spending for participants with low scores on the ‘social comparison’ subscale (b = −6.61, t = − 1.34, p N 0.05). In line with H3, these findings show shoppers appreciate the presence of others mainly because they are a source of attention and social comparison, and that the increase in spending for shoppers
4.2. Results 4.2.1. Shopping satisfaction A regression analysis with ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ (both mean-centered), and the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ as predictors yields a significant effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction (ß = −.24, t = − 3.01, p b 0.01), indicating ‘perceived density’ negatively affects shopping satisfaction. The relationship between ‘need for affiliation’ and shopping satisfaction is not significant (ß = .01, t = .17, p N 0.05). In line with predictions (H1a), the interaction between ‘perceived density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ is significant (ß = .17, t = 2.13, p b 0.05). Simple slopes analyses reveal the negative effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction only appears for participants low on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = −.24, t = −3.79, p b 0.01). Again, analyses do not support the predicted positive effect of ‘perceived density’ on shopping satisfaction for those high on ‘need for affiliation’ (b = −.07, t = −1.06, p N 0.05).
Note: The variables ‘need for affiliation’ and ‘perceived retail density’ are dichotomized for descriptive purposes only. Regression analysis with the continuous variables is used throughout.
Fig. 2. The interactive effect of ‘perceived retail density’ and ‘need for affiliation’ on spending.
1130
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
Table 1 Regression analyses results for the effects of ‘need for affiliation’ dimensions (study 2). Variable Dependent variable: Positive stimulation Perceived density Positive stimulation Perceived density × Positive stimulation Dependent variable: Emotional support Perceived density Emotional support Perceived density × Emotional support Dependent variable: Attention Perceived density Attention Perceived density × Attention Dependent variable: Social comparison Perceived density Social comparison Perceived density × Social comparison
β
t
p
.042 .008 .117
.517 .094 1.426
0.606 0.925 0.156
.044 −.033 .094
.537 −.402 1.144
0.592 0.688 0.254
.040 −.013 .233
.502 −.165 2.888
0.616 0.869 0.004
.044 −.026 .210
.543 −.317 2.612
0.588 0.752 0.010
with strong social needs is a type of impression management behavior. 5. General discussion The results from the two studies corroborate the notion that retail density's effects not only vary with situational variables or store type but also with social consumer needs. Negative effects on the shopping experience are only apparent for participants low in need of affiliation. Density positively affects spending of shoppers high in need of affiliation because fellow shoppers in the retail environment are a source of attention and social comparison, and spending is a means to impress others. These combined findings qualify the dominant conception of retail density as a negative influence. These studies underline the diverse effects other consumers exert on the shopping experience. Specifically, these effects suggest that dispositional differences co-determine the value shoppers place on density's different consequences. The findings from both studies indicate shoppers with strong affiliation needs value the presence of others in terms of the opportunities for impression management behaviors, whereas shoppers with low affiliation needs perceive the presence of others as a burden or constraint. Ratings on the self-report measures from both studies (i.e., pleasure and approach behaviors in study 1; shopping satisfaction in study 2) do not support density's predicted positive effects for shoppers with strong social needs. However, density's effect on spending indicates the presence of others only stimulates spending of participants with strong affiliation needs. Arguably, shoppers with low affiliation needs are task-oriented and enter retail settings with well-defined shopping goals that they bring to completion regardless of store atmosphere (cf. Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994; Korgaonkar, 1981), a prediction future research could take into account. For shoppers with strong affiliation needs, the results indicate dense conditions stimulate spending. Previous research suggests a relationship between social susceptibility and spending (Luo, 2005). Social susceptibility is a construct that closely resembles the social comparison and attention subscales that present research indicates are the most important social needs in explaining the relationship between retail density and spending. The increase in spending for participants with strong affiliation needs follows from a social approval motivation (i.e., purchasing more in order to impress attentive others in relation to whom these shoppers compare themselves) and is a type of impression management behavior indicative of spontaneity, good taste, and financial independence (cf. Argo et al., 2005; Luo, 2005). These results show impression management behaviors not only result from the presence of role models or peers (Luo, 2005) but also from an anonymous crowd.
The findings also stress the importance of incorporating explicit and implicit measures in density research. The finding that retail density (automatically) activates impression management concerns indicates self-report measures do not reveal the full range of consumer behaviors density conditions inspire. In addition, self-report measures require participants to consciously evaluate the relationship between the retail setting and, for instance, shopping pleasure, introducing demand characteristics. As participants in the field study filled out the spending measure after completion of the shopping trip, there was no opportunity for demand characteristics to influence purchase behavior (e.g., participants spending more because they anticipate filling out a questionnaire). In terms of practical implications, a pertinent question is how to counteract density's negative effects (e.g., reduced space leading to congestion and reduced accessibility of product displays) and preserve density's positive effects (e.g., opportunities for social contact that meet social consumer needs). Of interest is the relationship between spaciousness and (perceived) density. Changes in store layout (e.g., broadening of aisles or creating open areas throughout the store) result in perceived spaciousness and may reduce perceptions of retail density. Variations in atmospheric variables such as usage of bright colors and bright lighting may likewise reduce perceived density by fostering spaciousness perceptions (cf. Haytko & Baker, 2004; Stamps, 2010). For instance, store management may select brighter than average lighting levels at peak hours to reduce perceived density (Stamps, 2010). Such dynamic adjustments reduce density's negative effects (by fostering perceptions of a more spacious environment) but leave opportunities intact for social interactions that fulfill social consumer needs. 5.1. Limitations and future research Several limitations deserve attention. Firstly, the extent customers value density's social consequences may vary depending on store type. For instance, fashion stores may more readily enact impression management concerns compared to consumer electronics stores. Crowding levels vary across different types of settings. This may account for need for affiliation's (negative) main effect in study 1 (addressing density's effects in a consumer electronics store). Shoppers low in need of social contact may expect high density in this type of store and report less shopping pleasure compared to stores where density is (on average) lower. Research could explore how customers with different social needs appraise crowds in retail settings (i.e., whether they perceive the presence of others as an opportunity for impression management or as a barrier to practical goal fulfillment) and explore whether different store types vary in the extent to which they enact impression management concerns. Although no gender differences surface in study 1, the variations in demographics (i.e., male and female students in study 1 versus exclusively female shoppers in study 2) may influence density's effects. The results do also not warrant any specific conclusions on how spacious or empty a store should be. For instance, an environment that is too spacious may inspire feelings of aloneness or isolation. Argo et al. (2005) demonstrate how a store environment devoid of other shoppers induces negative emotions, suggesting being alone in a social setting is, regardless of social needs, not an enjoyable experience. In addition to incorporating target group characteristics (e.g., age) that may qualify social presence effects, future research could explore whether impression management concerns vary with fluctuating levels of retail density. Finally, density perceptions may also vary with dispositional differences. For instance, shoppers with low affiliation needs may more readily perceive a store environment as dense. This suggests followup research should take into account objective and subjective density measures (cf. Hui & Bateson, 1991). To conclude, the findings demonstrate it is critical to incorporate social needs in density
T.J.L. van Rompay et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 1126–1131
research and warn against a simplified conceptualization of retail density as a negative influence. With the advent of the experience economy and related focus on creating memorable shopping episodes (Pine & Gilmore, 1999), shopping's social aspects will take on increased importance. These developments warrant future studies that seek to unravel how situational and consumer-related factors interact to shape the shopping experience. Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions for improvements by Diane Ricketts, Martijn Veltkamp and Peter de Vries (University of Twente), and two anonymous reviewers. References Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991. Argo JJ, Dahl DW, Manchanda RV. The influence of a mere social presence in a retail context. Journal of Consumer Research 2005;32:207–12. (September). Arnold MJ, Reynolds KE. Hedonic shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing 2003;79(2):77–95. Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M. Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research 1994;20:644–56. (March). Dahl DW, Manchanda RV, Argo JJ. Embarrassment in consumer purchase: The roles of social presence and purchase familiarity. Journal of Consumer Research 2001;28: 473–81. (December). Dijksterhuis A, Smith PK, Van Baaren RB, Wigboldus DHJ. The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005;15(3):193–202. Eroglu SA, Harrell GD. Retail crowding: Theoretical and strategic implications. Journal of Retailing 1986;62(4):346–63. Eroglu SA, Machleit KA. An empirical study of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing 1990;66(2):201–21. Eroglu SA, Machleit KA, Chebat JC. The interaction of retail density and music tempo: Effects on shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing 2005;22(7):577–89. Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations 1954;7(2): 117–40. Grove SJ, Fisk RP. The impact of other customers on service experiences: A critical incident examination of “getting along”. Journal of Retailing 1997;73(1):63–85. Harrell GD, Hutt MD, Anderson JC. Path analysis of buyer behavior under conditions of crowding. Journal of Marketing Research 1980;17:45–51. (February). Haytko DL, Baker J. It's all at the mall: Exploring adolescent girls' experiences. Journal of Retailing 2004;80(1):67–83.
1131
Hill CA. Affiliation motivation: People who need people… but in different ways. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1987;52:1008–18. (May). Hui MK, Bateson JEG. Perceived control and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the service experience. Journal of Consumer Research 1991;18:174–84. (September). Korgaonkar PK. Shopping orientations of catalog showroom patrons. Journal of Retailing 1981;57(1):78–90. Leary MR, Kowalski RM. Impression management: A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin 1990;107(1):34–47. Leary MR, Herbst KC, McCrary F. Finding pleasure in solitary activities: Desire for aloneness or disinterest in social contact? Personality and Individual Differences 2003;35:59–68. (July). Luo X. How does shopping with others influence impulsive purchasing. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005;15(4):288–94. Machleit KA, Kellaris JJ, Eroglu SA. Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: A note on their measurement and their effect on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters 1994;5:183–94. (April). Machleit KA, Eroglu SA, Mantel SP. Retail crowding and shopping satisfaction: What modifies this relationship? Journal of Consumer Psychology 2000;9(1):29–42. Mehrabian A, Russell JA. An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1974. Murray HA. Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press; 1938. Pan Y, Siemens JC. The differential impact of retail density: An investigation of goods versus service settings. Journal of Business Research 2011;64:105–12. (February). Pine JP, Gilmore JH. The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press; 1999. Pons F, Laroche M, Mourali M. Consumer reactions to crowded retail settings: Crosscultural differences between North America and the Middle East. Psychology and Marketing 2006;23(7):555–72. Stamps AE. Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior 2010;42(6):864–86. Stokols D. On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review 1972;79(3):275–7. Underhill P. Why we buy: the science of shopping. New York: Touchstone; 2000. Van Rompay TJL, Galetzka M, Pruyn ATH, Moreno-Garcia J. Human and spatial dimensions of retail density: Revisiting the role of perceived control. Psychology and Marketing 2008;25(4):319–35. Van Rompay TJL, Vonk DJ, Fransen ML. The eye of the camera: Effects of security cameras on helping behavior. Environment and Behavior 2009;41(1):60–74. Verhoef PC, Lemon KN, Parasuraman A, Roggeveen A, Tsiros M, Schlesinger LA. Customer experience: Determinants, dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Retailing 2009;85(1):31–41. Ward JC, Barnes JW. Control and affect: The influence of feeling in control of the retail environment on affect, involvement, attitude, and behavior. Journal of Business Research 2001;54(2):139–44. Yi H, Chen Q, Alden DL. Consumption in the public eye: The influence of social presence on service experience. Journal of Business Research 2011. doi:10.1016/j.busres.2011.03.014.