critiq2

The Impact of In-Store Greenery on Customers Malaika Brengman Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Kim Willems Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Hasselt University

Yannick Joye University of Leuven

ABSTRACT

The incorporation of greenery in retail areas has scarcely been explored in environmental psychology studies. In a 2 × 2 experimental design, the effect of in-store vegetation on consumer emotions and responses toward the store was studied, considering the moderating role of the information rate of the retail setting. While introducing foliage in the store environment did not evoke feelings of excitement, it was found to elicit pleasure and to reduce stress in a “complex” store interior. Given the impact of pleasure and stress on consumers’ approach/avoidance responses, these findings support the potential of integrating greenery, particularly in “spatially dense” stores. C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

It is widely accepted in psychology that the first level of response to any environment is affective (emotional) in nature (Ittelson, 1973). Empirical research has demon- strated that shopping environments can also evoke emotional responses in consumers (Machleit & Eroglu, 2000) and that these emotions, in turn, influence shop- ping behaviors and outcomes (Darden & Babin, 1994; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, 1997). A neglected emotions-evoking element in the shopping environment appears to be in-store greenery. Although vegetation has been demonstrated to have positive and stress-mitigating influences in humans (among others, Bringslimark, Hartig, & Patil, 2009; Ulrich, 1993; Van Den Berg, 2009), it is unclear how it would affect in-store emotions and behaviors. While many environmental psychology studies have inves- tigated retail settings and green environments sepa- rately, the incorporation of greenery in retail areas has barely been explored. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the effect of introducing foliage into the store environment. The role of “store complex- ity” will be considered as a potential moderating factor.

STORE ATMOSPHERICS

Kotler (1973, p. 50) introduced the term “atmospher- ics” to denote the “conscious designing of [ . . . ] buy-

ing environments to produce specific emotional effects in the buyer that enhance his purchase probability” and indicated that this would become an important marketing tool for retailers. The more recent finding that almost two-thirds of all purchase decisions are made in the store (Point-of-Purchase Advertising In- stitute (POPAI), 1998) has turned the attention of practitioners and marketing researchers to the point of purchase and store atmospherics. There is now a growing recognition that store interiors and exteriors can be designed to create specific feelings in shoppers that can have an important cueing or reinforcing ef- fect on purchase (Newman & Foxall, 2003; Shapiro and Associates, 2005). In the last two decades, there have been many studies concerning store atmospherics (Babin & Attaway, 2000; Fowler, Wesley, & Vazquez, 2007; McGoldrick & Pieros, 1998; Michon, Chebat, & Turley, 2005; Sherman, Mathur, & Smith, 1997), pre- dominantly based upon environmental psychology and specifically on the Mehrabian and Russell stimulus- organism-response (SOR) model (1974a), which was first applied to the study of store atmosphere by Dono- van and Rossiter (1982). In this context, it has been proposed that approach/avoidance behaviors by cus- tomers are largely determined by individual internal (cognitive, emotional, and physiological) responses to the store environment. Especially the pleasure and arousal dimensions have been shown to be useful in

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29(11): 807–821 (November 2012) View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar C© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20566

807

determining shopper behavior. As such, atmospheric variables have been found to influence a wide variety of consumer evaluations and behaviors (Turley & Mil- liman, 2000).

While some authors have focused on “overall per- ceptions of the general store interior” (e.g. Akhter, An- drews, & Durvasula, 1994; Donovan, Rossiter, Mar- coolyn, & Nesdale, 1994; Donovan & Rossiter, 1982; Grossbart, Hampton, Rammohan, & Lapidus, 1990), others have investigated the effects of “specific in-store stimuli.” Hence, some store interior variables such as music and scent have received ample attention, whereas others have not received the attention they probably deserve (Turley & Milliman, 2000). With re- gard more specifically to “point-of-purchase and dec- oration variables” (cf. the classification of Berman & Evans, 1995), attention has focused merely on prod- uct displays and point-of-purchase information as well as promotional signs, while neglecting decorative ele- ments, such as artwork and wall decorations (Turley & Milliman, 2000). The impact in particular of one specific decorative element, that is, “in-store greenery,” which is the main focus of the current paper, strangely appears to have been entirely ignored by academic researchers.

THE IMPACT OF GREENERY IN THE STORE ENVIRONMENT

The intuition that nature has positive and healing influ- ences on humans has been around since time immemo- rial. These last few decades there has been a steady increase of environmental psychology research into the positive impact of nature and greenery on human atti- tudes, moods, and behavior in different settings. For ex- ample, different studies show that humans prefer veg- etated settings over artifact-dominated environments and that greenery can reduce stress in humans. These effects are frequently explained as a remnant of a shared evolutionary history, during which human be- ings were deeply dependent on nature for their subsis- tence (e.g. Heerwagen & Orians, 1993; Ulrich, 1993). According to this view, humans have evolved positive affective responses toward “green” elements and set- tings, such as “[ . . . ] flowers, ripe fruits, savanna (open forests that give easy visual access), growth and leaf patterns of healthy savanna trees, [and] closed forest canopy (shelter), [ . . . ]” (Thornhill, 1998, p. 562). “Hard- wired” positive affective responses to these elements and conditions conveyed an adaptive benefit to our an- cestors because they could offer them resource and refuge opportunities. Colarelli and Dettmann (2003) provide an overview of how these evolved preferences are already commonly being used by marketers in ad- vertising practice.

As to research on the impact of vegetation on hu- man behavior, the literature provides a wide range of study contexts, such as hospitals (cf. Dijkstra, Pieterse,

& Pruyn, 2008), office environments (cf. Kweon, Ulrich, Walker, & Tassinary, 2008), roadside views (cf. Cack- owski & Nasar, 2003), school settings (cf. Han, 2009), and home environments (cf. Hartig & Fransson, 2009; Kaplan, 2001).

By contrast, only very few inquiries seem to have focused on the effects of greenery in commercial set- tings. Noteworthy in this context are the findings by Kathleen Wolf (2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2008), who carried out a multistudy research program, focusing specifically on the impact of urban vegetation and trees in streetscapes. She found that retail environments were more pleasing when there were trees in the streets as compared to when the streets were treeless. Judg- ments on retailers and merchandize appeared to be more positive in streetscapes with urban greenery. This also seemed to be the case for inferences about prod- uct value, product quality, and merchant responsive- ness, leading to enhanced expectations of shopping ex- periences in vegetated commercial settings. Also, pa- tronage intentions appeared higher in commercial set- tings with trees as compared to settings without trees. Although positive price increments were associated with the presence of trees (+9% for small cities and +12% for large cities), respondents claimed they would travel farther to visit a business district with trees. They also reported to be willing to stay longer once there.

Experimentally testing the effects of, for example, plants on consumer behavior in a shopping mall, Bu- ber, Ruso, and Gadner (2006) found that consumers were more inclined to enter the mall when it featured vegetation. Moreover, the presence of greenery trans- lated into higher exploration rates (e.g. more detailed inquiries about offers). Increases in physical contact with products and with other people in the shopping mall were also apparent when plants were present. These results corroborate and extend environmental psychology results about greenery from residential and other settings to retail environments.

While Joye, Willems, Brengman, and Wolf (2010) in- troduced the notion of “Biophilic Store Design” to denote the use of (references to) nature in the design of retail environments in order to tap into the purported ben- eficial effects of greenery, no empirical studies seem so far to have investigated the impact of “in-store foliage.”

Essentially two main findings from the environmen- tal psychology literature studying the beneficial effects of greenery are of interest for the current paper (see also Joye et al., 2010). The first is that nature consistently leads to preference/liking reactions in humans. Differ- ent studies have confirmed that scenes featuring green- ery are preferred over nonnatural, artifact-dominated settings, even if the latter are well tended (see Ulrich, 1993, for a review). Based on these findings, it can be expected that stores with in-store vegetation will be perceived as more pleasurable compared to stores with- out vegetation, which results in the formulation of the following hypothesis:

808 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

H1: The presence of in-store vegetation leads to increased feelings of pleasure in consumers.

A second finding is that nature has a stress-reducing or “restorative” potential for human individuals. For example, in a widely cited experimental study, Ulrich et al. (1991) found that after exposure to a stressor, in- dividuals recovered faster and more deeply from stress when they were exposed to a natural/green setting than when they had viewed an urban scene (Ulrich et al., 1991; see also Cackowski & Nasar, 2003; Dijk- stra, Pieterse, & Pruyn, 2008; Ulrich, 1984). The stress- reducing value of greenery has been found to occur in many types of settings and during different activities. As shopping is frequently perceived as a stressful ac- tivity (see further), it can be expected that the pres- ence of in-store vegetation will lead to reduced feelings of stress in consumers, which leads to the following hypothesis:

H2a: The presence of in-store vegetation leads to reduced feelings of stress in consumers.

AROUSAL IN THE STORE ENVIRONMENT: A TWO-DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE

In a retailing context, the arousal construct has been shown to be rather ambiguous (e.g. Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & Nesdale, 1994; Gröppel-Klein & Baun, 2001; Van Kenhove & Desrumaux, 1997). Claiming that “excitement” represents a pervasively positive reaction in a retail setting, Babin and Attaway (2000) see no reason to include a separate arousal dimension in their study. Also Gröppel-Klein (1998) argues that “arousal” and “pleasure” seem to converge in a retail setting, as “positive activation” appears to be implicitly registered in the arousal construct. Nevertheless, empirical stud- ies by Bost (1987) and Gröppel (1991) reveal that con- sumers in a retail setting can also experience a pleasant state of low arousal (i.e. relaxation). Too much arousal, also at the point of sale, can therefore be experienced as hectic and unpleasant (i.e. tension). For this rea- son, Gröppel-Klein (1998) recommends not to neglect the emotional dimension of “relaxation” experienced in the shopping environment. In accordance with this suggestion, a "two-dimensional" view of arousal has been rationalized by several researchers (Schimmack & Reisenzein, 2002; Thayer, 1986; Walters, Apter, & Svebak, 1982; see Figure 1), and it has been demon- strated that the arousal construct consists of two separate uncorrelated arousal dimensions (Brengman & Geuens, 2004; Gorn, Chattopadhyay, Yi, & Dahl, 1997): one with a positive hedonic tone (i.e. boredom– excitement) and a second with a negative valence (i.e. relaxation–tension). This conceptualization is in line with the system of emotions proposed by Wundt (1896), which actually incorporates three bipolar dimensions: “unpleasant–pleasant,” “quiet—excited,” and “relaxed–

Figure 1. A two-dimensional view of arousal.

tense.” Also the two-dimensional circumplex models, which capture the underlying structure of emotions by means of an “evaluation” and “activation” dimension (cf. Mano, 1999; Russell & Lemay, 2000) appear to fit Thayer’s (1989) two-dimensional view of “energetic” and “tense” arousal when viewed as 45◦ rotations of one another (Yik, Russell, & Feldman Barrett, 1999). In accordance with Wundt (1896), Schimmack and Grob (2000) provide support for a three-dimensional model, which recognizes a separate “pleasure-displeasure” dimension, alongside the “energetic” and “tense” arousal dimensions (see also Schimmack & Reisenzein, 2002).

Considering a two-dimensional view of arousal, such as the one developed by Walters, Apter, and Svebak (1982), it may be expected that in-store vegetation will affect the two dimensions differently. Although the stress reducing properties of greenery have already been extensively demonstrated (for noncommercial en- vironments), in-store vegetation as a decorative ele- ment can also be expected to cause some excitement in shoppers as it brings some variety to the store. Es- pecially in hedonic shopping situations, consumers are expected to be in a more “paratelic” or “arousal seeking” state (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006). This idea is summa- rized in the following hypothesis:

H3a: The presence of in-store vegetation leads to increased feelings of excitement in con- sumers.

THE MODERATING ROLE OF THE INFORMATION RATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

In line with Gröppel-Klein’s assertion that “an op- timized store-interior presents an interaction of acti- vating and de-activating stimuli” (1998, p. 309), the impact of vegetation in a store can be expected to be moderated by the amount of arousal evoked by the store environment. Therefore, the stress-reducing

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 809 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

properties of in-store vegetation are assumed to be more prevalent in a “more arousing” store environ- ment, while the excitement evoking properties are ex- pected to be more pronounced in “less arousing” store environments.

Given that a direct link is conceived between the in- formation rate of an environment and its arousability (see Donovan & Rossiter, 1982), a moderating effect can be expected from the information rate or “complexity” of the store on the impact of vegetation in that store. Based on information theory, Mehrabian and Russell (1974b) characterize the various stimuli of the envi- ronment in terms of “the information rate” or “load” of the environment, which they define as the quantity of information drawn from, or perceived in, the environ- ment per unit of time, measured by its degree of “nov- elty” (i.e. newness, unexpectedness) and “complexity” (i.e. the number of elements or features and the extent of motion or change in the environment). Accordingly, the more varied, complex, novel, surprising, and lively the environment, the higher its information rate will be. In the same vein, Bitner (1992) makes a distinction between “lean” and “elaborate” environments, based on the physical complexity of the “servicescape” (i.e. the physical surroundings of the place where a service is delivered or consumed). In this context, Bitner (1992) describes “lean” environments as very simple, with few elements, few spaces, and few forms and “elaborate” environments as very complicated with many elements and many forms. The notion of “spatial density” has also been used to denote the number and configuration of spatial elements such as merchandise and fixtures in a retail environment, (e.g. Machleit, Kelaris, & Eroglu, 1994; Van Rompay, Galetzka, Pruyn, & Moreno Garcia, 2008).

Incorporating greenery in the store interior can therefore be expected to have a stronger “soothing” or calming effect in more arousing “complex” stores, whereas a stronger “exciting” effect can be anticipated in “lean” or “simple” stores. Accordingly, the two previ- ous hypotheses can be refined

H2a: The presence of in-store vegetation leads to reduced feelings of stress in consumers.

H2b: The reduction in stress evoked by in-store greenery is more pronounced in a complex store environment than in a simple store en- vironment.

H3a: The presence of in-store vegetation leads to increased feelings of excitement in con- sumers.

H3b: The increase in excitement evoked by in- store greenery is more pronounced in a sim- ple store environment than in a complex store environment.

THE IMPACT OF IN-STORE GREENERY ON SHOPPING BEHAVIOR

This study relies on a widely accepted environmental psychology model, namely the “SOR” model, as put for- ward by Mehrabian and Russel (Mehrabian and Rus- sel 1974a). Ever since this model has been introduced to the context of store atmospherics by Donovan and Rossiter (1982), numerous retail and consumer psychol- ogy researchers have applied it in empirical studies on the effects of store environmental cues (i.e. the “stim- uli”) on consumer emotions (i.e. the “organism”), and subsequent consumer behavior (i.e. the “responses”; cf. Donovan, Rossiter, Marcoolyn, & Nesdale, 1994; Kaltcheva & Weitz, 2006; Turley & Milliman, 2000). In accordance to this conceptual model, it is expected that on the one hand, feelings of “pleasure” as well as “excitement” evoked by the store environment will lead to “approach behaviors" while they will have a negative impact on "avoidance behaviors.” Feelings of “stress” on the other hand, will lead to “avoidance be- haviors” and will negatively affect “approach behav- iors.” The final hypotheses in this SOR-based study are consequently

H4a: Feelings of pleasure induced by the store en- vironment have a positive impact on con- sumer approach responses toward the store.

H4b: Feelings of pleasure induced by the store en- vironment have a negative impact on con- sumer avoidance responses toward the store.

H5a: Feelings of excitement induced by the store environment have a positive impact on con- sumer approach responses toward the store.

H5b: Feelings of excitement induced by the store environment have a negative impact on con- sumer avoidance responses toward the store.

H6a: Feelings of stress induced by the store en- vironment have a negative impact on con- sumer approach responses toward the store.

H6b: Feelings of stress induced by the store envi- ronment have a positive impact on consumer avoidance responses toward the store.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to explore the im- pact of introducing greenery in the store environment on consumer emotions and on their subsequent ap- proach/avoidance behaviors, according to Mehrabian and Russel’s environmental psychological SOR model

810 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 2. Research hypotheses.

(1974a). Considering the potential moderating role of the “spatial density” or complexity of the store en- vironment, this study aims to ascertain how in-store vegetation affects the shopper’s feelings of pleasure, ex- citement, as well as stress and how these evoked feel- ings engender further responses toward the store. An overview of the study’s research hypotheses is provided in Figure 2.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Experimental Design

A 2 × 2 factorial experimental design was set up to test these hypotheses, within a fashion retail context. Ma- nipulations included two conditions of store environ- mental complexity (lean vs. complex), with and with- out in-store vegetation (see Figure 3). Two separate pretests of the stimuli confirmed the adequateness of the manipulations (reported underneath). The exper- iment that was subsequently conducted on the basis of these stimuli was monadic in nature (i.e. each re- spondent evaluated only one store). Participants were exposed to a picture of the store and were asked to imagine shopping in that store. This is a procedure that has been shown to accurately simulate reactions toward real environments (Bateson & Hui, 1992). A meta-analysis by Stamps (1990) found a 0.86 correla- tion between environmental preferences obtained by photographs and preferences obtained by exposures to real environments.

Manipulation Checks

In order to check whether the experimental manipu- lations were successful, an online pretest of the four photographic stimuli was conducted in a between- subjects design using a convenience sample of 81 re- spondents. The average respondent age was 34.17 years old (range: 20–66) and 39.5% of the participants were male.

The "information rate of the store environ- ment" was measured by means of six seman-

tic differential scale items: simple–complex, sparse– dense, patterned–random, clear–confusing, plain— ambiguous, and uncrowded–crowded (adapted from Mehrabian & Russell, 1974b; range: −3 to +3; Cron- bach’s α = 0.86). An independent samples t-test demon- strates that the information rate in the "complex" store environment was significantly higher than in the "lean" store environment (0.992complex vs. −0.444lean, p < 0.001). While the integration of in-store greenery appears to increase the information rate of the envi- ronment somewhat, an ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffe- test, comparing the information rate between all con- ditions, does not indicate any significant differences between the environments with or without vegeta- tion: the information rate of the complex store envi- ronment remains significantly higher (1.06with vegetation and 0.93without vegetation) than the information rate of the lean store environment (−0.33with vegetation and −0.57without vegetation). An independent samples t-test also does not reveal any significant difference in informa- tion rate between store environments with or with- out vegetation (0.35with vegetation vs. 0.25without vegetation, p = 0.764).

According to O’Keefe (2003), there is no need to check the manipulation of inserting "greenery in the store envi- ronment," because whether respondents noted the pres- ence of vegetation or not, potential effects of integrating greenery may occur unconsciously, without consumers even noticing its presence. Still, in the pretest respon- dents were asked to give their opinion with respect to the greenery present in the photographs of the store en- vironments. The response categories concerned (1) "If there were plants, I didn’t notice them at all," (2) "If there were plants, I didn’t notice them," (3) "If there were plants, they are in harmony with the environ- ment," (4) "Plants were quite prominently present," and (5) "Plants were very prominently present." An independent samples t-test indicates that vegetation was noted more in environments with versus with- out vegetation (1.94with vegetation vs. 1.10without vegetation, p < 0.001). Still the pre-test findings also show that even in the condition with vegetation, 52.8% of respon- dents indicated not to have noticed the plants at all. An ANOVA with post-hoc Scheffe test reveals that plants appeared somewhat more prominently present in the

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 811 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

lean/green condition (2.41) as compared to in the com- plex/green (1.53) or no-green conditions (1.14complex store and 1.05lean store). As the plants used in both the lean as the complex store environment conditions are iden- tical, namely (1) a Spider Plant (i.e. Chlorophytum Co- mosum), (2) a Lucky Bamboo (Dracaena Sanderiana), (3) a Bamboo Palm Tree (Chamaedorea Seifrizii), and (4) a Ficus Benjamina "Samantha," the only difference was the way in which they were arranged within the store setting. Consequently, no differences are expected in perceived attractiveness between the different con- ditions. Still, this is put to a formal test during an- other manipulation check. Applying a within-subject research design, respondents were asked to rate the plants in the photographs in both vegetation settings on a 5-point Likert scale in terms of their attractive- ness. The sequence in which both photographs were presented was randomized. For this second manipula- tion check, another convenience sample was used con- sisting of 40 respondents, among which 35% males, age range 18–61, average age = 35.67. Participants were explicitly asked to ignore the surrounding store environment and to focus only on the plants. The at- tractiveness of the plants in both photographs appears significantly positively correlated (paired samples correlation r = 0.689, p < 0.001). The results of a paired samples t-test indicate that the mean attrac- tiveness rating of the plants in the simple store en- vironment (2.53; SD = 0.751) and the attractiveness of the plants in the complex store environment (2.42; SD = 0.747) do not differ significantly (t (39) = 1.071, p = 0.291).

Participants

The data were electronically gathered between Novem- ber 2007 and January 2008. The sample was drawn randomly from a large online consumer panel in the Netherlands (comprising over 100,000 people who have registered to participate in market research studies). An email invitation was sent to a random selection of these panel members requesting them to participate in this online study. A stratified sampling procedure was used in order to reach certain quota (in terms of age, gender, and region) and was continued until 5000 com- plete cases were obtained. After data cleaning, 4293 participants were retained of which 1838 (42.8%) men and 2455 (57.2%) women. The average age was 42.2 years old (range 18–69); 55.7% of the subjects in the sample had a lower education level, while 44.3% had enjoyed higher education. A summarizing overview of the total sample as well as the four subsamples in terms of sociodemographic characteristics is provided in Table 1. Also some corresponding key numbers pertain- ing to the total Dutch population are provided (Statis- tics Netherlands online, 2010). As can be observed from these data the total sample is quite representative for the Dutch population. There are slightly more females in the sample and somewhat more highly educated and

married consumers. With respect to age, only respon- dents aged 18+ are included in this study. The proce- dure of assigning one of the four photos to each par- ticipant was randomized. A detailed comparison be- tween the different subsamples reveals an even distri- bution of socio-demographic characteristics over the dif- ferent conditions (see the Chi-square tests reported in Table 1).

Measures

In order to measure the emotions evoked by the store environment, participants were asked how the fashion store depicted in the photo made them feel. These feelings were captured by means of 7-point Lik- ert scaled items, measuring “pleasure,” “stress,” and “excitement.” Adjectives were selected on the basis of previous operationalizations of the three dimen- sions of core affect (cf. Schimmack & Grob, 2000; Schimmack & Reisenzein, 2002). “Pleasure” was mea- sured by means of five items: “agreeable,” “unpleas- ant” (reversed), “enjoyable,” “depressed” (reversed), and “good” (Cronbach’s α = 0.866). “Stress” was measured by means of three items: “nervous,” “stressed,” and “irritated” (α = 0.869). “Excitement” was measured by three items: “excited,” “lively,” and “stimulated” (α = 0.787).

Although significant, the correlation between the two subdimensions of arousal is confirmed to be very low (Pearson’s r = −0.126). While “Excitement” proves to be positively related to “Pleasure” (r = 0.505), a clear negative correlation between “Pleasure” and “Stress” is apparent (r = −0.740). Mean scores are calculated for each of these emotion states for use in further analyses.

Subsequently, approach and avoidance responses were measured using the Donovan and Rossiter’s (1982) measurement scale that was developed specif- ically for application in a retail context. “Approach” was measured by means of the five 7-point Likert- scale items: “I like this store environment,” “I would enjoy shopping in this store,” “I would spend a lot of time browsing in this store,” “In this store I might end up spending more money than I originally set out to spend,” and “In this store, I would feel friendly and talkative to a stranger who happens to be near me” (α = 0.930). “Avoidance” intentions were captured by means of three items: “I would avoid ever having to return to this store,” “I would want to avoid looking around or exploring this environment,” and “In this store I might try to avoid other people, and avoid to talk to them” (α = 0.869).

Although the correlation between both behavioral subconstructs may appear quite high (Pearson’s r = −0.727), they are considered separately as they have been conceptualized to constitute two distinct under- lying dimensions of the approach/avoidance construct, each evolving from opposing learning histories (Foxall, 1997; Foxall & Greenley, 2000). Again, for each of these

812 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

T a

b le

1 .

S o

ci o

d e

m o

g ra

p h

ic a

l S

a m

p le

C h

a ra

ct e

ri st

ic s.

C on

d it

io n

1 —

C on

d it

io n

2 —

C on

d it

io n

3 —

C on

d it

io n

4 —

W it

h ou

t W

it h

ou t

W it

h W

it h

V eg

et a ti

on /

V eg

et a ti

on /

V eg

et a ti

on /

V eg

et a ti

on /

T ot

a l

P op

u la

ti on

N L

a

S im

p le

C om

p le

x S

im p

le C

om p

le x

S a m

p le

(N 2 0 1 0

= (n

= 1 0 7 9 )

(n =

1 0 2 7 )

(n =

1 0 8 0 )

(n =

1 1 0 7 )

(n =

4 2 9 3 )

1 6 ,5

7 7 ,6

1 2 )

A b

s. R

el . (%

) A

b s.

R el

. (%

) A

b s.

R el

. (%

) A

b s.

R el

. (%

) χ

2 te

st A

b s.

R el

. (%

) A

b s.

R el

. (%

)

S ex M

a le

4 3 7

4 0 .5

4 5 4

4 4 .2

4 5 3

4 1 .9

4 9 4

4 4 .6

χ 2

1 8 3 8

4 2 .8

8 ,2

0 5 ,4

4 3

4 9 .5

F em

a le

6 4 2

5 9 .5

5 7 3

5 5 .8

6 2 7

5 8 .1

6 1 3

5 5 .4

0 .1

7 3

2 4 5 5

5 7 .2

8 ,3

7 2 ,1

6 9

5 0 .5

A ge M

in ./ M

a x

1 8

6 9

1 8

6 9

1 8

6 9

1 8

6 9

1 8

6 9

0 >

9 9

M ea

n /S

D 4 1 .4

1 3 .1

4 2 .3

1 2 .8

4 2 .3

1 3 .4

4 2 .8

1 3 .0

4 2 .2

1 3 .1

3 9 ,2

- <

2 0

4 3

4 .0

4 1

4 .0

3 4

3 .1

3 0

2 .7

χ 2

1 4 8

3 .4

3 ,9

2 7 ,9

7 5

2 3 .7

2 0 – 4 0

4 9 3

4 5 .7

4 2 0

4 0 .9

4 8 0

4 4 .4

4 5 8

4 1 .4

0 .1

8 1

1 8 5 1

4 3 .1

4 ,1

9 5 ,2

0 1

2 5 .3

4 0 – 6 5

5 1 2

4 7 .5

5 4 0

5 2 .6

5 3 6

4 9 .6

5 8 8

5 3 .1

2 1 7 6

5 0 .7

5 ,9

1 6 ,0

6 7

3 5 .7

6 5 – 8 0

3 1

2 .9

2 6

2 .5

3 0

2 .8

3 1

2 .8

1 1 8

2 .7

1 ,8

9 0 ,4

7 2

1 1 .4

> 8 0

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

6 4 7 ,8

9 0

3 .9

E d

u ca

ti on

a l

le ve

l L

ow er

5 9 9

5 5 .5

6 0 2

5 8 .6

6 0 4

5 5 .9

5 8 7

5 3 .0

χ 2

2 3 9 2

5 5 .7

6 ,9

0 5 ,0

0 0

6 3 .4

H ig

h er

4 8 0

4 4 .5

4 2 5

4 1 .4

4 7 6

4 3 .0

5 2 0

4 7 .0

0 .0

7 9

1 9 0 1

4 4 .3

3 ,9

8 7 ,0

0 0

3 6 .6

C iv

il st

a tu

s M

a rr

ie d

6 9 4

6 4 .3

6 7 6

6 5 .8

6 8 4

6 3 .3

7 0 7

6 3 .9

χ 2

2 7 6 1

6 4 .3

9 ,6

0 3 ,1

4 8

5 8 .3

O th

er 3 8 5

3 5 .7

3 5 1

3 4 .2

3 9 6

3 6 .7

4 0 0

3 6 .1

0 .6

6 7

1 5 3 2

3 5 .7

6 ,8

8 2 ,6

3 9

4 1 .7

a B

a se

d on

S ta

ti st

ic s

N et

h er

la n

d s

on li

n e.

A b

s. =

a b so

lu te

n u

m b er

s; R

el . =

in re

la ti

ve te

rm s.

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 813 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 3. Manipulations of store complexity and in-store vegetation.

subconstructs, mean scores are calculated, to be used in further analyses.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

So as to be able to formulate an answer to the research questions in this study, the analyses will be discussed in two stages. First, the hypotheses with regard to the impact of in-store greenery on perceived “pleasure,” “stress,” and “excitement” in both “lean” and “complex” store environments will be tested. Next, the mediat- ing effects of these consumer emotions on subsequent approach and avoidance responses will be addressed.

The Impact of In-Store Greenery on Consumer Emotions, Considering the Moderating Role of Store Complexity

In order to test Hypotheses H1 through H3, a two-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was

conducted with “in-store vegetation” and “store com- plexity” as fixed factors and evoked feelings of “plea- sure,” “stress,” and “excitement” as dependent vari- ables. In order to control for any confounding effects of the sociodemographic variables age and gender, these were added to the analysis as covariates. Although the multivariate tests support the main effects of in-store vegetation (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.997, F (1, 4289) = 3.89, p = 0.009) and complexity (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.971, F (1, 4289) = 42.41, p < 0.001), the overall interac- tion effect between the two factors appears to be only marginally significant (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.998, F (1, 4289) = 2.17, p = 0.090). Nevertheless, a closer look at the univariate analyses provides clear evidence of some pronounced interaction effects, as will be illus- trated further. Both covariates, age (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.995, F (1, 4289) = 6.95, p < 0.001) as well as gender (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.984, F (1, 4289) = 23.90, p < 0.001), also appear to have a significant impact on the emotional reactions toward the store environ- ments.

814 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 4. The moderating role of store complexity on pleasure evoked by in-store greenery.

Pleasure Evoked by In-Store Greenery. Regarding the impact of in-store greenery on evoked pleasure (H1), a notable interaction effect of store complexity that was not anticipated can be observed (F (1, 4289) = 6.41, p = 0.011).

Figure 4 clearly illustrates that adding greenery in the store interior can evoke higher feelings of pleasure, but that this effect is distinctly more pronounced in complex store environments. As a matter of fact, an in- dependent samples t-test reveals that the introduction of vegetation does not generate a significant effect in the “lean” store environment (t (2152.547) = −0.50, p = 0.617). In a complex retail setting, on the other hand, the positive effect of foliage on perceived pleasure is clearly evident (perceived pleasure = 3.86(without vegetation) vs. 4.05(with vegetation), t (2115.773) = −3.98; p < 0.001). So the integration of greenery in the store environment apparently does not result in an equally beneficial effect on the consumers’ perceived pleasure in complex versus lean retail settings. This implies that the first hypothe- sis is only partially supported, that is, in complex store interior conditions only. As is observable, however, the “lean” store interior was generally rated to be more pleasurable than the “complex” store environment (F (1, 4289) = 51.57, p < 0.001), which may have provided too little room for improvement by integrating in-store vegetation.

Stress Alleviation by In-Store Greenery. With re- gard to the stress-reducing properties of in-store vege- tation, a moderating effect of store complexity was ex- pected (H2a and H2b), which is confirmed by the study’s findings (F (1, 4289) = 4.28, p = 0.039). Figure 5 clearly

illustrates that adding greenery in the store interior can alleviate feelings of “stress” and that this effect is distinctly more pronounced in complex store interiors. As a matter of fact, an independent samples t-test re- veals that the introduction of vegetation does not gener- ate a significant effect in the “lean” store environment (t (2155.445) = 0.10, p = 0.922). Foliage is found to be able

Figure 5. The moderating role of store complexity on stress reduction by in-store greenery.

to alleviate stress only in a complex retail setting (per- ceived stress = 3.51(without vegetation) vs. 3.35(with vegetation), t (2107.785) = 2.84, p = 0.005), which is in line with the present study’s hypotheses.

Excitement Evoked by in-Store Greenery. Although it was tentatively hypothesized that the presence of in-store vegetation would lead to increased feelings of excitement in consumers (H3a) and that this increase would be more pronounced in simple store environ- ments than in complex retail settings (H3b), the find- ings do not reveal any effect of in-store greenery on elicited excitement. A possible explanation is that veg- etation, basically “plants,” are not enough to surprise a shopper. Not only may consumers be too familiar with such natural elements to feel excited by them, previous research also indicated that such elements are actually experienced as only moderately fascinating (as opposed to, say, watching television; see Herzog, Black, Foun- taine, & Knotts, 1997).

Figure 6. The moderating role of store complexity on approach responses by in-store greenery.

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 815 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Figure 7. The moderating role of store complexity on avoidance responses by in-store greenery.

The Impact of In-Store Greenery on Shopping Behavior, Considering the Moderating Role of Store Complexity

The second stage of this study aims to investigate the mediating role of the different emotions evoked by greenery in the store environment (i.e. pleasure, stress, and excitement) on shoppers’ approach and avoidance intentions (H4–H6) and this again for both “lean” and “complex” store environments. Thus, both the direct and indirect effects of the integration of greenery in a store on shoppers’ approach and avoidance behaviors will be examined.

Direct Effects

A MANCOVA analysis with “approach” and “avoid- ance” as dependent variables and “in-store greenery” and “store complexity” as fixed factors (again includ- ing age and gender as covariates) reveals significant main and interaction effects. Actually, this multivari- ate test supports the overall interaction effect between the factors (Wilk’s Lambda = 0.999, F (1, 4289) = 3.12, p = 0.044) as well as main effects of in-store vegeta- tion (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.998, F (1, 4289) = 3.42, p = 0.033) and store complexity (Wilks’ lambda = 0.993, F (1, 4289) = 14.73, p < 0.001).

With respect to in-store vegetation’s impact on consumer “Approach” responses toward the store, a marginally significant interaction effect with store com- plexity can be discerned (F (1, 4289) = 3.25, p = 0.071), besides significant main effects of in-store vegetation (F (1, 4289) = 6.80, p = 0.009) and store complexity (F (1, 4289) = 21.18, p < 0.001). In line with the previ- ously formulated expectations, adding greenery to the store interior appears to increase consumers’ approach intentions toward the store. Store complexity on the other hand decreases consumer’s approach intentions. As a matter of fact, a closer look at the results reveals that the positive effect of greenery on approach reac-

tions, is only significant in complex stores (approach = 3.05 (without vegetation) vs. 3.22 (with vegetation), t (2132) = −3.06, p = 0.002). The effect of introducing vegetation in a lean store environment appears not significant as illustrated in Figure 6 (t (2153.694) = −0.56, p = 0.574).

Regarding the impact of in-store greenery on con- sumer’s "Avoidance" responses toward the store, an even more notable interaction effect with store com- plexity can be discerned (F (1, 4289) = 6.24, p = 0.013), besides a significant main effect of store complexity (F (1, 4289) = 28.23, p < 0.001) and a marginally signif- icant effect of in-store vegetation (F (1, 4289) = 3.04, p = 0.082). Figure 7 illustrates that adding greenery in the store interior can reduce consumers’ avoidance of a complex store (avoidance = 3.97 (without vegetation) vs. 3.79 (with vegetation), t (2132) = 2.30, p = 0.003). The effect of introducing vegetation in a lean store environment appears however not significant (t (2148.593) = −0.53, p = 0.598).

The Mediating Role of Emotions Evoked in the Store Environment

According to the guidelines offered by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) and Hayes and Preacher (2011), a boot- strapping analysis (with 5000 bootstrapping samples and a 95% confidence level) is conducted to examine mediation effects and to reveal the indirect as well as the direct effects of vegetation in the store environment on shopping intentions. Individual tests are performed for the dependent variables “Approach” and “Avoid- ance.” The variables “Pleasure,” “Stress,” and “Excite- ment” are entered as possible mediators to the model (using MEDIATE for SPSS), while the direct effects of “in-store vegetation” and “store complexity,” as well as the interaction effect “vegetation × complexity” are examined. In order to control for any confounding ef- fects of the sociodemographic variables age and gender, these were again added to the analyses as covariates. A comprehensive overview of the findings is displayed in Tables 2 and 3.

From this bootstrapping analysis, a similar picture emerges concerning the direct effects. While no direct main effects of “vegetation” on approach or avoidance intentions can be revealed, “store complexity” does ap- pear to have a negative direct effect on approach (β = −0.244, p = <0.001), which can apparently be miti- gated by adding greenery to the store environment (β = +0.137, p = 0.072). Store complexity also appears to have a direct avoidance inducing effect (β = 0.331, p < 0.001), which can be reduced by adding in-store vegetation (β = −0.212, p = 0.013).

Subsequently, it is examined whether this effect is mediated by the consumer emotions evoked in the store environment. While no indirect main ef- fects of vegetation in the store environment can be revealed on approach or avoidance intentions ei- ther, the results support the existence of indirect effects of “store complexity” and the “interaction

816 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Table 2. Direct and Indirect Effects on Approach Intentions.

Approach Direct effects Indirect Effects Approach

R2 adj = 0.024 Pleasure Stress Excitement R2 adj = 0.667 Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p

Vegetation - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. Complexity − 0.244 <0.001 − 0.315 <0.001 +0.505 <0.001 - n.s. - n.s. Vegetation × Complexity +0.137 0.072 +0.166 0.011 − 0.158 0.039 - n.s. - n.s. Gender − 0.352 <0.001 − 0.274 <0.001 +0.229 <0.001 − 0.200 <0.001 − 0.079 0.001 Age +0.005 0.005 +0.004 0.006 − 0.007 <0.001 - n.s. +0.003 0.004

Pleasure +0.721 <0.001 Stress − 0.066 <0.001

Excitement +0.297 <0.001 Approach Approach—

Direct Effects Indirect Effects through

Pleasure Stress Excitement

Coefficient p Effect CIlow CIup Effect CIlow CIup Effect CIlow CIup

Vegetation - n.s. - − 0.047 0.082 - − 0.007 0.007 - − 0.026 0.022 Complexity − 0.244 <0.001 − 0.227 − 0.295 − 0.160 − 0.033 − 0.053 − 0.017 - − 0.039 0.013 Vegetation × Complexity +0.137 0.072 +0.120 0.026 0.213 +0.010 0.005 0.024 - − 0.014 0.056

Table 3. Direct and Indirect Effects on Avoidance Intentions.

Avoidance Direct Effects Indirect Effects Avoidance

R2 adj = 0.015 Pleasure Stress Excitement R2 adj = 0.621 Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p Coefficient p

Vegetation - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. - n.s. Complexity +0.331 <0.001 − 0.315 <0.001 +0.505 <0.001 - n.s. - n.s. Vegetation × Complexity − 0.212 0.013 +0.166 0.011 − 0.158 0.039 - n.s. - n.s. Gender +0.254 <0.001 − 0.275 <0.001 +0.229 <0.001 − 0.200 <0.001 - n.s. Age − 0.005 0.003 +0.004 0.006 − 0.007 <0.001 - n.s. - n.s.

Pleasure − 0.663 <0.001 Stress +0.323 <0.001

Excitement − 0.084 <0.001 Avoidance Avoidance—

Direct Effects Indirect Effects through

Pleasure Stress Excitement

Coefficient p Effect CIlow CIup Effect CIlow CIup Effect CIlow CIup

Vegetation - n.s. - − 0.076 0.043 - − 0.035 0.032 - − 0.007 0.008 Complexity +0.331 <0.001 +0.209 0.145 0.271 +0.166 0.128 0.210 - − 0.004 0.012 Vegetation × Complexity − 0.212 0.013 − 0.110 − 0.195 − 0.022 − 0.052 − 0.103 − 0.002 - − 0.017 0.004

between greenery and store complexity” on approach and avoidance intentions, through evoked pleasure and/or stress.

As a matter of fact, the multiple regression analysis demonstrates that 66.7% of the variance in “Approach” (adjusted R2) is explained by the variance in the ex- planatory variables “Pleasure,” “Stress,” and “Excite- ment.” Each of these emotional dimensions appears to contribute significantly to “approach intentions.” The standardized beta coefficients reveal that “pleasure” is the most important explanatory factor (0.721, p < 0.001), followed by “Excitement” (0.297, p < 0.001),

while “Stress” appears to have the least explanatory power (−0.066, p < 0.001).

With regard to “Avoidance,” the multiple regres- sion analysis reveals that 62.1% of the variance (ad- justed R2) is explained by the variance in the explana- tory variables “Pleasure,” “Stress,” and “Excitement,” which all appear to contribute significantly. While the standardized beta coefficients reveal that “pleasure” is again the most important explanatory factor (−0.663, p < 0.001), “stress” (0.323, p < 0.001) comes second, and “excitement” appears to contribute least (−0.084, p < 0.001).

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 817 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

The bootstrap mediation tests (at α = 0.05) clearly make the case that “pleasure” and “stress" significantly mediate the effects of “store complexity" and “vegeta- tion × complexity” on “approach” as well as on “avoid- ance” intentions. According to Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) this implies “indirect-only mediation” (cf. Baron and Kenny’s “full mediation”). Thus, “store complex- ity” appears to have an indirect negative effect on “ap- proach” through reduced feelings of “pleasure” (−0.227) and increased “stress” (−0.033). The integration of in- store greenery in complex store environments (i.e. “veg- etation × complexity”) turns out to have a positive effect on “approach” through evoked “pleasure” (+0.120) and reduced “stress" (+0.010). With regard to “avoidance,” “store complexity” appears to have an indirect avoid- ance inducing effect through reduced feelings of “plea- sure” (+0.209) and increased “stress” (+0.166). The in- tegration of in-store greenery in complex store environ- ments (i.e. “vegetation × complexity”) turns out to di- minish “avoidance” through evoked “pleasure” (−0.110) and reduced “stress” −0.052).

DISCUSSION

Based on the findings of this study, it can be con- cluded that introducing foliage in the store interior can elicit feelings of pleasure and reduce stress, even though these effects could only be discerned in a “com- plex” store interior. As a matter of fact, no significant effect of in-store greenery on evoked feelings of plea- sure or stress could be revealed in the “lean” store en- vironment condition. While it was expected that the stress-alleviating potential of in-store vegetation would be reduced in “lean” store interiors (as they cause less arousal in general), it was not anticipated that it would disappear completely. The fact that a significant effect of in-store greenery on evoked pleasure could not be discerned in the “lean” store condition either, may be explained by the observation that the “lean” store inte- rior was already rated as generally quite pleasurable, which left little room for improvement. Contrary to the tentative expectations, no impact was found of in-store greenery on feelings of excitement elicited by the store.

The findings of this study confirm that feelings of “pleasure" evoked by the store environment are an im- portant determining factor for “approach” as well as “avoidance” responses toward the store. With regard to the two arousal dimensions, it was established that both of them significantly affect approach and avoid- ance behaviors. Nonetheless, a clearly divergent impact was identified: while feelings of “excitement” appear to provide a stronger drive for “approach” intentions, feel- ings of “stress” seem to trigger “avoidance” intentions to a greater extent.

Given the impact of pleasure and stress on consumer approach/avoidance responses, the findings of the cur- rent study support the potential of integrating green- ery in retail store environments, especially in “spatially

dense” store interiors. In such store settings, vegetation is also found to directly affect consumers’ approach and avoidance behaviors in a favorable way (positively resp. negatively), providing further support for its strate- gic role. This study also demonstrates that the posi- tive impact of integrating greenery in complex store environments on approach and avoidance intentions is fully mediated by its impact on feelings of pleasure and stress.

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

In this study, emotional responses to the store environ- ment were measured by means of self-report question- naires. As some authors point out, verbal scales may not be appropriate to capture arousal. Future studies should therefore also include other arousal indicators, such as the measurement of electrodermal activity (cf. Gröppel-Klein & Baun, 2001).

Another limitation to this study concerns the “ex- ternal validity” of the findings. Unfortunately, as a di- rect consequence of the main concern for internal valid- ity, laboratory experiments are generally rather weak in generalizability. In particular, it would be valuable to replicate the present study based on a set of pho- tographs, rather than just one, defining each condition. Moreover, an extension of this study to field experi- ments is called for to determine the ecological valid- ity and generalizability of this study’s findings. In such field studies “actual” in-store behaviors can be observed (cf. Newman & Foxall, 2003).

As the experiment was conducted in a fashion re- tail context, this study should be replicated in other retail contexts, such as grocery stores. It will be particu- larly interesting to investigate whether the findings ob- tained in a hedonic shopping situation will also hold in a more utilitarian shopping context. Because utilitarian shopping is essentially functional and “goal directed” and also often experienced as “a chore" (see Geuens, Brengman, & S’Jegers, 2003), it seems probable that “stress reduction” will have even more pronounced ef- fects and relevance during this type of shopping. On the other hand, hedonistic shoppers may often show more appreciation for aesthetic attributes in shops, such as in-store vegetation. While enduring shopping motiva- tions are related to a person’s personality and are rel- atively stable over time (Mooradian & Olver, 1996), situational shopping motivations are temporary and differ depending on a particular consumer situation such as time pressure, social surroundings, or task def- inition (e.g. urgent vs. regular purchase; Van Kenhove, De Wulf, & Van Waterschoot, 1999). In this regard, it could also be very interesting to manipulate the situa- tional motivation of the shopper (run vs. fun shopping trip) to discover the different effects of introducing veg- etation in the store. Even the shopper’s stress level be- fore entering the store could be manipulated by means

818 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

of different scenarios. It may also be a good idea to con- sider the shoppers’ Optimum-Stimulation-Level in this respect.

Since a moderating role of the information rate of the store environment regarding the impact of in-store vegetation on arousal was expected, the “spatial den- sity” of the store was manipulated. Clearly, the “lean” store in this study was found to be rather pleasurable already, leaving little room for improvement, for ex- ample, by adding greenery into the store. It is reason- able to assume therefore that the impact of greenery on perceived pleasure will be more apparent in “less pleasant” “lean” store interiors. In agreement with Van Rompay et al. (2008), the findings of the present study also request further research to determine the impact of “spatial density” on pleasure.

Because various kinds of vegetation are appreci- ated differently (Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2006), it can be assumed that they may produce different effects in shoppers. Further studies should investigate the effects of diverse types of foliage (e.g. leafy plants, conifers, palms, flowers). Less common, more dramatic plants or flowers may actually evoke more excitement (carnivo- rous plants for example). It would also be interesting to find out whether the same effects hold for artificial as compared to real vegetation. Moreover the impact of representations of nature in wall decorations and art- work could also be examined.

Finally, it can be worthwhile to investigate the ad- verse effects of in-store greenery: in-store vegetation can, for example, block out the view on marketing- relevant information; it can reduce shopper circulation and so cause crowding; it can hinder easy access to cer- tain products; it can be valued negatively if it is not well tended or if it does not fit the specific context.

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

Since shopping is often experienced as quite stressful (Fram & Ajami, 1994; Fram & Axelrod, 1990), the pos- itive and stress-reducing effects that may be evoked by green interventions could potentially be very valuable in a retail context. The segment of shoppers entering a store already in a negative mood state represents no less than 10% of the total shopping population (Maxwell & Kover, 2003). Moreover, once a customer enters the store, there are numerous factors, both within and be- yond the control of retail management, which might turn the act of shopping into a stressful and poten- tially irritating experience (d’Astous, 2000; Aylott & Mitchell, 1998). Shopping is often a goal-directed activ- ity (e.g. buying a certain good) that is constrained by certain factors (e.g. limits on time or budget). When ob- stacles are encountered during this process, this may cause stress (e.g. Machleit & Eroglu, 2000, p. 101), which in turn may lead to avoidance behavior toward the particular retail context. Babin and Darden (1996) encourage retailers not only to try to create positive consumer emotions, but above all to prevent negative

in-store moods (see also d’Astous, 2000). In this respect, Geuens, Brengman, and S’Jegers (2003, p. 246) found that when consumers were asked to imagine their ideal food store, they reported to want to shop in “an envi- ronment that takes away the stress instead of imposing more stress . . . ”. It is obvious that retailers can benefit from minimizing stress episodes in customers or from providing them with "breathers" from such stress, for instance by integrating in-store vegetation.

As the store environment has been shown to influ- ence not only customers, but also store employees (Bit- ner, 1992), an even more pronounced beneficial impact can be expected from the integration of vegetation in the retail environment because of its stress-reducing effects on the sales staff. Stress reduction among sales assis- tants and employees can lead to more positive moods, which can translate into increased helpfulness and friendliness toward customers and into more job satis- faction, which are obviously important for retail service quality (Vazquez, Rodriguez-Del Bosque, Diaz, & Ruiz, 2001). Other possible benefits are fewer stress-related health problems affecting employees; reduced costs as- sociated with health problems (i.e. absenteeism); in- creased productivity, etc.

Considering that many potential benefits can be ex- pected from the integration of vegetation in store in- teriors, further research on this pertinent topic seems justified.

REFERENCES

Akhter, S. H., Andrews, J. C., & Durvasula, S. (1994). The in- fluence of retail store environment on brand related judg- ments. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1, 67– 76.

Aylott, R., & Mitchell V.-W. (1998). An exploratory study of grocery shopping stressors. International Journal of Retail and Distribution, 26, 362–373.

Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (2000). Atmospheric affect as a tool for creating value and gaining share of customer. Journal of Business Research, 49, 91–99.

Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1996). Good and bad shop- ping vibes: Spending and patronage satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 35, 201–206.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). Moderator-mediator vari- ables distinction in social psychological research: Concep- tual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Bateson, J. E. G., & Hui, M. K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the ser- vice setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 271–280.

Berman, B., & Evans, J. R. (1995). Retail management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of psychical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Mar- keting, 56, 57–70.

Bost, E. (1987). Ladenatmosphäre und konsumentenverhal- ten. Heidelberg, Germany: Physica.

Brengman, M., & Geuens, M. (2004). The four dimensional impact of color on shoppers’ emotions. In B. E. Kahn & M. Frances (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, volume

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 819 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

31 (pp. 122–128). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

Bringslimark, T., Hartig, T., & Patil, G. G. (2009). The psycho- logical benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the ex- perimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychol- ogy, 29, 422–433.

Buber, R., Ruso, B., & Gadner, J. (2006). Evolutionäres de- sign von Verkaufsräumen – Wasser, Pflanzen, Tiere und Sichtschutz als verhaltenssteuernde Gestaltungselemente. In P. Schnedlitz, R. Buber, T. Reutterer, A. Schuh, & C. Teller (Eds.), Innovationen in marketing und handel (pp. 361–378). Vienna: Linde.

Cackowski, J. M., & Nasar, J. L. (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation. Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and Behavior, 35, 736– 751.

Colarelli, S. M., & Dettmann, J. R. (2003). Intuitive evolu- tionary perspectives in marketing practices. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 837–865.

d’Astous, A. (2000). Irritating aspects of the shopping environ- ment. Journal of Business Research, 49, 149–156.

Darden, W. R., & Babin, B. J. (1994). Exploring the concept of affective quality: Expanding the concept of retail personal- ity. Journal of Business Research, 29, 101–110.

Dijkstra, K., Pieterse, M. E., & Pruyn, A. (2008). Stress- reducing effects of indoor plants in the built healthcare environment: The mediating role of perceived attractive- ness. Preventive Medicine, 47, 279–283.

Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.

Donovan, R. J., Rossister, J. R., Marcoolyn, G., & Nesdale, A. (1994). Store atmosphere and purchasing behaviour. Jour- nal of Retailing, 70, 283–294.

Fowler, D. C., Wesley, S. C., & Vazquez, M. E. (2007). Sim- patico in store retailing: How immigrant Hispanic emic in- terpret U.S. store atmospherics and interactions with sales associates. Journal of Business Research, 60, 50–59.

Foxall, G. R. (1997). The emotional texture of consumer envi- ronments: A systematic approach to atmospherics. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(5), 505–523.

Foxall G. R., & Greenley, G.E. (2000). Consumers’ emotional responses to service environments. Journal of Business Re- search, 46, 149–158.

Fram, E., & Ajami, R. (1994). Globalization of markets and shopping stress: Cross-country comparisons. Business Horizons, 37, 17–23.

Fram, E., & Axelrod, J. (1990). Distressed shopper. American Demographics, 12, 44–45.

Geuens, M., Brengman, M., & S’Jegers, R. (2003). Food retail- ing, now and in the future. A consumer perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, 241–251.

Gorn, G. J., Chattopadhyay, A., Yi, T., & Dahl, D. W. (1997). Effects of color as an executional cue in advertising: They’re in the shade. Management Science, 43, 1387–1400.

Gröppel, A. (1991). Erlebnisstrategien im einzelhandel. Analyse der zielgruppen, der ladengestaltung und der warenpräsentation zur vermittlung von einkaufserlebnis- sen. Heidelberg: Physica.

Gröppel-Klein, A. (1998). The influence of the dominance per- ceived at the point-of-sale on the price-assessment. In B. G. Englis & A. Olofsson (Eds.), European advances in con- sumer research, Vol. 3 (pp. 304–311). Provo, UT: Associa- tion for Consumer Research.

Gröppel-Klein, A., & Baun, D. (2001). The role of consumers’ arousal for retail stores – Results from an experimental

pilot study using electrodermal activity as indicator. In M. C. Gilly & J. Meyers-Levy (Eds.), Advances in consumer research, Vol. 28 (pp. 412–419). Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research.

Grossbart, S. L., Hampton, R., Rammohan, B., & Lapidus, R. S. (1990). Environmental dispositions and customer response to store atmospherics. Journal of Business Research, 31, 225–241.

Han, K.-T. (2009). Influence of limited visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environment and Behav- ior, 41, 658–692.

Hartig, T., & Fransson, U. (2009). Leisure home ownership, access to nature, and health: A longitudinal study of urban residents in Sweden. Environment and Planning, 41, 82– 96.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2011). Indirect and direct ef- fects of a multicategorical causal agent in statistical medi- ation analysis. Working Paper, The Ohio State University and Vanderbilt University, retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.afhayes.com/public/hp2011.pdf.

Heerwagen, J. H., & Orians, G. H. (1993). Humans, habi- tats, and aesthetics. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 138–172). Washington: Island Press.

Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. M., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environ- mental Psychology, 17, 165–170.

Ittelson, W. H. (1973). Environment perception and contem- porary perceptual theory. In W. H. Ittelson (Ed.), Envi- ronment and cognition (pp. 141–154). New York: Seminar Press.

Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail greenery on consumer experience: Re- viewing the evidence from a restorative perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 57–64.

Kaltcheva, V. D., & Weitz, B. A. (2006). When should a retailer create an exciting environment? Journal of Marketing, 70, 107–118.

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psy- chological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507– 542.

Kotler, P. (1973). Atmosphere as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49, 48–64.

Kweon, B.-S., Ulrich, R. S., Walker, V. D., & Tassinary, L. G. (2008). Anger and stress: The role of landscape posters in an office setting. Environment and Behavior, 40, 355– 381.

Leo J. Shapiro & Associates (2005). Store atmospherics provide competitive edge. Chain Store Age, 81, 74– 89.

Lohr, V. I., & Pearson-Mims, C. H. (2006). Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environ- ment & Behavior, 38, 667–688.

Machleit, K. A., & Eroglu, S. A. (2000). Describing and mea- suring emotional response to shopping experience. Journal of Business Research, 49, 101–111.

Machleit, K. A., Kelaris, J. J., & Eroglu, S. A. (1994). Human versus spatial dimensions of crowding perceptions in retail environments: A note on their measurement and on their effect on shopper satisfaction. Marketing Letters, 5, 183– 194.

Mano, H. (1999). The influence of pre-existing negative affect on store purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 75, 149– 172.

820 BRENGMAN, WILLEMS, AND JOYE Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

Maxwell, S., & Kover, A. (2003). Negative affect: The dark side of retailing. Journal of Business Research, 56, 553– 559.

McGoldrick, P. J., & Pieros, C. P. (1998). Atmospherics, pleasure and arousal, the influence of response mod- erators. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 173– 197.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974a). An approach to envi- ronmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974b). A verbal measure of information rate for studies in environmental psychology. Environment and Behavior, 6, 233–252.

Michon, R., Chebat, J.-C., & Turley, L.W. (2005). Mall atmo- spherics: The interaction effects of the mall environment on shopping behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 58, 576–583.

Mooradian, T. A., & Olver, J. M. (1996). Shopping motives and the Five Factor Model: An integration and preliminary study. Psychological Reports, 78, 579–592.

Newman, A. J., & Foxall, G. R. (2003). In-store customer be- haviour in the fashion sector: Some emerging methodologi- cal and theoretical directions. International Journal of Re- tail & Distribution Management, 31, 591–600.

O’Keefe D. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidences, and data analy- sis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251–274.

POPAI Europe. (1998). The POPAI Europe consumer buying habits study. Point-of-Purchase Advertising Institute – Re- tail Marketing In-Store Services Limited. Watford, Herts: Author.

Russell, J. A., & Lemay, G. (2000). Emotion concepts. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 491–503). New York/London: The Guilford Press.

Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1976). Environmental vari- ables in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 62–63.

Schimmack, U., & Grob, A. (2000). Dimensional models of core affect: A quantitative comparison by means of structural equation modeling. European Journal of Personality, 14, 325–345.

Schimmack, U., & Reisenzein, R. (2002). Experiencing activa- tion: Energetic arousal and tense arousal are not mixtures of valence and activation. Emotion, 2, 412–417.

Sherman, E., Mathur, A., & Smith, R. B. (1997). Store envi- ronment and consumer purchase behavior: Mediating role of consumer emotions. Psychology & Marketing, 14, 361– 378.

Stamps, A. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environ- ments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907–913.

Thayer, R. E. (1986). Activation and reactivation: Current overview and structural analysis. Psychological Reports, 58, 607–614.

Thayer, R. E. (1989). The biopsychology of mood and activa- tion. New York: Oxford.

Thornhill, R. (1998). Darwinian aesthetics. In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications (pp. 543–572). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric ef- fects on shopping behavior: A review of the experimen- tal evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49, 193– 211.

Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421.

Ulrich, R. S. (1993). Biophilia, biophobia, and natural land- scapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 73–137). Washington: Island Press.

Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmen- tal Psychology, 11, 201–230.

Van den Berg, A.E. (2009). Restorative effects of nature: To- wards a neurobiological approach. In T. Louts, M. Reiten- bach, & J. Molenbroek (Eds.), Human diversity, design for life. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Phys- iological Anthropology (pp. 132–138). Delft, the Nether- lands: Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft Uni- versity of Technology.

Van Kenhove, P., & Desrumaux, P. (1997). The relationship between emotional states and approach or avoidance re- sponses in a retail environment. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 7, 351–368.

Van Kenhove, P., De Wulf, K., & Van Waterschoot, W. (1999). The impact of task definition on store-attribute saliences and store choice. Journal of Retailing, 75, 125–137.

Van Rompay, T., Galetzka, M. J. L., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Moreno Garcia, J. (2008). Human and spatial dimensions of retail density: Revisiting the role of perceived control. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 319–335.

Vazquez, R., Rodriguez-Del Bosque, I. A., Diaz, A. M., & Ruiz, A. V. (2001). Service quality in supermarket retailing: Iden- tifying critical service experiences. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8, 1–14.

Walters, J., Apter, M. J., & Svebak, S. (1982). Color preference, arousal, and theory of psychological reversals. Motivation and Emotion, 6, 193–215.

Wolf, K. L. (2003). Public response to the urban forest in inner- city business districts. Journal of Arboriculture, 29, 117– 126.

Wolf, K. L. (2004a). Nature in the retail environment: Compar- ing consumer and business response to urban forest condi- tions. Landscape Journal, 23, 40–51.

Wolf, K. L. (2004b). Trees and business district preferences: A case study of Athens. Journal of Arboriculture, 30, 336–346.

Wolf, K. L. (2005). Trees in the small city retail business dis- trict: Comparing resident and visitor perceptions. Journal of Forestry, 103, 390–395.

Wolf, K. L. (2008). Community context and strip mall retail: Public response to the roadside landscape. Transportation Research Record. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2060, 95–103.

Wundt, W. (1896). Grundriss der psychologic (Fundamentals of Psychology). Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

Yik, M. S. M., Russell, J. A., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1999). Structure of self-reported current affect: Integration and beyond. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 600–619.

Zhao, H., Lynch, J.G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.

The authors would like to thank Mr. Johan Hellemans for his support in the data collection. His market research and insight agency ‘Avisio’ (Antwerp – Belgium) provided the opportunity to collect a considerable dataset to test this study’s hypotheses.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Malaika Brengman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium ([email protected]).

IN-STORE GREENERY’S IMPACT ON CUSTOMERS 821 Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.