as real as it gets: what role does lighting have on consumer's perception of atmosphere,...

lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology xxx (2014) 1e8

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

As real as it gets: What role does lighting have on consumer’sperception of atmosphere, emotions and behaviour?

Katelijn Quartier*, Jan Vanrie, Koenraad Van CleempoelHasselt University, Campus Diepenbeek, Building 3, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

Keywords:RetailInterior designCustomer’s perceptionLightingAtmosphere

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 11292113.E-mail addresses: [email protected]

uhasselt.be (J. Vanrie), Koenraad.vancleempoel@uhass

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.0050272-4944/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Quartier,emotions and behaviour?, Journal of Environ

a b s t r a c t

To study the impact of lighting on atmosphere perception, emotions and behaviour of consumers in arealistic setting, an experiment was conducted in a three-dimensional simulated supermarket in whichthree different lighting settings, corresponding to the settings of three different supermarkets inBelgium, were implemented. Ninety-five participants performed a realistic shopping task. The partici-pants were observed and they were questioned regarding their emotional responses to the retail spaceand their perception of atmosphere afterwards. The results indicate that although significant effects onbehaviour were absent, realistic lighting settings can have subtle effects on the perceived atmosphereand experienced emotions and lighting in itself can be used to communicate a certain image.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Lighting in retail

Retail forms an integral part of our daily routine: shops, super-markets, boutiques and outlets are visited almost by all members ofsociety on a regular basis. Designing commercial spaces that areboth pleasurable for visitors (consumers) but also functional (i.e.,allowing for, and stimulating, efficient commercial transactions)and fitting with the distinct image or brand philosophy of thecompany occupying the space, is themost important challenge for aretail designer. Lighting as an environmental, architectural elementcan provide an interesting tool in this respect. Indeed, the signifi-cance and benefits of lighting for retail have been repeatedlyacknowledged, not only by lighting manufacturers themselves butalso in academic literature (e.g., Boyce, 2004; Marques, Cardoso, &Palma, 2013; Schielke, 2010; Summers & Hebert, 2001). However,from the viewpoint of a critical retail designer interested in lightingand its impact on costumers and customer behaviour, the pictureemerging from the available evidence remains somewhat unsatis-factory as the issue appears to have been studied in a rather frag-mented way.

(K. Quartier), [email protected] (K. Van Cleempoel).

K., et al., As real as it gets: Wmental Psychology (2014), ht

Before we review the literature on theoretical and empirical as-pects of lighting in store environments, however, it is important tonote that lighting has primarily and extensively been studied inwork environments (see Boyce, 2003). In the 1980’s and early 1990’sstudies focussed primarily on determining the illuminance levelsrequired for the performance of tasks. In the late nineties and thebeginning of this century, the focus changed to the aspects of colourtemperature and spectral distribution, but still at a very functionallevel (for example regarding the influence of lighting on cognitivetasks performedbyemployees). As lighting design changed andnewtechnologies were developed, more research was done to improvework environments, including initial attempts to incorporate moreexperience-based aspects (Boyce, 2004). Finally, with the discoveryof a third photoreceptor in the human eye, responsible for changingour hormone production under the influence of light (Berson, Dunn,& Takao, 2002; Rea, 2002), the biological influence of light onhumans was also investigated in the work context. Overall, animpressive body of literature is available on lighting in work envi-ronments (perhaps even too much as Boyce, 2004; suggests).However, in the current study, the retail environment is notapproached from the perspective of the employees, i.e., as a workplace, but from the viewpoint of the customers. Much less researchhas been devoted to this aspect, but given the obvious differences infor example the goals (selling vs. buying), the time spent inside thestore (long vs. short) and the interaction with the space betweenthese two groups, it seems reasonable to also assume differences inthe actual effects of lighting.

hat role does lighting have on consumer’s perception of atmosphere,tp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.005

Delta:1_given name

Delta:1_surname

Delta:1_given name

mailto:[email protected]




www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02724944

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.005



K. Quartier et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology xxx (2014) 1e82

1.1. Theoretical effects of store lighting

Effects of lighting in a retail setting could, in principle, occur atmultiple levels: the perceptual/cognitive level (i.e., the level of howdifferent aspects of the store are perceived), the emotional level(i.e., how people affectively respond to the store) and the behav-ioural level (i.e., how consumers behave in relation to the storeenvironment). Within each of these three levels many aspects canbe distinguished, but here we primarily focus on respectively theperceived atmosphere, the emotions elicited by the store and in-store behaviour.

Vogels (2008) argues that the atmosphere of a space is consid-ered to be a fairly stable concept because it concerns an affectiveevaluation of the environment, i.e., a subjective impression, ratherthan an affective state or feeling itself. The emotional condition of aperson itself is usually determined bymany factors, includingmanythat are independent of the immediate surroundings (e.g. feelingsick or just having heard good news). In other words, how an at-mosphere is perceived will be more strongly linked to the expectedthan the actual emotional effect of the environment. Although theperceived atmosphere is linked to other perceptual or more cogni-tive attributions - for example Brengman and Willems (2009)illustrated the importance of store design and atmospherics tostore personality for fashion stores - in many cases the goal ofcreating a certain atmosphere in a retail environment is precisely totry to elicit a certain emotional effect in the consumer in order toachieve some desired behavioural result (cf. Kotler, 1973). Forexample, in the model put forward by Ray and Chiagouris (2009),store atmosphere is directly related to store affect and store affectdirectly influences customer loyalty in that customers with morepositive affective responses to a particular store tend to be moreloyal to that store. Additionally, store affect has a direct effect onword-of-mouth andwillingness to pay higher prices. There exists ofcourse a vast literature on affect and emotion, but a classic work inthe context of consumer behaviour is based on the work ofMehrabian andRussell (1974) andDonovan andRossiter (1982)whoshowed that emotions evoked by particular environments,described via the three dimensions of pleasure, arousal and domi-nance (PAD), relate to approach-avoidance behaviour towards theseenvironments. Their seminal S-O-R-paradigm (Stimulus-Organism-Response) offers a useful conceptual framework to link aspects ofthe environment (Stimulus) to behavioural responses of an indi-vidual (Responsee although typicallymeasured through self-reporton intended behaviour, like e.g. purchase intention) via the internalstate (processes and structures, perception, cognition and emotion)of a person (Organism). Trying to unravel how these componentsexactly relate to one another has long been, and still remains, thegoal of many studies (e.g., the model by Ray & Chiagouris, 2009; orhow psychological factors such as motivation moderate effects ofenvironmental factors, e.g., Doucé & Janssens, 2013). However,although the S-O-R paradigm is a useful conceptual structure toframe this investigation, the goal of the present studywas not to testall the causal relations between andwithin its elementse rather thegoal herewas to look for effects of a realistic lightingmanipulation ina realistic setting on specific outcome measures.

1.2. Empirical effects of store lighting on customer’s perceivedatmosphere, elicited emotions and in-store behaviour

In the following overview, we describe lighting research thatwas performed in a retail context and with a focus on the customer.We will first briefly address studies conducted without actuallighting, i.e., via verbal and graphical representations of store en-vironments (see Quartier, 2011; for a more extensive overview), butas the current study was initiated from the viewpoint of retail

Please cite this article in press as: Quartier, K., et al., As real as it gets: Wemotions and behaviour?, Journal of Environmental Psychology (2014), ht

design, we primarily focus on those studies in which light sourceswere actually present.

1.2.1. Verbal and graphical representations of store environmentsEffects of lighting have been studied using representations of a

retail context in which no actual light sources were present. Babin,Hardesty, and Suter (2003), for example, used verbal descriptions ofstore environments and of the lighting within these stores. Alter-natively, Schielke (2010) and Briand Decré and Pras (2013) bothused graphical representations e computer renderings and digi-tally manipulated pictures, respectively e to study the effects oflighting. Still another representation was employed by Baker, Levy,and Grewal (1992), who investigated the influence of lighting,among other things, in videos of store environments.

Although these representations have obvious advantages andmerits from a research point of view, from a designer’s perspectivea passive observer looking at a graphical representation of a storeremains an impoverished substitute for the holistic experience of aconsumer actively interacting with an actual 3-D space, especiallywith regards to the experience of lighting, which is notoriouslydifficult to “capture” in other media although note that undercertain circumstances the perceptual evaluation of both photo-graphs and renderings of lighting settings can yield results that arecomparable to the real situation, (cf. Engelke, Stokkermans, &Murdoch, 2013). In addition, the use of these verbal and graphicalrepresentations excludes the possibility to investigate potentialeffects on actual (shopping) behaviour but is necessarily limited toeffects on perception, attitudes and preferences, or intendedbehaviours.

1.2.2. (Full-scale) mockups as representations of store environmentsA small number of studies have employed actual light sources

for retail purposes, but in a simulated or laboratory environment.For example, Park and Farr (2007) implemented a ‘store-likesetting’ in a laboratory environment by constructing simple dis-plays with a collection of items such as clothing and fruit. Park andFarr (2007) focused on the perception, the emotional response andintended behaviour as a function of the CRI (colour rendering index,75 or 95) and CCT (correlated colour temperature, 3000 K or5000 K) of the light sources illuminating the displays. Ninety-eightsubjects were tested, half Korean, half American. Next to illus-trating an influence of culture, they were able to demonstrate thatthe CCT had a differentiating effect: compared to the warmerlighting the display under the cooler lighting (5000 K) wasperceived as more arousing, more approachable, and with a highervisual clarity, but it was also experienced as less pleasurable andwas less preferred. Although not implemented by Park and Farr(2007), compared to using verbal and graphical representations,employing a mockup to simulate (parts of) a store does have thepotential to measure behaviour in addition to self-report. More-over, results that stem from carefully designed experiments in acontrolled environment, such as the latter study or the studiesusing verbal and graphical representations mentioned previously,generally have a high internal validity, meaning that any effectsfound can indeed reliably be attributed to changes in the variablethat was changed (i.e., the lighting). For a retail designer, however,the question of ecological validity automatically arises, i.e., howthese effects of lighting would play out in an actual store, in whichpeople can move about and interact with the space in a morenatural manner, but also where many other variables are inter-vening. This concern is less present in field studies in real stores.

1.2.3. Real store environments e product levelIn a real wine store, Areni and Kim (1994) studied the resulting

behaviour - time spent inside, number of products examined,


K. Quartier et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology xxx (2014) 1e8 3

handled and bought e of ‘dim lighting conditions’ versus ‘brightlighting conditions’. Their results show that under ‘bright lighting’conditions certain bottles were more often examined and touchedthan under ‘dim lighting’ conditions. Although the average increasein number of bottles that were touched and examined was rela-tively large, this was only significant for one of three shelves (themiddle, at eye-level), suggesting that the effect of the generallighting was either not very robust or it interacted with other fac-tors (e.g., only at eye-level because this is where the difference inlighting was the largest). Moreover, there was no significant in-fluence found on sales and the time spent in store. Overall, from theviewpoint of the retailer or a retail designer, the effect of lightingwas rather subtle, as it only involved an increase in touching andhandling, not in sales, and also only for a specific location. More-over, as the study lacks a clear definition of what ‘dim’ and ‘bright’entails, it is quite difficult to estimate its relevance for a designer.

In a more recent study, Summers and Hebert (2001) conductedresearch on additional lighting in a hardware and fashion store,respectively on tools and belts. They studied whether more itemswere ‘touched’ and ‘picked up’ and if more time was spent at thedisplay with the addition of accent lighting on the display. With atotal of 2367 consumers observed, they found that significantlymore belts were handled (touched and picked up) with the addi-tional lighting, but there was no such effect for tools. Furthermore,consumers that showed an initial interest in the displays also spentsignificantly more time at both displays with the extra lighting.Taken together these results seem clearly relevant for a designer asthey indicate that additional light might indeed stimulate (alreadyexisting) product interest, but this conclusion does need to benuanced as the results seem to depend on the type of product (orstore), and, again, because the relevant details of the lighting set-tings are rather hard to extract from the description of the method,the practical relevance for a designer is difficult to assess (i.e.,relative to the overall lighting level, howmuch additional lighting isenough?).

In sum, both aforementioned studies, focussing on consumereproduct interaction, show the potential of lighting to affect pref-erence and behaviour towards a product in a real setting, but adetailed look at the results also indicates that these effects arerather subtle and suggests they interact with other store features.Although important, such a product-based approach does notinclude the potential roles of lighting at a more spatial level, morespecifically its function as one of the environmental elementsdetermining a store’s atmosphere, which we turn to next.

1.2.4. Real store environments e spatial levelFor a retail designer, lighting as an atmospheric element is an

especially interesting tool because it can in principle be quite easilymanipulated, while at the same time its impact on the environmentis, in relative terms, potentially quite high. Somewhat surprisingly,academic research on the impact of atmospheric lighting in retailhas remained scarce although atmospheric aspects have indeedbeen shown to have a variety of physical, physiological and psy-chological effects (e.g., evaluations of store image, judgements ofbrands, quality of merchandise), which in turn influence consumerbehaviour (e.g., time spent and ‘impulse buying’, see Tai & Fung,1997; or the review by Turley & Milliman, 2000). The spatially-oriented research on lighting in retail environments that is avail-able has rarely investigated actual experiences and behaviour inactual environments. There are, however, a number of exceptions tothis.

The first one, a study from Cuttle and Brandston (1995),investigated the influence of lighting on buying behaviour and thelevel of satisfaction in two American furniture stores in which theold lighting (filament spotlights), was partly changed to a more


energy-efficient solution. Analysis of the sales numbers revealedan increase of 35% for one of the two furniture stores, while noconsistent trend in the sales was found for the other store.Customer perception and sales staff attitudes to the new lightingsetting were reported as positive. These are quite spectacular re-sults establishing a connection between lighting and consumerbehaviour in a retail environment but they need to be approachedwith caution: the low-volume, high price nature of themerchandise, the influence of season and trends during thestudied periods, and different furniture displays might all havecontributed to this connection.

A second, similar, study by Boyce, Lloyd, Eklund, and Brandston(1996) was conducted in an independent supermarket. Theystudied the impact of new and approved lighting on the perceptionof space and the numbers of sales. Unfortunately, more than justthe lighting was renewed: a total remodelling of the bakery and anintroduction of daylight through skylights was being done. How-ever, the results show that the consumer considered the newlighting to make the store look brighter, more comfortable andmore pleasing to the eye. The sales of the bakery increased signif-icantly while the sales figures for the rest of the products showedno change. The authors acknowledge the latter might be due to thesmall impact of the new lighting system, placed in the other parts ofthe supermarket. Regarding perception, only two out of the fiveareas showed modest results: the area of the bakery and one of theaisles were perceived as more pleasing, brighter and comfortable.Unfortunately, as was the case in the previous study, experimentalstudies in the field, herewith the remodelling of the bakery and theintroduction of skylights, frequently entail the difficulty of havingto deal with confounding variables, making it difficult to attributechanges in perception and behaviour solely to the lighting.

A last interesting study in the real world, is by Custers, de Kort,IJsselsteijn, and de Kruiff (2010). The goal of this study was not tomeasure behavioural effects of a lighting manipulation, but tomeasure to what extent lighting contributes to atmosphere innaturalistic environments. They visited and analysed 57 mid-segment fashion stores by linking objective descriptions of light-ing attributes (by independent experts) with the measurement ofthe perceived atmosphere. It was shown that brightness decreasedperceived cosiness and increased perceived tenseness, and thatglare and sparkle contributed to the perceived liveliness. Althoughthe contribution of lighting attributes was, statistically speaking,generally modest, it did show that even with the large set ofenvironmental cues present in fashion retail environments, light-ing plays a significant role in the perception of the store’satmosphere.

1.3. Goal of the study

Our study is in line with an increasing interest in the under-standing of lighting on a more experience-based level and focuseson the effects of realistic lighting manipulations in an actualphysical environment in the (semi-)realistic setting of a small shop.We posed three research questions: 1) can the mere element oflighting influence and change the perception of a store’s atmo-sphere (e.g., can a store be given a predetermined atmospheremerely with lighting), 2) can the mere element of lighting influ-ence consumers’ affective responses to a store and, ultimately, 3)can the mere element of lighting lead to changes in in-storeshopping behaviour? Note that it is not the primary aim of thestudy to assess the relations between these different levels, butrather whether a specific environmental factor can have an impactat these levels per se.

To achieve a fuller understanding of the actual impact of lightingon respectively the perceived atmosphere, the affect and the



resulting behaviour in a retail setting, the context of supermarketsseems particularly interesting. First, supermarkets as a segmenthave a broad appeal and are frequented by both a large and diverseportion of society. Second, a broad range of types of lighting solu-tions are present in this segment, in terms of both lighting pa-rameters and technical implementation. However, as any lightingdesigner can also acknowledge: the objective range of values fordifferent lighting parameters is quite strongly constrained byfunctional requirements. This provides us automatically withrealistic and natural boundaries. Indeed, certain boutique shops orshops such as Abercrombie & Fitch can (and do) experimentextensively with atmospheric lighting, but the specificity of thesecircumstances make it less relevant for the majority of the retailenvironments. Finally, in the case of a supermarket, both the rangeand the resolution of possible behavioural outcomes (e.g. browsingbehaviour, the amount and type of products bought, .) seemparticularly suited for environmental effects to appear. These fac-tors, combining a general appeal, a high sensitivity at the level ofthe dependent variables with fairly strict functional boundaries atthe level of the independent variable, provides both a highly rele-vant, but also powerful empirical framework to assess the actualimpact of lighting in a retail environment on consumers.

Within this framework, then, an experiment was set-up to try toassess effects of lighting in a context “as real as it gets”, but withoutsacrificing experimental control and avoiding possible confoundingvariables as much as possible (cf. supra). This entails two importantfactors. First, it takes place in an actual 3D-space in which a brand-neutral, mini-supermarket is simulated (see Figs. 1 and 2). 3-Dspaces but without an appropriate context do not allow a genuineholistic experience of the space and also lack the possibility toassess effects on actual behaviour. The physical simulation insteadof a real store, on the other hand, minimises the chances of irrel-evant factors or mediated effects (e.g., via an indirect effect onpersonnel) influencing the results. As can be inferred from theliterature review, the use of such a 3-D simulation is quite unique.Second, to be sure that relevant and realistic lighting settings wereused, we decided to not implement a simple linear manipulation ofsome isolated factors (e.g., simply increasing the overall lightinglevel), nor did we try to create artificially inflated “extreme” set-tings in order to elicit effects. Indeed, the goal was to assess effectsof realistic lighting settings in a realistic, but controlled setting. Forthis reason, we decided to select three lighting settings that havealready been shown to ‘work’ in a supermarket context, but that arealso representative of the broad range of supermarket lighting andof the different corporate images of supermarkets. This was done bysimulating the lighting conditions of three different, currentlyexisting supermarket chains, each with a very distinct image andlook and feel. In addition, using these “existing” lighting settings,also allows us to test the recognisability of lighting-in-context: canlighting alone “carry” the essence of a specific atmosphere?

Fig. 1. Photographs of the s


2. Material and methods

2.1. Environmental context and participants

The experimental environment consists of a stand-alone ‘box’ of9 � 9 m, containing two smaller rooms for conducting pre- andpost-experimental interviews, and a modular, fully modifiableroom, designed as a mini-supermarket with seven product cate-gories (groceries, fruit & vegetables, dairy products, bread, soda,wine, and cosmetics), all priced with credits (see Fig. 3). Thesimulation room is equipped with a one-way-mirror and observa-tion cameras, so all overt, in-store browsing behaviour (e.g., routetaken, walking speed, time spent in the store .) can be observedand recorded.

A total of 95 people (30 men and 65 women, aged between 18and 63), took part in the experiment. Less than half were students,the other part were members of the general public, invited toparticipate via several channels. None of the participants wereaware of the goal of the study.

2.2. Design

2.2.1. Lighting settingsTo construct the lighting settings, lighting parameters (overall

lighting level, spatial distribution and CCT) were measured in threeselected supermarkets in Belgium, each having a distinct brandimage and look and feel: a High Quality supermarket (Delhaize), aDiscounter (Carrefour), and a Hard-Discounter (Aldi). Based onthese measurements, an interior architect carefully designed threespecific lighting settings to simulate the lighting in these threesupermarkets as closely as possible (see Table 1 for the measure-ments and Fig. 3 for the resulting look and feel). Note that no otherelements of the store interior were changed in any way.

2.2.2. MeasurementsFollowing the three research questions, dependent variables

were measured at the perceptual level, the level of the elicitedemotions and the behavioural level:

1A Atmosphere: To measure the perception of the store space,we used an adapted version of Vogels’ (2008) instrument toquantify the perceived atmosphere of an environment. Inthis version, five items of the 38 original descriptors werechanged to fit better with the Flemish vocabulary, resultingin a questionnaire that includes several items on a 7-pointscale to measure atmosphere via three dimensions (notethat due to the changes in the items, the fourth subscale inthe original instrument, i.e., Detachment, could no longer bereliably measured in this version): Cosiness (e.g., pleasant,safe, snug, nice, intimate), Liveliness (e.g., cheerful, stimulating,

imulated supermarket.


Fig. 2. Floor plan of the simulated supermarket.


inspiring, lively), and Tenseness (e.g., oppressive, tense,frightening).

1B Image Perception: the perception of price level, quality leveland service level, was asked on a scale from 1 (very low) to 10(very high). Participants were also given a list of five existing,well-known supermarkets in Flanders (including the threesupermarkets on which the experimental lighting settingswere based) and asked to indicate the most similar storewith respect to the atmosphere to assess the recognisabilityof the lighting setting in a brand-neutral context. In addition,to measure whether the simulated supermarket is in fact agood representation of a real supermarket, three questionswere used. On a scale from 0 to 10, participants were asked toanswerwhether they thought the interior and atmosphere of

Fig. 3. Photographs of the three lighting-s


the supermarket was a very bad (0) or good (10) example,whether it was very atypical (0) or typical (10), and whetherit was not at all representative (0) or representative (10) forthe typology of a supermarket.

2. Emotions: The emotions generated by the store weremeasured using a 7-point scale, Dutch translation(Brengman, 2002) of the Pleasure, Arousal, and Dominance(PAD) questionnaire of Mehrabian and Russell (1974) asadapted to the study of store atmospherics by Donovan andRossiter (1982). We only take the Pleasure and Arousaldimension into account as the status of the Dominanceconstruct is less well established and is generally of less in-terest in the context of store atmospherics (cfr. Babin &Darden, 1995; Brengman, 2002).

ettings in the simulated supermarket.


Table 1Details of the three lighting settings.

High quality Discounter Harddiscounter

Lux (average)Groceries 826 853 412Dairy 640 917 535Bread 836 1100 412Cosmetics 510 1086 412Wine 390 759 412Fruit & Veg 1054 1488 412Accent lightingGroceries None None NoneDairy TL830 (3000 K) TL840 (4000 K) TL830

(3000 K)Bread TL830 shelves &

CDM830 spot(both 3000 K)

TL830 shelves (3000 K) None

Cosmetics TL830 shelves (3000 K) TL830 shelves (3000 K) NoneWine CDM930 (3000 K) SDW825 (2500 K) NoneFruit & Veg SDW930 (3000 K) CDM930 (F) & CDM 942

(F) (3000 K) & (4200 K)None

Table 2Means and standard deviations of the three atmosphere subscales per setting andresults of the one-way ANOVA.

Measure High quality(n ¼ 33)

Discounter(n ¼ 29)

Hard discounter(n ¼ 33)

F(2,92) p-Value

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Cosiness 3.73 0.85 3.32 1.08 3.34 1.11 1.72 0.19Liveliness 3.89 0.87 3.57 1.05 3.26 1.21 2.96 0.06Tenseness 2.29 1.33 2.73 1.16 2.73 1.52 1.17 0.31

Table 3Means and standard deviations of the price, service and quality level per setting andresults of the one-way ANOVA.


Discounter(n ¼ 29)


F(2, 92) p-Value


Price level 5.64 1.93 4.83 2.36 4.85 2.08 1.52 0.22Service 6.88 1.75 6.24 2.29 5.76 2.68 2.02 0.15Quality 7.57 1.37 6.76 2.05 6.82 2.02 1.99 0.14


3. Behaviour: The total time spent inside the store wasmeasured and buying behaviour was measured by regis-tering the customers’ actual purchases, more specifically thenumber and type of products bought and the total amount ofcredits spent.

2.3. Procedure

The experiments were held over a period of two weeks. Theparticipants were given a basket and were provided with a specific,realistic shopping scenario: buying breakfast for two people. Eachparticipant received a budget of 50 credits, which increased therealism of the shopping experience but was also generous enoughfor participants to not have to make specific product choices to fitthe budget. Participants were tested alone and were asked tobehave as theywould under ‘normal’ shopping circumstances. Eachparticipant shopped in one of the three settings (between-subjectdesign). All lighting was initiated 20 min prior to the start of theexperimental sessions, to stabilise the illuminance level.

After the completion of the shopping task the participant wasasked to complete the PAD-questionnaire and the atmospherequestionnaire in the lab supermarket. Finally, questions on theprice and image perception, the typicality and some other self-report items, such as questions about impulse purchases andtheir income level, were asked in one of the interview rooms.

3. Results

Unless indicated otherwise, statistical analyses were performedthrough an ANOVA with lighting setting as the independent vari-able and the threshold for statistical significance set at 0.05.

3.1. Perception

1A Regarding perceived atmosphere, Table 2 shows the detailsof the atmosphere subscales for the three lighting settings:Cosiness (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.73), Liveliness (Cronbach’salpha¼ 0.77), and Tenseness (Cronbach’s alpha¼ 0.90). Onlyfor Liveliness a marginally significant effect was found.Overall, the High Quality setting was most distinguishable asthis consistently obtained the most extreme scores.

1B For the other perceptual attributes, the results (see Table 3)show that the High Quality setting received the highest score


for price perception, quality and service level. Although thedifferences with the other settings were not significant, allFs(2,92) < 2.02, n.s., this is consistent with the corporateimage of that particular retailer. The other two settings werenot perceived consistently: the Hard Discounter scoredslightly higher than the Discounter on price and quality, butlower on service level.

For the recognition of the atmosphere, for each of the five su-permarkets in the list, we calculated the number of people in eachof the three settings that indicated that particular store (note thatsome people indicated more than one store out of the list, meaningthat the sum across these five stores can become larger than thetotal number of respondents). The results demonstrate that theHigh Quality setting was also generally experienced as such: 52% ofthe participants in this group indicated a resemblance to the highquality supermarket on which the lighting setting was indeedbased, with the other response alternatives obtaining scores be-tween 27% and 6%. In other words, a (small) majority of peoplecorrectly recognised the atmosphere, even though this was merelycommunicated through lighting. For both the Discounter and theHard-Discounter, the “correct” supermarket was less frequentlyselected (respectively, by 27% and 18%) and the perception of theatmosphere of these two settings was less distinct, i.e., the re-sponses were more evenly spread across the other response alter-natives (from 40% to 20% and 36%e9%, respectively).

For the three typicality ratings, no significant differences werefound for the three lighting settings, all Fs (2,92) < 0.75, n.s.; theaverages across the three settings for the items ‘being a goodexample’ (M ¼ 6.60, SD ¼ 2.03), ‘typical’ (M ¼ 6.89, SD ¼ 1.98), and‘representative’ (M ¼ 6.61, SD ¼ 1.99) suggest that a realisticemulation of the supermarket was successful.

3.2. Emotion

Concerning the emotional level, the ANOVA (cf. Table 4) showsthat lighting setting significantly affected the Pleasure dimension(Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.88). Post-hoc comparisons showed the HighQuality setting to be significantly more Pleasurable than the HardDiscounter.

Consistent with Brengman’s (2002) results, the Arousaldimension did not form a single construct (Cronbach’salpha ¼ 0.33). In line with Brengman (2002), items ‘calm-excited’


Table 4Means and standard deviations for the pleasure an arousal subscales (PAD) persetting and results of the one-way ANOVA.


Discounter(n ¼ 29)


F(2,92) p-Value


Pleasure 5.31 0.82 4.81 0.79 4.60 1.09 5.21 0.01Relaxation-tension 2.59 1.14 2.95 1.14 2.85 1.14 0.83 0.44Boredom-

excitement4.59 1.11 4.40 6.06 4.00 0.87 2.89 0.06

Table 5Pearson correlation coefficients and corresponding p-values between the atmo-sphere and the emotional subscales (N ¼ 95).

Pleasure Relaxation-tension Boredom-excitement

Cosiness 0.56<0.0001

�0.39<0.0001

0.30<0.01

Liveliness 0.61<0.001

�0.37<0.001

0.49<0.0001

Tenseness �0.62<0.0001

0.54<0.0001

�0.36<0.01


and ‘relaxed-stimulated’ seemed to form a separate subscale e

relaxation-tension (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.68), while item ‘sluggishe frenzied’ and ‘sleepy e wide-a-wake’ constituted another, albeitless robust, subscale: boredom-excitement (Cronbach’salpha ¼ 0.58). As can be seen in Table 4, the High Quality settingreceives the most favourable score for both scales, but for neither ofthe two scales a significant effect of lighting setting could be found(although it is marginally significant for boredom-excitement). Ananalysis on the result for the individual Arousal items also failed toyield any significant effects, Fs(2,92) < 2.44, n.s.

3.3. Behaviour

The ANOVA on the aspects of behaviour failed to find any sig-nificant differences for the lighting manipulation at the level ofbehavioural response, including total amount spent, F(2,92) ¼ 2.02,n.s., the number of products bought, F(2,92) ¼ 1.87, n.s., and thetime spent inside the store, F(2,92) ¼ 1.44, n.s. For the latter, therewas a non-significant, but plausible, trend for people to spend thelongest shopping time in the setting that scored the highest oncosiness, liveliness and increased pleasure, i.e., the High Qualitysetting (an average of 174 s compared to 164 and 143 s for the othertwo settings). The overall average for time spent shopping was160 s (SD ¼ 73.27), while on average 18.43 credits were spent(SD ¼ 7.07) and 12.7 products were bought (SD ¼ 5.03).

3.4. Additional exploratory data analysis

The previous analyses relate to the primary goal of the study toinvestigate effects of realistic lighting settings on the three di-mensions of perception, emotion and behaviour. However, giventhe richness of the data, especially with regards to the actualbehaviour, we have explored the data further by performing severaladditional analyses. These included, for example, analyses on spe-cific types of products bought (i.e., luxury products or non-breakfast related products) and on the products that had addi-tional, accent lighting (e.g., fruits and vegetables or cosmetics in theHigh Quality and Discounter setting). In addition, we also per-formed the analyses not as a function of the lighting setting thatwas objectively presented, but of the setting that the participantsthought they were in (i.e., depending on their answer to thequestion regarding the recognisability). However, none of theserevealed a statistically significant or consistent pattern. Finally, toexplore the relations between the three types of outcome variables,we also calculated correlations between the three dimensions ofthe perceived atmosphere and the two emotion dimensions on theone hand and behaviour on the other. As might be expected, cor-relations between pleasure and the aspects of the perceived at-mosphere were all significant (see Table 5), showing a positiveassociation with Cosiness and Liveliness and a negative correlationwith Tenseness. The same pattern was also found for the Arousalsubscale of boredom-excitement, while the complementarypatternwas found for the relaxation-tension subscale (which is also


the opposite in terms of valence, i.e., a higher value for boredom-excitement is positive while a higher value for relaxation-tensionis rather negative). For behaviour, when the three settings wereanalysed separately, no significant correlations could be foundbetween any of the three behavioural measures and the atmo-sphere and emotional variables.

4. Discussion

Three distinct but realistic lighting settings were presented tothree groups of “shoppers” in a (semi-)realistic store environment.The analyses of the self-report and behavioural results sketch anuanced picture of the role that lighting manipulations of the sortthat were implemented here can effectively play at the threeresponse levels of consumers in a supermarket context.

First, despite the absence of statistically significant effects forindividual outcome measures, taken together, the perceptual re-sults do suggest that evenwith only a relatively subtle difference inlighting, i.e. well within functional boundaries for a supermarketcontext, the atmosphere of an otherwise identical store environ-ment can be affected. This might not be a surprising result, giventhe review of the literature before, but it has rarely been demon-strated under these conditions. More interestingly, a commercialspace can even be given a more specific atmosphere that can evenbe recognised by consumers, even if the environment itself isneutral. It is important to stress here that the respondents in ourstudy did not evaluate the lighting, they evaluated the general at-mosphere of the store (i.e., therewas no explicit mention of lightingand they only experienced one store). The fact that lighting in andby itself can indeed carry the essence of an atmosphere so thatusers of this space identify it with a specific corporate brand is ofgreat importance for designers of these spaces.

Second, at the level of emotions, the setting with warm lightingand accent lighting on the product groups elicited significantlymore pleasurable feelings in participants, which was also associ-ated with an increase in perceived cosiness and liveliness and adecrease in tenseness. Although it is not possible to relate theseresults to specific lighting parameters, this is in line with some ofthe existing literature (cfr. Custers et al., 2010; Park & Farr, 2007).However, again, this is one of the first experimental studies to showthis is indeed also the case for realistic environments in whichconsumers interact with the space in a naturalistic manner. Thisemotional effect is of course highly relevant when it comes tocustomer loyalty since positive affect is linked to customer loyaltyandword-of-mouth (Ray & Chiagouris, 2009). The latter also plays acrucial role in store branding.

Finally, significant effects on specific behavioural responseswere not found. With the exception of a trend for people to remainlonger in the most favourable store environment, overall there wasno consistent impact on any of the elements of the in-storebehaviour that were analysed. Of course, general claims on thebasis of a single experiment are hardly appropriate, but in line withthe literature that was discussed previously, it seems rather difficult



to find actual behavioural effects of lighting manipulations withstatic, white light in realistic settings. Moreover, this pattern ofresults, i.e. subtle effects on consumer perception and emotion, butno real impact on shopping behaviour, mirror the results of anotherfield experiment in which a more systematic change in generallighting was implemented on a day-to-day basis in a real super-market for a long period of time (22 weeks; see Quartier, 2011). Asmentioned, the lightingmanipulations in these studies are typicallychanges in achromatic, static lighting. Possibly, the new possibil-ities afforded by recent technological advances (e.g., LED, OLED)such as colour and dynamic lighting, might prove more fruitful inthis respect.

In sum, from the viewpoint of a retail designer, the presentstudy, in line with results from the literature, suggests that with thetype of atmospheric lighting as was implemented here, behaviouralin-store reactions (such as increased buying behaviour) are not theprimary level at which effects will appear. However, even withinthe strict boundaries imposed by functional demands, the mereelement of lighting can be employed to change the atmospherewithin a commercial environment and to help to create a specificstore experience. Given the potential of atmosphere to function asan antecedent for corporate image and other store attributes,investing in lighting that communicates the right message, is avaluable strategy for a successful retail environment.

Acknowledgements

This paper is based on research conducted in completion of thePh.D. degree by the first author, under supervision of the thirdauthor and with the help for the experimental set-up and data-analysis of the second author. The construction of the simulatedsupermarket was supported by EFRO (European foundation forregional development) and the experiments by IWT, who we bothwould like to thank gratefully.

References

Areni, C. S., & Kim, D. (1994). The influence of in-store lighting on consumers’ ex-amination of merchandise in a wine store. International Journal of Research inMarketing, 11, 117e125.

Babin, J. B., & Darden, W. R. (1995). Consumer self-regulation in a retail environ-ment. Journal of Retailing, 71(1), 47e70.

Babin, J. B., Hardesty, D. M., & Suter, T. A. (2003). Color and shopping intentions: Theintervening effect of price fairness and perceived affect. Journal of BusinessResearch, 56, 541e551.

Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retailstore environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445e460.

Berson, D. M., Dunn, F. A., & Takao, M. (2002). Phototransduction by retinal ganglioncells that set the circadian clock. Science, 295, 1070e1073.


Boyce, P. R. (2003). Human factors in lighting. London: Taylor & Francis.Boyce, P. R. (2004). Lighting research for interiors: The beginning of the end or the

end of the beginning. Lighting Research and Technology, 36(4), 283e294.Boyce, P. R., Lloyd, C. J., Eklund, N. H., & Brandston, H. M. (1996). Quantifying the

effects of good lighting: The Green Hills Farm project. Paper published in theproceedings of the 1996 Annual lluminating Engineering Society of NorthAmerica conference (pp. 1e37). New York: IESNA.

Brengman, M. (2002). The impact of colour in the store environment. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Brussels, Belgium: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.

Brengman, M., & Willems, K. (2009). Determinants of fashion store personality: Aconsumer perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 18(5), 346e355.

Briand Decré, G., & Pras, B. (2013). Simulating in-store lighting and temperaturewith visual aids: Methodological propositions and SeOeR effects. InternationalReview of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research, 23(4), 363e393.

Custers, P. J. M., de Kort, Y. W. A., IJsselsteijn, W. A., & de Kruiff, M. E. (2010). Lightingin retail environments: Atmosphere perception in the real world. LightingResearch and Technology, 42, 331e343.

Cuttle, C., & Brandston, H. (1995). Evaluation of retail lighting. Journal of the Illu-minating Engineering Society, 24(2), 33e49.

Donovan, R. J., & Rossiter, J. R. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psy-chology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34e57.

Doucé, L., & Janssens, W. (2013). The presence of a pleasant ambient scent in afashion store. The moderating role of shopping motivation and affect intensity.Environment and Behavior, 45(2), 215e238.

Engelke, U., Stokkermans, M. G. M., & Murdoch, M. J. (2013). Visualizing lighting withimages: Converging between the predictive value of renderings and photographs.Paper published in the proceedings of SPIE 8651 Human Vision and ElectronicImaging XVIII. Burlingame, California: SPIE.

Kotler, P. (1973). Atmosphere as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing, 49, 48e64.Marques, S. H., Cardoso, M. M., & Palma, A. P. (2013). Environmental factors and

satisfaction in a specialty store. International Review of Retail, Distribution &Consumer Research, 23(4), 456e474.

Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology.Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Park, N., & Farr, C. (2007). The effects of lighting on consumer’s emotions andbehavioural intentions in a retail environment: A cross-cultural comparison.Journal of Interior Design, 33(1), 17e32.

Quartier, K. (2011). Retail design, lighting as a design tool for the retail environment.Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Hasselt, Belgium: Hasselt University.

Ray, I., & Chiagouris, L. (2009). Customer retention: Examining the roles of storeaffect and store loyalty as mediators in the management of retail strategies.Journal of Strategic Marketing, 17(1), 1e20.

Rea, M. S. (2002). Light: Much more than vision. Paper published in the proceedingsof the 5th International LRO lighting research Symposium: Light and HumanHealth. Palo Alto, California: Lighting Research Office.

Schielke, T. (2010). Light and corporate identity: Using lighting for corporatecommunication. Lighting Research and Technology, 42, 285e295.

Summers, T. A., & Hebert, P. R. (2001). Shedding some light on store atmospherics:Influence of illumination on consumer behaviour. Journal of Business Research,54(2), 145e150.

Tai, H. C., & Fung, A. M. C. (1997). Application of an environmental psychologymodel to in-store buying behavior. The International Review of Retail, Distribu-tion and Consumer Research, 7(4), 311e337.

Turley, L. W., & Milliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shoppingbehavior: A review of the experimental evidence. Journal of BusinessResearch, 49, 193e211.

Vogels, I. (2008). Atmosphere metrics: Development of a tool to quantify experi-enced atmosphere. In J. Westerlink, M. Ouwerkerk, T. Overbeek, W. Pasveer, &B. de Ruyter (Eds.), Probing experience: From assessment of user emotions andbehaviour to development of products (pp. 25e41). Dordrecht: Springer.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0272-4944(14)00032-2/sref1
































































































as real as it gets: what role does lighting have on consumer's perception of atmosphere,...

Documents