Counter-clockwise or clockwise? The impact of store layout on the ...

1

Counter-clockwise or clockwise? The impact of store layout on the process of orientation in a discount store

Abstract The object of this paper is to investigate the concept of mental maps as a basis for explaining the ease of orientation experienced by consumers at the point of sale. Useful hypotheses explaining the formation of mental maps can be derived from environmental psychology and neurophysiology. The empirical studies reported here – a pointing task and a simulated shopping task – were conducted in two discount grocery stores with an identical assortment and identical prices, one guiding customers in a clockwise direction and the other in a counter-clockwise direction. Using a geographical information system (GIS), we found that the direction in which shoppers were guided, as well as the location of products (in peripheral aisles versus the interior section of the store) influenced the formation of accurate mental maps, the ease of orientation, and the efficiency of the shopping process.

2

Extended abstract More and more consumers these days only decide what to buy when they actually reach the point of sale (POS). At the POS, the design of the store and the presentation of products on the shelves influence their purchase decisions. One of the key factors in this process is what we call “customer orientation,” i.e. how the shoppers navigate the store. Customer orientation is important because, clearly, shoppers only buy items that they are able to find. In this article we examine the process of customer orientation in retail stores, focusing on the impact of the store layout on shoppers’ ability to find products and orient themselves at the POS. In particular we look at the impact of having a clockwise or counter-clockwise store layout. Several empirical studies of store environments (Groeppel-Klein 2001; Groeppel-Klein and Germelmann 2003; Grossbart and Rammohan 1981; Sommer and Aitkens 1982) find a significant correlation between the existence of mental maps of stores (knowledge of product location, assortment, service points, escalators, etc.) and how convenient customers find the shopping experience. Studies of environmental psychology and neurophysiology provide a useful theoretical background to the concept of orientation. The cognitive approach found in environmental psychology, for example, tries to determine how individuals perceive and remember environments. The basis for this ability is mental (or cognitive) maps stored in consumers’ memories. How exactly the left and right hemispheres of the brain interact in solving spatial task is not yet fully understood (Kukolja, Marshall, and Fink 2006). However, neurological research suggests that it further analysis of the relevance of cognitive maps is required. In the current study we investigate some of the ways practitioners believe mental maps can be improved – and the ease of orientation enhanced – in retail environments. Existing research into consumer behavior pays little attention to product location in consumers’ mental maps as a success factor in retailing. One notable exception is a study by Sommer and Aitkens (1982) in which participants had to locate eleven different products on a store map, as a measure of how detailed their mental maps were. The present study builds on Sommer and Aitkens’ findings. In our study, we used computerized geographical information system (GIS) to analyze shoppers’ estimation of product location. The study also integrated moderating variables such as the store layout (clockwise or counter-clockwise) and whether shoppers were right- or left-handed, and tested the relationship between the accuracy of the mental maps and participants’ perceived ease of orientation. Most stores guide customers through the store in a counter-clockwise direction. This is generally justified by the fact that customers are for the most part right-handed (Underhill 2000, 76). However, neurophysiologic research suggests a different explanation for this turning preference: the hormone dopamine, which is responsible for some aspects of movement, i.e. locomotion. The higher the dopamine concentration on the left side of the brain, the more attention (and hence locomotion) is focused on the right-hand side (Mead and Hampson, 1996; Mohr et al. 2004). Thus in a clockwise-oriented store, customers frequently glance at the store’s interior. It has further been suggested that shoppers have a general orientation toward the walls of stores, as this makes them feel secure (Appleton 1986). This leads them to notice products on the left-hand side of aisles. Taken together, these two tendencies enable shoppers to remember more products in a store that has a clockwise layout, which in turn gives them a more positive attitude toward the store. By contrast, in a store with a counter-clockwise layout, both tendencies concentrate on the right-hand side. This leads us to our first hypothesis (H1): If shoppers are guided in a clockwise direction, they will have a more detailed mental map, evaluate the store more positively, and be willing to spend more money than if they are guided in a counter-clockwise direction. The first part of our second

3

hypothesis (H2a) re-investigates the central result of Sommer and Aitkens (1982): Irrespective of the guiding direction (clockwise or counter-clockwise ), customers will recall products located in peripheral aisles more precisely than those in central aisles. The second part of the second hypothesis (H2b) tests whether a more detailed mental map leads to a more positive evaluation of the ease of orientation and value for money. We conducted our empirical studies in two stores that were part of a chain of discount grocery stores. Both stores were identical in terms of assortment and prices. However, in one store customers were guided clockwise around the store, and in the other counter-clockwise. Before entering the store, the 196 subjects in the first study were asked to locate eight specific products on central and peripheral aisles on a store map. The results provide support for H1: Subjects in the store with the clockwise layout had a more detailed mental map and evaluated the store better in terms of perceived ease of orientation and value for money. Additionally, they spent more money in the store. In both stores, products on the peripheral aisles were located with a significantly higher level of accuracy than products on the central aisles – a finding that supports H2a. As was initially assumed, there was also a significant correlation between having a detailed mental map and the ease of orientation and perceived value for money – supporting H2b. To validate our findings we conducted a second study involving a specific shopping task. Here, we looked at shoppers’ travel and search patterns (Titus and Everett 1995; Larson, Bradlow, and Fader 2005). If a clockwise layout is indeed superior to a counter-clockwise layout, then in a clockwise layout shoppers should travel shorter distances to find the products. This leads us to our third hypothesis (H3): In a clockwise store layout, significantly more consumers will belong to the group of “efficient shoppers” (in terms of distance traveled and/or time taken) than in a counter-clockwise layout. In the second study there were 76 participants and we controlled for shopping frequency and store patronage. Participants were asked to shop for eight specific products, while two disguised observers kept track of the walking behavior of the subjects. Once again we used a GIS to process the data and test the hypothesis. After standardizing the distance they traveled, we split the participants into two groups: “short-distance shoppers” and “long-distance shoppers.” The results of the study show that there were significantly more shoppers who traveled a short distance for the shopping task in the store with the clockwise layout than there were in the store with the counter-clockwise layout. A questionnaire completed after the shopping task showed relevant differences in the characterization of the two groups of shoppers. These differences related to the accuracy of the mental map, the amount of time spent, enquiries made of salesclerks, the perceived ease of the task, and participants’ willingness to spend money. The results of the two studies show that embedding spatial information (i.e. knowledge of the location of products) in the shopper’s mind is a key factor for success in retailing. The results also indicate that the direction of guidance (clockwise or counter-clockwise) and product location are responsible for improving mental maps and shopping efficiency.

4

Counter-clockwise or clockwise? The impact of the store layout on the process of orienting in a discount store

Introduction It has long been accepted that “a lost customer is a customer lost.” The percentage of instore buying decisions is estimated to be up to 70%, depending on product class (POPAI 1997). However, consumers can only buy articles which they can find on the shelves. As Chandon, Hutchinson, and Young (2002) point out: “unseen is unsold.” Consumers who cannot find what they are looking for usually give up, or ask the salesclerk where they can find the product in question. For instance, in home improvement (DIY) stores, most customer enquiries made with salesclerks relate to the location of products. This article examines the process of customer orientation in retail stores. It focuses on the impact of the store layout on shoppers’ ability to find products and orient themselves at the point of sale (POS). A number of key hypotheses relating to orientation behavior can be derived from environmental psychology. The cognitive approach in environmental psychology primarily analyzes the “geography of mind.” The findings of brain research, perception theory, and Gestalt theory can also help explain the representation in memory of spatial information – so-called “mental maps” (Golledge 1999; Ittelson et al. 1974; Russell and Ward 1982;). Several empirical studies of store environments (Groeppel-Klein 2001; Groeppel-Klein and Germelmann 2003; Grossbart and Rammohan 1981; Sommer and Aitkens 1982) show evidence of a significant correlation between the existence of mental maps of stores (knowledge of product location, assortment, service points in malls, escalators, etc.) and consumers’ feelings about how convenient the shopping experience is. Furthermore, Reimers and Clulow (2004) find a significant relationship between mental search costs and

5

the perceived convenience of retail spaces: the more detailed the mental map, the less mental effort needed when searching for products. These studies imply that retailers should pay close attention to the way they communicate verbal and non-verbal information to shoppers. For example, landmarks improve shoppers’ mental maps. These landmarks can be merchandising themes (products that are usually used presented side-by-side in the store and portrayed as being “taken from real life”), visually striking elements, or clearly separated aisles and product display zones (Hackett, Foxall, and Van Raij 1993, 389). The overall layout of the store also appears to influence customer orientation. The focus of this paper is on how different store layouts influence the way consumers navigate retail space, recognize and find the products they want, and form mental maps. We draw on the findings of both environmental psychology and neurophysiology, in particular the fact that people exhibit a turning preference to the right (Formisano et al. 2002; Güntürkün 2003; Scharine and McBeath 2002, Underhill 2000).

Environmental psychology and neurophysiology Environmental psychology is a field of psychology that analyzes the influence of different environments (e.g. buildings, rooms, landscapes) on people’s emotions and behavior (Mehrabian 1976). Two different approaches exist – the emotional approach and the cognitive approach. Both approaches provide useful information on how store environments can impact consumer behavior at the POS. The emotional approach concentrates on the emotional reactions of individuals in different environments. By contrast, the cognitive approach tries to determine how individuals perceive and remember environments. The basis for this ability is thought to be mental (i.e. cognitive) maps that are stored in consumers’ memories. These mental maps can

6

be defined as internal representations of external geographical realities and their spatial dimensions (Hackett, Foxall, and Van Raaij 1993, 389). Mental maps are acquired by one’s own motion in space (primary knowledge acquisition) or by drawing on graphical or verbal descriptions of spaces (secondary knowledge acquisition). It is postulated that familiarity with an environment enhances mental maps (Chebat, Gélinas-Chebat, and Therrien 2005, 1595; Dogu and Erkip 2000, 749f.; Evans 1980, 272-275). Accordingly, this factor should be controlled for in empirical studies. It is not yet fully understood how the left and right hemispheres of the brain interact in solving spatial tasks (Kukolja, Marshall, and Fink 2006). In an experimental study, Sack (2003) analyzes this interaction, finding increased activity in the right hemisphere during the performance of spatial tasks. It is important to note that shoppers are able to recreate spatial environments in their minds (e.g. the location of products in a supermarket) even when they are in different locations (Gärling, Böök, and Lindberg 1986). Active imagery processes occur when people retrieve the spatial environment of the store from their memory. In these processes, the left parietal lobe is predominant in producing mental images, while the right parietal lobe specializes in the spatial analysis of the imagined content (Formisano et al. 2002; Sack et al. 2005). Neurological research also suggests that the relevance of cognitive maps for orientation at the POS is an area meriting further research. Retailers often claim that they have implicit knowledge of how to improve shoppers’ orientation. In this study we investigate some of the rules or regularities that appear to influence shoppers’ ease of orientation in one specific retail environment – a discount grocery store.

7

Mental maps Existing research into consumer behavior pays little attention to product location in consumers’ mental maps as a success factor in retailing. One notable exception is a study by Sommer and Aitkens (1982) in which participants had to locate eleven different products on a store map. In the current investigation we try to determine whether the results of this study, conducted some 25 years ago, are still valid today. At the time of Sommer and Aitkens’ study, geographical information systems1 (GIS) were not available. Today, GIS applications are used mainly in the commercial sector, e.g. for the analysis of location queries, optimal routing and distribution. Few studies to date have attempted to combine geographical information technology with consumer behavior, in spite of the fact that the walking behavior of consumers is know to be crucial for retail business (Pun-Cheng and Chu 2004). Sommer and Aitkens also fail to control for moderating variables such as the direction of guidance (counter-clockwise or clockwise) and whether shoppers were right-or lefthanded. Furthermore, they do not investigate the relationship between the number of products correctly plotted on the map and the subjective ease of orientation. The present study thus attempts to replicate this study, but with a modified experimental design. Retail practice, in line with neurophysiologic research, indicates that the direction in which shoppers are guided – i.e. the store layout – may be an important factor in the recognition of product location (used in this study as an operationalization of the accuracy of mental maps). Most German stores (80 %) guide customers through the store in a counterclockwise direction. This is generally justified by the fact that costumers are for the most part right-handed. As a result they should, it is thought, be oriented toward the right. This

1 “GIS is a powerful set of tools for collecting, storing, retrieving at will, transforming and displaying spatial data from the real world for a particular set of purposes” (Burrough and McDonnell 1988, 11). Full information about product location was first collected on a sketch map and then transferred to the GIS. This procedure enabled us to record all the relevant information and then select specific features.

8

assumption is widely accepted in studies of American consumers (thus, for example, Underhill 2000, 76: “American shoppers automatically move to the right”). Neurophysiologic research, however, suggests a different explanation for consumers’ turning preference. Studies indicate that an individual’s turning bias is caused by the hormone dopamine, which is responsible for locomotion. Right-handed individuals normally have a dopamine concentration in the left hemisphere. With healthy, right-handed subjects, the higher the dopamine concentration on the left side of the brain, the more attention (and hence locomotion) is focused on the right (Mead and Hampson 1996; Mohr et al. 2004). Empirical studies mostly report a turning bias to the right (Güntürkün 2003; Mead and Hampson 1996; Scharine and McBeath 2002; Weyers et al. 2006). In addition, LeNoir et al. (2006) distinguish between intrinsic factors (i.e. dopamine levels) and extrinsic factors (i.e. externally imposed constraints). One extrinsic factor, for example, is the fact that when walking toward a table to pick up a cup, the direction of turning will be influenced both by hand preference and the position of the cup. Shoppers, then, generally oriented toward the right. As a result, in a store that is arranged in a clockwise direction, they will frequently look toward the interior of the store. This is especially true when the retail fixtures are no higher than eye level. It has further been suggested that people have a general orientation toward walls and automatically have a look at walls. Appleton (1986) describes this behavior in his Prospect Refuge Theory, which argues that people have an innate desire for security (a wall gives protection), and they want to see as much as possible without being seen themselves. Another example is the fact that diners in restaurants prefer tables that are located close to the walls rather than tables in the middle of the restaurant. In the retail context, shoppers will therefore particularly notice products positioned on aisles close to the walls.

9

In a store that has a clockwise layout, then, customers look both right and left. In a store with a counter-clockwise layout, customers look mainly to the right. This means that shoppers will remember more products and their locations in a store with a clockwise layout than in one with a counter-clockwise layout. This is exemplified in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1: Customer orientation in a store with a clockwise layout

Turning bias to right: Look into the interior

Orientation towards walls: Both predispositions: Look to the walls Look to the right & left

Figure 2: Customer orientation in a store with a counter-clockwise layout

Predominant look to the right

The accuracy of mental maps is also thought to influence shoppers’ subjective perception of stores. We can thus hypothesize that shoppers will have a more positive attitude toward stores with a clockwise layout, as well as finding it easier to navigate them. This leads us to our first hypothesis:

10

H1:

If shoppers are guided in a clockwise direction, they will have a more detailed mental map, evaluate the store more positively, and be willing to spend more money than if they are guided in a counter-clockwise direction.

We also re-examine the central finding of Sommer and Aitkens (1982, 212) that customers remember products located in peripheral aisles better than those located in central aisles. As well as their orientation toward walls, as mentioned above, “cognitive anchors” – e.g. cold shelves or cubicles – occur more frequently in peripheral aisles. Moreover, in peripheral aisles customers are often forced by the store layout to follow a loop. This means that customers pass these aisles more frequently than the central aisles. Irrespective of the store’s counter-clockwise or clockwise layout, peripheral aisles should generally benefit from customers’ orientation toward the walls of the store. This enables us to formulate a second hypothesis, the first part of which is as follows: H2a: Irrespective of the direction of guidance (counter-clockwise or clockwise), customers will recall products located in peripheral aisles better than those located in central aisles. We also wish to investigate whether the accuracy of shoppers’ mental maps increases their perception of how easy it is to orient themselves in the store, and whether this yields a more positive evaluation of the value for money offered. Grossbart and Rammohan (1981) note that precise knowledge of shopping environment, stored in the mental map, decreases the probability of customer’s confusion during shopping trips. A well-structured layout should enhance shoppers’ perception of the ease of orientation, and shoppers may then transfer this positive appraisal to their evaluation of the store’s value for money. A similar process occurs, for example, in the Cognitive Gravity Model, whereby consumers choose not the closest supermarket but the supermarket with the least cognitive distance and greatest

11

cognitive attractiveness (Cadwallader 1981, Timmermans 1993). We express this in the second part of Hypothesis 2: H2b: The more accurate shoppers’ mental maps are, the higher their evaluation of the ease of orientation of the store, and the more favorable their evaluation of the value for money offered. If the direction of guidance influences the accuracy of shoppers’ mental maps, we may reasonably expect this effect for a clockwise layout only. As discussed above, we should also control for familiarity with the store in question (i.e. store patronage) and the frequency of shopping.

Study 1: Mental maps in discount stores Our first study (n = 196) investigated the relationship between store layout, the accuracy of shoppers’ mental maps and their ease of orientation in two stores that were part of a chain of discount grocery stores. Both stores were identical in terms of assortment, prices and shoppers’ familiarity with them. However, in one store, customers were guided clockwise around the store, and in the other, counter-clockwise: in other words, the stores were mirror images of each other. Before entering the store, subjects were asked to indicate on a printed map of the store where they thought eight specific products were located. The products were located in both peripheral and central aisles (as in Sommer and Aitkens 1982). GIS was used to measure the subjects’ level of accuracy in estimating the location of the products, and the products’ actual location (see Figures 4 and 5 in the Appendix). The distance in meters between the estimated and the actual location of all eight products was then calculated: The higher the total distance, the lower the subject’s level of accuracy. Additionally, we considered the different customer

12

orientations implied by the different layouts. The results, shown in Table 1 below, support Hypothesis 1.

Table 1: Results for H1 Levene’s test for equality of variances Dependent variables Hit rate

a

b

Ease of orientation

Perceived value for money

b

Money spent (in euros) a b

Guidance direction Clockwise

n 73

Mean 4.32

Counter-clockwise

82

5.54

Clockwise

91

.25

Counter-clockwise

95

-.24

Clockwise

91

-.06

Counter-clockwise

95

.05

Clockwise

91

9.64

Counter-clockwise

97

6.47

t-test for equality of means Sig. t (2-tailed)

F

Significance

5.949

.016

-2.229

.027

10.439

.001

3.517

.001

2.849

.093

-.732

.465

5.121

.025

2.259

.026

Mean values indicate the average distance in meters between estimated and actual product location Mean values are standardized

Our replication of the study by Sommer and Aitkens (1982) also supports the first part of our second hypothesis, H2a. Overall, subjects located 32.4% of the products that they recalled correctly on the store maps. Of these, 70% were in peripheral aisles and 30% in the interior section (chi square = 17.417, df = 1, p = .000). The results are valid for both stores; however, they are stronger for the store with the clockwise layout. To investigate H2b we tested the influence of mental maps on the perceived ease of orientation and value for money. The findings for H1 imply that such an influence may occur only for the clockwise layout, for which the results were stronger. And, indeed, the results bear this out: Correlations were found to show a significant influence only for the store with the clockwise layout (see Table 2).

13

Table 2: Results for H2b Hit rate

Ease of orientation

Both stores (n= 151)

+.147

Clockwise layout (n= 71 )

+.231

Counter-clockwise layout (n= 80) †

Perceived value for money

† †

Not significant

+.139

†

+.326** Not significant

p < .1; **p < .01

The results of the first study thus confirm our two hypotheses. The findings demonstrate the importance of the turning bias and confirm the relationship between the accuracy of shoppers’ mental maps and their perceived ease of orientation. Two potential problems with the study should be noted. First, when asked to locate products on the store map, some subjects may have simply pointed to any location rather than admitting that they did not know. Furthermore, some participants may lack visualization or drawing skills. Although Rovine and Weisman (1989) found a significant relationship between sketch-map variables as a predictor of way-finding performance for a downtown area, some participants in our study may not have been familiar with floor plans. As a result they may have achieved lower scores for pointing accuracy even though they knew where the product was located in fact. Clearly, this problem would affect the findings for both stores equally. In order to validate the findings it would be necessary to conduct search experiments involving simulated shopping tasks; this might also reveal the different ways consumers travel through stores.

Travel patterns Titus and Everett (1995, 1996) analyze the different travel patterns and search strategies used by consumers as they navigate retail space. Titus and Everett use a protocol technique in which shoppers are asked to comment on their actions and their path decisions while being

14

recorded on tape. The main goal of their study was to describe the basic mechanism that underlies consumer search strategies at the POS and to develop a conceptual model of shoppers’ retail search process. However, their study also revealed that many in-store search errors occur due to difficulties in understanding the store environment and lack of product or assortment knowledge. In other words, customers often simply do not know where the products are. In an exploratory study, Larson, Bradlow, and Fader (2005) equipped shopping carts with RFID chips that report the location of the cart in the store every five seconds. This produced a large set of quantitative data, which enabled the investigators to group the different travel patterns through the store into clusters. The high number of observations and the innovative clustering technique form a particularly valuable contribution to our understanding of the subject. One key finding of the study was that shoppers can be grouped into short-distance and long-distance shoppers (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Examples of short- and long-distance shoppers (Larson et al. 2005, 408, 411)

Despite its value, Larson et al. (2005) has a number of shortcomings. For example, the investigators did not know what tasks the subjects were actually completing. Thus shoppers

15

walking long distances through the store may have done so because they could not find the product they wanted, or because they wanted to buy many different products. Also, household size and income may influence purchases; and, of course, the RFID chip only tracks the path of the shopping cart – not of the customer. As a result, no conclusions regarding shopping efficiency are possible. Titus and Everett (1995, 1996) and Larson et al. (2005) highlight the relevance of shoppers’ orientation at the POS. However, they do not investigate the relationship between orientation and efficiency. Accordingly we decided to perform a second study looking at stores with counter-clockwise and clockwise layouts. In this second study, participants carried out set shopping tasks. The main goal of the study was to investigate the efficiency with which actual products could be found, as reflected by the distance traveled by shoppers. We assume that grocery shoppers try to minimize their effort in order to maximize the benefits of their shopping trip, for example the amount of time spent in the store (Bitgood and Dukes 2006). Gärling and Gärling (1988) have demonstrated that in downtown areas, consumers try to minimize walking distance. Our hypothesis was that if the clockwise layout is indeed superior to the counter-clockwise layout, consumers should cover shorter distances in locating products in a clockwise-oriented store. In other words, shopping efficiency should be influenced by a clockwise layout and the mental maps it creates. This is expressed in our third hypothesis: H3:

In a clockwise store layout, significantly more consumers will belong to the group of “efficient shoppers” (in terms of distance and/or time) than in a counter-clockwise layout.

Once again, it was necessary to control for participants’ familiarity with the store and the frequency of their shopping trips. In addition, it was necessary to control the accuracy of their mental maps.

16

Study 2: Travel pattern in discount stores Study 2 uses a similar research design to Study 1, with two stores that were part of a chain of discount grocery stores with identical assortment and prices, but a different direction of guidance (counter-clockwise or clockwise store layout). This time, however, subjects (n = 76) were asked to shop for eight specific products (after which they could complete their own shopping). This enabled us to analyze their travel pattern, which reflects the different levels of shopping efficiency for a specific shopping task. Subjects were not told the objective of the study and a pointing task was carried out only after the experiment, so as not to reveal its purpose. During the experiment, two disguised observers kept track of the walking behavior of the participants. Unlike Larson et al. (2005), we analyzed the aisles used by subjects irrespective of whether they took their shopping cart with them or not. The observers also noted whether the subjects found the products they were looking for and if they asked a salesclerk for help. The inter-coder reliability between the two observers was acceptable (Cohens Kappa = .919). The study found no significant difference between the number of products located in the two different store layouts. On average, participants found seven items correctly in both stores. However, differences occurred in the amount of time spent locating items. We discuss these differences below. As in Study 1, we used GIS to process the data. The distance in meters covered by the subjects was standardized. We then placed subjects in one of two groups: “short-distance shoppers” (those needing a short distance to complete the task) and “long-distance shoppers” (those needing a long distance). Importantly for H3, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding store patronage and shopping frequency.

17

The results of the analysis, given in Table 3, support our third hypothesis. Significantly more shoppers traveled a shorter distance in completing the given shopping task in the store with the clockwise layout than in the store with the counter-clockwise layout.

Table 3: Results for H3 Clockwise layout 3 (n = 39)

Counter-clockwise layout 4 (n = 37)

Short-distance shoppers

27

14

Long-distance shoppers

12

23 Chi square = 7.532, df = 1, p = .011

Time spent locating products

0:05:38

0:06:17

Table 4 shows the results of the pointing task, the time spent locating products, enquiries made to salesclerks and the perceived ease of the task (established by means of a short questionnaire carried out after the experiment).

Table 4: Characteristics of the shopper groups Pointing task experiment: distance between actual and estimated locations

Time spent locating the 8 products

Short-distance shoppers

5.81 meters

Long-distance shoppers

7.63 meters

Perceived ease of task (percentage finding it easy)

04:57 minutes

Percentage of subjects asking salesclerks about product locations 22.5%

07:07 minutes

42.9%

57.1%

82.5%

Short-distance shoppers, then, have a more detailed mental map of the location of the products in the store and perceive the task of locating them as easy. This affects their behavior: They complete the task faster and do not need the assistance of salesclerks – an important consideration for retailers. In terms of how much money shoppers spend in the store, the results of the study are not significant (on the 5 % level). However, there is a clear tendency for short-distance shoppers to spend more money than long-distance shoppers (see Table 5).

18

Table 5: Differences in amount of money spent

Dependent variable Money spent

Distance covered Short-distance shoppers

n 37

Mean (in EUR) 20.93

Long-distance shoppers

35

16.14

Levene’s test for equality of variances F

Significance

1.263

.265

t-test for equality of means Significance t (2-tailed) 1.693

.095

To allow for possible factors influencing the amount of money spent, we also recorded details of the household size and income for the two groups; no significant difference was found between the two groups. We thus conclude that the old adage that “the longer the time spent in the store, the more money spent” is not true if shoppers in fact waste a lot of time in the store walking up and down trying to find the products that they want to buy.

Future research and implications for retailers The methods used in the studies reported here are useful tools for investigating customer orientation at the POS: Observation is a valuable technique in studying the actual behavior of shoppers, and pointing tasks combined with GIS can efficiently measure the accuracy of shoppers’ mental maps. Further research in different retail categories is needed in order to understand fully how shoppers’ turning bias and orientation toward the walls of stores functions, and how these two phenomena interact at the POS. Sample size should be increased. In addition, hidden observation of the actual behavior of shoppers not involved in the experiment would strengthen the results and add greater validity. The results of our investigation indicate that the anchoring of spatial information (i.e. the location of products) in shoppers’ minds is a key factor for retail success. The more information anchored in the mental map, the more positive the customer’s (approach) behavior.

19

Both our studies show that retail layout impacts on the formation of shoppers’ mental maps – such maps are improved by the direction of guidance and the product location. Contrary to the belief of some retailers, we find that a clockwise store orientation makes the best use of shoppers’ turning bias. Our replication of the study by Sommer and Aitkens (1982) shows the validity of GIS as a tool for measuring the accuracy of mental maps. Their key finding still holds today: products located on shelves in peripheral aisles are remembered better than those located in central aisles. One explanation for the superiority of stores with a clockwise layout could be the fact that this is an unusual layout for stores today. The unfamiliar layout may arouse shoppers’ attention and stimulate them more than in familiar, counter-clockwise stores, leading to an increase in the accuracy of the shoppers’ mental maps. Further study would be necessary to determine whether, in the long term, stores with clockwise layouts would continue to perform better if this layout was adopted by the majority of stores.

20

References Appleton, Jay (1986), The Experience of Landscape, Hull: University Press. Bitgood, Stephen and Stephany Dukes (2006), “NOT ANOTHER STEP! Economy of Movement and Pedestrian Choice Point Behavior in Shopping Malls,” Environment and Behavior, 38 (3), 394-405. Burrough, Peter A. and Rachael A. McDonnell (1988), Principles of Geographical Information Systems, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cadwallader, Martin (1981), “Towards a Cognitive Gravity Model: The Case of Consumer Spatial Behaviour,” Regional Studies, 15 (4), 275-284. Chandon, Pierre, J. Wesley Hutchinson, and Scott H. Young, (2002): “Unseen is unsold: Assessing visual equity with commercial eye-tracking data,” (Working Paper No. 2002/85/MKT), Fontainebleu: INSEAD. Chebat, Jean-Charles, Claire Gélinas-Chebat, and Karina Therrien (2005), “Lost in a mall, the effects of gender, familiarity with the shopping mall and the shopping values on shoppers’ way finding processes,” Journal of Business Research, 58, 1590-1598. Dogu, Ufuk and Feyzan Erkip (2000), “Spatial Factors Affecting Wayfinding and Orientation: A Case Study in a Shopping Mall,” Environment and Behavior, 32, 731755. Evans, Gary W. (1980), “Environmental Cognition,” Psychological Bulletin, 88, 259-287. Formisano, Elia, David E.J. Linden, Francesco Di Salle, Luigi Trojano, Alexander T. Sack, Dario Grossi., Friedhelm E. Zanella, F., and Rainer Goebel (2002), “Tracking the Mind’s Image in the Brain I: Time-Resolved fMRI during Visuospatial Mental Imagery,” Neuron, 35, 185-194. Gärling, Tommy, Anders Böök, and Erik Lindberg, (1986), “Spatial orientation and

21

wayfinding in the designed environment: A conceptual analysis and some suggestions for postoccupancy evaluation,” Journal of Architectural Planning Resources, 3, 5564. Gärling, Tommy and E. Gärling (1988), “Distance minimization in downtown pedestrian shopping,” Environment and Planning A, 20, 547-554. Golledge, Reginald G. (1999), “Human Wayfinding and Cognitive Maps,” In Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial Processes, ed. Reginald G. Golledge, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 5-45. Groeppel-Klein, Andrea (2001), “The avoidance of usury-images evoked by exclusive storedesigns,” in Rethinking European Marketing, Proceedings from the 30th EMAC conference, ed. Einar Breivik, Andreas W. Falkenberg and Kjell Grønhaug, Bergen: The Norwegian School of Economics & Business Administration, 193-200. Groeppel-Klein, Andrea and Claas Christian Germelmann (2003), “Minding the Mall: Do We Remember What We See?,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 30, ed. Punam Anand Keller and Dennis W. Rook, Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer Research, 56-67. Grossbart, Sanford L., and Balusu Rammohan (1981), “Cognitive Maps and Shopping Convenience,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 8, ed. Kent B. Monroe and Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 128-133. Güntürkün, Onur (2003), “Adult persistence of head-turning asymmetry,” Nature, 421, 711. Hackett, Paul M. W., Gordon R. Foxall, and W. Fred Van Raaij (1993), “Consumers in Retail Environments,” in Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches, ed. Tommy Gärling and Reginald G. Golledge, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier, 378-99. Ittelson, William H., Harold Proshansky, Leanne Rivlin, and Gary Winkler (1974), An

22

introduction to environmental psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Kukolja, Juraj, John C. Marshall, and Gereon R. Fink, (2006), “Neural mechanisms underlying spatial judgements on seen and imagined visual stimuli in the left and right hemifields in men,” Neuropsychologia, 44, 2846-2860. Larson, Jeffrey, Eric, Bradlow, and Peter Fader, (2005), “An exploratory look at supermarket shopping paths,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22, 395-414. LeNoir, Matthieu, Sophie Van Overschelde, Myriam De Rycke, and Eliane Musch, (2006), “Intrinsic and extrinsic factors of turning preferences in humans,” Neuroscience Letters, 393 (2-3), 179-183. Mead, Larissa A. And Elizabeth Hampson, (1996), “A sex difference in turning bias in humans,” Behavioural Brain Research, 78, 73-79. Mehrabian, Albert (1976), Public places and private spaces: The psychology of work, play, and living environments, New York: Basic Books. Mohr, Christine, Peter Brugger, H. Stefan Bracha, Theodor Landis, and Isabelle ViaudDelmon, (2004), “Human side preferences in three different whole-body movement tasks.” Behavioural Brain Research, 151, 321-326. POPAI (1997), Consumer Buying Habits Study, Washington DC: Point of Purchase Advertising Institute. Pun-Cheng, Lilian and Alice Chu (2004), “An Analysis of Shoppers Walking Behaviour by Using GIS”, XXth ISPRS Congress, 301-304. Reimers, Vaughan and Val Clulow (2004), “Retail concentration: a comparison of spatial convenience in shopping strips and shopping centers,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 11 (4), 207-21.

23

Rovine, Michael and Gerald Weisman (1989), “Sketch-map variables as predictors of wayfinding performance,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 217-232. Russell, James A. and Lawrence M. Ward (1982), “Environmental psychology,” Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 651-688. Sack, Alexander T. (2003). Tracking the mind’s image in the brain. Combining evidence from fMRI and rTMS: A multi-methodological approach to the experimental investigation of functional brain-behavior-relationships in the domain of visuospatial processing and visual mental imagery. Frankfurt (Main), Univ., Diss. Sack, Alexander T., Joan A. Camprodon, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, and Rainer Goebel (2005), “The dynamics of inter-hemispheric compensatory processes in mental imagery,” Science, 308 (29.04.2005), 702-704. Scharine, Angelique A. And Michael K. McBeath (2002), Right-Handers and Americans Favor Turning to the Right,” Human Factors, 44 (1), 248-256. Sommer, Robert, and Susan Aitkens (1982), “Mental Mapping of Two Supermarkets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 211-215. Timmermans, Harry (1993), “Retail Environments and Spatial Shopping Behavior,” in Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches, ed. Tommy Gärling and Reginald G. Golledge, Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier, 342-77. Titus Philip. A. and Peter B. Everett (1995), “The consumer retail search process: a conceptual mode and research agenda,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (2), 106-119. Titus, Philip A. and Peter B. Everett (1996), “Consumer Wayfinding Tasks, Strategies, and Errors: An Exploratory Field Study,” Psychology & Marketing, 13 (3), 265-90. Underhill, Paco (2000), Why we buy, New York: Touchstone.

24

Weyers, Peter, Annette Milnik, Clarissa Müller, and Paul Pauli (2006), “How to choose a seat in theatres: Always sit on the right side?,” Laterality, 11(2), 181-193.

25

Appendix Figure 4: Counter-clockwise discount store

Figure 5: Clockwise discount store