Visual aesthetics in store environment and its moderating role on consumer intention

Visual aesthetics in storeenvironment and its moderatingrole on consumer intentionValter Afonso Vieira*Federal University of Parana (UFPR), CEPPAD/UFPR, Av. Pref. Lothario Meissner,

632/Campus III – Jardim Botanico, 80210-170, Curitiba, PR, Brazil

� The paper goal is to answer the following questions: What are the factors of centrality of

visual aesthetic design (CVSA) in store environment? What factor explains better the

construct? Is there a relationship between CVSA and consumers’ intentions, such as

loyalty, satisfaction, minutes, item, and $ spent inside store? What is the moderating role

of store visual aesthetic design on consumer intentions? The research design was a 2�2

design, between subjects, which we manipulated store arousal (high vs. low) and CVSA

(high vs. low) in two studies. The findings supported the theory that there are three CVSA

dimensions; that there is a positive relationship between CVSA and consumer satisfaction,

loyalty, items bought, minutes visiting the store, and $ spent; and that high (vs. low) CVSA

consumers were more discriminating in their intentions, when the environment had a

high arousal. The original value is to support the notion that consumers also evaluate,

beyond products, visual aesthetic components in retail and that it plays amoderating role

on consumer intention.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

It is not surprising that consumers increasinglymake brand choices based on goods’ aestheticvalue and distinctiveness of visual design(Dumaine, 1991; Schmitt and Simonson,1997). If a product has superior aesthetic designit may be preferred over its concurrents, sincethenoveltymay attract consumer attention.Theaestheticdesign relevance is sodiscussedonarts

literature and practice that some awards werecreated to support the best visual appearance.For instance, the National Design Award con-ceived by the Smithsonian’s Cooper-Hewitt,National Design Museum has as goal to honorthe best in American design.

Product design is a broad term that includesa considerable range of engineering-relatedattributes such as ergonomics, productionefficiency, strength, recyclability, and distri-bution ease, as well as aesthetics (Davis, 1987;Bloch, 1995). From these different ways ofevaluating goods, product design can be alsoanalyzed based on its visual aesthetics value.

Although much research is done on productvisual aesthetic design (Ingarden, 1983;

Journal of Consumer BehaviourJ. Consumer Behav. 9: 364–380 (2010)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.324

*Correspondence to: Valter Afonso Vieira, Federal Uni-versity of Parana (UFPR), CEPPAD/UFPR, Av. Pref.Lothario Meissner, 632/Campus III – Jardim Botanico,80210-170, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Sept.–Oct. 2010

DOI: 10.1002/cb

Bamossy et al., 1985; Childers et al., 1985;eryzer, 1993; Yalch and Brunel, 1996; Creusenet al., 2005), there is no consensus about thevisual aesthetics appearance existent insidestore environment.In that sense, understand ergonomics,

space distribution, colors, dimension, light,and structure in stores remains as outstandingfield for research in consumer behavior,since in the last years retailers are investingsignificant more resources on aesthetic retailsurroundings. Figure 1 presents one of theseexamples. It shows Apple Glass Store on 5thAvenue at New York that created a differentand innovative aesthetic environment to itsclients, supposing that this atmosphere willinfluence consumer intention.In this paper, we are interested in the visual

aesthetics hold for a particular consumer in his/her relationshipwith store atmosphere.We aresupposing that store environment also hasvisual aesthetic design that can be measuredand is relevant to consumer loyalty and satis-faction. In that sense, we extend the literatureconcerning centrality of aesthetic design tostore environment, aspect not done before.Thus, for the goal established here, we

modified the original Centrality of VisualProduct Aesthetics’ (CVPA). According toBloch et al. (2003), CVPA is the overall levelof significance that visual aesthetics hold for

a particular consumer in his/her relationshipwith products (p. 552). Note that the constructconceptual definition is applied only onproducts. However, since we are concernedin to comprehend the phenomenon of aes-thetics design promoted by stores environ-ment, from now we shall use the followingterm: Centrality of Visual Store Aesthetics(CVSA). While the aesthetic term covers abroad range of phenomena, CVSA refers toaesthetics in its narrow (yet common) sense asan artistically beautiful or pleasing appearanceinside stores.Store visual aesthetics influence consumers’

perceptions in several ways, justifying thisstudy. First, superior visual design can dis-tinguish store environment from its competi-tors and help firms gain recognition in acrowded marketplace (Bloch, 1995). Forinstance, what are the stores environmentdifferences on Versace, Calvin Klein and Dolceand Gabbana that made the buy behaviormore pleasure? Second, visual aesthetics havea symbolic function that may influence howan atmosphere is comprehended and evalu-ated. For example, does the Subway Fast Foodenvironment symbolize a wealthy company?Does the McDonalds Fast Food atmosphererepresent a funny-youthful corporation? Third,research supports that store aesthetics doinfluence consumer perceptions of store brand

Figure 1. Apple Glass Store on 5th Avenue at New York (investments on store aesthetic design).


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Visual aesthetics in store environment and consumer intention 365

quality (Richardson et al., 1996), but theresearchers did not present which factorsrepresent aesthetic design.Because of these concerns, we did two

experiments analyzing the CVSA structure, itsimpact on consumer intentions, and theconstruct moderating role. Specifically, thisresearch inquired about the following ques-tions:

(1) What are the factors of visual aestheticdesign in store environment?

(2) What factor explains better the store aes-thetic design?

(3) Is there relationship between CVSA andconsumers’ intentions, such as loyalty,satisfaction, minutes, item, and $ spentinside store?

(4) What is the moderating role of store visualaesthetics design on consumer intentions?

The paper is structured as follow: first, wereviewed the literature concerning the threedimensions of CVSA, which is adapted fromCVPA (Bloch et al., 2003). Then, we presentedthe arguments that CVSA moderates therelationship between arousal and consumerreactions. The two research were a 2� 2design in which we manipulated store arousal(high vs. low) and CVSA (high vs. low). Theresults supported the theory that there arethree CVSA dimensions; that there is a positiverelationship between CVSA and consumerintention; and that high CVSA consumerswere more discriminating than low CVSA con-sumers in their purposes, when the environ-ment has a high (vs. low) arousal.

Theory

Visual aesthetics definition

Despite the fact that there does not appear tobe a generally accepted definition of aestheticresponse, there is relative consensus about theconcept of an aesthetic response (Bamossyet al., 1983). Berlyne (1974) suggests that awork of art can be regarded as a stimuluspattern whose collative (structural) propertiesgive it a positive intrinsic hedonic value. When

we say that something has a ‘‘positive intrinsichedonic value’’ we mean that contact with itis pleasurable, rewarding, etc., in itself and notbecause it affords access to other events withbeneficial or noxious qualities. This is closeto what aestheticians have meant when theyhave spoken of art as an ‘‘end in itself’’ or ofaesthetic appreciation as ‘‘disinterested’’ (Ber-lyne, 1974, p. 8).

Aesthetic responses involve an affectivereaction to the object (e.g., Veryzer, 1993;Cupchik, 1994). For example, in looking ata beautiful or excitant store a person mighthave a positive affective response, namely inexperiencing pleasure. If the person does notperceive the store as beautiful, the resultingaffective reaction might be neutral or evennegative. Holbrook and Zirlin (1985) defineaesthetic response as a deeply felt experiencethat is enjoyed purely for its own sake withoutregard for other more practical considerations(p. 21). In practice, aesthetic retail responsemeans an affective reaction to different andunconventional stores. Figure 2 presents theaesthetic design of Nike ID store. It maysuggest an affective response such as plannedand modern.

In this paper, centrality of visual storeaesthetic is the overall level of significancethat centrality of visual aesthetics hold for aparticular consumer in his/her relationshipwith store (Bloch et al., 2003, p. 552), rangingfrom near zero to very high levels.

Based on that definition and on Bloch et al.(2003) arguments, CVSA is assumed to havethree related facets: (1) the value a consumerassigns to a store environment in enhancingpersonal and even societal well being, (2)acumen, or the ability to recognize, categorize,or evaluate product designs, and (3) the levelof response to visual design aspects ofproducts.

Personal and social value of design

The first dimension comprising CVSA is theperceived value of visual product aesthetic asa means of enhancing quality of life, both


DOI: 10.1002/cb

366 Valter Afonso Vieira

personally and for society in general. Yalchand Brunel (1996) suggested that on andindividual level, consumers with high CPVAbelieve that encounters with beautiful objectspositively influence the quality of their dailylives or allow them to satisfy higher-levelneeds. According to Bloch et al. (2003), therewards they receive from the aestheticproperties of products are recognized andheld dear.

The value dimension captures the tendencyfor beautiful objects or styles to be deemedsacred by consumers. Belk, Wallendorf andSherry (1998) introduced the concept ofsacred possessions where particular objectsare highly valued by a consumer and aretreated in a reverential manner as extensionsof the self. According to Cornfield andEdwards (1983), one way an object maybecome sacred is through quintessence, whichmeans that objects have variously been described

as unique, magically desirable, wonderful,authentic, and unequivocally right. Sexton(1981) profiled and photographed a set of130 products that are frequently describedas quintessential such as Chris-Craft woodenspeedboats and Eames chairs. He attributedtheir quintessence to superior design attri-butes. Based on this evidence, it may be arguedthat high CVSA consumers sacralize products/stores based on their superior designs orquintessence.Bloch et al. (2003) commented that con-

sumer with high visual aesthetics centralityare also likely to believe that fine design isvaluable to society (e.g. Giorgio Armani Stores)and to consider that the quality of life foreveryone is affected by the quality of thedesigned environment.

Acumen

According to Osborne (1986), acumen reflectsan ability to recognize, categorize, and evaluateproduct designs and is expected to vary withina population. Berlyne (1971) argued thatsome people are endowed with more aesthetictaste than others are; inducing to the evaluativeaspect. Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson (1990)extensively discussed the good eye or a giftfor analyzing the visual arts. They argued mostpeople in our culture are not aware of therange and intensity of the enjoyable experi-ences available to them through the sense ofvision (p. 2).In consumer research, there are papers

indicating that some consumers are favorvisual over verbal processing and that highlyvisual individuals may give greater weight toaesthetic elements in making product choicethan do less visual processors (Bloch et al.,2003). Consumers with high acumen shouldbe able to see subtle differences in storedesigns and imagine how the environmentalclimate will fit in, inducing to buy more items.

Response

Beautiful objects (e.g. innovative furniture,wall colors) have the capacity to generatesignificant responses among consumers. Ingar-

Figure 2. Larger Environment at Nike ID—ConceptStore.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


den (1983) theorized that reactions to designof an object vary from practical to theaesthetic, with the latter having the potentialto be quite strong. Responses to the design ofobjects have valence as well as intensity,where certain forms or designs will generatepositive responses in a particular consumerwhile others evoke negative reactions (Blochet al., 2003).Response denotes an environment that

looks seems to reach out and grab people. Itmeans a way of evaluating things. Csikszent-mihalyi and Robinson (1990) characterizedaesthetic responses as a state of intenseenjoyment characterized by feelings ofpersonal wholeness, a sense of discovery anda sense of human connectedness (p. 178).The literature has suggested that an attributionprocess where initial reactions to design areprimarily emotional with cognitions followingin an attempt to analyze one’s feelings(Csikszentmihalyi and Robinson, 1990).Following the arguments presented, one

might expect that the analysis to result in athree-factorial solution in which value loadon one factor, response on other, and acumenload on another factor. Thus, we supposedthat:

H1: There are three CVSA dimensions; they

are classified as value, response and acu-

men.

CVSA and its relationship with

consumer intentions

Store environment could affect shoppers’behaviors in several ways (Lam, 2001). Certainresponse of human being to atmosphere maybe conditioned or hard-wired in the humanbrain (Bitner, 1992). For example, for a storelayout in a racetrack form, shoppers mayfollow the path defined by the layout withlittle thought or emotion aroused by thelayout (Levy and Weitz, 1998).Aesthetics can exert a significant influence

on consumer behavior (Veryzer, 1993).

Dumaine (1991) and Schmitt and Simonson(1997) supported that consumers increasinglymake brand choices based on aesthetic valueand distinctiveness of visual design. Heilbrunn(1999) found that aesthetic evaluation influ-enced product attitudes. Pan and Zinkhan(2006), in their meta-analytic review, foundthat store atmosphere had a positive impact onretail choice (14 effect sizes; rcorrected¼ 0.42)and that that store attitude had a positiveimpact on frequency to visit (5 effect sizes;rcorrected¼ 0.33). Hence, we assume that

H2: There is a positive relationship

between CVSA and consumer (a) satisfac-

tion, (b) loyalty, (c) items bought, (d)

minutes visiting the store, and (e) $ spent.

Moderating effect of CVSA

We supposed that CVSA individual levelsinfluence consumer intention in store environ-ment. According to initially theorized by Blochet al. (2003), we expected an interactive effectwhere the superior store design generatesmore positive reactions overall, when con-sumers have a high score on CVSA. Thus, ourchief hypothesis is that CVSA interacts withretail arousal to produce different reactions.In that sense, high CVSA consumers should bemore (vs. less) discriminating inside high (vs.low) arousal environment (Mehrabian andRussel, 1974) in generating response. On theother side, low CVSA consumers should beless (vs. more) discriminating inside high (vs.low) arousal environment in inducingresponse. This interactive process is an ordinalmoderating effect. In that sense:

H3: In high CVSA consumers, who per-

ceived a more aggressive and innovative

store environment, the difference between

reactions to the low and high arousal

atmosphere would be more salient than

the difference between the analogous

reactions of low CVSA consumers.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Study 1

Measures

The constructs used in this research and theirconceptual definitions are presented as fol-lows: CVSA is the overall level of significancethat visual aesthetic hold for a particularconsumer in his/her relationship with retail.CVSA was measured by an adaptated 11 item-scale suggested by Bloch et al. (2003).Satisfaction is defined as the consumer’sfulfillment response. It is a judgment that aproduct or service feature provided (or beingproviding) a pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfillment, including levels of underor over fulfillment (Oliver, 1997, p .13).Satisfaction contained 3-items suggested byVieira and Damacena (2007). Store loyalty isthe intention to buy at the same place again, orcustomer retention rate (Baker et al., 1992).The loyalty scale had 4-item proposed by Bakeret al. (1992). Arousal is an affective dimensionranging from sleep to frantic excitement. TheP-A-D instrument contained 6-item was used. Itwas proposed byMehrabian and Russel (1974).Beyond loyalty and satisfaction, we use threevariables to measure consumer intentions.They were minutes inside store, items boughtand $ spendwere measured as open questions.For instance, how long you should be inthat store? ___ minutes. All scales weremeasured in a six-point Likert format. P-A-Dscale used a differential semantic format (seeAppendix A).

Procedure

Participants were recruited from a Call Centercompany in Brazil capital. The announcementsasked the addressees to participate, respond-ing the questionnaire with two store photoattached. We got the Hugo Boss store photosfrom Internet. It represents the store concept,defined as: Hugo Boss Black-and-White (twophotos) and Hugo Boss Orange (other twophotos). We are interested in the disparitybetween Black-and-White and Orange, sincethe latter represents a more innovative and

aggressive visual design (high arousal) andthe first is a calm-low arousal environment.Regarding the photographs we selected thembased on high and low arousal, based on colors(similar to Kaltcheva and Weitz, 2006). Thearousal manipulation involved varying threevisual elements of the stimulus shoppingenvironment: (1) complexity (the number ofnon-redundant elements in an environment),(2) color warmth (the warmth–coolness colorcontinuum has been identified as red, yellow,green, and blue), and (3) color saturation (thesubjective experience of a wavelength’s spec-tral purity). Higher complexity, warmer colors,and higher color saturation all increase arousal.Theories explain that manipulating thesecolor-choices stimulates a state of high orlow arousal (Hogg 1969; Berlyne, 1971; Jacobsand Hustmyer, 1974; Mehrabian and Russel,1974). We did not use a panel of retailexperts. If the manipulation check were notsupported, we eliminated the photos. Figure 3

Figure 3. Hugo BossOrange (orange and yellow colors—high arousal).


DOI: 10.1002/cb


presents an example of Hugo Boss Orangephoto. We conducted Study 1 as a 2 (CVSA:high vs. low)� 2 (arousal: high vs. low)between-subjects experiment.

Sample features

A sample of N¼ 165 Brazilian subjects partici-pated in the main study, 53 men and 112women, between 19 and 49 years of age(M¼ 25, SD¼ 5.48). Questions such as min-utes inside store, items bought and $ spendwere asked. Note that these are intentionsand not behaviors. Consumers responded thatthey could be in the store by Mminutes¼ 45.21(range 0 to 410; SD¼ 48.49). Clients repliedthat they could buy an average ofMitems¼ 2.84(range 0 to 12; SD¼ 2.16) and respondentscould spend R$ Mmean¼R$ 318.20 (range 0to 2000.00; SD¼ 315; US$ 1.00¼R$ 1.70;Euro $1¼R$ 2,80).

Results

All items of CVSA were scored using a six-pointLikert format with higher scores representinggreater levels of aesthetic design. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, 0.85, and Bartlett test,1,194/55; p< 0.000, were used to determinethe appropriateness of factor analysis.

As a measure of internal consistency,Cronbach’s coefficient a (Cronbach, 1951)was calculated separately for the three factorsand for the entire scale. For value consistingof four stimuli, the internal consistency wasa¼ 0.83. For acumen, having of four stimuli,the internal consistency was a¼ 0.89. Forresponse, consisting of four stimuli, theinternal consistency was a¼ 0.78.

The first hypothesis assumed that thereare three CVSA dimensions; they are classifiedas value, response and acumen. Accordingto Table 1, we supported that premise. Wecan note that the first factor captured theacumen facet of visual aesthetics centrality,

Table 1. Exploratory factor analysis of CVSA scale (Study 1)

Variables 1 2 3

acum2: I see things in a store designthat other people tend to pass over

0.94 0.08 �0.11

acum1: Being able to see subtle difference in storedesign is one skill that I have developed over time

0.84 �0.08 0.15

acum4: I have a pretty good Idea of what makesone store look better than its competitors

0.28 0.55 0.08

acum3: I have the ability to imagine how a storewill fit in with designs of other things I already own

0.68 0.14 0.04

respo3: When I see a store that has a reallygreat design, I feel a strong urge to buy it

0.08 0.84 �0.16

respo2: If a store’s design really speaks to me,I fell that I must buy it

�0.07 0.83 0.14

respo1: Sometimes the way a store looksseems to reach out and grab me

�0.01 0.45 0.30

value1: Owning stores that have superior designsmakes me fell good about myself

0.08 0.03 0.87

value4: Beautiful store design make ourworld a better place to live

�0.02 0.05 0.56

value2: I enjoy seeing displays of storethat have superior designs

0.38 �0.04 0.51

value3: A store design is a source of pleasure for me 0.38 0.13 0.41

Note: Extraction method: principal axis factoring; oblimin with Kaiser normatization; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin¼ 0.85;Bartletts Test¼ 1194 (d.f.¼ 55); lowest communalities response1¼ 0.41; eigenvalues¼ 5.87; 1.26 and 1.02; factorcorrelation between factor 1 and 2¼ 0.51; factor 1 and 3¼ 0.55 and factor 2 and 3¼ 0.44.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


41%. This dimension suggests that acumenreproduces a capability to distinguish, classify,and assess Hugo Boss environment design.The second factor captured 12% of variance.Response dimension symbolizes the capacityto generate significant response about superiordesign and displays. This factor supports thenotion that this different store evoked salientresponses from consumers. The third factorcaptured 10% of variance. Value indicatesthe consumer ability to recognize and evaluateHugo Boss environment.The next step was to assess scale structure.

We used confirmatory factor analysis forsuch propose. Concurrent models with thevariance–covariance matrix were estimatedusing AMOS (Byrne, 2001). Model A has threefactors with correlation free. This model isbased on initial theory of Bloch et al. (2003).Model B is the same as model A; however, thecorrelation fixed in 0, assuming no correlation.We presume that the three CSVA factors do notassociated each other. Model C is a higherorder construct with three factors. We assumea second order construct. Model D is aunidimensional construct. The results indi-cated that the model A had the best perform-ance, supporting the literature discussed(Table 2). We follow the procedures did byDuhachek and Oakley (2007), which mappingdifferent hierarchical structure of coping,comparing their adjustments.However, the problem with these models

is that the structural indexes were poor. Forinstance, AGFI, GFI, and NFI were all under0.90 and RMSEA was above 0.08 (McDonaldand Ho, 2002). It denotes that the theoreticalmodel does not fit well on the real data. It is

important to comment that we did not modify,alter, or exclude variables in the model or wedid not correlate variables error, aiming toimprove the adjustments. It is possible toimprove the models, but we prefer do notmanipulate the statistics. Note that Hox andBechger (1998) explain that perfect fit may betoo much to ask for, instead, the problem is toassess how well a given model approximatesthe true model (p. 9).After we analyzed the rival models, we

tested the hypothesis that CVSA has influenceon consumer intention. Table 3 supportsthis assumption, since there is a linear positiverelationship between CVSA and consumersatisfaction, loyalty, items bought, minutesvisiting the store and $ spent. CVSA Value wasassociated with acumen r¼ 0.69 (p< 0.000)and with response r¼ 0.52 (p< 0.000) andacumen was correlated with response r¼ 0.60(p< 0.000). The CVSA global scale wasassociated positively with all other constructs.It suggests that visual aesthetic design influ-enced consumer intentions. Specifically, CVSAhad a positive impact on loyalty (r¼ 0.51),satisfaction (r¼ 0.52), minutes inside store(r¼ 0.21), $ spent (r¼ 0.25) and items(r¼ 0.15). The average variance extracted(AVE) was higher than the squared correlation,suggesting discriminant validity (Fornell andLarcker, 1981).


To test the hypothesis that CVSA moderatesthe association between arousal and response,we used a 2� 2 factorial design. We manipu-lated arousal by presenting two Hugo Boss

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis (Study 1)

Concurrent models x2/DF GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMSEA

A. 3 factors with correlation free 5.02�� 0.82 0.72 0.83 0.86 0.16B. 3 factors without correlation 8.55�� 0.73 0.59 0.69 0.72 0.21C. Higher order model 5.02�� 0.82 0.72 0.83 0.86 0.16D. One factor (overall) 8.30�� 0.70 0.55 0.70 0.73 0.21

Note: Maximum likelihood estimation; no correlations and/or modification among errors were used.��

p< 0.001.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


photos of high arousal or two of low arousal. Aspredicted, Hugo Boss Orange had a highermean on arousal when comparing with HugoBoss Black-and-White (Mhigh arousal¼ 4.30 vs.Mlow arousal¼ 3.84; t (163)¼ 3.11; p< 0.002). Itsupports the manipulation check procedure.CVSA groups were created by sharing thegroups by median split (median¼ 4.30), whichis a common procedure in the literature(Voorhees and Brady, 2005; Bell and Lud-dington, 2006; Evanschitzky and Wunderlich,2006). CVSA had a higher mean on high groupthan low group (MCVSA¼ 4.90 vs. MCVSA¼3.52; t (162)¼�18.36; p< 0.000).As hypothesized, the test showed a signifi-

cant interaction effect of CVSA on therelationship between store arousal and satis-faction (F(1,163)¼ 4.26, p< 0.04) and on theassociation between arousal and loyalty(F(1,163)¼ 2.78, p< 0.09). There were nointeraction effect over minutes, $ spent, anditems.The consumers in the high CVSA condition

were more satisfied in the high arousalatmosphere than in the low arousal environ-ment (Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.76 vs.Mlow-arousal¼ 3.94;F(1,81)¼ 12.15, p< 0.001). The participantsin the low CVSA condition were more satisfiedin the high arousal retail than in the low arousalenvironment (Mhigh-arousal¼ 3.65 vs. Mlow-

arousal¼ 3.57; F(1,81)¼0.11, p> 0.73). Accord-ing to Figure 4, it is possible to note that high

CVSA consumers were more discriminatingthan low CVSA consumers in their intentions.

The other moderating role of CVSA occurredon loyalty. The consumers in the highCVSA condition were more loyal in the higharousal than in the low arousal environment(Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.95 vs. Mlow-arousal¼ 4.00;F(1,81)¼ 17.89, p< 0.000). The individualsin the low CVSA condition were more loyaltyin the high arousal than in the low arousalenvironment (Mhigh-arousal¼ 3.86 vs. Mlow-

arousal¼ 3.49; F(1,81)¼ 2.26, p< 0.13). TheCVSA ordinal moderation was supported inthese two variables.

Study 2

Procedure

In the study 2, consumers were recruited froma job-interview in a Call Center company inBrazil capital. The candidates received theirquestionnaires before doing exams for job-interview. Livraria Cultura in Sao Paulo, Brazil,and Boekhandel Selexyz Dominicanen Libraryin Maastricht, Holland, were the two librariesused as store stimulus. Those two libraryenvironments offer features similar to storeenvironments (coffe, internet-wireless, bar,etc.). We are interested in the differencebetween color environment (high arousal)and gothic environment (low), since the first

Table 3. Correlation Matrix for key variables (Study 1)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CVSA global 1CVSA value 0.82�� (0.61)CVSA acumen 0.90�� 0.69�� (0.59)CVSA response 0.84�� 0.52�� 0.60�� (0.52)Satisfaction 0.52�� 0.43�� 0.52�� 0.38�� (0.71)Loyalty 0.51

�� 0.45�� 0.45�� 0.41�� 0.73�� (0.89)Minutes 0.21

�� 0.13 0.16� 0.24�� 0.10 0.20� 1

R$ spent 0.25�� 0.26

�� 0.16� 0.23�� 0.19� 0.14 0.24

�� 1Items 0.15� 0.15 0.08 0.17� 0.10 0.03 0.26�� 0.52�� 1

Note: Pearson correlation; CVSA Global is the average of three dimensions; overall sample; between parenthesis isaverage variance extracted (AVE).�p< 0.05;

��p< 0.01;

��p< 0.001.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


presents a more innovative, funny, and aggre-ssive design than the second (see Figures 5and 6). We presented the questionnaires withtwo photos of Livraria Cultura. On the othergroup, we offered the questionnaires with twophotos of Boekhandel Selexyz (low arousal).

Sample features

A sample of N¼ 127 Brazilian subjects partici-pated in the main study, 46 men and 81 (64%)women, between 17 and 69 years of age

(mean¼ 30, SD¼ 10). Respondents repliedthat they could be in the store byMminutes¼ 5959 (range 0 to 360; SD¼ 59.33). Clientsresponded that they could buy an average ofMitems¼ 3.08 (range 0 to 100; SD¼ 8.41) andrespondents could spend R$ Mmean¼R$123.83 (range 0 to 1000.00; SD¼ 123.83).

Results

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, 0.81, andBartlett test, 515.93; p< 0.000, were used todetermine the appropriateness of factor analysis.Again, acumen was the factor that reproducesmore the visual aesthetic consumer. The firstfactor captured the acumen facet of visual

Figure 4. Moderation effect of CVSA on Satisfaction and Loyalty (Study 1).

Figure 5. Livraria Cultura in Sao Paulo (yellow, red,orange—high arousal).

Figure 6. Boekhandel Selexyz Dominicanen (blue,black, white—low arousal).


DOI: 10.1002/cb


aesthetics centrality, 53%, the second capturedresponse, 11%, while the third capturedresponse intensity, 9% (see Table 4). Theresults from Hugo Boss and from librariesstudies were the same. Acumen, response, andvalue were respectively the CVSA factors.The reliability indicators showed that the

scales sound good. Value had a¼ 0.80; acumenhad a¼ 0.83, and response had a¼ 0.49. If weexcluded an item from response (respo1), andthe internal consistency increased to a¼ 0.60.In assessing scale structural equation mod-

eling, competing measurement model wereexamined and the results can be viewed inTable 5. Model A again had the best per-formance from its rival models. However, theproblem is that the structural indexes werepoor.According to Table 6, value was associated

with acumen r¼ 0.48 (p< 0.000) and withresponse r¼ 0.49 (p< 0.000) and acumen wascorrelated with response r¼ 0.49 (p< 0.000).The CVSA scale was associated positively

with satisfaction and $ spent. The centralityof visual aesthetic did not have impact onloyalty, minutes, and items. Loyalty and satis-faction were positively associated (r¼ 0.64;p< 0.000).


The manipulation check procedure indicatedthat Livraria Cultura had a higher mean onarousal when comparing with BoekhandelSelexyz Library (Mhigh arousal¼ 4.01 vs. Mlow

arousal¼ 3.69; t (125)¼ 2.08; p< 0.039). Inaddition, CVSA had a higher mean on highaesthetic group than low group (MCVSA¼ 4.77vs.MCVSA¼ 3.41; t (122)¼�14.65; p< 0.000).

To test the premise that CVSAmoderates theassociation between arousal and response, weused again a 2� 2 factorial design. As hypoth-esized, the test showed a significant interactioneffect of CVSA on the relationship betweenarousal and satisfaction (F(1,120)¼ 4.81,

Table 4. Exploratory factor analysis of CVSA scale (Study 2)

Variables 1 2 3

acum2: I see things in a product’s designthat other people tend to pass over

0.86 0.12 0.18

acum1: Being able to see subtle differences in productdesigns is one skill that I have developed over time

0.80 0.30 0.03

acum3: I have the ability to imagine how a productwill fit in with designs of other things I already own

0.63 0.15 0.43

acum4: I have a pretty good Idea of what makes oneproduct look better than its competitors

0.71 0.10 0.35

respo3: When I see a product that has a really great design,I feel a strong urge to buy it

0.37 0.56 �0.27

respo2: If a product’s design really speaks to me,I fell that I must buy it

0.21 0.14 0.66

respo1: Sometimes the way a productlooks seems to reach out and grab me

0.23 0.11 0.73

value1: owning products that have superior designsmakes me fell good about myself

0.17 0.80 0.07

value4: Beautiful product designs makeour world a better place to live

0.08 0.54 0.53

value2: I enjoy seeing displays of productsthat have superior designs

0.15 0.75 0.30

value3: A product’s design is a source of pleasure for me 0.11 0.68 0.42

Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis; varimax with Kaiser normatization; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin¼ 0.81; Bartletts Test¼ 515 (d.f.¼ 55); lowest communalities response1¼ 0.49; eigenvalues¼ 4.51; 1.36 and1.09; factor correlation between factor 1 and 2¼�0.51; factor 1 and 3¼ 0.34 and factor 2 and 3¼�0.33.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


p< 0.03) and between excitement and loyalty(F(1,120)¼ 3.05, p< 0.08). There were noother interaction effects.According to Figure 7, the consumers in the

high CVSA condition were more satisfied inthe high arousal environment than in the lowarousal atmosphere (Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.78 vs.Mlow-arousal¼ 3.16; F(1,58)¼ 15.02,p< 0.000). The participants in the low CVSAcondition were more satisfied in the lowarousal store than in the high arousal environ-ment (Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.24 vs.Mlow-arousal¼ 3.83;F(1,61)¼ 1.30, p> 0.25).On the other hand, the clients in the high

CVSA condition were more loyal in the higharousal than in the low arousal environment(Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.91 vs. Mlow-arousal¼ 3.33;F(1,58)¼ 23.91, p< 0.000). The participantsin the low CVSA condition were more loyalin the low arousal than in the high arousalenvironment (Mhigh-arousal¼ 4.71 vs. Mlow-

arousal¼ 3.96; F(1,61)¼ 7.43, p< 0.01).

General discussion

Managerial implications

It has been reported that employee theft andshoplifting combined account for the largestsource of property crime committed annuallyin retail segment. The easiest way for retailersto discourage theft in a store is by takingaway opportunities to steal. A little thoughtinto the store’s layout, aesthetic and designcan prevent theft before a loss occurs. UsingCVSA scale, retailers can analyze how con-sumers perceive the store’s layout and design,introducing programs to dishearten robbery.Second, questions such as does the invest-

mentmade by Apple Glass Store on 5th Avenueat New York on created a better aestheticenvironment to its clients? and is justified theStarbucks Coffee’s investments on store aes-thetic design? can be answered using CVSAscale. For instance, in this study Hugo BossBlack-and-White (vs. Hugo Boss Orange) was

Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis (Study 2)

Models x2/DF GFI AGFI NFI CFI RMSEA

A. 3 factors with correlation free 1.87�� 0.90 0.85 0.86 0.69 0.08B. 3 factors with correlation fixed 0 3.83�� 0.82 0.73 0.72 0.78 0.14C. Higher order 1.87�� 0.90 0.85 0.86 0.69 0.08D. 1 overall factor 3.74�� 0.79 0.68 0.69 0.75 0.15

Note: Maximum likelihood; no correlations and/or modifications among errors were used.��

p< 0.001.

Table 6. Correlation matrix for key variables (Study 2)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

CVSA Global 1CVSA Value 0.79

�� (0.60)CVSA Acumen 0.84

�� 0.48�� (0.59)

CVSA Response 0.80�� 0.49

�� 0.49�� (0.53)

Satisfaction 0.20� 0.14 0.14 0.19� (0.75)Loyalty 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.64

�� (0.78)Minutes 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.33

�� 0.26�� 1

R$ spent 0.19� 0.21� 0.12 0.12 0.31�� 0.14 0.23

�� 1Items 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.09 1

Note: Pearson correlation; CVSA Global is the average of three dimensions; overall sample; between parenthesis isaverage variance extracted (AVE).�p< 0.05;

��p< 0.01.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


perceived as having greater aesthetic designin the global measure (MCVSA¼ 4.24 vs.M¼ 4.18, respectively). Boekhandel SelexyzDominicanen Library in Maastricht was per-ceived as more visual aesthetic than LivrariaCultura in Sao Paulo (MCVSA-Boekhandel¼ 4.28vs. M¼ 3.93). Table 7 presents these results.Retailers may compare the consumers’ storeperception using the three CVSA dimensionsor the global measure. Thus, atmospheressuch as Nike and Adidas can be evaluated.Third, we tested the impact of CVSA high

and low groups over consumer intention. Wenoted that Hugo Boss had significant differ-ences between high and low visual aestheticgroups. For instance, the results suggestedthat consumers had more average in minutes(Mlow-CVSA¼ 37 vs. Mhigh-CVSA¼ 53), R$ (Mlow-

CVSA¼ 248 vs. Mhigh-CVSA¼ 388), items (Mlow-

CVSA¼ 248 vs. Mhigh-CVSA¼ 318), satisfaction(Mlow-CVSA¼ 363 vs. Mhigh-CVSA¼ 463) andloyalty (Mlow-CVSA¼ 375 vs. Mhigh-CVSA¼ 480)

inside the store that saliented high aestheticdesign. In that sense, Hugo Boss Orangecreated a better aesthetic environment thatimpact on consumer intention than Hugo BossBack-and-White. Libraries Cultura and Boe-khandel had not significant differencesbetween two groups, althought consumershad more averages in their intentions in thehigh aesthetic group. Hence, using CVSA scale,retailers may compare and evaluate differentconfigurations of their stores (see Figure 8).

Theoretical implications

Marketplace responses clearly indicate strongdifferences in consumers’ concern with pro-duct appearance or design. All consumers careabout what they receive from a productduring its acquisition and use. However, theliterature does not provide information aboutthis worry in store environment. For instance,

Figure 7. Moderation effect of CVSA on Satisfaction and Loyalty (Study 2).

Table 7. Average in CVSA three factors and CVSA overall measure

Variables Hugo Bossorange

Hugo Bossblack

Overallsample

CulturaLibrary

BoekhandelLibrary

Overallsample

Value 4.40 4.48 4.44 4.45 4.62 4.52Acumen 3.91 4.13 4.03 3.52a 4.02a 3.73Response 4.23 4.11 4.16 3.83a 4.19a 3.98Global CVSA 4.18 4.24 4.21 3.93a 4.28a 4.08

a Significant differences at p< 0.05 in the dimensions between Cultura and Boekhandel Libraries.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


do consumers really perceive aesthetic storedesign?A series of two studies, integrating a range of

methodologies, suggest that CVSA is boththeoretically and managerially relevant con-struct and that the resulting scale possessacceptable reliability and validity. In particular,validity was successfully demonstrated throughthe testing of convergence and discrimination.Based on the conceptual and empirical

results, CVSA emerged as a multidimensionalconstruct that is comprised of elements drawnfrom three domains that occur in concert: theperceived value attached to superior servicedesign, abilities in understanding and evaluat-ing service design and the level of response toatmosphere aesthetics. This evidence answerthe first questions.Second, in the first study the three CVSA

dimensions had positive impact on loyalty,satisfaction and $ spent. In the second study, itjust occurred on the path from CVSA responseto satisfaction. It suggests that the factorsfrom environment aesthetic design influencesconsumer intention inside retail segment. Inthat sense, more centrality of visual serviceaesthetics; more intention in patronage, satis-faction, and $ spent. This found is relevant,since no research presents a test betweencentrality of visual aesthetics and these market-ing variables.Third, there is a significant interaction effect

of CVSA and store arousal over loyalty and

satisfaction. The consumers in the high CVSAcondition were more satisfied in the higharousal environment than in the low arousalatmosphere. The clients in the high CVSAcondition were more loyal in the high arousalenvironment than the low arousal atmosphere.Based on these circumstances, the paperconcludes that for high CVSA consumers,the difference between reactions to the lowand high arousal environment would be grea-ter than the difference between the corre-sponding reactions of low CVSA consumers.

Future research directions

A coinvestigation of visual aesthetics centralityand consumer impulse purchasing may be afruitful field in consumer behavior. CVSAmay be an important antecedent to impulsepurchasing as suggested by Rook’s (1987)work. That is, following a strong responseto the aesthetics of a store, it may be verylikely that a consumer may have an impulsiveaction.Second, one could explore whether con-

sumers who are concerned with the visualaesthetics of retail environment also caremore than average about aesthetics relatingto smell or fell. For example, do consumerswith high CVSA also tend to care about storesounds (e.g., Hard Rock Cafe)? Answering thisquestionmay require attention to the impact of

Figure 8. Average on consumer intention (ANOVA). Note: Groups low versus high aesthetic; significant difference atp< 0.05 for minutes and item; at p< 0.01 for R$; at p< 0.001 for satisfaction and loyalty (only Hugo Boss Stores);Libraries had not significant differences (p¼NS); although, high aesthetic created greater scores; the scales wereshared by 10 (minutes) and by 100 (R$) in order to be presented in the graphic.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


selective environment involvements and roleperformance demands on consumer reaction.For those responsible for the design of

public buildings, urban environments, andworks of art intended for mass audiences,predictions about group reactions—what willappeal to the greatest number of people orwhat will receive the highest average evalu-ation—are what matter (Bamossy et al., 1983).In that sense, research on centrality of visualaesthetic and aesthetic judgment ability maysuggest new insights public police. Forinstance, what are the aesthetic consumerreactions to Petronas Twin Towers, Malaysia;Burj Dubai, Dubai; Ponte Octavio Frias deOliveira, Brazil; CN Tower, Canada; and TaipeiBuilding, Taiwan? Research suggested thatthere is an independent effect of novelty onaesthetic judgment preference in public build-ings, and that novelty variation may suppressthe effect of typicality on aesthetic intentions(Creusen et al., 2005).Forth, is there a congruency between

aesthetic store and aesthetic product thatinfluence consumer reaction? Future investi-gations could test if consumers’ productaesthetic evaluations reflect the interactiverelations between consumers’ individual char-acteristics and their perceptions of the serviceenvironment ideal (Brunel and Swain, 2007).Aesthetic evaluations may arise from (1) theperceptual distance between the store and thestereotype (novelty) and (2) the perceptualdistance between the store and the ideal(concinnity).

Appendix A: Summary ofconstructs’ measures

Arousal: Stimulated-relaxed; excited-calm; fren-zied-sluggish; jittery-dull; wide awake-sleepy;aroused-unaroused. (Study 1: x2/d.f.¼ 3.69;GFI¼ 0.77; RMSEA¼ 0.18; Study 2: GFI¼ 0.89;RMSEA¼ 0.12; a¼ described on text).Loyalty: I would like to buy in this store

again; I would like to come back in this store inthe future; The probability of buying in thisstore once is high (Study 1: a¼ 0.96; Study 2:a¼ 0.91).

Satisfaction: I am satisfied with the decisionof buying in this store; The decision makingprocess makes me satisfied; Overall, I amsatisfy (Study 1: a¼ 0.88; Study 2: a¼ 0.90).

How many products you could buy in thisstore? ___ (Study 1: M ¼2.84; SD¼ 2.16; Study2: M¼ 3.08; SD¼ 8.41).

How long you could be inside this store? ___minutes (Study 1:M¼45.21; SD¼ 48.49; Study2: M ¼59; SD¼ 59.33).

How much money you could spend in thisstore? ___ (Study 1: M ¼318.20; SD¼ 315.23;Study 2: M ¼111.92; SD¼ 123.83).

Biographical notes

Valter Afonso Vieira received his PhD fromthe University of Brasilia (UnB). He is a lecturerat the Federal University of Brasil (UFPR),Brazil. His research interests are in servicesmarketing, relationship marketing and market-ing research. His research have been publishedby Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Journalof Services Marketing, Journal of Fashion

Marketing and Management, Brazilian

Administration Review (BAR), the Associ-

ation for Consumer Research (ACR) and ina number of journals and proceedings. He hasthree Best Paper Awards on national compe-tition in marketing.

References

Baker J, Levy M, Grewal D. 1992. An experimental

approach to making retail store environmental

decisions. Journal of Retailing 68(4): 445–460.

Bamossy G, Scammon DL, Johnston M. 1983. A

preliminary investigation of the reliability and

validity of an aesthetic judgment test. In

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,

Bagozzi Richard P, Tybout Alice M (eds). Associ-

ation for Consumer Research: Ann Abor; 685–

690.

Bamossy G, Johnston M, Parsons M. 1985. The

assessment of aesthetic judgment ability. Empiri-

cal Studies of the Arts 3(1): 63–79.

Belk RW, Wallendorf M, Ferrel M. 1998. Impulsive

buying: modeling its precursors. Journal of

Retailing 74(2): 169–191.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Bell SJ, Luddington JA. 2006. Copingwith Customer

Complaints. Journal of Service Research 8(3):

221–233.

Berlyne DE. 1971. Aesthetic and Psychobiology.

Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York.

Berlyne DE. 1974. Studies in the New Experimen-

tal Aesthetics. Hemisphere Publishing Corp.:

Washington, DC.

Bitner MJ. 1992. Servicescapes: The Impact of

Physical Surroundings on Customer and Employ-

ees. Journal of Marketing 56(2): 57–71.

Bloch PH. 1995. Seeking the ideal form: product

design and consumer response. Journal of Mar-

keting, 59(3): 16–29.

Bloch PH, Brunel FF, Arnold TJ. 2003.

Individual differences in the centrality of

visual product aesthetics: concept and measure-

ment. Journal of Consumer Research 29(4):

551–565.

Brunel F, Swain S. 2007. A Moderated Perceptual

Model Of Product Aesthetic Evaluations,. In

European Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 8, Borghini Stefania, Ann McGrath Mary,

Otnes Milan Cele (eds). Association for Consu-

mer Research: Italy; 1–15.

Byrne B. 2001. Structural Equation Modeling with

AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications and Pro-

gramming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mah-

wah, NJ.

Childers TL, Houston MJ, Heckler SE. 1985.

Measurement of individual differences in visual

versus verbal information processing. Journal of

Consumer Research 12(2): 125–134.

Cornfield B, Edwards O. 1983. Quintessence: The

Quality of Having It. Crown Publishers: New

York.

Creusen MEH, Schoormans JPL, Veryzer RW,

Snelders D, Hekkert P, Hansson L. 2005. The

relationship between design typicality, novelty

and aesthetic judgments,. In European


Ekstrom Karin M, Goteborg Helene Brembeck

(eds). Association for Consumer Research: Swe-

den; 502–503.

Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the

internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:

297–334.

Csikszentmihalyi M, Robinson RE. 1990. The Art of

Seeing. J. Paul Getty Museum: Maliby, CA.

Cupchik GC. 1994. Emotion in aesthetic: reactive

and reflective models. Poetics 23(1/2): 177–188.

Davis ML. 1987. Visual Design in Dress. Prentice-

Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Duhachek A, Oakley JL. 2007. Mapping the

hierarchical structure of coping: unifying

empirical and theoretical perspectives. Journal

of Consumer Psychology 17(3): 218–233.

Dumaine B. 1991. Design that sells and sells and ....

Fortune (March 11): 86–94.

Evanschitzky H, Wunderlich M. 2006. An examin-

ation of moderator effects in the four-stage loy-

alty model. Journal of Service Research 8(4):

330–345.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. 1981. Evaluating structural

equation models with unobservable variables

and measurement error. Journal of Marketing

Research 18(1): 39–50.

Heilbrunn B. 1999. Special session summary aes-

thetics and consumption. In European


Dubois Bernard, Lowrey Tina M, Shrum LJ,

Vanhuele Marc (eds). Association for Consumer

Research: Provo, UT; 188–190.

Hogg J. 1969. A principal components analysis of

semantic differential judgments of single colors

and color pairs. Journal of General Psychology

80(1): 129–140.

Holbrook MB, Zirlin RB. 1985. Artistic creation,

artworks and aesthetic appreciation: some phi-

losophical contributions to nonprofit marketing.

In Advances in Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 1,

Belk Russell (ed.). JAI Press: Greenwich, CN;

1–54.

Ingarden R. 1983. Aesthetic experience and aes-

thetic object. In Selected papers in aesthetic,

McCormick PJ (ed.). Catholic University of Amer-

ica Press: New York; 107–132.

Jacobs KW, Hustmyer FE. 1974. Effects of four

psychological primary colors on GSR, heart rate

and respiration rate. Perceptual andMotor Skills

38: (June): 763–766.

Kaltcheva VD, Weitz BA. 2006. When should a

retailer create an exciting store environment?

Journal of Marketing 70(1): 107–118.

Lam SY. 2001. The effects of store environment on

shopping behaviors: a critical review. In


Gilly Mary C, Meyers-Levy Joan (eds). Associ-


DOI: 10.1002/cb


ation for Consumer Research: Valdosta, GA; 190–

197.

Levy M, Weitz BA. 1998. Retailing Management,

3rd edn. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Chicago; 540–569

(Chapter 18).

McDonald RP, Ho MR. 2002. Principles and

practice in reporting structural equation

analyses. Psychological Methods 7(1): 64–

82.

Mehrabian A, Russel JA. 1974. An Approach to

Environmental Psychology. MIT Press: Cam-

bridge, MA.

Oliver, Richard L. 1997. Satisfaction: a behavioral

perspective on the consumer. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Osborne H. 1986. What makes an experience aes-

thetic? In Possibility of the Aesthetic Experience,

Mitias Michael (ed.). Kluwer Academic Publish-

ers: Boston; 117–138.

Pan Y, Zinkhan GM. 2006. Determinants of retail

patronage: a meta-analytical perspective. Jour-

nal of Retailing, 82(3): 229–243.

Richardson P, Janin AK, Dick A. 1996. The influ-

ence of store aesthetics on evaluation of private

label brands. Journal of Product and Brand

Management 5(1): 19–28.

Rook DW. 1987. The buying impulse. Journal of

Consumer Research 14(3): 189–199.

Schmitt BH, Simonson A. 1997. Marketing Aes-

thetics: the Strategic Management of Brands,

Identity and Image. Free Press: New York.

Sexton R. 1981. American Style: Classic Product

Design from Airstream to Zipp. Cronicle Books:

San Francisco.

Veryzer RW. 1993. Aesthetic response and the influ-

ence of design principles on product preferences.

In Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 20,

McAllister Leigh, Rothschild Michael (eds). Asso-

ciation for Consumer Research: Provo, UT; 224–

231.

Vieira VA, Damacena C. 2007. Loyalty in the super-

market. Brazilian Administration Review 4(3):

47–62.

Voorhees CM, Brady MK. 2005. A service perspect-

ive on the drivers of complaint intentions. Jour-

nal of Service Research 8(2): 192–204.

Yalch R, Brunel F. 1996. Need hierarchies in con-

sumer judgments of products designs: is it time

to reconsider Maslow Theory? In Advances in

Consumer Research, Vol. 23, Corfman Kim P,

Lynch John G Jr (eds). Association for Consumer

Research: Provo, UT; 1–15.


DOI: 10.1002/cb


Documents

Visual aesthetics in store environment and its moderating role on consumer intention