American Journal of Business

Spatial density and ambient scent: effects on consumer anxiety

Tina Poon Bianca Grohmann
Article information:
To cite this document:
Tina Poon Bianca Grohmann , (2014),"Spatial density and ambient scent: effects on consumer anxiety",
American Journal of Business, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 76 - 94
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AJB-05-2013-0027
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 19:40 (PT)
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 68 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 265 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Andrew G. Parsons, (2009),"Use of scent in a naturally odourless store", International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 37 Iss 5 pp. 440-452 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550910954928
Bertil Hultén, (2011),"Sensory marketing: the multi-sensory brand-experience concept", European Business
Review, Vol. 23 Iss 3 pp. 256-273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555341111130245
Lena Goldkuhl, Maria Styvén, (2007),"Sensing the scent of service success", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 41 Iss 11/12 pp. 1297-1305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560710821189

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:382916 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1935-5181.htm

AJB
29,1 Spatial density and ambient
scent: effects on consumer
anxiety
76
Tina Poon and Bianca Grohmann
Department of Marketing, John Molson School of Business,
Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – This replication and extension of Hirsch and Gruss examines the impact of spatial
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

density and ambient scent on consumers’ spatial perception and anxiety. The paper aims to discuss
these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – A 2 (spatial density: high, low) £ 3 (ambient scent: no scent,
scent associated with spaciousness, scent associated with enclosed spaces) between-participants
experimental design was implemented in a laboratory setting. A pretest determined scent selection
and manipulation checks were successful.
Findings – Spatial perception was influenced by spatial density, but not ambient scent. Ambient
scent and spatial density interacted, such that consumers’ anxiety levels significantly increased under
conditions of low spatial density combined with an ambient scent associated with spaciousness,
and directionally increased under conditions of high spatial density combined with ambient scent
associated with enclosed space.
Research limitations/implications – This research was conducted in a laboratory setting in order
to increase experimental control. An exploration of the strength of the observed effects in a field (retail)
setting would be insightful.
Practical implications – Results of this study suggest that retailers need to consider both spatial
density and choice of ambient scent carefully in order to reduce consumers’ anxiety levels.
Originality/value – This research is one of the few to consider the impact of spatial density and
ambient scent on consumers’ anxiety levels. The use of a between-participants design and the
experimental manipulation of both spatial density and ambient scent results in a more rigorous test of
the scent – anxiety relation observed in previous research.
Keywords Retailing, Replication, Ambient scent, Retail atmospherics, Spatial density
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The retail environment plays an important role in attracting consumers and creating a
positive impression of the store (Baker et al., 2002). Well-designed retail environments
induce positive emotions and enhance purchase likelihood (Baker et al., 1994; Kotler,
1974). Numerous studies demonstrate that that retail atmospherics – the ambience,
design and social factors of a store’s selling environment (Baker et al., 2002) – positively
influence consumers perception of a store (Areni and Kim, 1994; Spangenberg et al., 1996)
and entail positive outcomes for retailers (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Milliman, 1982, 1986;
American Journal of Business Spangenberg et al., 2006).
Vol. 29 No. 1, 2014
pp. 76-94
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1935-5181
The authors gratefully acknowledge a Concordia University thesis research grant awarded to the
DOI 10.1108/AJB-05-2013-0027 first author.
 The marketing literature also documents negative effects of retail atmospherics on Spatial density
consumer perceptions and behavior, however. The retail atmospheric factor most often and ambient
associated with negative outcomes is spatial density (i.e. physical density of a retail
space due to amount of fixtures and merchandise; Baum and Davis, 1976). Perceptions scent
spatial crowding (i.e. consumers’ subjective assessment of how crowded with fixtures
and merchandise the retail environment is; Baum and Davis, 1976; Stokols, 1972) that are
associated with high levels of spatial density induce negative consumer responses 77
(Machleit et al., 1994, 2000). One of these negative consumer responses is anxiety,
because spaces that are perceived as crowded can induce a sense of claustrophobia
(i.e. fear of enclosed spaces) and thus raise anxiety levels (Baxter and Deanovich, 1970).
Retail environments that are perceived as too spacious, on the other hand, may induce
agoraphobia – the fear of large, public areas (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) –
and also increase consumers’ anxiety levels. To examine how retailers might prevent
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

negative consumer responses due to high or low spatial density, this research builds on
a pioneering study conducted in a medical context (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998) that
demonstrates that spatial perceptions are altered by ambient scents. In addition, ambient
scents are associated with anxiety reduction (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998; King, 1988) due to
a strong physiological link between olfaction and emotion (Chebat and Michon, 2003).
This suggests that the use of ambient scent in retail environments might be an effective
tool in the management of retail consumers’ space perceptions and anxiety levels.
This research examines to what extent spatial density and ambient scent influence
consumers’ spatial perceptions and anxiety. It replicates and extends Hirsch and Gruss’s
(1998) study of the effect of scents on spatial perception by employing a 2 (spatial
density: low, high) £ 3 (ambient scent: no scent, scent associated with spaciousness,
scent associated with enclosed spaces) between-participants experimental design that
adds a condition of low spatial density, ambient diffusion of scents, and a measure of
anxiety to the design of the original study. This replication study is implemented in
a retailing context. The article therefore proceeds with a discussion of the conceptual
foundations of research on retail atmospheric effects, as well as a brief overview of the
retail literature on spatial density and ambient scent. Following a comparison of
procedures and measures used in Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) research and those applied in
the present replication, the article discusses results and their theoretical and managerial
implications.

Conceptual framework
Atmospheric cues and the stimulus-organism-response model
The term “retail atmospherics” (Kotler, 1974) refers to the use of environmental
(“atmospheric”) cues in retail settings that gives rise to a store atmosphere and
ultimately affects consumers in the store (Donovan and Rossiter, 1982). In the retailing
literature, atmospheric cues are categorized into external cues (e.g. store signage),
general interior cues (e.g. ambient scent, flooring, lighting, color schemes, background
music), layout and design cues (e.g. space allocation, spatial density, traffic flow within
the store), point of purchase displays (e.g. shelving, bins), and human variables
(e.g. social density, employee appearance; Turley and Milliman, 2000).
The majority of studies on retail atmospherics apply Mehrabian and Russell’s (1974)
stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model as theoretical framework. The SOR model
posits that environmental factors are stimuli (S) that jointly influence an organism’s
 AJB psychological responses (O) and produce approach/avoidance behaviors (R). Applied to
29,1 a retail context, the SOR model holds that retail atmospheric cues elicit emotional or
cognitive responses from consumers, which in turn result in approach or avoidance
behaviors (Spangenberg et al., 1996).
Retail atmospheric cues investigated in conjunction with the SOR framework include
music (Jain and Bagdare, 2011; Milliman, 1982, 1986; Oakes and North, 2008), color
78 (Bellizzi et al., 1983), lighting (Areni and Kim, 1994), ambient scent (Chebat and Michon,
2003; Parsons, 2009; Spangenberg et al., 1996), density (Hui and Bateson, 1991), and
human factors (e.g. social relations to other customers, number, physical attributes, and
behavior of salespeople; Kim and Kim, 2012). Recent research furthermore examines the
influence of multiple retail atmospheric cues on consumer responses based on the SOR
framework (Hultén, 2012; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Parsons, 2011; Spangenberg et al.,
2005). The affective responses to atmospheric cues examined in the marketing literature
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

often consist of pleasure, arousal, and dominance (PAD; Mehrabian, 1996). The pleasure
dimension taps into the pleasantness of an emotion, the arousal dimension describes the
intensity of an emotion, and the dominance dimension captures whether an emotion is
controlling or submissive in nature. Other conceptualizations of emotions also appear
in SOR model-based examinations of retail atmospheric cues (Hui and Bateson, 1991;
Machleit and Eroglu, 2000), such as Plutchik’s (1980) basic emotions or the circumplex
model of affect (Russell and Pratt, 1980). Cognitive responses to atmospheric cues
considered in the literature include the evaluation of the retail environment
(e.g. environmental quality; Fisher, 1974; Parsons, 2011; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;
Spangenberg et al., 1996) and satisfaction with the shopping experience (Clarke et al.,
2012; Hui and Bateson, 1991; Machleit et al., 1994; Mattila and Wirtz, 2001). According to
the SOR model, approach behaviors are induced by positive emotional responses to or
positive attitude toward the environment, and include remaining in the store longer,
exploring the merchandise, or unplanned purchases (Bone and Ellen, 1999; Donovan and
Rossiter, 1982). Avoidance behaviors are based on negative emotional responses to or
negative attitude toward the environment (Eroglu and Machleit, 1990) and include
leaving the store (Bone and Ellen, 1999).
The present research focuses on the stimulus-organism relation outlined in the SOR
model. It examines the effects of two atmospheric cues – spatial density and ambient
scent – on consumers’ cognitive (i.e. spatial perception) and emotional (i.e. anxiety)
responses to the environment.

Spatial density
Spatial density is a physical feature (Baum and Davis, 1976; Hui and Bateson, 1991) of
the retail environment that relates to the amount of fixtures and merchandise within a
store. Social density (Baum and Davis, 1976), on the other hand, refers to the number of
people in a space. Higher levels of density give rise to subjective feelings of crowding
(Stokols, 1972), which in turn elicits negative emotional responses (Hui and Bateson,
1991). Human crowding is a result of a high density of shoppers in a retail
environment, while spatial crowding results from a high density of retail fixtures and
products (Machleit et al., 1994). Human and spatial crowding influence consumers in
different ways. Research on human crowding documents negative effects on perceived
control, pleasure, and approach behaviors (Hui and Bateson, 1991; Machleit et al., 2000),
but also positive effects on consumer emotions – such as pleasure or surprise – and
 shopping satisfaction (Li et al., 2009; Machleit et al., 2000). The effects of crowding Spatial density
based on high spatial density, however, are predominantly negative with regard to and ambient
consumer emotions (Li et al., 2009; Machleit et al., 2000) and patronage intentions (Kim
and Runyan, 2011). Relevant to the present research is evidence that other atmospheric scent
cues have the potential to enhance or reduce perceptions of crowdedness associated
with high levels of spatial density. For example, color affects perceptions of space, such
that light-colored rooms appear larger and less crowded than dark-colored rooms 79
(Baum and Davis, 1976). The present research focuses on the role of ambient scents in
moderating the effects of spatial density on consumer responses.

Ambient scent
Ambient scent is a general odor present in the environment that does not emanate from a
particularly product (Bone and Ellen, 1999; Gulas and Bloch, 1995). Diffusion of ambient
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

scent is a relatively cheap and effective way of enhancing the attractiveness of retail
environments (Spangenberg et al., 2005), and retailers employ ambient scents to delineate
departments within a store or to target specific market segments. Bloomingdales, for
example, uses baby powder scent in the baby department, suntan lotion scent in the
bathing suit area, and lilac scent in the lingerie department (Ravn, 2007). Sony created a
custom scent of vanilla and mandarin oranges to put female customers at ease in their
stores (Vlahos, 2007). To communicate cleanliness, Thomas Pink – a high end clothing
chain – diffuses a scent of clean, pressed shirts in its stores (Fetterman and O’Donnell,
2006). Real estate agents often recommend that the scent of freshly-baked pies be applied
to homes for sale in order to convey cosiness (Dowdey, 2008).
The retail literature acknowledges the practical importance of ambient scent and has
examined its influence consumers’ cognitive, emotional, and behavioural responses.
Research shows that ambient scent enhances memory (Morrin and Ratneshwar, 2003),
and store and merchandise evaluations (Bone and Ellen, 1999; Spangenberg et al., 1996)
– particularly when it is congruent with other ambient cues (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;
Mitchell et al., 1995) or consumer characteristics (Spangenberg et al., 2006). However,
inappropriate ambient scent choices have detrimental effects on consumer perceptions.
For example, floral scents in a store tailored towards older individuals conjure memories
of funerals (Bone and Jantrania, 1992).
The importance of ambient scents for retailers and researchers arises from the
argument that scent is one of the most powerful of the human senses (Rodriguez-Gil,
2004) because of its strong physiological links to human emotion (Chebat and Michon,
2003) and long-term memory (Goldman and Seamon, 1992). Whereas memory decay for
verbal information occurs almost immediately after learning (Peterson and Peterson,
1959), odour recognition decays very little over time (Engen and Ross, 1973). Scent also
enhances memory for information associated with a smell (Krishna et al., 2010). These
effects are due to the close proximity of the olfactory bulb to the limbic system,
a neurological structure responsible for emotions and encoding long-term memory
(Swenson, 2006). Past research also found a strong relationship between the limbic
system and spatial memory (Chun and Jiang, 2003; Pearce et al., 2005). Amnesic patients
with hippocampal damage show significant defects in spatial memory tasks, such as a
virtual radial arm maze (Goodrich-Hunsaker and Hopkins, 2010). Based on evidence that
the limbic system influences spatial memory, scents may have the potential to change
the spatial perception through scent associations (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998).
 AJB For example, scents that are associated with spacious or outdoor environments may
29,1 enhance perceptions of spaciousness of an environment (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998). In
contrast, scents associated with indoor or cozy environments may decrease the
perceived spaciousness of an environment (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998). Due to associations
they carry, certain scents may also be a useful means of reducing anxiety associated
with extremely small or large spaces (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998).
80
Evidence for effects of ambient scent and spatial density on spatial perception and anxiety
Although the marketing literature demonstrates that both spatial density and ambient
scent influence consumers’ emotions and responses to merchandise and store
environment, the only study documenting an effect of ambient scent and spatial
density on spatial perceptions hails from the medical literature. Hirsch and Gruss
(1998) conducted a lab study with eight participants (four men and four women).
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Following an administration of a series of depression, anxiety, and odor

perception/identification measures, participants were seated in a space deprivation
booth measuring 2.5 feet in diameter and 4.5 feet in height. They evaluated the
perceived size of the space and then wore an unscented surgical mask (i.e. the no scent
control condition) for 30 seconds before they evaluated the room size again. This
procedure was repeated with ten surgical masks infused with two drops of scented oil
(i.e. the scent conditions) that were provided in random order. The scents included in
the study consisted of commercially available and pleasant indoor (barbecue smoke,
vanilla, buttered popcorn, and charcoal roasting meat) and outdoor (tranquility,
evergreen, seashore, cucumber, coconut, and green apple) scents that were classified by
a sensory panel not involved in the main experiment. Participants rated room size
following each of the scent administrations, and then provided information regarding
demographic variables, use of scented personal products, smoking, and use of
medication. Non-parametric signed-rank tests for paired differences (Lehmann, 1975)
for the full sample indicated a significant reduction in perceived room size in the
presence of the barbecue smoke scent. Additional analyses that excluded one
participant with anosmia (i.e. inability to perceive scent) or focused on the six
participants who used scented personal care products suggested that green apple scent
significantly increased room size perceptions. In discussing the implications of their
research, Hirsch and Gruss (1998) suggest that the use of green apple scent could
alleviate patient anxiety due to claustrophobia in clinical settings, such as during MRI
scans, although it is important to note that the authors did not empirically test the
impact of scent on measures of anxiety in this study.
Hirsch and Gruss (1998) acknowledge several limitations of their study, such as
small sample size and the possibility of a placebo effect despite the randomized
double-blind administration of scents. The term placebo effect (Beecher, 1955)
describes the improvement of a clinical patient’s condition in response to a medically
ineffectual treatment that is due to the patient’s subjective beliefs about the
effectiveness of the treatment. Hirsch and Gruss (1998) argue that the purpose of the
study (i.e. testing scents as treatment for claustrophobia) may have become obvious to
participants due to repeated administration of scents and room size evaluations, and
that participants may have felt that scents indeed alleviated spatial constraints.
A review of Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) study design and procedures suggests that
there are several methodological concerns that could be addressed in a replication
 study in order to strengthen various aspects of research validity and generalizability. Spatial density
Use of a large sample size and parametric statistics, for example, would make a more and ambient
convincing case for the likelihood of observing an effect of scent on spatial perception
at the population level. In terms of experimental procedures, Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) scent
use of scented masks and within-participants design may have focused participants’
attention on the influence of scent on their room size assessments. Awareness of
scent – induced by repeated and obvious scent administration in Hirsch and Gruss’s 81
(1998) study – is problematic insofar as it can influence participants’ responses to the
scent (Bosmans, 2006; Gulas and Bloch, 1995). More importantly, participants’
exposure to multiple scents over the course of the study likely overwhelmed the
olfactory bulb (Kinnealey et al., 1995) and may thus have inhibited scent perception
particularly for scents presented toward the end of the experimental sequence. Finally,
although Hirsch and Gruss (1998) argue that scents affect participants’ anxiety induced
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

by claustrophobia, they did not measure anxiety across scent conditions. Instead, the
authors assessed various forms of anxiety and depression at the beginning of the study
to rule out clinical levels of depression and anxiety among participants. The present
research thus seeks to replicate and extend Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) study by taking
into account the need for a larger sample size, an experimental procedure that
minimizes participant awareness, demand cues, and sensory habituation, and an
explicit measure of situational anxiety. The research hypotheses and characteristics of
the replication are presented next.

Research objectives
Hypotheses
Based on the SOR model, atmospheric cues in the retail environment produce cognitive
and affective responses which influence consumers’ behavioural response (Mehrabian
and Russell, 1974). The present study examines to what extent spatial density and
ambient scent influence consumers’ spatial perception and anxiety. First, this study
seeks to replicate Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) findings of increased (decreased) perception
of space in the presence of a scent associated with spaciousness (enclosed spaces) in a
retail – rather than medical – context. Hirsch and Gruss (1998) proposed that the
semantic associations (i.e. spaciousness, enclosed environment) of scents influence
spatial perception, such that scents associated with spaciousness increase the perceived
size of a given room, whereas scents association with enclosed spaces decrease the
perceived size of a given room:
H1. Ambient scent influences spatial perceptions, such that a scent associated with
spaciousness increases spatial perceptions (i.e. room size estimations), whereas
a scent associated with enclosed spaces decreases spatial perceptions.
Second, this study seeks to extend Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) research by empirically
testing the effect of spatial density and ambient scent on anxiety. Both claustrophobia
(i.e. fear of enclosed spaces) as well as agoraphobia (i.e. fear of open spaces) are
documented responses to different levels of spatial density, and may manifest in
negative emotions such as anxiety (American Psychiatric Association, 2000). Due to the
relevance of varying levels of spatial density to retail practice, the present research
examines the possibility that anxiety may arise not only from high spatial density
(e.g. discount store presenting a large amount of merchandise on the sales floor), but also
 AJB from low spatial density (e.g. large, minimalistic store environment with few items on
29,1 display). Based on the literature on congruity effects involving ambient scents – which
shows that ambient scents enhance the effects of other store atmospheric cues they are
congruent with (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001; Mitchell et al., 1995; Spangenberg et al., 2005) –
we expect that a scent associated with spaciousness administered under conditions of
low spatial density accentuates low spatial density and increases (agoraphobic)
82 consumer anxiety, whereas a scent associated with enclosed spaces alleviates consumer
anxiety under conditions of low spatial density. A scent associated with enclosed spaces
administered under high spatial density conditions is likely to accentuate high spatial
density and increase (claustrophobic) consumer anxiety, whereas a scent associated
with spaciousness decreases consumer anxiety under conditions of high spatial density.
This gives rise to the following hypothesis:
H 2. Ambient scent and spatial density interact, such that (a) under conditions of
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

high spatial density, an ambient scent associated with spaciousness reduces

anxiety compared to an ambient scent associated with enclosed spaces, and
(b) under conditions of low spatial density, an ambient scent associated with
spaciousness increases anxiety compared to an ambient scent associated with
enclosed spaces.

Summary of modifications to the original research

This research modifies several aspects of Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) experimental
procedure and measurement. The first modification to Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998)
procedure involves the use of a between-participants design. The present study
exposes participants to only one spatial density and ambient scent condition in a 3
(ambient scent: no scent control condition, scent associated with spaciousness, scent
associated with enclosed spaces) £ 2 (spatial density: low, high) between-participants
experimental design to reduce participant awareness of experimental factors, demand
cues, and sensory habituation. The addition of a low spatial density condition
constitutes an extension to Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) design. The second modification
to Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) procedure involves the use of ambient scents (rather than
scent-infused surgical masks), in an effort to reduce participant awareness of the scent
factor, but also to extend the original study to a retail context in which the use of
ambient scent is necessary. A third modification consists of the use of an explicit
measure of situational anxiety in the current research, in order to empirically
corroborate Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) contention that scent influences not only spatial
perception, but also anxiety. Two additional modifications concern the use of a large
sample and use of a cover story to situate this research in a retail context in order to
shed light on the effects of retailers’ use of space allocation and ambient scent on
consumers’ spatial perceptions and anxiety levels.

Method
Scent pretest
To identify ambient scents for inclusion in the main experiment, we conducted a scent
pretest. Based on the scents used by Hirsch and Gruss (1998), the pretest included five
commercially available, scented oils: green apple, firewood, cucumber, mountain air,
and seashore. The pretest employed the procedures for ambient scent pretests outlined
in the marketing literature (Spangenberg et al., 1996, 2006). Cotton balls saturated
 with scented oils were placed in opaque plastic bottles that were labeled with letters Spatial density
of the alphabet to disguise the identity of the scent they contained. A research assistant and ambient
intercepted potential participants on a university campus, and invited them to
participate in a scent study. Pregnancy and chemical sensitivities served as exclusion scent
criteria. After reading and signing an informed consent form, participants (n ¼ 19, five
women and 14 men, between 19 and 36 years old, Medianage ¼ 24 years) evaluated one
scent at a time by opening the bottle, holding it about six inches away from their nose, 83
and smelling the scent as long or as often as they needed to in order to form an
impression. Participants then completed a questionnaire to evaluate the scent. The
order of scents was randomized.
The questionnaire included measures of scent familiarity (unfamiliar/familiar),
perceived scent intensity (weak/strong), and the extent of spaciousness associated with
the scent (three items: closed/open, intimate/spacious, crowded/expansive; a ¼ 0.73),
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

all measured on seven-point scales. Participants also completed questions concerning

the presence of a cold or flu (yes/no), smoking (yes/no), as these can lower olfactory
abilities (Frye et al., 1990). Finally, participants provided demographic information
(sex, age, English skills).
The fact that none of the participants had a cold and only one smoked precluded
further statistical analysis of the influence of these variables. In a repeated-measures
ANOVA with scent serving as the independent variable and perceived spaciousness of
the scent serving as the dependent variable, a significant effect of scent emerged
(F(4,72) ¼ 3.99, p , 0.01, partial h 2 ¼ 0.18). Within-participant contrasts revealed that
the firewood (M ¼ 3.25, SD ¼ 1.06) and seashore (M ¼ 4.51, SD ¼ 1.38) scents differed
significantly with regard to perceived spaciousness, such that participants rated
seashore significantly higher on spaciousness than firewood (F(1, 18) ¼ 8.17, p , 0.05).
The firewood and seashore scents did not differ in terms of perceived familiarity
( p . 0.43) and perceived scent intensity ( p . 0.21). The main experiment therefore
included these two scents: seashore represented the scent associated with spaciousness
(hereafter referred to as spacious scent), whereas firewood represented the scent
associated with enclosed spaces (hereafter referred to as intimate scent).

Experiment
Design and stimuli. This study used a 3 (ambient scent: no scent control condition,
spacious scent, intimate scent) £ 2 (spatial density: low, high) between-participants
experimental design. In the spacious and intimate scent conditions, the scent was
administered with a plug-in scent dispenser filled with the commercially available
scented oils selected in the pretest. The lab room was fully aerated for a week between
scent conditions to prevent cross-contamination. In the high spatial density condition,
the lab – a 132 square foot room – was filled with 84 empty moving boxes that
measured between four and eight cubic feet each. In the low spatial density condition,
the boxes were removed.
Participants and procedure. One hundred and ninety-seven undergraduate and
graduate students (107 women and 90 men, between 18 and 47 years old,
Medianage ¼ 21 years) participated in this experiment in exchange for a $5 gift card.
A research assistant blind to the purpose of the study intercepted potential participants
on campus and invited them to take part in the study. Participants were admitted to the
lab one at a time. After participants had read and signed an informed consent form,
 AJB they received instructions that stated that the purpose of the study was to assess
29,1 consumers’ evaluation of retail merchandise and environments. The instructions did not
mention scent or spatial density, but indicated that participants would evaluate a number
of products as well as the room in which the study took place. Participants then completed
a questionnaire. This questionnaire included scales pertaining to the evaluation of six
glass vases that were set up in front of the participant and scales that captured
84 participants’ evaluations of the room in which the experiment took place. These measures
disguised the purpose of the study in order to reduce demand cues. The questionnaire also
included the focal measures, control variables, and manipulation checks relevant to the
hypothesis tests. Once participants had completed the questionnaire, they were debriefed
about the real purpose of the study and received their incentive.
Measures. Participants’ subjective perception of the room size was measured on a
two-item scale (i.e. too small/too large, tiny/huge; r ¼ 0.32). Anxiety was measured with
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

the two state anxiety items of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Aaker et al., 1986: “I feel
at ease” [reverse coded], “I feel upset,” r ¼ 0.60). State anxiety is anxiety arising from a
specific situation, whereas trait anxiety captures anxiety as a personality trait. Since the
present study examines situational effects of environmental cues (i.e. spatial density and
ambient scent), it considered state anxiety. The questionnaire furthermore included
several control variables. Emotional responses to the environment were assessed on
the seven-point semantic differential PAD scale (Mehrabian, 1996) that comprises three
dimensions: pleasure (six items, e.g. unhappy/happy, annoyed/pleased; apleasure ¼ 0.87),
arousal (six items, e.g. calm/excited, relaxed/stimulated; aarousal ¼ 0.71), and dominance
(six items, e.g. influenced/influential, cared for/in control; adominance ¼ 0.82). As
manipulation check for the spatial density manipulations, participants completed a
scale of perceived spatial crowding adapted from Machleit et al. (1994; four items;,
e.g. “The room seemed very spacious,” “The room had an open feeling to it;” a ¼ 0.64),
measured on five-point scales. Participants also judged to what extent they perceived
any scent in the room (yes/no), and how intense the scent was (undetectable/obvious,
on a seven-point scale). Participants furthermore indicated whether they suffered from a
cold (yes/no) and whether they smoked (yes/no) to control for potentially reduced
olfactory sensitivity due to colds and smoking. Finally, participants provided
demographic information (sex, age, and English skills).

Results
Manipulation checks. The manipulation checks suggest that the spatial density and
scent manipulations were successful. The high spatial density condition was
perceived as significantly more crowded than the low spatial density condition
(M highspatialdensity ¼ 3.69, SD ¼ 0.64; M lowspatialdensity ¼ 3.29, SD ¼ 0.75;
F(1,191) ¼ 15.06, p , 0.001, partial h 2 ¼ 0.07), and there was no main or interaction
effect of ambient scent condition ( ps . 0.17). There was a significant difference in scent
detection across the scent and control conditions (x 2(2) ¼ 21.51, p , 0.001), such more
participants in the spacious and intimate scent conditions (77.3 percent in the spacious
scent and 76.8 percent in the intimate scent condition) indicated they perceived a scent,
compared to the control condition (43.9 percent). The control condition was administered
first in order to rule out scent carry-over effects across conditions. The fact that control
participants indicated that they detected a scent is likely a demand artefact in the sense
that participants may have focused on any scent (e.g. scent of the lab environment) that
 was accessible to provide an answer to the question, although no ambient scent was Spatial density
administered. Perceived scent intensity did not differ significantly between the scents and ambient
associated with spaciousness and enclosed spaces (Mintimatescent ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 2.10;
Mspaciousscent ¼ 5.12, SD ¼ 2.10; p . 0.50). There was a significant difference between scent
scent intensity for the intimate scent and control condition (Mcontrol¼ 2.86, SD ¼ 1.87;
t(100) ¼ 4.62; p , 0.001), and the spacious scent and control condition (t(115) ¼ 6.01;
p , 0.001). Perceived scent intensity in the spacious and intimate scent conditions was 85
not influenced by a cold ( p . 0.08), smoking ( p . 0.31), or the presence of boxes in the
room (i.e. there was no significant main or interaction effect involving spatial density,
p . 0.12). The scent manipulation was thus successful.
Effect ambient scent on spatial perceptions (H1). Presence of a cold or smoking did
not affect any of the results ( ps . 0.63). To examine the effect of ambient scent on
spatial perceptions across different levels of spatial density, we conducted an ANOVA
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

with room size evaluations serving as the dependent variable, and ambient scent and
spatial density as the independent variables. The main effect of ambient scent was
not significant ( p . 0.86), and H1 was not supported. Although there was a significant
main effect of spatial density ( p , 0.01), such that high levels of spatial density
significantly decreased spatial perception (Mhighdensity ¼ 2.06, Mlowdensity ¼ 2.25),
no ambient scent £ spatial density interaction effect emerged ( p . 0.67). Table I
summarizes the ANOVA results.
Effect of spatial density and ambient scent on anxiety (H2). Presence of a cold or
smoking did not affect any of the results ( ps . 0.47). To examine the effect of spatial
density and ambient scent on emotional responses, we conducted a MANOVA with
state anxiety, pleasure, arousal, and dominance serving as the dependent variable, and
spatial density and ambient scent as the independent variables. No multivariate main
and interaction effects of spatial density and ambient scent emerged (all ps . 0.37).
At the univariate level, there were no significant main or interaction effects of spatial
density and ambient scent on pleasure (all ps . 0.34), arousal (all ps . 0.47), and
dominance (all ps . 0.12). In a univariate ANOVA in which state anxiety served as the
dependent variable, the main effects of spatial density ( p . 0.44) and ambient scent
( p . 0.74) were not significant, but a marginally significant spatial density £ ambient
scent interaction emerged (F(2,191) ¼ 2.66, p ¼ 0.07, partial h 2 ¼ 0.03). Table II
summarizes the means and standard deviations for the state anxiety measure across
spatial density and ambient scent conditions. Figure 1 illustrates the results.
MANOVA and ANOVA results are shown in Tables III and IV, respectively.
H2a suggested that ambient scent and spatial density interact such that an ambient
scent associated with spaciousness (compared to an ambient scent associated with

Source df Mean square F p-value Effect size h 2

Ambient scent 2 0.035 0.15 0.86 0.002

Spatial density 1 1.852 8.19 0.005 0.041
Ambient scent £ spatial density 2 0.092 0.41 0.67 0.004
Error 191 0.226 Table I.
Total 197 Effect of ambient scent on
spatial perceptions (H1):
Note: Dependent variable ¼ room size estimation ANOVA results
 AJB enclosed spaces) would alleviate anxiety under conditions of high spatial density.
29,1 This prediction was tested by means of planned contrasts. At high levels of spatial
density, a spacious ambient scent decreased anxiety compared to an ambient
scent associated with enclosed spaces, but this decrease was not significant ( p . 0.32).
H2b suggested that ambient scent and spatial density interact such that an ambient
scent associated with spaciousness (compared to an ambient scent associated with
86 enclosed spaces) would increase anxiety under conditions of low spatial density. In line
with this prediction, an ambient scent associated with spaciousness significantly

Anxiety mean (SD)

Spatial density Ambient scent SDanxiety

High Spacious (seashore) 1.79 (0.56)

Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Control 1.82 (0.39)

Intimate (firewood) 1.95 (0.69)
Low Spacious (seashore) 2.05a (0.51)
Table II. Control 1.90 (0.52)
Effects of spatial Intimate (firewood) 1.79a (0.37)
density and ambient
scent on anxiety Note: Means sharing the same superscript differ at: p , 0.05

2.05
2 1.95
1.90
1.79 1.82 1.79

1
High spatial density Low spatial density
Figure 1.
Effects of ambient Ambient scent spacious (seashore)
scent and spatial Ambient scent control (no scent)
density on anxiety
Ambient scent intimate (firewood)

Table III.
Effect of ambient scent Effect Wilk’s l F Hypothesis df Error df p-value Effect size h 2
and spatial density
on anxiety (H2) Ambient scent 0.955 1.09 8.00 376.00 0.37 0.023
and emotions: Spatial density 0.990 0.50 4.00 188.00 0.74 0.010
multivariate results Ambient scent £ spatial density 0.957 1.04 8.00 376.00 0.41 0.022
 Spatial density
Source df Mean square F p-value Effect size h 2
and ambient
Dependent variable ¼ state anxiety scent
Ambient scent 2 0.079 0.30 0.742 0.003
Spatial density 1 0.157 0.59 0.443 0.003
Ambient scent £ spatial density 2 0.708 2.66 0.072 0.027
Error 191 0.226 87
Total 197
Dependent variable ¼ pleasure
Ambient scent 2 1.207 1.08 0.341 0.011
Spatial density 1 0.534 0.48 0.490 0.002
Ambient scent £ spatial density 2 0.093 0.08 0.920 0.001
Error 191 1.116
Total 197
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Dependent variable ¼ arousal

Ambient scent 2 0.072 0.09 0.917 0.001
Spatial density 1 0.415 0.50 0.479 0.003
Ambient scent £ spatial density 2 0.426 0.52 0.598 0.005
Error 191 0.826
Total 197
Dependent variable ¼ dominance Table IV.
Ambient scent 2 2.259 2.14 0.121 0.022 Effect of ambient scent
Spatial density 1 0.048 0.05 0.832 0.000 and spatial density on
Ambient scent £ spatial density 2 0.573 0.54 0.583 0.006 anxiety (H2) and
Error 191 1.058 emotions: ANOVA
Total 197 results

increased anxiety levels compared to an ambient scent associated with enclosed spaces
when spatial density was low (t(65) ¼ 2.34, p , 0.05; effect size Hedges’s g ¼ 0.58).
These results support H2b.

General discussion
Summary of findings
Ambient scent elicits emotional responses and evokes memories from as far back as
childhood (Engen and Ross, 1973; Hirsch, 1992). Neuroscientists attribute the relationship
between memory, emotion, and ambient scents to the close proximity of the olfactory
bulb – the scent processing organ of the brain – to the limbic system – the neurological
hub for emotions (Swenson, 2006). The limbic system has been associated with emotions
and memory, and is also involved in spatial perception. In earlier research using a
within-participants experiment in a clinical context (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998), scents
associated with spaciousness increased room size perceptions and the authors therefore
argued that scents effectively reduce claustrophobia-related anxiety. The present research
replicated and extended Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) study to investigate whether scent and
spatial density influence consumers’ spatial perception and anxiety levels. To address
several methodological concerns regarding Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) study, the current
research used a between-participant experiment conducted in a lab setting that mimicked
a retail context. There was a significant relationship between spatial density and
participants’ spatial perceptions. Specifically, participants in the high spatial density
condition perceived a room as smaller compared to the participants in the low spatial
 AJB density condition. Contrary to earlier findings (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998), the presence and
29,1 nature of ambient scent did not influence participants’ spatial perceptions. In examining
anxiety, the present research found an interaction between ambient scent and spatial
density. Specifically, under conditions of high spatial density, an ambient scent associated
with spaciousness directionally decreased anxiety levels compared to an ambient scent
associated with enclosed spaces. Under conditions of low spatial density, an ambient scent
88 associated with spaciousness significantly increased participants’ anxiety levels,
compared to a scent associated with enclosed spaces. These results suggest that
ambient scents reduce anxiety levels when applied in the appropriate context.

Theoretical implications
The present study extends the literature on retail atmospherics by examining the
interactive effect of two ambient cues – spatial density and ambient scent. Ambient
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

scent has been investigated in conjunction with background music (Mattila and
Wirtz, 2001; Spangenberg et al., 2005), but its interaction with other ambient cues has
not received much attention, despite the increasing use of ambient scents by retailers
(Ravn, 2007; Vlahos, 2007). Research regarding the interaction of ambient cues
consistently demonstrates that a high level of congruity (i.e. perceived fit) between
ambient cues results in positive consumer responses. For example, Mattila and Wirtz
(2001) found that congruity between ambient scent and background music in terms
of their arousing or calming nature resulted in more positive evaluations of the retail
environment, higher levels of consumer satisfaction, and more impulse purchases.
Similarly, Spangenberg et al. (2005) document a positive effect of congruity between
Christmas-themed ambient scent and Christmas-themed background music on
evaluations of a retail store and its merchandise, and likelihood to visit the store.
In the present research, congruity arises from a match between levels of spatial
density and scent associations with spaciousness/enclosed spaces. A high level of
congruity results from combination of low (high) spatial density with an ambient scent
associated with spaciousness (enclosed spaces). The findings of this research deviate
from previous literature on ambient cues in that they demonstrate a negative effect of
congruity on consumer responses. Particularly the high congruity arising from low
spatial density and a spacious ambient scent significantly increased consumer
anxiety, while the high level of congruity based on high spatial density and an ambient
scent associated with enclosed spaces directionally increased anxiety. This suggests
that congruity effects need not always be positive, and highlights that ambient cues
(such as spatial density) that entail negative congruity effects deserve more attention.
The current research also indicates that the SOR framework accommodates
affective responses beyond pleasure and arousal – which are still the most often
considered psychological outcomes of ambient cues (Mattila and Wirtz, 2001;
Spangenberg et al., 2005). The inclusion of negative psychological responses, such
as anxiety, not only extends the scope of the SOR framework, but is also important
from a managerial standpoint.

Managerial implications
The current research sought to replicate and extend research regarding the influence of
spatial density and scent on spatial perception and anxiety (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998) in
a retail context. The results suggest that consumers’ spatial perceptions are influenced
 by the spatial density of the retail environment, but not by ambient scent. Retailers Spatial density
interested in increasing the perceived size of their stores can achieve this objective by and ambient
reducing the spatial density resulting from placement and amount of retail fixtures
and merchandise. Retailers seeking to decrease the perceived size of their stores, on the scent
other hand, are advised to increase the amount of fixtures and merchandise within
the store.
An important consideration for retailers is the fact that crowding induces feelings of 89
anxiety (Machleit et al., 1994). The present research shows that the diffusion of ambient
scents in retail environments influences consumers’ anxiety levels. Results of the current
research also suggest that in retail environments with a low level of spatial density
(e.g. those adopting a minimalist design), the use of ambient scents associated with
enclosed spaces significantly reduces consumer anxiety, compared to the use of ambient
scents associated with spaciousness. Examples of low spatial density store environments
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

in which the use of ambient scents associated with spaciousness is not advisable include
the minimalist store environments adopted by Apple and many upscale fashion retailers
(e.g. Prada, Louis Vuitton). For retailers, it is important to choose ambient scents carefully
and in consideration of other ambient cues, such as spatial density.

Limitations and future research

Although the present research sought to address several limitations of Hirsch and
Gruss’s (1998) study, it is not without its own limitations. The first pertains to the
ambient scents used. Although the pretest established that the intimate (i.e. firewood)
and spacious (i.e. seashore) scents differed significantly with regard to associations
regarding spaciousness, people react to scent in different ways (Bensafi and Rouby,
2007). This is due to the close relation between scents and memory, such that people
remember scents often months after the first exposure (Engen and Ross, 1973).
Similarly, it is not uncommon for people to remember scents from their childhood
(Hirsch, 1992). The lack of scent main effects (particularly with regard to spatial
perception) and the relatively weak scent interactions with regard to anxiety observed
in this research may therefore be due to the fact that participants associate scents with
different emotions and knowledge based on their own experience. It is possible that not
all participants associated the seashore scent with spaciousness, or the firewood scent
with enclosed spaces. The main experiment did not include a manipulation check
regarding scent associations (as these had been established in the pretest; Perdue and
Summers, 1986), but their inclusion would have been useful. It is also important to note
that the literature suggests a direct relationship between specific ambient scents and
anxiety. For example, Redd et al. (2005) documented a reduction in anxiety-levels
among MRI patients exposed to ambient vanilla scent. Lee et al. (2011) use ambient
vanilla scent to experimentally manipulate anxiety levels among research participants.
Although these authors did not directly measure anxiety levels, their research results
are in line with a reduction of anxiety in the presence of vanilla scent. In practice,
vanilla scent is implemented in store environments to reduce anxiety levels among
female consumers in Sony stores (Vlahos, 2007). The scents used in the present
research (i.e. seashore and firewood) did not have a direct effect on anxiety levels. This
is supported by the absence of a significant main effect of ambient scent condition
on state anxiety. However, the associations of the ambient scents with spaciousness
or enclosed spaces affected anxiety once spatial density was introduced as an
 AJB additional factor. A fruitful area for future research consists of an examination of the
29,1 direct effect of ambient scent on consumer anxiety in retail spaces and identification of
various ambient scents that retailers can employ to decrease consumer anxiety.
A second limitation concerns the use of boxes to manipulate spatial density in the main
experiment. This approach aimed at creating a manipulation of spatial density that
was less obvious than Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998) use of a space deprivation booth.
90 In the debriefing procedure used in the main experiment, all participants in the high
spatial density condition mentioned that they noted the boxes, and about 10 percent
of participants in the high spatial density condition indicated that the boxes looked
deliberately placed. Nonetheless, none of the participants guessed the hypothesis or the
objective of the experiment. The use of more retail specific stimuli (e.g. shelves,
products, bins) along with a retail-related study scenario similar to the one used herein
could decrease potential demand cues in future studies.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Third, the present study found that for the low spatial density condition, a spacious
scent increased anxiety while an intimate scent decreased anxiety. Ambient scent
directionally, but not significantly influenced anxiety levels for the high density
condition. There is a possibility that the high spatial density manipulation was not
strong enough to induce claustrophobia-related anxiety, although the manipulation
check for perceived spatial crowding administered in the main experiment indicated
that the spatial density manipulations were successful. It appears that the extreme
space constraints induced by the space deprivation booths in Hirsch and Gruss’s (1998)
research resulted in a stronger manipulation of high levels of spatial density.
Finally, the current research sought to demonstrate that the findings regarding the
impact of spatial density and scent on spatial perception and anxiety reported
in the medical literature (Hirsch and Gruss, 1998) could inform retail practice.
Although the findings have clear implications for retailers, we acknowledge that the
results reported here are based on a lab study that excluded consideration of
additional factors (e.g. the type of merchandise displayed, characteristics of the target
market that may influence spatial perceptions and anxiety) that influence consumers’
perceptions in actual retail environments. The results of this study are therefore best
interpreted as initial evidence for – rather than the final word on – an interaction of
spatial density and ambient scents on consumer responses to retail environments.
One of the most important questions for future research on spatial density and
ambient scent in the context of the SOR model concerns the effects of spatial density
and ambient scent-induced anxiety on approach and avoidance behaviors. The current
research examined the link between ambient cues and consumers’ cognitive and
affective responses, but did not investigate potential downstream effects on behavioral
outcomes, such as the extent of browsing, time spent within the store, or money spent.
Because these outcomes are central to the SOR framework as well as retail practice,
further research on the direct and indirect (i.e. mediated through anxiety) effects of
spatial density and ambient scents appears to be promising.

References
Aaker, D.A., Stayman, D.M. and Hagerty, M.R. (1986), “Warmth in advertising: measurement,
impact, and sequence effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 365-381.
American Psychiatric Association (2000), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders:
DSM-IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
 Areni, C.S. and Kim, D. (1994), “The influence of in-store lighting on consumers’ examination Spatial density
of merchandise in a wine store”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 117-125.
and ambient
Baker, J., Grewal, D. and Parasuraman, A. (1994), “The influence of store environment on quality scent
inferences and store image”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 328-339.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D. and Voss, G.B. (2002), “The influence of multiple store 91
environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 120-141.
Baum, A. and Davis, G.E. (1976), “Spatial and social aspects of crowding perceptions”,
Environment & Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 527-545.
Baxter, J.C. and Deanovich, B.F. (1970), “Anxiety arousing effects of inappropriate crowding”,
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 2, p. 174.

Beecher, H.K. (1955), “The powerful placebo”, Journal of the American Medical Association,
Vol. 159 No. 17, pp. 1602-1606.
Bellizzi, J.A., Crowley, A.E. and Hasty, R.W. (1983), “The effects of color in store design”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 21-45.
Bensafi, M. and Rouby, C. (2007), “Individual differences in odor imaging ability reflect
differences in olfactory and emotional perception”, Chemical Senses, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 237-244.
Bone, P.F. and Ellen, P. (1999), “Scents in the marketplace: explaining a fraction of olfaction”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 243-262.
Bone, P.F. and Jantrania, S. (1992), “Olfaction as a cue for product quality”, Marketing Letters,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 289-296.
Bosmans, A. (2006), “Scents and sensibility: when do (in)congruent ambient scents influence
product evaluations?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 32-43.
Chebat, J.-C. and Michon, R. (2003), “Impact of ambient odors on mall shoppers’ emotions,
cognition, and spending: a test of competitive causal theories”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 529-539.
Chun, M.M. and Jiang, Y. (2003), “Implicit, long-term spatial contextual memory”, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 224-234.
Clarke, D.W., Perry, P. and Denson, H. (2012), “The sensory retail environment of small fashion
boutiques”, Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 492-510.
Donovan, R. and Rossiter, J. (1982), “Store atmosphere: an environmental psychology approach”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 34-57.
Dowdey, S. (2008), “Does what you smell determine what you buy?”, How Stuff Works, available at:
http://money.howstuffworks.com/scent-marketing.htm (accessed May 1, 2013).
Engen, T. and Ross, B.M. (1973), “Long-term-memory of odors with and without verbal
descriptions”, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 221-227.
Eroglu, S.A. and Machleit, K.A. (1990), “An empirical study of retail crowding: antecedents and
consequences”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 201-221.
Fetterman, M. and O’Donnell, J. (2006), “Just browsing at the mall? That’s what you think”, USA
Today, September 1, available at: www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2006-09-01-
retail-cover-usat_x.htm (accessed May 1, 2013).
 AJB Fisher, J. (1974), “Situation-specific variables as determinants of perceived environmental quality
and perceived crowdedness”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 8, August,
29,1 pp. 177-188.
Frye, R.E., Schwartz, B.S. and Doty, R.L. (1990), “Dose-related effects of cigarette smoking on
olfactory function”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 263 No. 9,
pp. 1233-1236.
92 Goldman, W.P. and Seamon, J.G. (1992), “Very long-term memory for odors: retention of
odor-name associations”, American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 549-563.
Goodrich-Hunsaker, N.J. and Hopkins, R.O. (2010), “Spatial memory deficits in a virtual radial
arm maze in amnesic participants with hippocampal damage”, Behavioural Neuroscience,
Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 405-413.
Gulas, C.S. and Bloch, P.H. (1995), “Right under our noses: ambient scent and consumer
responses”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 87-98.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Hirsch, A.R. (1992), “Nostalgia: a neuropsychiatric understanding”, Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 19, pp. 380-387.
Hirsch, A.R. and Gruss, J.J. (1998), “Ambient odors in the treatment of claustrophobia: a pilot
study”, Journal of Neurological Medical Surgery, Vol. 18, pp. 98-103.
Hui, M.K. and Bateson, J.E.G. (1991), “Perceived control and the effects of crowding and
consumer choice on the service experience”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 174-184.
Hultén, B. (2012), “Sensory cues and shopper’s touching behaviour: the case of IKEA”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 273-289.
Jain, R. and Bagdare, S. (2011), “Music and consumption experience: a review”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 289-302.
Kim, J.-E. and Kim, J. (2012), “Human factors in retail environments: a review”, International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 818-841.
Kim, J.H. and Runyan, R. (2011), “Where did all the benches go? The effects of mall kiosks on
perceived retail crowding”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
King, J.R. (1988), “Anxiety reduction using fragrances”, in Van Toller, S. and Dodd, G.S. (Eds),
Perfumery: Psychology and Biology of Fragrance, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 147-165.
Kinnealey, M., Oliver, B. and Wilbarger, P. (1995), “A phenomenological study of sensory
defensiveness in adults”, The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol. 49 No. 5,
pp. 444-451.
Kotler, P. (1974), “Atmospherics as a marketing tool”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 48-64.
Krishna, A., Lwin, M.O. and Morrin, M. (2010), “Product scent and memory”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 57-67.
Lee, K., Kim, H. and Vohs, K. (2011), “Stereotype threat in the marketplace: consumer anxiety and
purchase intentions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 343-357.
Lehmann, E.L. (1975), Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks, Holden-Day,
San Francisco, CA.
Li, J.T., Kim, J. and Lee, S.Y. (2009), “An empirical examination of perceived retail crowding,
emotions, and retail outcomes”, The Services Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 635-652.
Machleit, K.A. and Eroglu, S.A. (2000), “Describing and measuring emotional response to
shopping experience”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 101-111.
 Machleit, K.A., Eroglu, S.A. and Mantel, S.P. (2000), “Perceived retail crowding and shopping Spatial density
satisfaction: what modifies this relationship”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 29-42. and ambient
Machleit, K.A., Kellaris, J.J. and Eroglu, S.A. (1994), “Human versus spatial dimensions of scent
crowding perceptions in retail environments: a note on their measurement and effect on
shopper satisfaction”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 183-194.
Mattila, A.S. and Wirtz, J. (2001), “Congruency of scent and music as a driver of in-store 93
evaluations and behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 273-289.
Mehrabian, A. (1996), “Pleasure-arousal-dominance: a general framework for describing and
measuring individual differences in temperament”, Current Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 261-292.
Mehrabian, A. and Russell, J.A. (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology,
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Milliman, R.E. (1982), “Using background music to affect the behaviour of supermarket
shoppers”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 86-91.
Milliman, R.E. (1986), “The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant
patrons”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 286-289.
Mitchell, D.J., Kahn, B.E. and Knasko, S.C. (1995), “There’s something in the air: effects of
congruent and incongruent ambient odor on consumer decision making”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 229-238.
Morrin, M. and Ratneshwar, S. (2003), “Does it make sense to use scents to enhance brand
memory?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 10-25.
Oakes, S. and North, A.C. (2008), “Using music to influence cognitive and affective responses in
queues of low and high crowd density”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 24 Nos 5/6,
pp. 589-602.
Parsons, A.G. (2009), “Use of scent in naturally odourless stores”, International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 440-452.
Parsons, A.G. (2011), “Atmosphere in fashion stores: do you need to change?”, Journal of Fashion
Marketing & Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 428-445.
Pearce, J.M., George, D.N., Haselgrove, M., Erichsen, J.T. and Good, M.A. (2005), “The influence of
hippocampal lesions on the discrimination of structure and on spatial memory in pigeons”,
Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol. 119 No. 5, pp. 1316-1330.
Perdue, B.C. and Summers, J.O. (1986), “Checking the success of manipulations in marketing
experiments”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 317-326.
Peterson, L.R. and Peterson, M.J. (1959), “Short-term retention of individual verbal items”,
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 193-198.
Plutchik, R. (1980), Emotion: A Psychoevolutionary Synthesis, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Ravn, K. (2007), “Sniff . . . and spend”, The Los Angeles Times, August 20, F-1, available at: http://
articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/20/health/he-smell20 (accessed May 1, 2013).
Redd, W.H., Manne, S.L., Peters, B., Jacobsen, P.B. and Schmidt, H. (2005), “Fragrance
administration to reduce anxiety during MR imaging”, Journal of Magnetic Resonance
Imaging, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 623-626.
Rodriguez-Gil, G. (2004), “The sense of smell: a powerful sense”, reSources, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 1.
Russell, J.A. and Pratt, G. (1980), “A description of the affective quality attributed to the
environment”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 311-322.
 AJB Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E. and Henderson, P.W. (1996), “Improving the store
environment: do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviours?”, Journal of
29,1 Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 67-80.
Spangenberg, E.R., Grohmann, B. and Sprott, D.E. (2005), “It’s beginning to smell (and sound) a
lot like Christmas: the interactive effects of ambient scent and music in a retail setting”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp. 1583-1589.
94 Spangenberg, E.R., Sprott, D.E., Grohmann, B. and Tracy, D.L. (2006), “Gender-congruent
ambient scent influences on approach and avoidance behaviors in a retail store”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 59 No. 12, pp. 1281-1287.
Stokols, D. (1972), “On the distinction between density and crowding: some implications for
future research”, Psychological Review, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 275-278.
Swenson, R.S. (2006), Review of Clinical and Functional Neuroscience, Dartmouth Medical School,
Hanover, NH.
Downloaded by University of Queensland At 19:40 30 January 2016 (PT)

Turley, L. and Milliman, R. (2000), “Atmospheric effects on shopping behaviour: a review of the
experimental evidence”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 193-211.
Vlahos, J. (2007), “Scent and sensibility”, The New York Times, September 9, available at: www.
nytimes.com/2007/09/09/realestate/keymagazine/909SCENT-txt.html?pagewanted¼
alland_r¼0 (accessed May 1, 2013).

About the authors

Tina Poon graduated as a Bachelors of Science in psychology from Queen’s University and
completed a Master of Science (administration) degree at Concordia University’s John Molson
School of Business. Based on her interest in sensory marketing, Tina specialized in retail
atmospherics. Tina’s passion for research and curiosity about consumer behavior has led her to
take on a Research Analyst positions at Ipsos and Safeway, where she analyses data for
meaningful consumer insights.
Bianca Grohmann holds a PhD in marketing from Washington State University and is an
Associate Professor of marketing and Concordia University Research Chair at Concordia
University’s John Molson School of Business. Her research focuses on branding, scale
development, and sensory marketing, and has been published in the Journal of Marketing, the
Journal of Marketing Research, and the Journal of Retailing, among others.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints